What is the difference between aura and the auratic and Starchitects? Someone might say the latter are revolting while the former phenomena was not revolting in its time. Is it reducability to economics, to advertising, or was there never any real auratic?
Or, perhaps there is a basic answer that the better informed can lay down for me. Thanks
chigurh
Nov 3, 15 7:05 pm
holy shit.
I skipped around that video to a few different speakers - bunch of mumble mouths struggling through (reading) essays laden with archispeak - i.e. total bullshit. Please take a fucking public speaking course. If Harvard is any indication of the best and brightest - this profession is dead.
Carrera
Nov 3, 15 7:48 pm
When an architect says these words in describing architecture - “Rarely mentioned and rarely understood in design mêlées today is the profound basis served by the field concept from electromagnetism…..in the elaboration of thermodynamic principals…..” you can then be sure that he has his head completely and squarely up his ass.
“Harvard takes perfectly good plums as students, and turns them into prunes.” - Frank Lloyd Wright
Peter Normand
Nov 4, 15 3:42 pm
Come down from the ivory towers folks, or else the world will deem you irrelevant.
This is the danger of not having licensed and currently or formerly practicing architects in-charge of architecture schools.
How much does it cost to attend this fine institution that these learned people dream up this stuff?
chigurh
Nov 4, 15 4:08 pm
Even if you have decided to become a professional educator get some fucking gusto. Engage, be interesting, care about what you are saying and how it is delivered. Try to become the best you are at what you have chosen to do. Watching these deadpan saps reading through their dribble is pure torture. Reflects poorly on the institution, trickle down to the profession. Hope potential clients don't ever come across this bullshit - only confirms the public's opinion that we are a bunch of useless ninnies specializing in jerking off.
curtkram
Nov 4, 15 4:26 pm
i didn't watch or listen to the link. that's something that is probably just not going to happen.
however, if we take this statement on it's own
in the elaboration of thermodynamic principals
sure it's a lot of syllables. maybe that's the goal. sure it's science envy. could be that's what they're after. aside from that, thermodynamic principals are a real thing, and they're important. remember folks, gravity isn't just a good idea, it's the law.
so, for those that sat through the context of that statement, are they simply saying that a building that isn't moving will continue to not move unless it's knocked down? imho, a building that doesn't fall down is a good thing and i applaud these harvard people for encouraging architects to design buildings that are not falling down.
Volunteer
Nov 4, 15 5:36 pm
"in the elaboration of thermodynamic principals" Maybe a section on demolition experts? Or else on the Richard Meier glass box epic courthouse fail in Phoenix that cannot be air-conditioned?
force structure
Nov 4, 15 8:00 pm
Elucidating to see the incredibly-vibrant opposition to ‘HSD-talk.’
I think, against the notion clients don’t want to hear it, HSD-regular Jacques Herzog is eking out a living in the field. The Frank Lloyd Wright comment is pertinent. It seems that that is part of the issue they are discussing in the talk. Because the concern is that it’s as though the developed or ‘elaborated’ methods, ‘thermodynamic principle’-based technologies included, new possibilities in computer design and so on, seem to be guiding them more uniformly and more powerfully than they can handle. Loss of human expression? Thanks
Nam Henderson
Nov 4, 15 10:10 pm
I thought Bélanger seemed to acquit himself well.
Peter Normand
Nov 5, 15 8:35 am
Also noteworthy is the almost empty room they are in look at all of the empty chairs! Must have a studio deadline.
x-jla
Nov 5, 15 10:04 am
I recently visited a robotics lab...Made arch studios look like a bunch of pre-schoolers playing with their doodie.
toasteroven
Nov 6, 15 10:47 pm
no more aura... he's being nostalgic...
If we're talking aura, there is definitely something exciting happening right now in transportation planning and mobility... what "mobility" will look like in the near future is going to change rapidly, and it's imperative that people in architectural academia start to explore what this means.
They're still talking about these vague systems/organization/ecologies... vast urban networks - we were talking about the same thing 10 years ago... yes - it's important to understand that systems change... and yet they've failed to engage in the growing protest movement that is currently fighting to reclaim our public ways.
in terms of computation - I'm going to draw a parallel. This is the fundamental problem with traffic engineers - they've built their entire profession around improving level of service for cars, that they've completely neglected what it's like to cross the fucking street by foot. You can collect a lot of data on behavior, movement, "flows," environmental performance, etc...- perfect all of your outcomes based on these models... but you neglect one group and then you inadvertently make things shitty for everyone. Architects cannot become like traffic engineers.
