Its amazing how I come to know a poster by one thread. We finally start to get into a discussion based on sound philosophy, which is my favorite type, thanks Donna! DA you've brought forth some assertive comments that beg for answers and/or discussion. You got a lot of us listening but your one-off statements make you sound like you don't even know what you're talking about. What are you on this site for? You're bad energy.
DA is just another disgruntled poster, simply here to antagonize and irritate the rest of us. Every forums got one or two lingering around. Eventually they get bored and run out of things to say, then move on.
Cheers, DA, I'll buy you a shot, it'll make you feel better, I promise.
Young architects, just read trace's last comment, she is subjective, focused mainly on emotion. subjectivity is at the root of problems in today's architecture. it is not bad to be emotional, but don't let it drive you. You must be in control of yourself, control and order are sorely lacking also. we must strive and continue to fight subjectivity.
a great architect once said "about age we can not do anything we all age but Youth, is a quality and if you have it you will never lose it."
Glad you're enjoying it S n o f i a, and it's what I love most about Archinect.
DsiplacedA doesn't realize that one can "find one's own way" while still appreciating and respecting the paths others have taken. Thank heavens for differences or the built world would be a boring place!
In all honesty, Zaha is a kind of a crazy lady (read: older hipster).
Many of her projects use 'pedestrian' finishes almost meant for mass consumption. Mind you, just because a finish is pedestrian does not make it entirely cheap or run-of-the-mill.
I use pedestrian in a broader sense that many of her choices are run-of-the-mill or even rudimentary.
But she takes those boring metal panels, trite exposed concrete and even the middle-class enameled covered tidbits and creates an interesting dialogue on parametric (read:blobitecture) design of the 20th and 21st centuries.
I find that many of her works have a very outspoken and very feminine quality to them despite the fact that the very tools to create her buildings devoid them of all humanity.
In a sense, her 'femaleness' translates over into her architecture in such a way that it really defines her projects-- for better or for worse. But in a field so dominated by male (read: prototypical) thought, her design intuition is a welcome sight amongst all the hard edges, towers and projects born out of domination.
Lastly, the design of Zaha Hadid is not always about architecture as many of the things that are Zaha Hadid that individual encounter are usually far from architecture. Like Gehry, Van Der Rohe and Graves, her design concepts are found everywhere from street furniture to public art to the shelves in stores.
In a consumable category, these architects often provide a more friend and more consumable "100-calorie pack" versions of their design ideologies.
Many people, including the ivy or pseudo ivy educated liberal arts, have a hard time making a distinction between Renzo Piano, Snohetta or even Koolhaus. They can recognize these architects for their "object creations" but not necessarily their design. In that sense, architectural theory has ultimately failed the general (and even "specific") public as it does not provide any sort of consumable.
so, you like zaha. why did you go get a very expensive education so you could be a fan of another architect? maybe this website should be renamed the rem and zaha fan club website.
Another display of emotion, sorry for bursting your bubble, but what I am talking about is not just your architect hero Zaha, but against all of you Arbitrary Architects, including men. You all don't realize you have reverted back to the beaux art system.
That is a very popular cheap political shot b3po,
Considering that the discussion was referring to a very specific situation I was in, at one office I used to work at which was the only office I've seen like that, and it included men. On the contrary If you asked any of them whether I was an insecure or hateful of women they would probably laugh at you.
May I remind you people on here have asked me to come back and speak.
I see its too late for some of you, but there is some hope that some of you are open minded enough to know that the word "design" is not holy.
ps. I'm not a moral authority, (but i am a pretty good person)and I'm not running for office. So smearing me will not hurt my non existent political career.
b3tadine actually threatened to make me wear a dress in that brothel thread, pretty funny stuff, Donna and b3 and a lot of other ladies focused attacking me based on their assumption that I called every woman on the face of the planet a whore. Which is absolutely absurd.
What i did make clear was that in the brothel thread, i was talking about one office that i used to work at just that one, and also and listen closely, was talking about men being part of that environment.
hi ms purpurina hows it going. that monsters costume is what i see when i see a zaha building. A big ugly thing.
So when are you all going to find your own way and stop worshiping zaha or rem or anybody else practicing architecture today?
