rem seems to have made a career out of both creativity and the skillful manipulation/presentation of research.

yup....


people spend alot of time "trying to be like" instead of "doing you"


b

I'm not sure I follow what you're specifically asking..."research" and "wealth of knowledge" could be used in a number of ways...

But I know that the best project I did in undergrad also involved by far the most research. (about 6 weeks of reading/ walking around and talking to people and 2-3 weeks of designing) At the review, pretty much every question could be easily answered and backed up with historical (primarily social and economic) context. Had I not done the research, the project would have been alot weaker.

I think I might agree on the use of case studies, but depending on at what level. Younger students seem to benefit the most from case studies

That's true. Rem does definitely have his own approach to designing and I think that's what has made him progressive and as respected as he is. But, how about the people that use Rem as an icon and just reproduce his ideas and make money on them?

Is this post really "Do Precedents Kill Creativity"? I see two topics here...

anyone can probably prove any theory true with enough research...

There are a couple topics that are related. Research can mean many things. You could study the shape and structure of a shell, the inner workings of a neighborhood, traffic patterns of a site, interview clients or look to Architectural Record or other popular media, Villa Savoie or other well known case studies, the Bauhaus or other historic movements, follow Rem Koolhaus or other well known architects. And the post is about why you think architects don't look to other (potentially more obscure movements, case studies, architects or media) sources? (or if you think that thay do, why isn't it more common?)

aren't you really asking: "do people without any real creativity try to make up for that weakness (?) by emulating other architects' work?"

I fear the assumption inherent in this thread is that the only good building is an innovative, ground-breaking building -- which view is totally rejected by the vast majority of the people who actually BUY architectural services. IMHO, it's also a view that is rejected by a fair number of practicing professionals.

most of the people who actually hire architects and actually pay their fees are looking for competent, proven solutions that won't leak, can get constructed efficiently and quickly, and actually work the way the owner wants them to work. only a very, very small minority of clients are looking for, and willing to pay for, art.

research is always good. you have to know what has been done and learn from it.

"Architects looking to more obscure movements" .. you mean Heidegger, Deleuze, Kant, etc.?

Quantum Physics? String Theory?

Social and Political Issues?

Architects frequently do this. It is COMMON.



Yes, in the first couple of years in school most student projects resemble another work, but that is not bad in my opinion. You cannot move beyond something until you have mastered it.

Of course people want building systems that are proven. That's a given. How about this then, are architects creative?

I would like to see someone turn quantum physics into a building and I would hardly say that Heidegger is obscure.

i think there's a thread on that...or something closely related

first you harmonize, then you customize.
-wilson pickett

i see a lot of work that i would call inventive, but not creative. by that i mean that there isn't much there worth studying that would contribute to the field but could very well be unexpected.

Steven Ward's previous comment, can we get back to the question, does research kill creativity? Are we all on the same page?

Does the more that you see expand your ideas or do you think that the more you see, the more you just reproduce what you have seen?

yeah?

I've had students tell me that they think they will be more creative if they don't sully their minds with knowledge about other designers.

They're wrong.

This is not meant for people that are just introduced into architecture. Obviously you learn architecture by studying architecture. But at some point, does continuing that habit hinder your creativity?

Architecture is all about communication. Something this thread is lacking.

I would completely have to disagree with that. Architecture is not all about communication. Communication leads to architecture.

If you are noticing that research and knowledge tends to lead to a duplication or as Rita might say, reenactment of an architecture, it is because the designer or architect has failed [for whatever reason] to understand the research process and criticaly engage with knowledge. By that I mean, research can give you a range of precedents [it is a map - but not the territory] but these only go so far. A failure to distinguish this leads to replication and mindless repetition.

Let me float this provocative thought out there, 'cause I think it goes to the heart of why you started this thread ... do architects really need to be creative (in the avant guard, intelligentsia, publishable-building sort of way) in order to be good architects? Is creativity, in fact, a pre-requisite?

I observe that many quite competent architects who operate successful firms are looked down upon or dismissed -- especially by the academic community and many who may be close to the academic community -- because the buildings they produce are not "cutting edge" and "theoretical" and "original" in a visual way.

To me, this is an arrogance of immeasurable proportions and does irreparable harm to the profession, and to the profession's image. It also sends out into the world of practice a group of graduates who instantly become disillusioned when, a mere 18 months after graduation, they're not leading a design team and doing award winning, publishable work.

I fear this incessant, irresistible urge to always be fresh, creative, and cutting edge leads too many young people in our profession to overlook or dismiss some basic lessons they're going to need simply to make a decent, buildable, functional and affordable building that their client is willing to pursue.

