+1 FTB; viewing buildings as living processes has a lot of ground yet to cover I think, although you could say that about anything.
I recall reading an article somewhere (New York Times?) about artists (I think they were fashion designers) trying to push the boundaries in an era that fundamentally doesn't have any. For the last century or so, the avant garde seems to have had at least some element of this boundary-pushing. Have we run out of boundaries, or has boundary-pushing merely become passe? Good (or at least interesting) ideas diffuse so quickly that nothing doable really stays all that 'avant garde' for long.
Also, newness is fundamentally hard to do! Computer-based parametricism and database-oriented BIM are in a steady state of innovation now (I still think they have quite a ways to improve, even if they're not all that 'groundbreakingly new' now). However, to have them even exist, it took a long time to get the research base, computer technology, etc. up to par.
I'd like to say Bartlett, but that's only to kiss my own ass ;)
I think there is an avant-garde in architecture, but we maybe looking in the wrong direction. What the Bartlett, among other schools, got right is that it still has a critical view on technology. Environmental design and life in general have been taken over by technology (which btw is not some random concept, but really a product of our own ingenuity) to such a degree, that has already and will continue to fundamentally change they ways in which we live. With genetic engineering, the day in which our bodies will be infiltrated by technology to the very last cell are not far away. But it's not just the technology applied to our physical bodies. You also find this supersaturated application of technology in the high specialization and complex organization of our societies and economies. The real estate market, an in that sense domestic architecture, is a good example of something that was once a tactile object that has been turned into an abstract tool for wealth creation (or destruction).
In a way, diabase hits the nail on the head. Very few architects have any substantial control over the building process that takes place anywhere in the world today. It's because construction is about the movement of money, much more so than it is about any formal qualities, never mind even the discussion about whether it is the result of a digital or analog production process.
About 2 years ago, i came across a book about Superstudio. Their discussion about object fetishism and globalization seems as avant garde as anything I can see today.
England is a happening place now. like it was in 60s and 70s.
i agree that most architects have no control over building process, but one could argue that a scientific, biological approaches to the building process by architects could win back that control.
hence why i am really digging Neri Oxman nowadays.
where's the avantgarde?
architecture of biological process, is that the future?
http://vimeo.com/2618966
+1 FTB; viewing buildings as living processes has a lot of ground yet to cover I think, although you could say that about anything.
I recall reading an article somewhere (New York Times?) about artists (I think they were fashion designers) trying to push the boundaries in an era that fundamentally doesn't have any. For the last century or so, the avant garde seems to have had at least some element of this boundary-pushing. Have we run out of boundaries, or has boundary-pushing merely become passe? Good (or at least interesting) ideas diffuse so quickly that nothing doable really stays all that 'avant garde' for long.
Also, newness is fundamentally hard to do! Computer-based parametricism and database-oriented BIM are in a steady state of innovation now (I still think they have quite a ways to improve, even if they're not all that 'groundbreakingly new' now). However, to have them even exist, it took a long time to get the research base, computer technology, etc. up to par.
that reminds me,
experimental architecture can become so obscure, or worse.. just disappear and forgotten, a thankless endeavor. maybe one day.
I'd like to say Bartlett, but that's only to kiss my own ass ;)
I think there is an avant-garde in architecture, but we maybe looking in the wrong direction. What the Bartlett, among other schools, got right is that it still has a critical view on technology. Environmental design and life in general have been taken over by technology (which btw is not some random concept, but really a product of our own ingenuity) to such a degree, that has already and will continue to fundamentally change they ways in which we live. With genetic engineering, the day in which our bodies will be infiltrated by technology to the very last cell are not far away. But it's not just the technology applied to our physical bodies. You also find this supersaturated application of technology in the high specialization and complex organization of our societies and economies. The real estate market, an in that sense domestic architecture, is a good example of something that was once a tactile object that has been turned into an abstract tool for wealth creation (or destruction).
In a way, diabase hits the nail on the head. Very few architects have any substantial control over the building process that takes place anywhere in the world today. It's because construction is about the movement of money, much more so than it is about any formal qualities, never mind even the discussion about whether it is the result of a digital or analog production process.
About 2 years ago, i came across a book about Superstudio. Their discussion about object fetishism and globalization seems as avant garde as anything I can see today.
the cyborg, a-la Stelarc?
England is a happening place now. like it was in 60s and 70s.
i agree that most architects have no control over building process, but one could argue that a scientific, biological approaches to the building process by architects could win back that control.
hence why i am really digging Neri Oxman nowadays.
Arby's, roast beef sale
scarpa...dead and living at the same time.
Where is the Avantgarde?
There all blogging on archinect, no seriously think they walked out at halftime.
If everyone is [or espouses to be] the avant garde, does the avant garde even exist any more?
I want to get tattoos, to be unique. Just like everyone else.
I think formalistic plagariarism is the new futurism. Anyone can make sexy forms and call it new.
The true innovation is going on behind the surface, I believe.
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.