Why did you all go to college so you could be Revit monkeys or be your own boss?
When will you all wake up and realize history is just repeating itself, architects today are even more arbitrary than the Beaux Art architects were back in the 1800's.
No, Displaced probably feels that classicism(and the faux sort) is as arbitrary as the contemporary form makers he so derides. i think what we have here is a genuine neo-gothic revivalist, convinced of the honesty of 'nature' and 'work', railing against expressionism, the individual and the secular.
'nature' is no longer beyond the city walls as some pure, moral state to be re-connected to, the industrial revolution and now the digital age have happened, get over it.
No, you are wrong about me. First of all my feelings don't matter.
Yes the industrial revolution happened, congratulations on passing high school history. Now go read some books about a man called Frank L. Wright, and Mies, and Corbusier and other philosophers.
Yes we have digital devices, but unlike the way you promote drafting arbitrary details like Rem, I don't. My 35 dollar digital watch, mass produced because of the industrial revolution, shows more order than Rem has in shown in his entire body of work.
There is still an order to things even the industrial or digital.
Architecture is not just playing with forms. Form as a goal is wrong.
I'll leave you with a quote for you to think about mr mouse.
Building art is not the object of clever speculation. it is only understanble as a life process, it is an assertion of man's ability to assert himself and master his surroundings.
Architecture is (and design, for that matter) whatever you want it to be. Could be boring, might be exciting, but each is an expression of someone's personal taste.
The only limitations are gravity and money. Like most things in this world, there are no "rights" or "wrongs".
Personally, I like exciting buildings, ones that challenge my mind and expand my perception of space and experience. We have enough banality all around us, each day.
Finally! some of you are admitting that you do things because you simply "like" to. How bane is that? atleast now some of you admit to your being an Clever Speculators.
Please explain to me how your hero Rem who does things because he likes them, How is that not an expression of "banality"?
Either way im glad that we have defined who you are, fans of arbitrariness, fans of sculpuralism, aka fans of other architects.
Oh and mr Yorke,
The idea (or "notion" as some of you speculators would prefer to say)of form follows function it is interesting you braught that up, since most of you people only know the catch phrases associated with past good architects. I'm quoting something I read " We have gone beyond form following function, because now buildings are oulasting their use. So we must build using the principles of flexibility."
So here we stand on the battlefield of architecture face to face.
The arbitrary architects vs the ones that respect Nature.
i finally figured it out, you don't know anything about anything, you're that same trite idiot that complained about having aspergers, whining and the whole thing. you really are an asshole, no really, you are an asshole.
i don't know who asked you to come back and post your inane thoughts, but it wasn't me. so, if all it takes is for someone to ask you to do something, and you'll do it. let me ask this: leave, i don't like your kind here, you are harshing my mellow, and your arbitrary rantings about some pseudo-intellectualizing half brained theory is really keeping me from enjoying this tasty bud.
your two main premises are seriously flawed; Mies's proclamation of his order and aesthetic as heroic mastery of nature is sheer megalomania, although I can see why it appeals. what you seem to believe of as a set of laws to be discovered is really a reflection of the ever changing concept of self. our relationship to modernity, art and nature are not fixed.
secondly that the 'order' as imagined by the modernist masters is somehow more 'correct' than that of the contemporary architects. explain to me how Zaha has not been consistent in her shaping of her art, whether it is her early paintings or her architecture. how She has not established her own 'order'.
if you cannot see a connection between zaha's spatial and formal experimentation and Corb's processes then you are, as I suspect, only judging her work on the most shallow of aesthetic levels.
appeals to non-existent empirical orders are just like, your opinion, man.
I guess you are not up to speed as to what zaha and her partner have been trying to promote? you didnt hear her crazy partner's lecture at usc? there's a link for it somewhere on this website.
So mouse ill ask you the same question when are you going to stop hero worshiping and start your own thing? or are you going to be an architectural critic / groupy all your life?
I don't know what books you read but Mies never proclaimed that he created order, or ever claimed to be an aesthetic hero who mastered nature. You really don't know what you are talking about.
So you say that because zaha has been consistent with her forms or shapes, that it is a type of order?
