duchamp, picasso, leger, boccioni, etc would all have worked...but yeah, you got me. : P

Possibly, Steven. But there has been (was?) a trend in architecture, with Eisenman as a leader, to kind of formalize or geometrize the abstract readings of philosophers and theorists.

Much of Eisenman's work was the result of technical drafting strategies that resulted in chopped, broken forms. He often post-rationalized these forms through the introduction of Derrida, et al. His more recent work uses the computer to achieve the same goal. But he still justifies it with dense theory, because otherwise much of what he has achieved is mere formal manipulation.

I'd almost prefer it if he were to say "yes, it's a formal manipulation. I did it because I thought it was beautiful," rather than trying to trot his work up and justify it world-historically with quotations/citations/imitations of philosophers and theorists.

Zaha Hadid has arguably achieved greater recent acclaim partly because she doesn't surround her work in a haze of pseudophilosophy. (She kind of leaves that job to Patrick Schumacher.) She speaks of her work in terms of form, beauty, jewelery, ornament, etc. She concentrates on the tectonic aspect of what she's doing.

Somewhere in her work, there's a new philosophy of technology.

Is there a philosophy that says I want to make some money on my structures and employ people or is it all about university posts and speaking arrangements?

Steven - Terragni used program to generate form - if you look at the casa del fascio, his spatial organization is very intentional based upon how one progresses from one space to another - there is a very strong hierarchy of programmatic elements based on the fascist political structure.

Eisenman's work is a series of gestures (based on a grid and/or a map and/or philosophical construct) where he allows the program to fall-in after-the-fact. you ask "why is this form here?" and he'll answer with his reasoning in terms of the gesture (often obtuse) - not the function.

terragni didn't just use program to generate form. the generation of form - over-lay/off-set positioning is there regardless of the project. Eisenman's infatuation with Terragni, particularly the Guiliani-Frigerio apartment bldg is there because it is a very structured play with interpenetrating volumes - as was much of Eisenman's early work up to House 10.

then he starts to look at some other possibilities.

i have always thought that Eisenman's best realised work was the Wexner Centre, so i think one could reference it to show that Eisenman really can do "real" architecture. it is a seriously good building and it's role as a gallery also challenges Eisenman's own stated lack of interest in the program - as the building's best quality, in my opinion, is its organisational critique of curatorial possibilities - that is, are galleries laid out as linear sequences, or separate zones or interlacing meanders. these are both formal and programmatic questions at the same time.

but he forgot to make the columns touch the ground!?!?

One thing that really bothers me about certain architecture is "whimsy."

It always seems kind of childish, ill-considered, and purposeless.

As I look through Eisenman's work, I'm reminded that much of what we thought was edgy or radical a few years ago, appears simply whimsical now.

But Zumthor will, I guarantee you, never be accused of whimsy.

i like zumthor. but he is at least as whimsical and willful as peter eisenmann. they both have very personal styles. the implication that any architect is channelling the will of nature or similar is a fallacy.

there will be a time when zumthor will be seen as old-fashioned, or even cute, like say...El Lizzitsky, or whoever. same for all the stars today. no one is ever going to be legitimate in a universal way...

that the debate above, which is interesting, seems to centre on legitimacy is to me profoundly missing the potential of the world we live in today. with all the world's philosphy and experience at our feet can we not think of anything better to debate than the 3000 year old question about object vs.subject (zumthor vs. eisenman) and which viewpoint is correct?

jump, i think the essential debates ARE legitimate in a universal way. we all learn from each other along the way and you never know, it may spin off in a direction where we actually find some interesting underexplored territory.

and (as vado pointed out above) why shouldn't we talk about these things again and again and again? certainly there are some in this thread that weren't participants in the earlier ones and they'll take something away. don't schools talk about the same things year after year, too? is that seen as a problem - or continuity, tradition, and mentoring?

'the world we live in today' does tease us with some amazing potential for lofty architectural study, but architects who want to build also have the tether on their leg: to build requires $$$ and/or clients, and therefore some claim to legitimacy. as usual, we will want both. we'll stretch as far as we can while still keeping that foot down low enough that someone will keep us around.

i agree that zumthor's own personal vision of architecture will also be revealed as of our time. whether it will ever be seen as something that can be reduced to a style is something to contemplate, but no question that someone 40 yrs from now will likely find it old-fashioned and want to 'update it'. (as i've recently been asked to do to a very elegant perkins & will project from the early 60s.)

if not that, then his projects will be celebrated as landmarks, protected from any modification at all, and frozen in time. personally i'd rather see them continue to have a life than some sort of artificial life support.

