alot of raging against the architectural academic establishment on the 'nect recently.

Oh man...

where in the news section did you see this? there is an explanation of deformation around somewhere there. sincerely, what did you think of that?

"the problem of designing a house in this milieu is to match the best aspects of the suburban field with variations and deformations of the limits normally placed on a basic house"

What a lot of adjectives and nouns to express that designing a house as a response to its environment, and the wife wanted a walk in freezer.

my problem with passages like this one is that they juxtapose totally imprecise words like "best" with archibabble that should only be used if it allows one to more precisely express complex concepts than one could do with normal English... in other words, it's BS.

I hate silly jargon as much as the next guy, but what's the problem here exactly? That paragraph makes sense well enough. Where's the 'archibabble'?

yeah, there may be better ways of explaining the constraints of domestic architecture, but i dont think that statement is obtuse in any way.

plenty of better examples out there to rage against if you fell the need

hmmm, i think i mean better as in worse, or whatever.

better examples of worse statements.

to 'modularnyc' and 'urbanist': can you really not understand the intent of this passge?

and if you can understand it, let's see your version of saying the same thing in a more precise, less "BS" way.

show us the way.

- click Curator

i agree with modnyc and urban. to parse it's incomprehensibility:

"in this milieu" - a little hard to take issue with because the sentence lacks context, but def points deducted for using an unnecessary pompous english/french word. keep it simple. read your strunk and white.

"best aspects" - as noted above by urbanist, imprecise.

"suburban field" - huh? are you talking about the suburbs? the culture of the suburbs? no idea what this means.

this is where it gets dicey.

"variations and deformations [of the basic house]" - okay, "variations" makes sense; you can vary a "basic" house. "deformations" - has some abstract spatial connotation that only works as a metaphor in some way, but i'm not sure how. i think it was an attempt to use a 50 cent word that didn't really need to be there.

"limits normally placed [on a basic house]" - who is placing the limits? what are the limits? (boxes with gables and vinyl siding?) once again a broad over-generalized statement that does not carry a heck of a lot of meaning.

"basic house" - see above.

it's a very muddy sentence that needs a good editor. academic writing does not have to be like this, and the best of it isn't.

you may ask yourself where is my deformed and varied house
you may ask yourself how did i get in this milieu
academia dissolving academia removed...

"Boy, I don't understand a word you just said."

It doesn't mean anything, same as about 90% of what is on TV and in the newspapers these days.

To quote a local DJ: "I'm still recovering from my education"

Apparently this guy still has the sickness.

the quote in question is prefaced with "the architect observed,..."

i wonder, was this a transcription of something said in a conversation with this Terry Riley dude? maybe that's why it's clumsy. even so, this seems to be a little more tolerable because of its context as part of an exhibit at MoMA, where it can be analyzed, misanalyzed, and overanalyzed until the show closes.

denari's stuff back in pamphlet architecture #12 gives me a serious design stiffy, however. big time.

aquapura - what is that from? "boy, I dont understand ..."

napoleon dynamite, no?

(sorry aqua i know marimba didn;t ask me)--i cracked up when i saw that line here, it's very appropriate for this thread.

hahaa ... yea me too ... i think it is napoleon

if you think denari's bad, you should see the hacks he went to school with.

same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

Jafidler's breakdown (dare I say "deconstruction"?) of that passage is nicely done.

And just because that original passage has the verbs and nouns in the right places doesn't make it well-written, or even intelligent. It's blather.

Smart writing doesn't sound like that. Smart writing is clear. Jargon and buzzwords are the refuge of those who substitute fashion and flash for substance and thought.

Now, if the original passage is actually quoting someone's statement, that's a bit different. But to the speaker, I'd say, "Don't be so pompous."

dear jafidler,

please decode this slab of genuinely incomprehensable archi-theory:

"Given free will and depending on how we navigate into the future, all these developments could be fine-tuned locally, albeit through synchronic computing systems that process differential dynamics of temporal correlations in such a manner as to engender emergent constellations of brave new worlds that thrive on fluctuating thresholds of utopic exhilarations and monstrous regimes without uncontrollably falling into the abyss of tragic utopias: a consequence of mapping the computational paradigm into the networks of Information Capital."

Any guesses of who the author is?

jafidler, good parse

a-f.. is that Castells?

My point is, I am an Architect and I have trouble understanding what that sentence means. What about the general public or your clients?

What is suburban fields? is it edible?

Can a suburban field have variations and deformations as well?

When is the milieu over? is there a party?


Somebody please help me...

I have a problem with monstrous regimes navigating into the future through sunchronic computing systems that process brave new worlds without uncotrollably temporal correlations.

Don't you?

the answer is 42.

