An unexpected but gorgeous picture of Zaha showed up on my favorite non-architect website today. I love that she's getting respect by other communities. And she looks freaking great in this picture. Someone here on Archinect once said her sheer will-to-power is sexy, and I totally agree.
Awesome she is by her consistent and beautiful work that reaches other fields of design and is one of those very influential and ahead of her time. Her picture is very empowering.
It's kind of funny how the arch community is like the indy music scene in the 90's. Once a certain archs work is accepted by the general public, it's gross to you all. This pseudo-insider/outsider rationale is so transparent. Stop the self loathing.
I somehow lost interest in her work after attending her lecture a few years ago. The sad thing is, it became clear there's nothing there behind the brilliant graphic style, especially in the large city scale projects.
"It's kind of funny how the arch community is like the indy music scene in the 90's. Once a certain archs work is accepted by the general public, it's gross to you all. This pseudo-insider/outsider rationale is so transparent. Stop the self loathing."
Actually it's more like one a certain architects work starts becoming a parody of their portfolio it becomes gross to us all. I'm sorry but everything Patrick Schumacher... I mean Zaha has produced in the last several years all looks like the same project, remelted to fit on whatever UAE site they are "masterplanning" now.
Could it be that at some point in an architects long and (arguably) successful career they've made a choice to carry through an overriding philosophy and agenda? Perhaps that is why we think all of Zahas/Gehry's/whomevers work looks the same? perhaps theres a point when you stop questioning and start proselytizing?
Some of us have been following them since before their super fame, before Bilbao, back to Vitra, etc., etc.
I am quite happy that they've managed to become such celebrities and actually get very large projects built. To me, this is about the most optimistic view of the profession - that you can be successful maintaining your own vision, without compromise.
As for things looking the same, if you look at any successful architect (or artist) in a particular period of time and you'll see that similar ideas and methodologies pervaded at that time.
It just depends on how much got built at that moment in time.
We'll see, Gehry has had a difficult time moving past his signature solutions, as did/does Meier and many others. Hard to argue with success and a good pay check (I always hope for another revolution, but most artists can only recreate their successful solutions so many times, not to mention keeping a client happy).
Zaha is just doing her work, not trying to make herself something she isn't. She succeeds in the way she wants to define herself. She is building more buildings and is being sought after more than ever! Her office is very busy right now building extraordinary work on her terms. This is how I define success!
I agree with o7o, she's made an amazing career doing what she wants and now she's getting paid to do it. The handful of architects, once termed (or lumped together) as deconstruvists, have forever changed architecture.
diabase I have to say I hesitated to use the title from the other website - "Style By Design" - because I recall a comment you made here (years ago!) on a thread about firms names saying that hate that phrase "_____ By Design". Sorry, and I agree it's annoying.
I don't mean to come off as a hard ass, I'm not the type that teaches. Read books on philosophy in the meantime, and practice practice.
good luck to you
Design is the opposite of arbitrary, actually; by definition design is intentional, no?
DisplacedA I wish you'd rise to the challenge and explain yourself. I respect Zaha's work but where I have problems with it is when it misses the mark in construction technique. Is that what you mean?
Or are you tossing irresponsible criticisms while shrugging your shoulders and suggesting we all should "figure it out" via watching football?
well said DS. I think all of us need to contribute constructively and intellectually and to substantiate what we say. Particularly if we choose to raise debate. Everybody has opinions but this is the kind of group that demands explanation of alternative thinking.
What I say is not a criticism, but simply a fact. We all know that currently the state of affairs in architecture is chaos. Why would any people on this website want to hear what I have to say? They know the answer to everything don't they? They have been indoctrinated, baptized in college to think that the word "design" is holy. In nature there is no Arbitrariness, just as in the Building Art. Study Nature, its all around you. That's just a small sample of what I mean. You must all unlearn what you learned. You challenge me to teach in a website discussion thread what I mean? You should challenge yourselves to learn from nature. It must be taught to young people in the profession, because that is when they are corrupted. I made myself clear I do not teach.
It is interesting to note that at my last office the people watching ESPN were not laid off. Funny video Donna, I am re reading Kant at the moment, and some Erwin Schrodinger.
I should say is interesting to note that wherever i go work people learn from me, I guess I do teach by doing. Some of my friends have suggested I write a book. What I feel is that what I have to say though, has already been some great people who wrote great books, it would be kind of like re iterating work.Maybe one day.
I think that there is one important thing when you make statements about so-called 'facts' - accountability.
And thats one thing that Zaha and other architects who are largely responsbile for buiding works [in the Starchitect sense or in regular architecture] possess.
To discount an architect on the basis of aesthetics - as if this is a fundamental flaw that negates any other aspect- is churlish. In fact, Zaha's work, just like any other architects, conforms to the same natural laws. What you are suggesting is that speculation is morally inferior to simulation. You cant have one without the other, and they are equal becasue nature if nothing else, is a speculator.
To hold up nature as an archetype for instruction and imitation is also a bit shallow and silly. As humans, we have choices in terms of our actions and deeds - we have the ability to create and mold things to our will within known physical constraints.
