My question is, how slanted towards this super organic, almost fantasy architecture (ie: Hernan Diaz Alonso) is the MArch program at SCI_arc?
I ask this because there seems to be a somewhat of a disconnect between what is shown on the website as student work, and the work of some of the alumni.
I plan on ordering their most recent publication of student work (as I am too far away to attend any of their shows) to give me some more insight on what goes on there, but I just figured I would propose the question and see what you all had to say.
I am not so interested in Hernan Diaz Alonso's work, but have seen some projects from SCI_arc that are really interesting. I'm just wondering what seems to be the general push or direction of the school (if there is one).
I'm highly interested in the "digital" work that comes out of the AA for example, but I also enjoy the far more simplistic work of people like Kengo Kuma and Todao Ando. Is there a balance to be found anywhere?
If it's worth anything I have a degree in industrial design and am looking at schools to study architecture. Cooper Union and SCI_arc seem to be the most interesting to me right now. I would be applying next year.
sciarc "architecture" seems like designing for a space fantasy land...i mean...has anything alonso ever designed ever been built? look at his portfolio they are all just renderings for competitions he didnt win
I usually try to stay away from the sci-Arc discussions, but it's the 4th so what the hell.
sci-Arc, like most schools, is what YOU make it. I am amused by the constant generalization of the school with Hernan, Maya, and "organic" architecture. The M.Arch program that you would be going into is not rooted in the "apprentice-like" structure that the M.Arch II program seems to have for its first year, at least when I was there 2 years ago. I think this is where the Hernan reference and many students interest in similar exploration comes from.
I myself was never taught by Hernan. He was on many juries and his opinion/ideas were very valid and grounded. I think the most important thing to be learned from people like Hernan are the grounds for their architectural exploration and how to argue for or against them. Too often we don't remove the subjective eye candy judgment from the thesis of the exploration. I had many friends that studied under Hernan and I don't believe you would define their work aesthetically as the same as his.
I myself can't rip out scripts for Maya and I have never designed a space that would be classified as a blob. Likewise, many of my classmates would fall into the same category. I appreciated the diversity of sci-Arc and the different approaches and opinions (by both classmates and instructors) that we pursued in the field of design and architecture.
If your background is in ID, so was mine by the way, then you will probably not find a better hands on place.
As for built work, I don't know if that is a good (sole) grounds for arguing/discussing architecture. How much of Hejduk's work was built? I don't really think it was because he was designing fantasy land.
it sounds like you would be in the march I program and would probably not cross paths with hernan until your third year (if you choose to take a vertical studio with him).
if this is the stuff you are interested in, then yes, there are plenty of faculty and resources to push you in this direction. if you are interested in other things, there are plenty of faculty and resources for that too.
'futuristic' is a bigger discussion that would be hard to associate with a certain software or a singular name.
you can very well work pencil and napkin and look towards future or develop conjectures.
in the early days of sci arc, students were developing space colonies and biomorphic cities without any of the software and computer technology that is available to students today.
here is a hand made sketch of biomorphic biosphere project (1965-77) by glen small, #2 founder of sci arc.
Jul 5, 08 4:57 pm ·
·
There's nothing like the good old-fashioned future.
It will all be lame b.s. in five years time so who really gives an eff? you see... technology changes making cutting edge design outdated. Catia will be the new form-z in a decade, and everyone will laugh if you are still using it. So? Yah? Are you a computer nerd playing the tool, or are you an architect?
"Are you a computer nerd playing the tool, or are you an architect?"
So architects are to build the houses ? Wierd realy --- It took me to be allowed 4 times into workshops others would bite of their right arm to reach, before I would call myself Designer, now Architects those who allway's talk about CAD monkey's ans pointed pens, talk about "having things build" , even anything they ever did was to borrow and ask the monkey translate the sketches. Ask me ; I hope someone invent a new name for that trade, maybe we get houses for people.
How "futuristic" really is SCI_arc?
My question is, how slanted towards this super organic, almost fantasy architecture (ie: Hernan Diaz Alonso) is the MArch program at SCI_arc?
I ask this because there seems to be a somewhat of a disconnect between what is shown on the website as student work, and the work of some of the alumni.
I plan on ordering their most recent publication of student work (as I am too far away to attend any of their shows) to give me some more insight on what goes on there, but I just figured I would propose the question and see what you all had to say.
I am not so interested in Hernan Diaz Alonso's work, but have seen some projects from SCI_arc that are really interesting. I'm just wondering what seems to be the general push or direction of the school (if there is one).
I'm highly interested in the "digital" work that comes out of the AA for example, but I also enjoy the far more simplistic work of people like Kengo Kuma and Todao Ando. Is there a balance to be found anywhere?