I don't think we will ever use the word "style" to describe Zumthor's work, because "style" is a word used most outside our community. I would be hard pressed to believe Zumthor is going to be known outside of our community at any point in the future.

This isn't really a question of being known or not. In some sense, Zumthor has cultivated the "hermit on a mountaintop" image of himself. For all we know, he would prefer to build quality buildings in his remote canton of Switzerland, and not be a jet-set superstar.

What matters to me in this debate is what constitutes good or lasting architecture. Obviously this is a subjective question, mercurial and open to debate.

Achitecture is fashion. Trends and fads come and go. But buiidings last, if they're well built. The Pantheon is a building that continues to inspire architects in the modern period.

From a purely objective point of view, the tectonics of many of Zumthor's buildings are sturdier and longer-lasting than those of Peter Eisenman. Gneiss stone imbedded in concrete will last longer than EIFS. The elemental forms and character of many of Zumthor's buildings will have more staying power (because they fade into the background a bit) than the gestural squiggles of Eisenman.

We may not talk as much about Zumthor in 50 years, but I believe he will still inspire the reverence of a Jorn Utzon or Sigurd Lewerentz: someone who dedicated himself to the craft of architecture, rather than its fads.

farwest, i disagree. he's working on a project in norway, spain and i think the US. he was really upset the topo des terror in berlin fell through...

and he alludes in 'thinking' to building in other regions

Disagree with just the first part, about whether Zumthor aspires to the jet-set, or with the whole post?

with the whole topic!

no, just with this
For all we know, he would prefer to build quality buildings in his remote canton of Switzerland

naw maybe it's just limited to europe, but he's got proejcts near koeln, in bregenz, near basel...

zumthor is as fad-driven as eisenman.

i get what you are saying steven, about reality being important, but what i am thinking about is totally reality based...by way of example i recently read oma's take on middle east in al manakh edition of VOLUME...while i don't like oma's theoretical work very much rem does make a very good point that considering the middle eastern city from the western position will yield no useful understanding of what is happening there...

i think the discussion of architecture is similarly gaining little by the straightjacket of this very old and unanswerable problem...it seems to be somehow inevitable that we talk about universal vs subjective truths, but to be frank i see peter zumthor in the same category as peter eisenman. both are highly individual and fetshistic about their work and both hide their fetishes with obfuscating texts that even a cursory glance will show are little more than a cover for a highly personal approach...

zumthor's work will last longer no doubt...that does not make it any more real or valid.

i am not clever enough to think of a better standing point but the argument is so old that much of above can be read in texts a hundred years old (and older)...which is not exactly wasteful...but points out that we might get more traction with another perspective...

i think in fact that is why oma has such appeal. rather than become stuck in discussion over style, which is after all what all of the above is about (if peter built in stone the conversation would hardly be changed), oma deals with program...that is their "other" or "third way" i think...and it is damn convincing. style they simply don't talk about - obviously they have a style preference, but it isn't the point of the architecture...that is pretty smart way to work...maybe their is possibility to understand the two peter's better from that point of view...

jump,

i think you'll find more non-architects (laymen?) identify w/ zumthor's work over eisenman's - simply because it is more real and i think valid. and because it won't leak the first time around.

aren't all architects fetishists?

and would you clumb holl, oma, FOA and twbta in that group as well (obfuscating texts)

It would be interesting to consider all of this work from the perspective of someone who didn't know or understand the architectural culture in which it was made.

I think most of us on this site, including me, are too close to the personalities. We're too caught up in the momentary theoretical arguments that generated the work.

But how would the Wexner Center and the Thermal Baths be regarded by a layperson with no knowledge of the background?

I was at the Thermal Baths two weeks ago, and it was packed with people: old, young, Swiss and not. All of them were clearly pretty amazed by the building. Most of them, I'd guess, haven't read Heidegger.

But then, I'm sure the Holocaust Memorial has the same effect. For me, that's the only one of Eisenman's works that doesn't seem faddish or cheap.