'There is no more aura in anything that is happening for more than twenty years'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRRYDzNg8hA time frame: circa 2;21;30
What is the difference between aura and the auratic and Starchitects? Someone might say the latter are revolting while the former phenomena was not revolting in its time. Is it reducability to economics, to advertising, or was there never any real auratic?
Or, perhaps there is a basic answer that the better informed can lay down for me. Thanks
holy shit.
I skipped around that video to a few different speakers - bunch of mumble mouths struggling through (reading) essays laden with archispeak - i.e. total bullshit. Please take a fucking public speaking course. If Harvard is any indication of the best and brightest - this profession is dead.
When an architect says these words in describing architecture - “Rarely mentioned and rarely understood in design mêlées today is the profound basis served by the field concept from electromagnetism…..in the elaboration of thermodynamic principals…..” you can then be sure that he has his head completely and squarely up his ass.
“Harvard takes perfectly good plums as students, and turns them into prunes.” - Frank Lloyd Wright
Come down from the ivory towers folks, or else the world will deem you irrelevant.
This is the danger of not having licensed and currently or formerly practicing architects in-charge of architecture schools.
How much does it cost to attend this fine institution that these learned people dream up this stuff?
Even if you have decided to become a professional educator get some fucking gusto. Engage, be interesting, care about what you are saying and how it is delivered. Try to become the best you are at what you have chosen to do. Watching these deadpan saps reading through their dribble is pure torture. Reflects poorly on the institution, trickle down to the profession. Hope potential clients don't ever come across this bullshit - only confirms the public's opinion that we are a bunch of useless ninnies specializing in jerking off.
i didn't watch or listen to the link. that's something that is probably just not going to happen.
however, if we take this statement on it's own
in the elaboration of thermodynamic principals
sure it's a lot of syllables. maybe that's the goal. sure it's science envy. could be that's what they're after. aside from that, thermodynamic principals are a real thing, and they're important. remember folks, gravity isn't just a good idea, it's the law.
so, for those that sat through the context of that statement, are they simply saying that a building that isn't moving will continue to not move unless it's knocked down? imho, a building that doesn't fall down is a good thing and i applaud these harvard people for encouraging architects to design buildings that are not falling down.
"in the elaboration of thermodynamic principals" Maybe a section on demolition experts? Or else on the Richard Meier glass box epic courthouse fail in Phoenix that cannot be air-conditioned?
Elucidating to see the incredibly-vibrant opposition to ‘HSD-talk.’
I think, against the notion clients don’t want to hear it, HSD-regular Jacques Herzog is eking out a living in the field. The Frank Lloyd Wright comment is pertinent. It seems that that is part of the issue they are discussing in the talk. Because the concern is that it’s as though the developed or ‘elaborated’ methods, ‘thermodynamic principle’-based technologies included, new possibilities in computer design and so on, seem to be guiding them more uniformly and more powerfully than they can handle. Loss of human expression? Thanks
I thought Bélanger seemed to acquit himself well.
Also noteworthy is the almost empty room they are in look at all of the empty chairs! Must have a studio deadline.
I recently visited a robotics lab...Made arch studios look like a bunch of pre-schoolers playing with their doodie.
no more aura... he's being nostalgic...
If we're talking aura, there is definitely something exciting happening right now in transportation planning and mobility... what "mobility" will look like in the near future is going to change rapidly, and it's imperative that people in architectural academia start to explore what this means.
They're still talking about these vague systems/organization/ecologies... vast urban networks - we were talking about the same thing 10 years ago... yes - it's important to understand that systems change... and yet they've failed to engage in the growing protest movement that is currently fighting to reclaim our public ways.
in terms of computation - I'm going to draw a parallel. This is the fundamental problem with traffic engineers - they've built their entire profession around improving level of service for cars, that they've completely neglected what it's like to cross the fucking street by foot. You can collect a lot of data on behavior, movement, "flows," environmental performance, etc...- perfect all of your outcomes based on these models... but you neglect one group and then you inadvertently make things shitty for everyone. Architects cannot become like traffic engineers.