Ill be honest, not a tigerman fan... his buildings are trite and tacky, but im absolutely 100% in agreement with the crux of his argument. Architecture has a significant responsibility to the public it serves. If its that notion thats making you reject this article, i find that really sad.
Im not really sure what both your problems with this article are... hes arguing topics that many many 'nectors argue every day... and evil, i dare say you seem to be one of the biggest agitators when it comes to calling out the piles of BS in architecture...
Architecture has has no responsibility other than to function well and I think that people like Tigerman overblow the architects role in the universe and by doing so lead to worse buildings because they dont appreciate the craft theyve chosen - instead they deride the fact that theyre not taken seriously as "artists" - just my 2 cents worth
woah... first of all, you tigerman in that article says architecture as artists is half the problem... so now im not sure if you read the article.
secondly, "Architecture has has no responsibility other than to function well" i dont even know what that means? what does "Function" mean? does that mean dont fall down? Dont cause the death of occupants? allow adequate parking? Are you actually arguing that architects shouldnt care about sustainable or social issues?? come on now guy...
Stanley would have been a much different architect had Instant City been built. Remember that Fazlur Khan was his structural engineer for that project and Meier and Gehry were in the office often in the 1960s.
ST -"Architecture is a pursuit that ought to be seen in a more responsible light than it is. And I think that architects ought to be responsible to society in a number of ways and they need to do that for two reasons: number one is that they’re—presumably—human beings, and secondly, if we don’t do it, who the hell is going to?"
This is way overthinking beyond the architect's role - just be an architect and thats your duty to society
ST-"I see my very good friends Peter Eisenman and Frank Gehry, who are very good architects. They are encouraging—inadvertently or not—as teachers, students to…how do I say… to emulate them. I find that problematic. I come from a generation where people like Harry Cobb—you know who he is, right?—and Paul Rudolph were very good at bringing us as good as we were."
Needless name dropping - a favorite pastime of self - worshipping egomaniacs
ST- "I’m not very smart. It takes a long time to figure this crap out. But I finally did. Do you want to spend a lifetime doing suburban villas for princes and princesses, or do you do something for people who really need what you do? Do you make your own decisions?"
First those princesses paid for his ability to be an alternative guru so I'd be carefeful as His reputation is such that ONLY homeless shelters will take his services as the paying public avoids him and he needs this kind of press to justify his hanging around. Not much competition in the Homless shelter/ alternative unaccreditied schools market.
ST - It’s to perpetuate a myth. In the same way that people talk in an arcane language. It’s not so that you can understand them, but so they can retain the myth. And architects are no different. You present it as part of a mystique.
Go back to the 60's with your drippy babble and let the building to the builders, those folks who inherently get the poetry of force flowing through all materials and can make it visible.
I like the buildings they did down there - but all in all - its about the craft of making things and mockbee freely stated He went to the place with the least path of resistance to build what he wanted. A place so poor theres no zoning, building codes, rules - and what that means is a ground up inovative craft based architecture of place. Thats agood thing however theres no social responsibility in that work. On the contrary.
evil, you didnt really answer my questions, but you did make personal attacks on ST. i dont care about that, or if he 'needlessly dropped names'... what you seemed to have said is that architects dont need to address any issue beyond functionality, and i asked you to clarify what functionality is
Functionality is to perform - to be sound and lasting construction which is itself is inherently green. Function the best way your asked to make it function by your client - if that means a new way to sell burgers through a hole in the wall - ie drivethru than thats a pretty cool concept. It may want to function as a sign or bilbord - then its your job to make that happen - functionaly. It may be an office tower that has to regulate light and glare - make it function.
And the over arching principle is feel - how does it feel to be there. In this functional thing what do I want it to feel like - but it must function first and foremost and sometimes the feel of it informs the function but never is it in debt, or owe any responsibility to anything else but itself and its makers.