Nature appears permanent only due to the fact that a vast process of experimentation and repetition has occured and led to an illusion of stability. This stability is contingent on environmental forces, which change over time.
The architecture profession is in a kind of chaos - so the way out is homogenity? I dont think so.
DA, You sound like a pompous life sized prick. You've been asked by several people on several occasions to englighten the archinect community on what it is that makes you so special. Instead, you've chosen to preach more contemptuous bullshit and given some shaolin monk crap about unlearning the things learned. Do I look like a fucking grasshopper to you?
How about borrowing some balls from someone and answer the fucking questions.
Let's start with this statement:
one word describes zahas work Arbitrary
Next:
We all know that currently the state of affairs in architecture is chaos.
And another:
In nature there is no Arbitrariness, just as in the Building Art. Study Nature, its all around you. That's just a small sample of what I mean.
DA is typical of a certain, reasonably common, type that believes that they have reached a kind of adept status, and treat others that have a more of an experimental and curious approach with contempt.
Just another one, we have had them here before. Nothing new here. Most likely of little value. Move on.
I know that the truth about your favorite architect must hurt.
What is happening now in architecture is that we have regressed back to a warped form of the Baeux Art architecture.
To say that contemporary architects are successors to the greatest architects, simply because they are the current starchitects is just plain wrong.
rem, zaha, gehry, Eisenmen, all the rest i have to respect that they are their own boss and have found success, but lets just say they are Contemporary architects.
Did you all become architects to become groupies or are you going to someday wake up and find your own way?
Zaha the Awesome: Style by Design
An unexpected but gorgeous picture of Zaha showed up on my favorite non-architect website today. I love that she's getting respect by other communities. And she looks freaking great in this picture. Someone here on Archinect once said her sheer will-to-power is sexy, and I totally agree.
Awesome she is by her consistent and beautiful work that reaches other fields of design and is one of those very influential and ahead of her time. Her picture is very empowering.
her work is gross
I think I have an awful taste then…I go with that…that’s fine.
but what does the HGTV title say about the timeliness of her work?
what has been seen can't be unseen
http://jezebel.com/5560926/style-by-design
nope she's rad. her El Croquis totally sealed the deal for me. the naysayers oughta check her details
you people are certifiable
LOL mespellwrong!
The renders published in GA Document, last time she was in it, were so rich, in a restrained sort of way. I was impressed. . .
. . .oh yeah, and not at all like her personal graphic style !
It's kind of funny how the arch community is like the indy music scene in the 90's. Once a certain archs work is accepted by the general public, it's gross to you all. This pseudo-insider/outsider rationale is so transparent. Stop the self loathing.
I somehow lost interest in her work after attending her lecture a few years ago. The sad thing is, it became clear there's nothing there behind the brilliant graphic style, especially in the large city scale projects.
"It's kind of funny how the arch community is like the indy music scene in the 90's. Once a certain archs work is accepted by the general public, it's gross to you all. This pseudo-insider/outsider rationale is so transparent. Stop the self loathing."
Actually it's more like one a certain architects work starts becoming a parody of their portfolio it becomes gross to us all. I'm sorry but everything Patrick Schumacher... I mean Zaha has produced in the last several years all looks like the same project, remelted to fit on whatever UAE site they are "masterplanning" now.
I heard a story about a Zaha lecture where she unloaded on this poor slide projectionist for having some equipment malfunction.
Cherith-
Could it be that at some point in an architects long and (arguably) successful career they've made a choice to carry through an overriding philosophy and agenda? Perhaps that is why we think all of Zahas/Gehry's/whomevers work looks the same? perhaps theres a point when you stop questioning and start proselytizing?
Some of us have been following them since before their super fame, before Bilbao, back to Vitra, etc., etc.
I am quite happy that they've managed to become such celebrities and actually get very large projects built. To me, this is about the most optimistic view of the profession - that you can be successful maintaining your own vision, without compromise.
As for things looking the same, if you look at any successful architect (or artist) in a particular period of time and you'll see that similar ideas and methodologies pervaded at that time.
It just depends on how much got built at that moment in time.
We'll see, Gehry has had a difficult time moving past his signature solutions, as did/does Meier and many others. Hard to argue with success and a good pay check (I always hope for another revolution, but most artists can only recreate their successful solutions so many times, not to mention keeping a client happy).
zaha is not awsome
Here is my equation:
Zaha is not awesome if building is equivalent to image.
I've only experienced one (but three separate visits) of Zaha's buildings, and IT is TOTALLY awesome, which makes her moreso.
Zaha is just doing her work, not trying to make herself something she isn't. She succeeds in the way she wants to define herself. She is building more buildings and is being sought after more than ever! Her office is very busy right now building extraordinary work on her terms. This is how I define success!
aesthetic speculation
DisplacedArchitect, I'm just curious, who in your opinion isn't an aesthetic speculator?
I agree with o7o, she's made an amazing career doing what she wants and now she's getting paid to do it. The handful of architects, once termed (or lumped together) as deconstruvists, have forever changed architecture.
Respect where it is due.
ice cream
one word describes zahas work Arbitrary.
all design is arbitrary
the building art is not arbitrary.