I got schooled by dlb - very interesting perspective on the Wexner center

jump - thank you - I think the comparison between Eisenman and OMA (Koolhaas) is particularly apt to this conversation...

but - we cannot underestimate the impact Eisenman has had on academic discourse and architectural pedagogy over the past 20-30 years... especially in the united states. This is why he keeps coming up - not for his buildings, but for his theories.

Has Zumthor written as extensively as Eisenman?

is the berlin holocaust memorial the only time petey e. has revised a design?

zumthor has not written as extensively as eisenman, not even close...

The Thermal Baths is a space explicitly oriented around a lush, elemental bodily experience.

The Wexner centre is an arts centre which privileges experimental art practices.

Why should we expect them both to adopt the same architectural approach, or to require that they produce similar experiences in the occupants.

holz, yeah i would throw steve holl and the others in there. architects are not very good at explaining why they do things. neither are artists...but they feel a need to have a reason. then come off sounding disingenuos or pedantic...which is why i gota had it to rem. he refuses to write about architecture at all, and then what he does right about is newspaper-reader ready...

i thought zumthor would be popular amongst laymen too. so i showed a picture book of his work at a family gathering once. i was utterly convinced everyone at the table would suddenly show respect for architects for once and we could have something to talk about that didn't involve me explaining how what i do is different from waht an engineer does.... i was not ready for reaction. EVERYONE, from computer engineer cousin who works round the world (and has seen some amazing architecture, just ask him), to step-father mechanic to dear old mom...HATED ZUMTHOR. they thought it looked nice, and expensive, but that his work was not designed for regular folk, was cold (like ando) and inhuman. they came about as close to comparing a building to aushwitz as i have heard from them yet...

so no i don't think zumthor appeals to laymen automatically. that was one test, but i suspect not an uncommon reaction. lets face it, zumthor's work, while beautiful and smart is in fact very (fetishistically?) austere...it is sooooo not tapping into universal truth. no more than gropius' work was...

again, i think we are somehow getting muddled in legitimacy through style, when there are better, more important questions that can be asked...

like?

sorry. i just think this is what this thread is about and it's a good discussion. sure we can ask other questions. in other threads.

why not have this particular conversation?

jump,

I don't think your test was particularly scientific. I believe that Zumthor's work cannot be fully understood through photographs. They are poor stand ins for the type of architecture that he makes, which is about physical, haptic experience.

Also, should we really assess architectural quality through random polling? You've seen the type of architecture that the vast majority of Americans prefer -- it's been widely disparaged in these forums as cheap, tacky, poorly thought through, and often an eyesore. I'm not including your family in this, because I don't know them, but for many Americans, Vegas is an architecturally exciting city. I don't think you'll find universal truth (is there such a thing?) through man-on-the-street polls.

No, we architects are the keepers of architectural quality. We have to be the ones who create standards through our own work. We have to make our buildings well, and make them functional, and make them beautiful. Of course, people will differ on what that means.

But what is I think inarguable is that Peter Zumthor's buildings are well made. There is a craft and integrity in even the smallest detail, whatever you personally feel about his spaces.

I can't necessarily say the same about Peter Eisenman's craft. What I've seen is cheaply made. And that is what this thread boils down to for me.

i'm still recovering from my 1994 overdose of eisenman and have been ignoring this thread until now. this is a classic thread, my props off to everybody, especially farwest for shear genius and actually remembering the stuff they've read.


I recall that there have been three ages of petey-

-the fold
-the grid
-(wait there hasn't been a third age of petey).

the other way of looking at pete's work is through the lens of kipnis.

but now petey is stuck on grafting to add variety to the grid or so I saw on 'build it bigger' for the city of culture in santiago...

as for zumthor- he is just making great buildings.

can architects have a personal mythology as many artists do? the idea of movements is for the most part dead and so each (fill in blank) is free to explore their field from whatever vantage point most appeals to them. whether its language, culture, site, experience or tracing around the cat thats lying on the sketchbook. its all legitimate and some of its even good.

Yeah, what vado said. I like the idea of a personal mythology, then you can leave behind who's right or wrong and just ask things like: How internally consistent is it? How interesting is it? How moving is it? How exciting is it?

I agree, Vado. The possibilities for architectural exploration are wide open now.

But it's the last five words of your post that I think are interesting.

What constitutes "good" right now in architecture? How do we judge good from bad? Are there criteria?

"How internally consistent is it? How interesting is it? How moving is it? How exciting is it?"