I never had ST - but his minions were still hanging around UIC at the time - completely driving it into the ground
He has a couple interesting things from his "making things" period. In fact I liked a couple of them - it was when I started hearing the blabbering about them that I thought - this is all bullshit. This man just spews forth bullshit nonstop -
He should stick to buildings - like most Architects he talks too much and no one really cares what they have to say or who they know. i think its a low self esteem trait.
well evil i think we just have a fundamental disagreement on this one... i agree with ST on this one... there is advocacy involved in good architecture.
it means there are lots of technologies, concepts, methods, theories ect that we, as architects, will be exposed to that clients will not. part of an architects role is to push for what they feel is best in each particular project... it would seem you are undervaluing the architects role. Fact is, in many cases, we may very well know better than the client.
there is no subtlety in my use of advocacy... i think architects should be advocates.
I guess Im saying one doesnt have to be advocate to explore new technologies, methods, theories etc - thats just inherent in being an architect. And thats hard enough without having to sully it up with social causes.
And as to theories - I'd argue that some of the worst architectural blunders come from theory - and that the built environment is too important to be left to theorists. Think superblock social housing programs, new town planning, ped-malls, rotated grids ( ya im looking at you Netch)
ep,
if you don't see what it 'means or entails' then there is no point trying, nor convincing you. We don't need a world full of idealistic designers or one of just pragmatic builders, but one that allows for both. Your objection to ST seems more personal than professional and, while there is nothing wrong with that, you shouldn't condemn all involved in socially responsible work over a personal beef. we are not all from the 60's, some of us were born in the 70's and 80's.
The only designer I really object to is where form follows fevered ego, and there are already too many of them.
ep, the RS's work is only about being socially responsible. Sure you can argue it has some sustainable objectives but in essence, it began as a socially conscious effort to provide service to people who would otherwise go without.
ST -"Architecture is a pursuit that ought to be seen in a more responsible light than it is. And I think that architects ought to be responsible to society in a number of ways and they need to do that for two reasons: number one is that they’re—presumably—human beings, and secondly, if we don’t do it, who the hell is going to?"
This is basically what Sambo preached for the last 15 years of his life.
Thanks for the lecture Cameron - I have no beef with Tigerman nor what you do - You at least do what you preach.
But Tigerman I'm calling B.S.
"We don't need a world full of idealistic designers or one of just pragmatic builders,"
So Cameron - why is it only desifgers have idealism? And what makes your idealism better or more important than say a builder's whose idealism may be maximum profit and employment? What makes you so correct and everyone else wrong?
i dont think its a question of right and wrong evil. its just a question of what you want to accomplish. if you have no higher ambition than making money, then by all means, continue. But for those who believe knowledge is power, and power brings responsibility, there might be alternate goals than maximizing profits and maintaining employment. You seem to think being educated (in this case as an architect but it can probably be extended to any field) is some luxury you can gain and then use for no reason but self preservation... i tend to disagree.
I think I was suggesting that we need a marriage of those focused on improving society as well as firm whose goal is commercial advancement. not a fragmentation of an industry that already barely registers in the conversation of most people.
It's not about who is right or wrong but a focus on the advancement of design innovation for those who need it most. I do disagree that maximum profit = employment.
Take the skyscrapers of dubai. Do you think the rights of the workers are worth abusing in the goal of maximum profit. In this particular case I believe architects feel little guilt in the profit they are making off the backs of these workers and are morally obligated to 'advocate' for better living conditions for the people that build their visions.
That is an extreme case but the case you are making equates the Mall of America being as an important architectural structure than an inner city high school - if not more. You are also trying to create a architect/designer vs. builder argument, which I'm not falling for.
ps. i wasn't a lecture, it just came across as a personal beef. If it's not, I stand corrected.
"That is an extreme case but the case you are making equates the Mall of America being as an important architectural structure than an inner city high school - if not more"
Now your getting it Cam, that mall has got to be financing schools all over the Gopher State so yes commerce affords schools to be built
May 23, 08 4:27 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Stanley Tigerman Interview...
Great interview with Stanley Tigerman on Metropolis's website. I love how Tigerman gets so passionate and heated!!
http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=3333
thats 5 min of my life I wont get back
ahahahahahaha. ooooh man. whew. hahahaha. dear god... no.. stop!
Ill be honest, not a tigerman fan... his buildings are trite and tacky, but im absolutely 100% in agreement with the crux of his argument. Architecture has a significant responsibility to the public it serves. If its that notion thats making you reject this article, i find that really sad.