Therefore, Zaha's work is not arbitrary. Well done on contradicting yourself.
diabase I have to say I hesitated to use the title from the other website - "Style By Design" - because I recall a comment you made here (years ago!) on a thread about firms names saying that hate that phrase "_____ By Design". Sorry, and I agree it's annoying.
How funny,
I was going to mention that. And yes, for some irrational reason, it still really irks.
But I forgive you anything lb.
D
No one on this website understands what is meant by "The Building Art".
it is not design, but it isn't anyone's fault that they don't know.
Yes zahas work is Arbitrary.
Please enlighten us
I don't mean to come off as a hard ass, I'm not the type that teaches. Read books on philosophy in the meantime, and practice practice.
good luck to you
Design is the opposite of arbitrary, actually; by definition design is intentional, no?
DisplacedA I wish you'd rise to the challenge and explain yourself. I respect Zaha's work but where I have problems with it is when it misses the mark in construction technique. Is that what you mean?
Or are you tossing irresponsible criticisms while shrugging your shoulders and suggesting we all should "figure it out" via watching football?
well said DS. I think all of us need to contribute constructively and intellectually and to substantiate what we say. Particularly if we choose to raise debate. Everybody has opinions but this is the kind of group that demands explanation of alternative thinking.
What I say is not a criticism, but simply a fact. We all know that currently the state of affairs in architecture is chaos. Why would any people on this website want to hear what I have to say? They know the answer to everything don't they? They have been indoctrinated, baptized in college to think that the word "design" is holy. In nature there is no Arbitrariness, just as in the Building Art. Study Nature, its all around you. That's just a small sample of what I mean. You must all unlearn what you learned. You challenge me to teach in a website discussion thread what I mean? You should challenge yourselves to learn from nature. It must be taught to young people in the profession, because that is when they are corrupted. I made myself clear I do not teach.
It is interesting to note that at my last office the people watching ESPN were not laid off. Funny video Donna, I am re reading Kant at the moment, and some Erwin Schrodinger.
I should say is interesting to note that wherever i go work people learn from me, I guess I do teach by doing. Some of my friends have suggested I write a book. What I feel is that what I have to say though, has already been some great people who wrote great books, it would be kind of like re iterating work.Maybe one day.
ps. I don"t watch football
"What I say is not a criticism, but simply a fact."
Fact. Bears eat Beets. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.
This isn't a fact, this is an opinion, and not a very clearly elucidated one.
LOL Thom!
Zaha > BIG
I SAID IT.
DA,
I think that there is one important thing when you make statements about so-called 'facts' - accountability.
And thats one thing that Zaha and other architects who are largely responsbile for buiding works [in the Starchitect sense or in regular architecture] possess.
To discount an architect on the basis of aesthetics - as if this is a fundamental flaw that negates any other aspect- is churlish. In fact, Zaha's work, just like any other architects, conforms to the same natural laws. What you are suggesting is that speculation is morally inferior to simulation. You cant have one without the other, and they are equal becasue nature if nothing else, is a speculator.
To hold up nature as an archetype for instruction and imitation is also a bit shallow and silly. As humans, we have choices in terms of our actions and deeds - we have the ability to create and mold things to our will within known physical constraints.
Nature appears permanent only due to the fact that a vast process of experimentation and repetition has occured and led to an illusion of stability. This stability is contingent on environmental forces, which change over time.
The architecture profession is in a kind of chaos - so the way out is homogenity? I dont think so.
spoken like an ignoramus.
DA, don't be too hard on yourself
DA, You sound like a pompous life sized prick. You've been asked by several people on several occasions to englighten the archinect community on what it is that makes you so special. Instead, you've chosen to preach more contemptuous bullshit and given some shaolin monk crap about unlearning the things learned. Do I look like a fucking grasshopper to you?
How about borrowing some balls from someone and answer the fucking questions.
Let's start with this statement:
one word describes zahas work Arbitrary
Next:
We all know that currently the state of affairs in architecture is chaos.
And another:
In nature there is no Arbitrariness, just as in the Building Art. Study Nature, its all around you. That's just a small sample of what I mean.
Your turn teacher.
I refuse to teach any of you. go read architecture record or something continue your degeneracy.
DA is typical of a certain, reasonably common, type that believes that they have reached a kind of adept status, and treat others that have a more of an experimental and curious approach with contempt.
Just another one, we have had them here before. Nothing new here. Most likely of little value. Move on.
I can't figure out how big, as an insult, a "pompous life-sized prick" is supposed to be.
But I enjoyed your post, Post Nazi!
- me after, bruce mau, after john cage...one mis-quoting the other.
I know that the truth about your favorite architect must hurt.
What is happening now in architecture is that we have regressed back to a warped form of the Baeux Art architecture.
To say that contemporary architects are successors to the greatest architects, simply because they are the current starchitects is just plain wrong.
rem, zaha, gehry, Eisenmen, all the rest i have to respect that they are their own boss and have found success, but lets just say they are Contemporary architects.
Did you all become architects to become groupies or are you going to someday wake up and find your own way?
my favorite architect's been dead for 9 years.
finding your own way is no less arbitrary than follow behind the path laid on the ground.
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.