Please understand -- I'm not railing against creativity here. I'm simply trying to put creativity into perspective relative to the full range of activities one actually encounters in the world of day-to-day practice.

Said somewhat differently, should creativity be avoided as an end unto itself -- and should creativity be reserved for the resolution of real problems, not simply those problems the architect embraces (or invents) for ego-gratification, ambition, or intellectual reasons alone?

what you are asking is just about precedent, right? cuz research, as a discipline, is by definition a very creative act.

research is not related to aesthetics, and only in a limited way related to precedents in my experience. aesthetics can be researched, but it isn't what you are talking about.

so garpike's point is valid. what you are asking is whether a precedent review will make you lose sight of the special you that is waiting to come out...?

research is science-based, or at least science like. it involves asking questions that can be answered by experiment or data collection. a prcedent search is the first phase in that process, but only to form a context. it isn't, in itself, research. that so many architects think it IS research is why we suck so badly as academics.

rem does research, but it is a bit shallow. mostly he relies on his skills as a designer and supports decisions with comprehensive examination of variations on the theme at hand (using his army of clever minions to do so)....but i don't think any credible researcher would be able to cite rem in a peer reviewed article because he allows opinion to direct conclusions more than he should. would be like citing maureen dowd.

if you are overly swayed by precedents that is a personal issue that has nothing to do with the validity of the process.

when i taught undergrad i always threw out precedents to the students to check, cuz their work was reminiscent (by chance) of various architects and they were struggling to reinvent the wheel when they could have just gone to the library to see the work already solved. they resisted looking at the architects i suggested cuz of a fear they would lose themselves, and for the inexperienced there is some validity to that, but wow they sure did waste a lot of time starting at the beginning when they could have started in the middle.

my partner and i tend to look at precedents a lot, but only for process and planning, and for presentation techniques. aesthetics and the design content we come up with on our own. some parts are direct quotes of other architects, but in general we have our own voice and it is getting stronger. precedents don't getin the way of that...

Architecture is 100% communication. If you can't communicate your ideas, the architecture remains locked in your head.

Discussions = communication

Presentations = communication

Images = communication

Sketches = communication

Drawings = communication (probably the most important)

I think it is important to recognise that architecture is a field, and as such has a range of component parts and systems.

Those after an orthodoxy where the purpose of architecture is simply to create good buildings are failing to recognise how good buildings get built, and how they are judged.

A former lecturer of mine once asked our class what do clients pay architects for. After a range of answers from the class [which were all dismissed] he replied that clients pay for a set of drawings from which their building can be built. Implicit in this answer is that the set of drawings communicate a range of ideas that have travelled through a process.

It is the quality of the process and its inputs [including most importantly the staff] that go into creating that set of drawings that produce a building of corresponding quality.

Often on this forum someone will pipe up talking about a building or an architect [usually of the blob variety] and how bad it is, or question its value, or dismiss it outright. I favour a researched-based approach to architecture, but this does not mean gathering a load of statistics and creating a diagram out if it.

Research should have a hypothesis that can be tested, and it should add something ot the overall knowledge of architecture. This is why people do PhD's - -architecture is a canon of knowledge and is contintually being expanded.

I am also in favour of those practitioners who critically engage in architectural projects that have a hypothesis or argument that gets rigorously tested. The key word being rigorous - any monkey with some software and a set of stats can create a superficial architecture.

Creativity is what people call the product of a process:
There is no creativity without production;
There is no production without process;
There is no production or process wihout communication.

"I've had students tell me that they think they will be more creative if they don't sully their minds with knowledge about other designers.

They're wrong."

Spot on agafx. I didnt know you taught - was it at auckland uni?

21Ronin seems a bit stubborn and quick to say "no" rather than discuss anything.

Maybe he needs to do a bit more research on the "Villa Savoie" and "Rem Koolhaus" as well as the basic spelling of other words of and relating to architecture.

Or maybe you are picking up on something that's true (that I'm stubborn). I have not attacked anyone directly. Why the focus on me? I wrote fast and I was not concentrating on spelling. Are you an english teacher or an architect? Have I not discussed nothing? Did you forget to notice that I was the person that started this conversation? Maybe I didn't work it perfectly, but who cares? Through communication can come understanding and maybe you are just too focused on technicalities. And where did I just say flat out "no"?

"Have I not discussed nothing?" Ooops....that was a double negative. Now I have no qualifications to speak. Sorry.

it's potentially an interesting conversation, but it IS necessary to qualify the term 'research' a little. research = active learning, and i'm sure none of us would say that's bad.

so the questions might include 1)does looking at other work stifle your creativity, 2)does creative work suggest completely original work that doesn't build on previous work, 3)what kinds of research are valuable for what kinds of pursuits? etc etc

i have to admit that i've done a lot of precedent research for the recreation center i'm doing now, as much to determine the standards for a lot of program pieces with which i'm unfamiliar and to see what kinds of materials/surfaces are being used in these specialized program spaces than anything else.

i've also done a lot of research through talking to people with various specialties, whether in bleachers, competitive sports, bowling equipment, flooring types, lighting strategies, whatever.

short answer, no.

