Fuck i meant:

if you look at a few more images of that project, it seems more likely that they've been mining ideas directly from superstudio's continuous monument. koolhaas was interested; hosted a lecture at the AA in the 70's if I recall correctly

and his graduation project also has a very strong Superstudio-feel...

It's not a secret. He even invited Adolfo Natalini from Superstudio to form some kind of research institute together back in 70-s before the OMA had been established.

Sorry - should have been more specific in my question... I'm aware of the connection between Koolhaas and Superstudio but I'm actually more interested in the Corb image - ie, what project, context, career stage etc.

Anyone have any info?

switched at birth

Bjarke Ingels calls Rem "Le Corbusier of our time" )

What does that make Bjarke Ingels? Wasn't he a cad coordinator in REM's office?

I call him R Dog; we're like this {{

I've never thought of Rem as pastiche - more of an active, deliberate use of quotations to smack the utopian image of modernism against its own hard facts

(except when he's just being a snarky ass like that building that rotates . . . I forget the name)

but your first image isn't Le Corbusier (as I imagine many suspected). . .

Some lazy googling gives us this:

HOTEL, GAZO, MALTA ISLAND, 1967, by JULIO LAFUENTE

http://www.vulgare.net/htel-gozo-ile-de-malte-1967/
though seems to circles back around to the blogger


and also these, to clear up our blogger's casual attributions:

http://francescosomaini.org/category/opere/1966-1975/

http://dprbcn.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/brief-post-l%E2%80%99oeuf-by-andre-bruyere/

http://archiwatch.wordpress.com/2006/05/30/julio-lafuente-un-architetto-spagnolo/

@Cacaphonous Approval Bot : "I've never thought of Rem as pastiche - more of an active, deliberate use of quotations to smack the utopian image of modernism against its own hard facts."

The Video Bus Stop is probably the clearest example of it, with the Mies-sampling...

comparing Rem to Le Corbusier, or Mies? what the heck is going on am i in the bizarro world? Rem's just an aesthetic speculator.

@user - I think most people (though obviously not all) use the word pastiche to hint at negative judgement - like "couldn't think of your own idea?' or "couldn't make up your mind?"

nor do I think that, for most people sampling = pastiche

yeah, clearly the bus stop (or any other randomly picked OMA project)is Mies sampling.

But I see it as a use, like sampling, not like pastiche.

@Cacaphonous Approval Bot: I meant that comment to agree to your comment.

Has anyone read Delirious New York? In that book, Koolhaus depicts Corbu as tyrannical.

I would have to disagree that Rem is an aesthetic spectacular. He is very good at planning unique spaces and diagramming interesting building programs.

@user -

oh.

woot woot!

rem is just another bad architect, but if you think he is good it should show you how bad the state of architecture is. Nothing but aesthetic speculators around.

That's right. I think there should be more architects like SOM or Cesar Pelli, because they really make beautiful buildings. I'm not sure if you were aware, but clients hire architects to design buildings that are aesthetically pleasing, properly planned and technically sound (not necessarily in that order). So, are architects supposed to consider aesthetics? Corbu, Frank Lloyd Wright, Mies Van Der Rohe, Walter Gropius or every other modern architect cared about aesthetics quite a bit. So what are you talking about?

ronin you know what i mean. you like Rem so obviously we will never agree, because your part of the problem.

ps. comparing rem to all those great architects is absolutely crazy.
Rem is an aesthetic speculator the end.

DisplacedArchitect:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. You may personally feel that Rem's work doesn't speak to you or isn't meaningful to you.

However, if you look somewhat impartially at his role in contemporary architecture, you'll see that he is the inheritor of the legacy of Le Corbusier and Mies, simply in terms of his influence (we can debate endlessly the quality of his work, just as both Mies and Corb still have their detractors.)

1. Rem is widely published.
2. He has published a number of books that have changed how we think about architecture: SMLXL, Delirious New York, the Harvard Guides.
3. He has written a number of essays that are widely quoted, disseminated, and sampled: "The Generic City", "What Ever Happened to Urbanism?", "Junkspace", etc.
4. He has created works at a variety of scales that are widely published and appreciated, from the Villa Dall'Ava to CCTV to SPL to the Rotterdam Kunsthal.
5. He has created polemical theoretical works that are regarded as brash and innovative, from his thesis at the AA to his plan for Paris, etc.
6. He has created a kind of "school" of former employees who have established respected firms working in a Koolhaasian vein. These are too numerous to mention completely, but: MVRDV, BIG, FOA, REX, WORKac, etc.
7. Architecture is different because of Rem's influence.

The only other living architects who you might argue have had that kind of global, broad influence are Frank Gehry and Peter Eisenman. But: Frank Gehry is only about the work, he has no theoretical project that can extend his influence beyond the work. Whereas Peter Eisenman has no real work (his slim portfolio of built projects are generally stucco and were already ruins when they were built.) Besides, Eisenman's influence seems to have been fully eclipsed. He is at the periphery of architectural discourse now, almost a forgotten figure.

ps. comparing rem to all those great architects is absolutely crazy.
Rem is an aesthetic speculator the end.

I know that the truth about your favorite architect must hurt. (rem k.)

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.



There are no worthy successors to Corbusier or Mies at the moment sorry.

DA, this sounds exactly like the crap that you shouted about Zaha in the other post.....get another record, or come up with something more intelligent to argue.

Thats the problem with you contemporary architects you think you can fix what doesnt need fixing, you want to make something intelligent more intelligent.

Why do you need to hear a different way for me to explain to you that rem is just another contemporary architect?

ps. I am not shouting. On the contrary your hero Rem is shouting for attention.

We are all "contemporary" architects in the sense that we are practicing within and related to our time. I believe your issue lies with "Modernism" which is historically no longer contemporary.

...and on the contrary, I'm not defending Rem or Zaha, but asking that if there is a valid criticism, make it. Don't just dismiss and berate others on the post with one line commente.

is it really me you are all arguing against or do you all just have a hard time seeing the truth? if you are a practicing architect dsal and you need me to explain things to you about why rem or zaha are what they are you need to switch professions.

Sorry about that dsal you dont have to switch professions, after all you one more architect groupy, one more whats the difference.

this is a troll, people