But how do we judge interesting, moving, exciting? These are subjective terms. Much of architecture is subjective.

Clearly there are people here who find Eisenman to embody all three of these terms, and others who think Zumthor does.

My own definition of good architecture involves a notion of quality, craft, and an engagement with the haptic.

You could argue that quality is important because we want buildings to last: we want them to maximize their value as commodities over the long term. A building that falls apart is useless to everyone.

Craft is important because it emphasizes the engagement of the maker with the work. The hand of the maker is visible as a human presence in the work itself -- if the maker was dedicated to the work, if care was taken in its making, then the users will be inclined to be more dedicated to understanding it.

And finally the haptic. We experience the world bodily. A building is a four-dimensional experience that should ideally appeal not only to our visual sensibility, but to our touch, hearing and other senses. It's easy to become enamored of the visual as architects, because pictures of faraway buildings are all around us. But we have to remember that our profession is here to make tangible spaces, spaces that are real and inhabitable. They should therefore be inviting to their users.

To take one example from Eisenman's work, the Aronoff Center: it has been beset with maintenance issues from day one. It fails on quality. The materials were cheap and machine-made. It fails on craft. Eisenman's stated goal was to create a building that destabilized people, and he often happily tells the account of the woman who was made "seasick" by the building. It fails on a haptic level.

For me, Eisenman fails my criteria for good architecture.

http://www.aia.org/nwsltr_aiaj.cfm?pagename=aiaj_a_20051020_aranoff

FW1 - do you actually re-read your own posts?

you just got through stating that architecture should operate "haptically". then you cite the example of Eisenman's Aronoff Centre making someone feel 'seasick'. then you say the building has "failed" on a haptic level. how can this be? what more concrete example of 'haptic effect' could you cite?

now, you may well think that creating "sea-sickness" in a building is a negative or bad experience, but you can not say it isn't haptic.

Eisenman (any many architect cited in this posting) are building in the American context. show me a recent institutional building (like the Aronoff) that has, or even COULD be built, to the near degree of resolution and material quality as can beachieved by Zumthor in Switzerland. they are few and far between in the USA, and i dare so, almost non-existent within the context of a public university program. So quality, and indeed, the whole concept - from the point of view of the client and the financing - of value and longevity, is completely different in the USA than in Europe - much less Switzerland.

and if you want to speak about "craft" - who is the 'maker'. are you implying the architect or the builder? there are definitely relationships between both, but again, within the american context of project management, construction management, design and build, value engineering, and novation, where is one to find 'craft'.

tk,

petey actually did grid (pre-computer and chomsky/saussere), then fold/graft (he ran a gsd studio in 84? which openly revolted against teh arbitrary) and then back to the grid, but with a computer so folded grid (i think frankfurt with olin partnership was the ur-grid).

dlb makes a splendid point regarding craft and making. how do we determine the craftness of cnc milled surfaces or even a curtain wall assembly? we seem to be trying to assess these built things in a very outmoded authorial sense. maybe we need a benjamin refresher?

if we say longevity is evidence of universal truth then i must wonder where does this fit?



or this?



and is this then the best of the best cuz it has lasted so long? (c. 1800)


my test with my family is not scientific, but neither is any of the above, and i am merely pointing out that zumthor can't be tapping the universal truth cuz not everyone sees it. if he was even my family would like it. that's what universal means.

it is disturbing to me to believe that any architect feels s/he is equipped to judge anyone else. the above suggests we are talking about buildings but in fact we are talking about people and the choices they make. i don't agree with what others choose to build and i even think some of it is indefensible on environmental and social grounds, but on grounds of style? that just can't work. worse it places our profession firmly in the realm of art, and we sound whiny if we complain at that level...no wonder our profession has no respect.

the subject object debate is one of style. saying one is inherently better than another because it is closer to the hidden order of the universe seems dangerous. ok,lets say craft is important, but sometimes it just isn't part of the equation. like that image of a favella in india (i think?) that was posted here recently. the craft of the building is secondary to the buildings existence at all. where does it fit into the universal order? it is an impressive building but what i wonder is why it is viewed differently than a wal-mart? both are equally responsive to local needs in a very direct and un-selfconscious way and yet we only yodel over the favella version...why? because of money? location? out of sympathy for the little guy? is it because of the universal truth that it reflects?

somehow i don't think it is the latter. the response is emotional, and i would suggest political...