I'm not judging her personally her work yes.
but all hero worship aside. Are you an arbitrary architect or are you not? answer the question? you cant have it both ways.
When will you realize zaha and all the rest are nothing more than a modern version of beaux art architects? you are all blind if you cant see that.
I'm with double o 7 - human intellect is natural. And we honestly CAN have it both ways: because we have logic, we can appreciate and respect work even if we don't "like" it.
Expressionism as a goal just like form as a goal is wrong.
That is why you arbitrary architects can't see what I'm talking about, they think it can be had both ways.
Liking or disliking has no importance.
One reason i think you all can't go back to the basics is because you don't know enough to go back to the basics. You have all been indoctrinated my education to think "design" is some holy word.
yet most of you cant even begin to detail out a brick wall.
The first step to recovery is to admit you are wrong.
On a seperate note,While you people are worshiping zaha and a whole other host of architects, The profession is being taken apart bit by bit, by the time my one year old son is my age we might have a whole host of different basterdized professions, because you arbitrary architects are weak leaders of the profession.
Well lets see what history has to say about you arbitrary architects, especially in the future when we will have consultants for just about every step of every phase in a project, in other words when the architect has lost what little influence that title has left.
Well donna by default you are saying you have intellect, well why don't you start to use it for your own self instead of using it to worship zaha?
OK, this is the end of this for me, but two things I want to make clear:
1. the comments I make towards Displaced A aren't for his benefit, but for those who are young and new to the profession and think DisA has something valuable to say. He might, but if so he's not posting it here.
2. DisA, I accused you on the brothel thread of not having emotional intelligence. That term doesn't mean what you think it means. What you don't display here is any nuance of thought, any ability to grasp that conflicting attitudes can co-exist and even reinforce one another. I would argue that in successful architecture there has to be conflict, and the architect has to work it out as well as possible both in individual projects and in their own projects in the context of the built world.
I don't "worship" Zaha, I even criticized her work here. But I can respect and appreciate the amazing work she, and every other architect, does while simultaneously pointing to its flaws. What you refer to as "worship" by everyone is actually critical engagement, something all architects need to be able to do.
I would add a number three to DS's list for the impressionable audience. Assumptions made about intellect, experience, abilities made on this site about individuals, (most of us are totally anonymous!), does not qualify as an argument. It comes across as being somehow desperate or in need of simply making a spectacle to get a cheap reaction. The best way to deal with these posters is to simply ignore them. Any reaction is a validation of the intellectual contribution. When making art, the artist typically doesn't care what the reaction is, only that there is a reaction.
Learn philosophy and look to nature all you arbitrary Zaha worshipers! Admit you are wrong! Forget all of you have learned! You are all blind and know nothing useful!
And clearly you all worship Zaha or else why would you take exception to my commands?!
I dare you to detail a brick wall! You foools.
You are either with us or against us, on the great battlefield of architecture. Face to face. SOUL 2 SOUL.
Zaha the Awesome: Style by Design
Its amazing how I come to know a poster by one thread. We finally start to get into a discussion based on sound philosophy, which is my favorite type, thanks Donna! DA you've brought forth some assertive comments that beg for answers and/or discussion. You got a lot of us listening but your one-off statements make you sound like you don't even know what you're talking about. What are you on this site for? You're bad energy.
b3tadine
to be a great architect you have to be dead
DA is just another disgruntled poster, simply here to antagonize and irritate the rest of us. Every forums got one or two lingering around. Eventually they get bored and run out of things to say, then move on.
Cheers, DA, I'll buy you a shot, it'll make you feel better, I promise.
Young architects, just read trace's last comment, she is subjective, focused mainly on emotion. subjectivity is at the root of problems in today's architecture. it is not bad to be emotional, but don't let it drive you. You must be in control of yourself, control and order are sorely lacking also. we must strive and continue to fight subjectivity.
a great architect once said "about age we can not do anything we all age but Youth, is a quality and if you have it you will never lose it."
Glad you're enjoying it S n o f i a, and it's what I love most about Archinect.
DsiplacedA doesn't realize that one can "find one's own way" while still appreciating and respecting the paths others have taken. Thank heavens for differences or the built world would be a boring place!