Hejduk worked through Corb until he knew Corb inside and out, that familiarity led to the realization of the Diamond Projects, something that Corb "forgot."

Aside from the personal attacks, I agree with many people in the forum. Research can greatly increase the meaning and understanding of the organization of space, the composition of materials and the detailing of construction. My frustration is that, more often than not, I see people using the most predictable case studies, research topics and/or architects to study.

I NEVER intended to say:

1. Research (whether studying a building, architect or city) was worthless.
2. That I knew more than everyone else in the world about architecture.
3. That I was a perfect speller
4. That I am unbiased in my opinions

It seems though people have focused on attacking me because I do not come from the "typical" home, background or culture and I find that architecture in the United States, in general, is very uninterested in exploring the variety of cultures within it. I paid my way through architecture school and I really have found architecture (as a practice and educational experience) to be very skewed toward capitalism and elitism. Why is LeCorbrusier the most well known architect, when there were so many more people that are over looked that probably influenced the term known as "Modernism" more than LeCorbrusier? Is it because he (LeCorbrusier) was an elitist and a capitalist and they were Communists?

What do people think about the role of popular media with relationship to the topics studied in architecture? Is the media a positive or a negative influence? I think my opinion is clear. For example, how many programs study non-Westernized or non-"international" architecture?

Oops. I spelled Le Corbusier incorrectly too. I apologize to everyone that I offended.

ease up there Easy Reader



you're starting to sound like some guy from Denmark...and i have no unearthly idea where you are from.....

This is exactly what I am talking about. I put myself out there by exposing the fact that I don't come from a "traditional" "American" home and background and then whoever this person [beta]v.4 puts this ridiculous image up rather than responding with something thought provoking or meaningful. I actually did start this conversation to hear what people think and potentially have a discussion. I will continue to do that, but at least my ignorance is out of typing too fast. Your ignorance has come through clearly.

1. Also, it doesn't matter where I am from.
2. What's wrong with Denmark?

actually, you are starting to piss me off. Easy Reader, a quite famous, American Icon of The Electric Company days, is none other than Morgan Freeman. Second, that image, is not meant to taunt you, it is however meant to tell you - SLOW DOWN - go look at google.com...

Now, tell me, what was wrong with my comment regarding Hejduk? Hmm?

You are the one that brought up being a foreigner, not anyone on this thread.

Denmark, don't even go there, unless of course you like S+M.

Ok, well I was born in Minneapolis in 1980, so I have never seen that image before this chat thread. Why would you ever put something like that in a thread after someone is talking about not coming from a "traditional" "American" family? Why would I think you were doing anything other than taunting me. There was no response to what I actually said and it was a poor choice on your behalf.

Hejduk studying LeCorbusier is a perfect example. Why would an architect study another architect until they knew their designs inside and out? Does this mean that Hejduk is/was a creative architect or does that mean that Hejduk was a talented student?

21R I think alot of folks have taken to prodding you because alot of the criticism you've thrown at people is just as easily put on you. put simply: your childish reactions have made you an easy target. You've also overlooked alot of very real and relevant posts...

Regarding architecture/ media / and le corb...

One of the things that became evident very early on in architecture school was that one of the reasons he's so widely studied is because of the vast body of writing and photography he produced in addition to projects. it's that very useful information that separates him from his colleagues.

egocentric self promotion? that's an easy argument to make.

any less useful because of that? nope.

I have been sarcastic but that's because of the focus on technicalities (spelling) and ignoring the substance. What makes my reactions childish? Is it the sarcasm? I am not interested in LeCorbusier. Does his body of writing, photography and painting make him more important than Gropius, Mies or Kandinsky?

and why?

Wait, so you went to grad school, right? UIC? Do you even know who Hejduk is? Do you know he is dead? Do you even know that he was the Dean of Cooper Union? Do you know what the Mask Of Medusa is? Hejduk, John was/is an American Icon, in fact I dare say the Greatest American Architect. Hejduk did not "study" Le Corbusier, "study" is such a passive term, that I have a hard time even uttering the word, Hejduk "WORKED" through Corb, do you comprehend the distinction?

Perhaps a better word for what is needed in this fucked up profession is the word "obsession."

Image has killed creativity. Image as commodity, image as message, image as fetish....image, image, image....

Self referential work, work without any historical referent, is solipsism.