Im not really sure what both your problems with this article are... hes arguing topics that many many 'nectors argue every day... and evil, i dare say you seem to be one of the biggest agitators when it comes to calling out the piles of BS in architecture...
Architecture has has no responsibility other than to function well and I think that people like Tigerman overblow the architects role in the universe and by doing so lead to worse buildings because they dont appreciate the craft theyve chosen - instead they deride the fact that theyre not taken seriously as "artists" - just my 2 cents worth
woah... first of all, you tigerman in that article says architecture as artists is half the problem... so now im not sure if you read the article.
secondly, "Architecture has has no responsibility other than to function well" i dont even know what that means? what does "Function" mean? does that mean dont fall down? Dont cause the death of occupants? allow adequate parking? Are you actually arguing that architects shouldnt care about sustainable or social issues?? come on now guy...
Get back to work, you two!!!!
;-)
Stanley would have been a much different architect had Instant City been built. Remember that Fazlur Khan was his structural engineer for that project and Meier and Gehry were in the office often in the 1960s.
ST -"Architecture is a pursuit that ought to be seen in a more responsible light than it is. And I think that architects ought to be responsible to society in a number of ways and they need to do that for two reasons: number one is that they’re—presumably—human beings, and secondly, if we don’t do it, who the hell is going to?"
This is way overthinking beyond the architect's role - just be an architect and thats your duty to society
ST-"I see my very good friends Peter Eisenman and Frank Gehry, who are very good architects. They are encouraging—inadvertently or not—as teachers, students to…how do I say… to emulate them. I find that problematic. I come from a generation where people like Harry Cobb—you know who he is, right?—and Paul Rudolph were very good at bringing us as good as we were."
Needless name dropping - a favorite pastime of self - worshipping egomaniacs
ST- "I’m not very smart. It takes a long time to figure this crap out. But I finally did. Do you want to spend a lifetime doing suburban villas for princes and princesses, or do you do something for people who really need what you do? Do you make your own decisions?"
First those princesses paid for his ability to be an alternative guru so I'd be carefeful as His reputation is such that ONLY homeless shelters will take his services as the paying public avoids him and he needs this kind of press to justify his hanging around. Not much competition in the Homless shelter/ alternative unaccreditied schools market.
ST - It’s to perpetuate a myth. In the same way that people talk in an arcane language. It’s not so that you can understand them, but so they can retain the myth. And architects are no different. You present it as part of a mystique.
Go back to the 60's with your drippy babble and let the building to the builders, those folks who inherently get the poetry of force flowing through all materials and can make it visible.
I could go on -
ep, what do you think of sambo mockbee's work and his contribution to the profession?
I like the buildings they did down there - but all in all - its about the craft of making things and mockbee freely stated He went to the place with the least path of resistance to build what he wanted. A place so poor theres no zoning, building codes, rules - and what that means is a ground up inovative craft based architecture of place. Thats agood thing however theres no social responsibility in that work. On the contrary.
evil, you didnt really answer my questions, but you did make personal attacks on ST. i dont care about that, or if he 'needlessly dropped names'... what you seemed to have said is that architects dont need to address any issue beyond functionality, and i asked you to clarify what functionality is
Functionality is to perform - to be sound and lasting construction which is itself is inherently green. Function the best way your asked to make it function by your client - if that means a new way to sell burgers through a hole in the wall - ie drivethru than thats a pretty cool concept. It may want to function as a sign or bilbord - then its your job to make that happen - functionaly. It may be an office tower that has to regulate light and glare - make it function.
And the over arching principle is feel - how does it feel to be there. In this functional thing what do I want it to feel like - but it must function first and foremost and sometimes the feel of it informs the function but never is it in debt, or owe any responsibility to anything else but itself and its makers.
letdown,
For years, ST made needless personal attacks on his students at UIC so that's where it's coming from.
I never had ST - but his minions were still hanging around UIC at the time - completely driving it into the ground
He has a couple interesting things from his "making things" period. In fact I liked a couple of them - it was when I started hearing the blabbering about them that I thought - this is all bullshit. This man just spews forth bullshit nonstop -
He should stick to buildings - like most Architects he talks too much and no one really cares what they have to say or who they know. i think its a low self esteem trait.
the function of architecture is to be architecture.
well evil i think we just have a fundamental disagreement on this one... i agree with ST on this one... there is advocacy involved in good architecture.