DA, what are you Yoda? "Control, CONTROL, you must learn CONTROL!"
as for subjectivity: you show me an objective truth and i'll show you two things, a damn fool and a damned liar.
If you would like to think of me as a character in a 1970's movie in order for you to listen to reason so be it.
The dark side I sense in you.
you movie fans, .. kind of reminds me how parents have to add a little choco, to milk for the kiddies to drink it.
I like Zaha for one 'major' reason--
She doesn't pretend to be anything she's not.
In all honesty, Zaha is a kind of a crazy lady (read: older hipster).
Many of her projects use 'pedestrian' finishes almost meant for mass consumption. Mind you, just because a finish is pedestrian does not make it entirely cheap or run-of-the-mill.
I use pedestrian in a broader sense that many of her choices are run-of-the-mill or even rudimentary.
But she takes those boring metal panels, trite exposed concrete and even the middle-class enameled covered tidbits and creates an interesting dialogue on parametric (read:blobitecture) design of the 20th and 21st centuries.
I find that many of her works have a very outspoken and very feminine quality to them despite the fact that the very tools to create her buildings devoid them of all humanity.
In a sense, her 'femaleness' translates over into her architecture in such a way that it really defines her projects-- for better or for worse. But in a field so dominated by male (read: prototypical) thought, her design intuition is a welcome sight amongst all the hard edges, towers and projects born out of domination.
Lastly, the design of Zaha Hadid is not always about architecture as many of the things that are Zaha Hadid that individual encounter are usually far from architecture. Like Gehry, Van Der Rohe and Graves, her design concepts are found everywhere from street furniture to public art to the shelves in stores.
In a consumable category, these architects often provide a more friend and more consumable "100-calorie pack" versions of their design ideologies.
Many people, including the ivy or pseudo ivy educated liberal arts, have a hard time making a distinction between Renzo Piano, Snohetta or even Koolhaus. They can recognize these architects for their "object creations" but not necessarily their design. In that sense, architectural theory has ultimately failed the general (and even "specific") public as it does not provide any sort of consumable.
so, you like zaha. why did you go get a very expensive education so you could be a fan of another architect? maybe this website should be renamed the rem and zaha fan club website.
I didn't get an education that was particularly expensive or particularly "shiny."
I didn't even get a degree in architecture! LIBERAL ARTS4LYFE
there is nothing wrong with a Liberal Arts degree. sorry for mistaking you for an architect who is a groupy of other architects.
DisplacedArchitect
Total Entries: 1
Total Comments: 387
04/21/10 11:54
anyone else working in an office full of obviously good looking young women who are not even close to being qualified to work in architecture?
let's remember just who the displaced dipshit is, he's the one who can't handle being around women...this all makes sense now. carry on.
Another display of emotion, sorry for bursting your bubble, but what I am talking about is not just your architect hero Zaha, but against all of you Arbitrary Architects, including men. You all don't realize you have reverted back to the beaux art system.
That is a very popular cheap political shot b3po,
Considering that the discussion was referring to a very specific situation I was in, at one office I used to work at which was the only office I've seen like that, and it included men. On the contrary If you asked any of them whether I was an insecure or hateful of women they would probably laugh at you.
May I remind you people on here have asked me to come back and speak.
I see its too late for some of you, but there is some hope that some of you are open minded enough to know that the word "design" is not holy.
ps. I'm not a moral authority, (but i am a pretty good person)and I'm not running for office. So smearing me will not hurt my non existent political career.
b3tadine actually threatened to make me wear a dress in that brothel thread, pretty funny stuff, Donna and b3 and a lot of other ladies focused attacking me based on their assumption that I called every woman on the face of the planet a whore. Which is absolutely absurd.
What i did make clear was that in the brothel thread, i was talking about one office that i used to work at just that one, and also and listen closely, was talking about men being part of that environment.
have a good day.
hi ms purpurina hows it going. that monsters costume is what i see when i see a zaha building. A big ugly thing.
So when are you all going to find your own way and stop worshiping zaha or rem or anybody else practicing architecture today?
Why did you all go to college so you could be Revit monkeys or be your own boss?
When will you all wake up and realize history is just repeating itself, architects today are even more arbitrary than the Beaux Art architects were back in the 1800's.
