Is it possible to be both builders of the prestige spaces of capital and self-declared avant-gardists? Owen Hatherley takes a look at the fluid architecture and financial times of Zaha Hadid Architects Is it possible to be both builders of the prestige spaces of capital and self-declared avant-gardists? Owen Hatherley takes a look at the fluid architecture and financial times of Zaha Hadid Architects
Partick Schumacher is an apologist for Zaha Hadid. He correctly describes the Parametric style as re-worked Suprematist but misses the point by insisting on a stylistic dialectic.
The parametric gestures of slash, cut, rip, slice, tear and the accompanied effects of dislocation, disconnect, distance, abstraction, alienation, anxiety and such are not what i see as a model for a new architecture vocabulary. I think it is all unresolved anti-thesis without any social or environmental parameters.
More and more and again and again I prefer Glen Small's primitive biomorphic forms and ecological based resolutions instread of the so-called 'radical' symbolic dialectic of Zaha, Thom Maine, Liebskin, Tschumi, et al.
It is so proletarietCULT with emphasis on cult. Are we still trying to defeat the whites with the red wedge? Is this 90-year old vocabulary still the only acceptable language for revolutionary architecture? I think it is false, not revolutionary and not an answer.
I think you stretch it to far, Eric...
Zaha (as well as other STARchitects, you've mentioned) are just FORMalistic followers. They are not THAT deep, they don't investigate ideology/philosophy of socialist suprematism(or if you wish it's a "cult")
For Christ sake, last decade or so all these people Zaha, Libeskind, Gehry - they are just after publicity & money... They don't even care whether or not their concepts are going to be built, leave alone the ideas.
Nonetheless we have to give them a credit.
Once they were rebels. Long time ago... http://bit.ly/cRqkvI
Nov 3, 10 11:55 pm ·
·
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.
2 Comments
Why the Parametric style is wrong.
Partick Schumacher is an apologist for Zaha Hadid. He correctly describes the Parametric style as re-worked Suprematist but misses the point by insisting on a stylistic dialectic.
The parametric gestures of slash, cut, rip, slice, tear and the accompanied effects of dislocation, disconnect, distance, abstraction, alienation, anxiety and such are not what i see as a model for a new architecture vocabulary. I think it is all unresolved anti-thesis without any social or environmental parameters.
More and more and again and again I prefer Glen Small's primitive biomorphic forms and ecological based resolutions instread of the so-called 'radical' symbolic dialectic of Zaha, Thom Maine, Liebskin, Tschumi, et al.
It is so proletarietCULT with emphasis on cult. Are we still trying to defeat the whites with the red wedge? Is this 90-year old vocabulary still the only acceptable language for revolutionary architecture? I think it is false, not revolutionary and not an answer.
eric chavkin
I think you stretch it to far, Eric...
Zaha (as well as other STARchitects, you've mentioned) are just FORMalistic followers. They are not THAT deep, they don't investigate ideology/philosophy of socialist suprematism(or if you wish it's a "cult")
For Christ sake, last decade or so all these people Zaha, Libeskind, Gehry - they are just after publicity & money... They don't even care whether or not their concepts are going to be built, leave alone the ideas.
Nonetheless we have to give them a credit.
Once they were rebels. Long time ago... http://bit.ly/cRqkvI
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.