Its honorable to say architects should design socially responsibly but i dont see what that means or entails. What does advocacy even mean?
it means there are lots of technologies, concepts, methods, theories ect that we, as architects, will be exposed to that clients will not. part of an architects role is to push for what they feel is best in each particular project... it would seem you are undervaluing the architects role. Fact is, in many cases, we may very well know better than the client.
there is no subtlety in my use of advocacy... i think architects should be advocates.
Advocate
To speak, plead, or argue in favor of.
I guess Im saying one doesnt have to be advocate to explore new technologies, methods, theories etc - thats just inherent in being an architect. And thats hard enough without having to sully it up with social causes.
And as to theories - I'd argue that some of the worst architectural blunders come from theory - and that the built environment is too important to be left to theorists. Think superblock social housing programs, new town planning, ped-malls, rotated grids ( ya im looking at you Netch)
ep,
if you don't see what it 'means or entails' then there is no point trying, nor convincing you. We don't need a world full of idealistic designers or one of just pragmatic builders, but one that allows for both. Your objection to ST seems more personal than professional and, while there is nothing wrong with that, you shouldn't condemn all involved in socially responsible work over a personal beef. we are not all from the 60's, some of us were born in the 70's and 80's.
The only designer I really object to is where form follows fevered ego, and there are already too many of them.
ep, the RS's work is only about being socially responsible. Sure you can argue it has some sustainable objectives but in essence, it began as a socially conscious effort to provide service to people who would otherwise go without.
ST -"Architecture is a pursuit that ought to be seen in a more responsible light than it is. And I think that architects ought to be responsible to society in a number of ways and they need to do that for two reasons: number one is that they’re—presumably—human beings, and secondly, if we don’t do it, who the hell is going to?"
This is basically what Sambo preached for the last 15 years of his life.
EP i think youre stuck in a semantic argument here... i dont believe you disagree with what Im saying.
Thanks for the lecture Cameron - I have no beef with Tigerman nor what you do - You at least do what you preach.
But Tigerman I'm calling B.S.
"We don't need a world full of idealistic designers or one of just pragmatic builders,"
So Cameron - why is it only desifgers have idealism? And what makes your idealism better or more important than say a builder's whose idealism may be maximum profit and employment? What makes you so correct and everyone else wrong?
perhaps society should be a bit responsible to us?
i dont think its a question of right and wrong evil. its just a question of what you want to accomplish. if you have no higher ambition than making money, then by all means, continue. But for those who believe knowledge is power, and power brings responsibility, there might be alternate goals than maximizing profits and maintaining employment. You seem to think being educated (in this case as an architect but it can probably be extended to any field) is some luxury you can gain and then use for no reason but self preservation... i tend to disagree.
I think I was suggesting that we need a marriage of those focused on improving society as well as firm whose goal is commercial advancement. not a fragmentation of an industry that already barely registers in the conversation of most people.
It's not about who is right or wrong but a focus on the advancement of design innovation for those who need it most. I do disagree that maximum profit = employment.
Take the skyscrapers of dubai. Do you think the rights of the workers are worth abusing in the goal of maximum profit. In this particular case I believe architects feel little guilt in the profit they are making off the backs of these workers and are morally obligated to 'advocate' for better living conditions for the people that build their visions.
That is an extreme case but the case you are making equates the Mall of America being as an important architectural structure than an inner city high school - if not more. You are also trying to create a architect/designer vs. builder argument, which I'm not falling for.
ps. i wasn't a lecture, it just came across as a personal beef. If it's not, I stand corrected.
we don't get killed when we put up crappy buildings. i think that's a step in the right direction
we may not be killed but we die a little inside.
cowerd have you read the reviews for brad cloepfil's columbus circle retrofit? oh yeahh........da da .............ding
"That is an extreme case but the case you are making equates the Mall of America being as an important architectural structure than an inner city high school - if not more"
Now your getting it Cam, that mall has got to be financing schools all over the Gopher State so yes commerce affords schools to be built
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.