everybody does it the same way. it is an industry standart. artist's color pencil renderings to most current software technics, they were always here to introduce the project to public. what's new?
I think that Rem Koolhaas's projects are meant to be dialectical and the form doesn't necessarily represent the design concept. I doubt that if OMA delivered a foam board poster with a birds eye, eye level and title to the Seattle planning board he would have still gotten the commission...
Unless you are trying to riddle us, suggesting that form is all that there is to understand about architecture and that an ephemeral image invoking a 3D representation in the mind is all any of us need to discern design content. But what about the horse and pony show?
so are you meaning to imply that you're extraordinarily clever, or that koolhaas's work is shallow? if you mean that his buildings are informed by a relatively simple diagram, ok; but a diagram is not exactly the 'content' of a design. plenty of good buildings have simple diagrams. what is the content of a design anyway?
It have been several years that I have difficulty to understand some stararchitect's projects. Even with their analysis diagrams.
I remembered one time I asked my professor about a work by libeskind. Faced with so many complicated lines, she shaked her hand and told me she don't get it.
After these two years hard pursue, I began to understand and grasp what these big guys are doing. In our office, I have done 2 competitions with other colleagues, and I found it is so hard to find a good idea and work it through to the final. These practical experience again encouraged me to discover why and how they do the design. I pick Rem because his design process is reasonable.
My comments of course exaggerate somehow. But WHAT I really want to says is I can see his concept clearer based on much less information these days.
I will try to compose a page for one of his works to demonstrate what I meant. Pls come back and comment on it.
ok, good on you. but not all architecture has to be understood quickly. some really good architecture takes a long time to come to terms with, either through occupation or external analysis.
"Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk,
I'm a woman's man, no time to talk.
Music loud and women warm.
I've been kicked around since I was born.
And now it's all right, it's O.K.
And you may look the other way."
"may be architects shall start learning to sell their ideas to the general public in a shorter formate... n stop hiding behind fancy words :)"
well said. Aspect.
Its all the more pathetic and laughable that for all the shit guys like libeskind and eisenman say that ultimately their architecture could be summed up in a few words as a certain style that has certain motifs that give certain affects to experience to indvididuals and society that have absolutely nothing to do with their words.
Now richard meier, man of few bull shit theoretical words, creates unbelievably great experiences of architecture, in my opinion of course, because the interpretation and experience of architecture is afterall subjective.
Therefore, Rems ability to get a whole bunch of subjective opinions to agree about the meaning of his work is the brilliance in that mans ability to do architecture. Not that I have had great experiences in some of his architecure, but the man knows how to state it.
not sure the Getty or Den Hague reminded me of a generic penthouse, but as the penthouse is the nicest part of any generic glass & steel condo, I believe you just complimented Meier on his modernist expressions.
Even the penthouse of a "generic glass & steel" condo is repulsive. You're sticking your hand too far in the jar ignoring the fact that all the cookies are the same. Nice try, but it ain't gonna fly.
go inside den hague and you'll change our mind quickly.
you can tell just by looking at the forms and materials of the second image that it's a horrible knock off of what Meier is doing, sure they're similar, but it's like getting a Movado in Chinatown versus Bloomingdales.
metababble richard meier...creates unbelievably great experiences of architecture, in my opinion of course, because the interpretation and experience of architecture is afterall subjective
so, inferring from your choice of "because", you believe that meier does good buildings only because you, subjectively, find them great? well, that a little bit tautological don't you think?
I don't think a 12-story shopping complex er... public space will change my mind. Mr. Meier is stuck in the 60's and he can't navigate the information superhighway to get him to the present.
Look closely at how the white (of course) panels touch the ground. Level surfaces are a thing of the past; context is not to be created.
His cousin Pete is badass.
Sep 18, 09 11:36 pm ·
·
Study any of the more recent Koolhaas/OMA residential projects* and you will quickly find that you cannot "use two drawings and one sentence to understand" the work.
*
Bordeaux House
Y2K
Casa Wenner
Casa Flick I
Casa Flick II
Ascot Residence
Casa Sighvatsson
Vincent Gallo Apartment
Also look at Prada San Francisco Epicenter and Whitney Museum Extension.
Rem: use minimum items to understand its project
I just find out I can use two drawings and one sentence to understand Rem's any works.
@one eye level perspective
@one birds eye view showing the building's surroundings.
@the building name
Am I joking?
So show us!
to understand what about them?
"to understand what about them?"
The content of the design.
"So show us!"
Sure, I will do it next week.
everybody does it the same way. it is an industry standart. artist's color pencil renderings to most current software technics, they were always here to introduce the project to public. what's new?
I think that Rem Koolhaas's projects are meant to be dialectical and the form doesn't necessarily represent the design concept. I doubt that if OMA delivered a foam board poster with a birds eye, eye level and title to the Seattle planning board he would have still gotten the commission...