If it's worth anything I have a degree in industrial design and am looking at schools to study architecture. Cooper Union and SCI_arc seem to be the most interesting to me right now. I would be applying next year.
wow. I'm really not sure what you are asking - but if you hold the line a representative will be able to answer your questions.
i'm sorry, i kind of rambled. you can likely get all needed info out of the first sentence. consider the rest a gift from me to you.
sciarc "architecture" seems like designing for a space fantasy land...i mean...has anything alonso ever designed ever been built? look at his portfolio they are all just renderings for competitions he didnt win
I usually try to stay away from the sci-Arc discussions, but it's the 4th so what the hell.
sci-Arc, like most schools, is what YOU make it. I am amused by the constant generalization of the school with Hernan, Maya, and "organic" architecture. The M.Arch program that you would be going into is not rooted in the "apprentice-like" structure that the M.Arch II program seems to have for its first year, at least when I was there 2 years ago. I think this is where the Hernan reference and many students interest in similar exploration comes from.
I myself was never taught by Hernan. He was on many juries and his opinion/ideas were very valid and grounded. I think the most important thing to be learned from people like Hernan are the grounds for their architectural exploration and how to argue for or against them. Too often we don't remove the subjective eye candy judgment from the thesis of the exploration. I had many friends that studied under Hernan and I don't believe you would define their work aesthetically as the same as his.
I myself can't rip out scripts for Maya and I have never designed a space that would be classified as a blob. Likewise, many of my classmates would fall into the same category. I appreciated the diversity of sci-Arc and the different approaches and opinions (by both classmates and instructors) that we pursued in the field of design and architecture.
If your background is in ID, so was mine by the way, then you will probably not find a better hands on place.
As for built work, I don't know if that is a good (sole) grounds for arguing/discussing architecture. How much of Hejduk's work was built? I don't really think it was because he was designing fantasy land.
"How "futuristic" really is SCI_arc? "
Have you seen my sack?
how futuristic?
SCI_arc... Sci-fi
ring a bell??
switch,
it sounds like you would be in the march I program and would probably not cross paths with hernan until your third year (if you choose to take a vertical studio with him).
if this is the stuff you are interested in, then yes, there are plenty of faculty and resources to push you in this direction. if you are interested in other things, there are plenty of faculty and resources for that too.
I can't comment about SCI-Arc, but I don't think Cooper Union has an M.Arch. I program.
'futuristic' is a bigger discussion that would be hard to associate with a certain software or a singular name.
you can very well work pencil and napkin and look towards future or develop conjectures.
in the early days of sci arc, students were developing space colonies and biomorphic cities without any of the software and computer technology that is available to students today.
here is a hand made sketch of biomorphic biosphere project (1965-77) by glen small, #2 founder of sci arc.
There's nothing like the good old-fashioned future.
The future ain't what it used to be.
That's right. The future's exactly what it's gonna be.
Orhan Ayyüce is very right about the future.
Does Sci Arc claim to be 'futuristic'?
Orhan, that sketch is not entirely by hand, the people and plants look like they're collaged in.
true, 765, but collaged by HAND, not photoshop.
Is there a way to photoshop not by HAND?
Drawing and collaging by WORD OF MOUTH, now that's futuristic!
I've photoshopped by foot, but the results are often of questionable quality.
SCI-Arc is so futuristic its alumni make Time Travel-Marts.
Care to share those by foot results that are above questionable quality?
It will all be lame b.s. in five years time so who really gives an eff? you see... technology changes making cutting edge design outdated. Catia will be the new form-z in a decade, and everyone will laugh if you are still using it. So? Yah? Are you a computer nerd playing the tool, or are you an architect?
yes hernans work has been built......
ps1
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/arts/design/14cour.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/P/PS%201%20Contemporary%20Art%20Center&oref=slogin
"Are you a computer nerd playing the tool, or are you an architect?"
So architects are to build the houses ? Wierd realy --- It took me to be allowed 4 times into workshops others would bite of their right arm to reach, before I would call myself Designer, now Architects those who allway's talk about CAD monkey's ans pointed pens, talk about "having things build" , even anything they ever did was to borrow and ask the monkey translate the sketches. Ask me ; I hope someone invent a new name for that trade, maybe we get houses for people.
Listen ; an architect is a mashin to design houses Basta !
Is herman one hit wonder?
has he actually had a hit?
"Its only what YOU make of it"
is just a way of blaming the student for everything.
I wish institutions would stop with that one.
If I'm here and you're here doesn't that make it what WE make of it?
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.