what questions to ask? subject object is a cool discussion and i think worth having but in the end we always come to I LIKE IT, or I DON'T LIKE IT...and that is it. it becomes recursive, or worse someone starts leaping from "there is a universal truth" (there may be) to "I know THE universal truth and everyone else is wrong", and then decides it is his or her duty to educate everyone...against their will if necessary. that is not inspiring. given that background i would like to know what lays in between subject and object? how do we see the third, the other, to borrow from a more recent group of philosophers? ...answering that may make it possible to talk about the two peters and get answers more useful than "This lttle peter gets the zeitgeist, and this lttle peter gets none..."

the world we live in is challenging. i would love it if architecture could be used to face those challenges, even be used to understand what we are capable of...universal truth is predicated on idea that challenging the accepted POV is verbotten...and that just can't be right. surely there is more to architecture than defending territory? brad pitt seems to think so. now that is inspiring.

?

I disagree. I don't think its enough to say 'I like it' or 'I don't like it'. I think we should absolutely judge each other's work.

I don't agree with your assessment of Eisenman, though, farwest. I think there are other worthwhile aspirations for architecture than the ones Zumthor is working towards. There isn't one single set of aims for all architecture.

agree, it isn't enough.

but i believe subject-object debate of above discussion is cerebrally enhanced equivalent of saying i like it or i don't like it.

thanks, for your post of 23:54 jump.

it is too easy to discount eisenman by only looking at the construction of his buildings which, for years, even he said were sort of beside the point. he's not about materiality. he probably wishes the material of construction was as mute as chipboard or plaster and that it could stay as perfect as a model. his buildings exhibit this disinterest in their material aspect. he doesn't choose smooth steel frame, eifs, drywall because they're cheap, but because they have no texture and can allow the compositional/formal choices to become primary.

the buildings of eisenman are most perfect in their drawing and model form. the building the day it opens is a close second. the building fully furnished and occupied with people's junk: ...losing interest. the building at 10 yrs: is that relevant to him?

eisenman is about exploration. he's been known through his career as a generous teacher and he's informed the discourse of architecture for decades. his lectures, even if you hate him, are fully of personal 'eureka!' moments for audience members. whether or not you appreciate his particular methods of formal manipulation, he made us understand more fully than almost anyone else in contemporary architecture, the POTENTIAL in highly detailed and intensely intentional formal manipulation. he paved the way for the kind of complexity (fetishization, even?) of form that we see now.

the easiest quality of good architecture to validate by consensus seems to be craft.

or is it?

there is a point where the craft of a building overwhelms all other aspects. where the details are amazing, yet the entire project fails as over wrought, over expensive, over fussy, and way too over intellectual for the simple task of joining two different conditions.

the other extreme of not enough craft in a building is more common (and maybe not the architects fault).



Haptic is, as haptic does. So a cathedral has a specific haptic goal and so do dungeons. but neither is automatically good architecture. does haptics need to make a positive impression to be good? or just any 'intended' effect is worth celebrating?

wood is 'warm' and stone is 'cold' - are these haptic or innate?

a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics was developed to answer these questions.

dlb, no, I don't read my own posts. in fact, i don't even write them. i use a post-robot.

jump, I'm not making any claims to "universal truth" (as if such a thing existed.) I was careful in my last post to indicate that this was MY impression of Eisenman. Others will have other impressions -- that's why this thread is here.

For me, Eisenman's work is cheap-seeming and "bad", for lack of a better word. I'm trying to articulate the reasons why I think this. Isn't this thread ultimately an exploration of these ideas? I might be swayed by someone that his work is in fact not bad, but I haven't yet read a convincing argument here.

Likewise, it seems that I haven't put forward a convincing argument for why Zumthor's work is "good."

SW, I appreciate Eisenman's role as an educator. He's been an inspiring teacher to many. The issue for me is that he calls himself an ARCHITECT and then sets out with the goal to make buildings that fail as usable, functional, quality spaces? For me, this is at the core of what we do.

To make a multi-million dollar structure that occupies a city block and yet doesn't work as a quality, usable building—only to test some abstract hypothesis rooted in Derrida—is an extravagant waste of both money and urban space.

agfa8x, I'm with you 100%. I love the work of many architects. If we're talking about gestural work, I think much of Frank Gehry or Morphosis' or UNStudio or FOA's building is both beautiful, quality and functional. But this thread is about Eisenman -- whose work I believe is overrated -- and Zumthor -- whose work I think is exquisite.

dlb,

A recent American institutional building that more or less succeeds: the Federal Building in SF. Sustainable, innovating on the level of both program and form, using interesting materials and with an attention to craft. Under budget, as far as I know.