Unless you are trying to riddle us, suggesting that form is all that there is to understand about architecture and that an ephemeral image invoking a 3D representation in the mind is all any of us need to discern design content. But what about the horse and pony show?
so are you meaning to imply that you're extraordinarily clever, or that koolhaas's work is shallow? if you mean that his buildings are informed by a relatively simple diagram, ok; but a diagram is not exactly the 'content' of a design. plenty of good buildings have simple diagrams. what is the content of a design anyway?
So rems a marketing genius what's your point?
Better thab having read an essay to understand the building.
agfa8x:
It have been several years that I have difficulty to understand some stararchitect's projects. Even with their analysis diagrams.
I remembered one time I asked my professor about a work by libeskind. Faced with so many complicated lines, she shaked her hand and told me she don't get it.
After these two years hard pursue, I began to understand and grasp what these big guys are doing. In our office, I have done 2 competitions with other colleagues, and I found it is so hard to find a good idea and work it through to the final. These practical experience again encouraged me to discover why and how they do the design. I pick Rem because his design process is reasonable.
My comments of course exaggerate somehow. But WHAT I really want to says is I can see his concept clearer based on much less information these days.
I will try to compose a page for one of his works to demonstrate what I meant. Pls come back and comment on it.
Pics or it isn't true.
ok, good on you. but not all architecture has to be understood quickly. some really good architecture takes a long time to come to terms with, either through occupation or external analysis.
the work of libeskind is easily understood w/ one diagram...
yes, this one:
I am getting more and more disappointed at Libeskind's work these days.
yeah tell me about it. one hit wonder.
may be architects shall start learning to sell their ideas to the general public in a shorter formate... n stop hiding behind fancy words :)
"Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk,
I'm a woman's man, no time to talk.
Music loud and women warm.
I've been kicked around since I was born.
And now it's all right, it's O.K.
And you may look the other way."
loremipsum ftw
"may be architects shall start learning to sell their ideas to the general public in a shorter formate... n stop hiding behind fancy words :)"
well said. Aspect.
JP: what do u mean?
Its all the more pathetic and laughable that for all the shit guys like libeskind and eisenman say that ultimately their architecture could be summed up in a few words as a certain style that has certain motifs that give certain affects to experience to indvididuals and society that have absolutely nothing to do with their words.
Now richard meier, man of few bull shit theoretical words, creates unbelievably great experiences of architecture, in my opinion of course, because the interpretation and experience of architecture is afterall subjective.
Therefore, Rems ability to get a whole bunch of subjective opinions to agree about the meaning of his work is the brilliance in that mans ability to do architecture. Not that I have had great experiences in some of his architecure, but the man knows how to state it.
simplicity in the wrong hands can be simply banal, neither elegant nor profound; you're not there yet.
All Meier buildings look like the top 2 floors of a generic glass & steel condo.
As for the "Meier curve"--I have not seen a line any LESS organic.
Does anyone else agree his railings scream 1970 porn flick?
not sure the Getty or Den Hague reminded me of a generic penthouse, but as the penthouse is the nicest part of any generic glass & steel condo, I believe you just complimented Meier on his modernist expressions.
Even the penthouse of a "generic glass & steel" condo is repulsive. You're sticking your hand too far in the jar ignoring the fact that all the cookies are the same. Nice try, but it ain't gonna fly.
reminds me of this ugly beast:
go inside den hague and you'll change our mind quickly.
you can tell just by looking at the forms and materials of the second image that it's a horrible knock off of what Meier is doing, sure they're similar, but it's like getting a Movado in Chinatown versus Bloomingdales.
metababble richard meier...creates unbelievably great experiences of architecture, in my opinion of course, because the interpretation and experience of architecture is afterall subjective
so, inferring from your choice of "because", you believe that meier does good buildings only because you, subjectively, find them great? well, that a little bit tautological don't you think?
I don't think a 12-story shopping complex er... public space will change my mind. Mr. Meier is stuck in the 60's and he can't navigate the information superhighway to get him to the present.
Look closely at how the white (of course) panels touch the ground. Level surfaces are a thing of the past; context is not to be created.
His cousin Pete is badass.
Study any of the more recent Koolhaas/OMA residential projects* and you will quickly find that you cannot "use two drawings and one sentence to understand" the work.
*
Bordeaux House
Y2K
Casa Wenner
Casa Flick I
Casa Flick II
Ascot Residence
Casa Sighvatsson
Vincent Gallo Apartment
Also look at Prada San Francisco Epicenter and Whitney Museum Extension.
for genius, it takes some effort for the public to understands
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlceQ7GLsOs
OK, i will try to do "Bordeaux House" next week.
fondue - intentionally, it's not exactly a humerous statement but not exactly serious either.
understand its project
my precioussssss
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.