Ruskins back!
Ran into this building today: Nature!
(Seriously, I did almost "run into" it, I was laughing so hysterically I could hardly control the steering wheel.)
so, donna you think this is a building describing what I was talking about? you're seriously misguided if you do.
No, Displaced probably feels that classicism(and the faux sort) is as arbitrary as the contemporary form makers he so derides. i think what we have here is a genuine neo-gothic revivalist, convinced of the honesty of 'nature' and 'work', railing against expressionism, the individual and the secular.
'nature' is no longer beyond the city walls as some pure, moral state to be re-connected to, the industrial revolution and now the digital age have happened, get over it.
No, you are wrong about me. First of all my feelings don't matter.
Yes the industrial revolution happened, congratulations on passing high school history. Now go read some books about a man called Frank L. Wright, and Mies, and Corbusier and other philosophers.
Yes we have digital devices, but unlike the way you promote drafting arbitrary details like Rem, I don't. My 35 dollar digital watch, mass produced because of the industrial revolution, shows more order than Rem has in shown in his entire body of work.
There is still an order to things even the industrial or digital.
Architecture is not just playing with forms. Form as a goal is wrong.
I'll leave you with a quote for you to think about mr mouse.
Building art is not the object of clever speculation. it is only understanble as a life process, it is an assertion of man's ability to assert himself and master his surroundings.
Every time I hear discussion of Hadid and Koolhaas there is always the argument of form over function vs. function over form.
Some like it sculptural.
Some like the classic roots molded with material technology to serve a "philosopher's" rules and orders.
Architecture is (and design, for that matter) whatever you want it to be. Could be boring, might be exciting, but each is an expression of someone's personal taste.
The only limitations are gravity and money. Like most things in this world, there are no "rights" or "wrongs".
Personally, I like exciting buildings, ones that challenge my mind and expand my perception of space and experience. We have enough banality all around us, each day.
Finally! some of you are admitting that you do things because you simply "like" to. How bane is that? atleast now some of you admit to your being an Clever Speculators.
Please explain to me how your hero Rem who does things because he likes them, How is that not an expression of "banality"?
Either way im glad that we have defined who you are, fans of arbitrariness, fans of sculpuralism, aka fans of other architects.
Oh and mr Yorke,
The idea (or "notion" as some of you speculators would prefer to say)of form follows function it is interesting you braught that up, since most of you people only know the catch phrases associated with past good architects. I'm quoting something I read " We have gone beyond form following function, because now buildings are oulasting their use. So we must build using the principles of flexibility."
So here we stand on the battlefield of architecture face to face.
The arbitrary architects vs the ones that respect Nature.
Expression of the human intellect is the most "natural" and human of acts.
diplaced archi-whatever, you're a shit head.
i finally figured it out, you don't know anything about anything, you're that same trite idiot that complained about having aspergers, whining and the whole thing. you really are an asshole, no really, you are an asshole.
i don't know who asked you to come back and post your inane thoughts, but it wasn't me. so, if all it takes is for someone to ask you to do something, and you'll do it. let me ask this: leave, i don't like your kind here, you are harshing my mellow, and your arbitrary rantings about some pseudo-intellectualizing half brained theory is really keeping me from enjoying this tasty bud.
bugger off twit.
What college did you go to?
i was schooled at the University of Suckemehoffe
oh, an Mies and Corb never speculated?
your two main premises are seriously flawed; Mies's proclamation of his order and aesthetic as heroic mastery of nature is sheer megalomania, although I can see why it appeals. what you seem to believe of as a set of laws to be discovered is really a reflection of the ever changing concept of self. our relationship to modernity, art and nature are not fixed.
secondly that the 'order' as imagined by the modernist masters is somehow more 'correct' than that of the contemporary architects. explain to me how Zaha has not been consistent in her shaping of her art, whether it is her early paintings or her architecture. how She has not established her own 'order'.
if you cannot see a connection between zaha's spatial and formal experimentation and Corb's processes then you are, as I suspect, only judging her work on the most shallow of aesthetic levels.
appeals to non-existent empirical orders are just like, your opinion, man.