We'll see how this building lasts over the long term. But Morphosis did set out to make a building that was both interesting AND functional (not sea-sickness inducing.) An important part of this discussion.

do buildings have to have "long term" viability if they are to be considered great architecture? what about the crystal palace? that structure was temporary and wrought with problems and yet it is considered one of the more important buildings in the history of architecture.

The Crystal Palace and the Serpentine Pavilions shown above were meant as temporary buildings. I think they should be held under a different standard of quality and longevity than buildings which are meant to be permanent.

Short-term buildings can certainly influence architecture, but it's not that sustainable in general architecture to build for a short-term life span.

So I do think quality and longevity should be factors in good architecture.

so by your measure of real architecture, we should discount most of shigeru ban's work, including his exquisite office at the pompidou?

we can add to the list the teatro del mundo, hejduk's masques, cedric price's proposal for the fun palace and archigram. some things are meant to be temporary. some things become real on paper.

you need to get out more.

the San Francisco Federal Building is approx. 605,000 ft2. it cost: $144,000,000.00 (according to GSA web-page) that equals = $238.00/ft2
it has a stated desired longevity of 75 years.

the Aronoff Centre - DAAP at Univ of Cincinnati is approx. 269,097 ft2 (existing remodeling and new-build). it cost: $35,000,000.00 (according to UC magazine). that equals= $130.06/ft2
it has no stated longevity.

so, do you think Eisenman could build a better building if he had twice the budget? and as SW has mentioned, would he want to?

do i think Thom Mayne and Morphosis are better at building buildings? Yes. do i think that Thom Mayne is a better architect than Peter Eisenman? No.

Thom is also a great and important architect. And he is getting better. But, that doesn't deny the role and the purpose of Peter Eisenman.

I have no problem with you do not like or even appreciating Eisenman. i do have a problem when you make a blanket dismissal of his work against narrow criteria. i want to follow YOUR logic for such dismissal.

The Wexner Centre (1989) had a larger budget, of $49,686,978.00 for an area of 129,047 ft2. that equals = $385.10/ft2
[note: there was an additional $15,000,000 spent in 2003 for renovation and replacement of HVAC - some of which can be attributed to the original design - some of which is based on new standards]

The Wexner is a much better executed project, more resolved and more substantial - both as a constructed building and in my opinion, as a work of architecture. it is less 'symbolic' in it attempts at subversion and less an 'image' of difference as seen in the DAAP. to my experiences, the Wexner embodies real spatial and programmatic differences - in the context of museum and curatorial practices.

thanks for the insult, cowerd. i've been nothing but civil and respectful—but i guess you have a more callous way of dealing with differing opinions.

I'm interested in exploring these questions, not defending myself to you. I've found this thread interesting, but if you want to bring it to a personal level, have fun.

i have just given you a detailed analysis of the differences between two buildings being cited. i have tried to show that it is hard to compare them the assumption that one may be better built without taking into account the allowable budgets. and you find this is an insult?

let's see: insult, coward, callous, defending myself, personal level. interesting response.

It's not my favorite building, but it's still good architecture. UC got what it wanted: a starchitect-designed building that a lot of people really like despite its building-performance problems. Sure the building would be better if it didn't leak, but we don't know if that's PE's fault or Lorenz & Williams' fault or the GC. Would UC have been willing to pay the upfront costs for a building with no maintenance problems? Would an ETH commissioned building designed by Eisenman leak?

Both Eisenman and Zumthor try to get an emotional and haptic response. They aren't really polar opposites.

For an English paper you could look at the difference in the meaning of materials for the two architects. For instance, for PZ, wood = tree, concrete = earth. For PE the actual material is less important. A column might represent a node in a complex grid pattern regardless of whether it's concrete or steel. You get bonus points if you use the word reification in reference to actual concrete...

dlb, sorry, I was responding to the poster before you. Read my post again. The poster before you is named "cowerd" for whatever reason. I was replying to his telling me I need to "get out more."

I thought what you wrote was great, and articulate and detailed. I'm trying to keep this civil, as you are.