My mind is aglow with whirling, transient nodes of thought careening through a cosmic vapor of invention.

well.. if you really want to use big words or feel that you need them to describe your concepts, you can always do what Guallart did.. and write a whole dictionary of archibabble (Metapolis). He actually did a fairly good job with it, I thought... even defined "field" if I recall correctly.

speaking about archibabble.. consider this. I just opened the Landscape Urbanism Reader to a random page.. here's a section, not even out of context, since it's under its own heading:

"While conceived as rational, absolute, and utilitarian, infrastructure has the capacity to be appropriated and transformed toward social, cultural, ecological, and artistic ends. Architectural accretions, layerings of program and use, existing infrastructures made useful -- herein lies the basis for a new civic realm, one crated by appendage and insertion. Conversely, architecture and landscape can appropriate the utility and seviceability of infrastructure. One could imagine landscape/architectural/urbanistic projects conceived as functional infrastructures, ecological machines that process and perform, public spaces that literally "work." One might also image the creation of fertile testing gronds that structure or initiative an unfolding of hydrologic, ecological, social-cultural, and urbanistic processes and adaptations -- earthern infrastructures available for appropriation and transformation and whose form is valued for its perfomative rather than sculptural characteristics." (Chris Reed, pg 282)

i luv archi-speak.

luv.

makes me happy.

I have a copy of the Landscape Urbanism reader, and I find it quite interesting. I will admit some of the passages are a bit obtuse.

i love archi-speak if people know how to use it. most people don't. i mean most architects i have met dont. and unfortunately those who do are usually teachers.

the shit that gets me is

"typology" instead of "type"

"as per"
http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/asper.html

"architectonics"
i have never met anyone using that word who knew what it means

and then there are people who can't even speak english even though it's their first language...i'm sorry, but irregardless is not a word, and neither is dranken

most people have trouble being descriptive, let alone explaining a design to someone who cares - like a client or contractor. clients and contractors don't speak archibabble based on my experiences, so basically it's useless unless you are in school or a design competition.

i like being an architecture nerd but i would prefer to be able to translate it into plain english and see something get built.

i can parse the babble, but unfortunately, i cannot make it anymore clear.

that sentence could vaguely be about code/setbacks, programming, form, etc...

okay. by personally interviewing denari, my conclusion is that he might have meant to say,
" the problem with designing a house these days is the difficulty to develop or apply new ideas on top of the existing norms of the typical suburban or tract homes."

before they put his quote up there in the MoMA catalogue, they should check with the author one more time to clearify in fact that is what he meant or didn't mean. whoever wrote that web page is not qualified to do so since he/she directly quoted something that might have been said in a conversation or not well thought of as to clearity.

during my interview with him, he did say things that weren't so clear, but when i insisted upon, he did see the problems with them and came back and clearified as much as possible. during interviews, people are not 100% clear nor the interviewer should expect that. it is a shame that a definetive catalogue defies its purpose.

not that i found that quote incredibly eye opening.

above is why i first caught onto rem. hated his architecture in the early 90's, then started reading his shtuff and realised he could talk nonsense in such an amazingly better way than everyone else. suddenly i found myself cursing the day i worked through a thousand plateaus and all those words by peter eisenmann and Louis Kahn.

conclusion. Architecture should only be written about by journalists.

the more cynical the better.

wasn't rem a journalist?

jump.. I agree with you on Rem's design-work, but I really think there's more to his writings than just well-written archibabble.. his stuff is generally well-written, like you point out, but more than that, its actually, somewhat informative. I don't have SMLXL in front of me now, but, for example, his written description of the Berlin wall and his proposed Friedrichstrasse intervention in it was actually quite helpful.. formally (in a highly spatially evocative manner), programmatically and semiotically. I hate to say it, but Rem's a superb writer (of archibabble) and propagandist for architecture.

I also have problems deforming my designs in this milieu particularly in basic suburban variations.

Damn....Terry looks like an attorney...

i love rem's architecture, urbanist. i didn't. now i do. his writing was a kind of introduction. i used to lump him in with the decon folks and didn't think there was any depth to his work...but his writings convinced me otherwise.

i like peter eisenman's architecture in spite of his writings. ditto for zaha (i would not mind too much if someone hit schumacker with a fish). but rem is different; his writings are great. they have nothing to do with his work, of course, and maybe that helps too. he never uses words as a justification for his architecture. that is a smart move in my book.

that he is a journalist and able to write without the babble is great. it is also a bit dangerous, as his writing is seductively clear. it is very easy to not question what he is writing, when in fact there is much to be gained by it. he is a master of misdirection, of the use of paranoid analysis and other goodies, and there is usually a general intention to his writing that is almost possible to miss...it often seems like he is reporting, when in fact he is seducing, making points serrupticiously...his real strength is in setting up a small area of discussion on which he can focus and extract cool ideas without addressing reality or the larger context...everything is consistent within the bubble he makes. that always floors me, even when i think he is fundamentally wrong...writing skills are an amazing asset. def wish i had them.

anyway, yeah, rem is great.

...architecture was the guilty instrument of despair... was he predicting his work in china???

It's really not that difficult. His words describe the spirit of the project, not it's physical contextural harshness.

suburban field, including limits, variations, deformations...but maybe too low res to see them in detail.

i like the word milieu...and i use it whenever i can

for :
modularnyc
...tumbleweed...
Urbanist
metamechanic
jafidler

some normal english [or should i say 'normal' american?]:

"so, it's like the problem, you know, it's like there's this thing, you know, where, you know, if you want to be able to deal with the way many people live, like you know in the 'burbs' and stuff, and it's like it's all the same, but not exactly, but then like you have to find a way to not make it the same, but then not be too different, - you know what i mean?- and it's like it's the same but not the same. you know what i mean? and that way we can all understand it, but it will be different - 'know what i mean?"

does that help?