I guess you are not up to speed as to what zaha and her partner have been trying to promote? you didnt hear her crazy partner's lecture at usc? there's a link for it somewhere on this website.
So mouse ill ask you the same question when are you going to stop hero worshiping and start your own thing? or are you going to be an architectural critic / groupy all your life?
I don't know what books you read but Mies never proclaimed that he created order, or ever claimed to be an aesthetic hero who mastered nature. You really don't know what you are talking about.
So you say that because zaha has been consistent with her forms or shapes, that it is a type of order?
I'm not judging her personally her work yes.
but all hero worship aside. Are you an arbitrary architect or are you not? answer the question? you cant have it both ways.
When will you realize zaha and all the rest are nothing more than a modern version of beaux art architects? you are all blind if you cant see that.
I'm with double o 7 - human intellect is natural. And we honestly CAN have it both ways: because we have logic, we can appreciate and respect work even if we don't "like" it.
Expressionism as a goal just like form as a goal is wrong.
That is why you arbitrary architects can't see what I'm talking about, they think it can be had both ways.
Liking or disliking has no importance.
One reason i think you all can't go back to the basics is because you don't know enough to go back to the basics. You have all been indoctrinated my education to think "design" is some holy word.
yet most of you cant even begin to detail out a brick wall.
The first step to recovery is to admit you are wrong.
On a seperate note,While you people are worshiping zaha and a whole other host of architects, The profession is being taken apart bit by bit, by the time my one year old son is my age we might have a whole host of different basterdized professions, because you arbitrary architects are weak leaders of the profession.
"yet most of you cant even begin to detail out a brick wall."
I take this as a challenge. I remove my glove and bite my thumb at thee, sire.
Its good to know that you can do it unicorn.
just curious what brick bonds have you worked with?
Well, my faves is the English cross bond and the 'diaper' bond.
Apparently DisplacedA has no intellect. Coulda guessed that ten posts back, of course, but he looooves to keep proving himself.
Well lets see what history has to say about you arbitrary architects, especially in the future when we will have consultants for just about every step of every phase in a project, in other words when the architect has lost what little influence that title has left.
Well donna by default you are saying you have intellect, well why don't you start to use it for your own self instead of using it to worship zaha?
I've never seen a thread so much in need of Drano
OK, this is the end of this for me, but two things I want to make clear:
1. the comments I make towards Displaced A aren't for his benefit, but for those who are young and new to the profession and think DisA has something valuable to say. He might, but if so he's not posting it here.
2. DisA, I accused you on the brothel thread of not having emotional intelligence. That term doesn't mean what you think it means. What you don't display here is any nuance of thought, any ability to grasp that conflicting attitudes can co-exist and even reinforce one another. I would argue that in successful architecture there has to be conflict, and the architect has to work it out as well as possible both in individual projects and in their own projects in the context of the built world.
I don't "worship" Zaha, I even criticized her work here. But I can respect and appreciate the amazing work she, and every other architect, does while simultaneously pointing to its flaws. What you refer to as "worship" by everyone is actually critical engagement, something all architects need to be able to do.
^that is the beautiful side of archinect. an ability to share insightful commentary, without the slightest bit first class twittery.
me, i just take the bait, and respond like "The Situation".
ahhhahaha!!
I love archinect! Thanks for starting the day with a smile!! Drinks all around (well, later anyway)
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
I would add a number three to DS's list for the impressionable audience. Assumptions made about intellect, experience, abilities made on this site about individuals, (most of us are totally anonymous!), does not qualify as an argument. It comes across as being somehow desperate or in need of simply making a spectacle to get a cheap reaction. The best way to deal with these posters is to simply ignore them. Any reaction is a validation of the intellectual contribution. When making art, the artist typically doesn't care what the reaction is, only that there is a reaction.
There there ... there there... sorry for picking on you arbitrary architects. carry on.
Learn philosophy and look to nature all you arbitrary Zaha worshipers! Admit you are wrong! Forget all of you have learned! You are all blind and know nothing useful!
And clearly you all worship Zaha or else why would you take exception to my commands?!
I dare you to detail a brick wall! You foools.
You are either with us or against us, on the great battlefield of architecture. Face to face. SOUL 2 SOUL.
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.