"I see architecture as almost a political work" [...]
“We are in a radically divided world” in which “architecture is not dealing with those political issues in a really sophisticated way,” [...]
“I think that both the art world and the architecture world … [are] pretty intolerant in terms of engaging” with political worlds beyond Western democracies."
— news.harvard.edu
More recent news from Rem and OMA:
21 Comments
Discussing his latest projects, Koolhaas said the outlandish design for a performing arts center in downtown Taipei was informed by the vibrancy and authenticity of street life that surrounds the site. The center, situated directly over a busy open-air night market, was inspired by a three-sectioned cooking pot used by the market’s street food vendors. Just as the three-sectioned pot allows the cook to prepare and serve three dishes at the same time, the center offers three theater spaces under one roof that can be connected when necessary.
His version of 'Zeitgeist' is to be inspired by street life and a three-sectioned cooking pot? What happened "with dealing with those political issues in a really sophisticated way,” ?
He argues for some powerful ideas. But OMA's work doesn't meet his own standard of "dealing with those political issues in a really sophisticated issue." Maybe this is true of architecture in general and its relation to theory/ideas. Maybe because so much work is post-rationalized and bears little resemblance to real or relevant meaning
I have no problem with his ideas...at all, but he's an architect, not a political journalist.
Is it really still controversial to say that architecture is "almost political work"? This is a pretty tepid and obvious statement.
The three-part cooking pot was a joke.
What are the politics of CCTV building, a repressive dictatorship's main propaganda outlet? I would think it better to simply call it another job and move on. There would be no problem beyond another stupid and ugly building, but he uses words the way shitty beaux arts architects used to dip their buildings in a bucket of ornaments. The only joke is Rem and the scam he's been running all these years.
Is the Freedom Tower political?
Your inability to answer an 'obvious' point speaks for itself
Thayer-D, How much do you actually know about the history of CCTV? I'm not an expert on it. Are you?
Considering the fact that CCTV started in 1958, do you think that government censorship has remained constant over the last 58 years or do you think control has loosened? Do you think that China is liberalizing?
Assumptions: Built form has overt political meaning, messaging, and to some, could be conceived as a political act. The architect, by legally describing this built act through drawings, models, etc....can be considered a political actor.
The critical question: Does Koolhaas/OMA make explicit statements through their work that has relevance? Is there something more subtle to their work? Koolhas seems to argue for this but I find it unconvincing......
Everybody knows what the Chinese government is today. God bless their people, but until they stop repressing them, their leaders will always be a bunch of thugs. And I'm not saying our system is perfect, but that's like saying the Democrats and Republicans are equally corrupt the way Donald Trump says as he tries to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
I'd love to think that architecture is that important politically, but history shows that every style has been used for political purposes. Modernism's zeitgeist is way past its due date. Time to bring back beauty and put a little joy back in peoples lives rather than platitudes that the person on the street will never hear or more importantly feel. That being said, there's room for every point of view as long as some consideration is given to how buildings will actually be experienced by the people who walk their child to daycare as they pass by.
It's a metaphor.
i walk my dog everyday.
this walk talk is reducing architecture to a simple visual experience that might include "feelings" as well. but this is all limited. this might not be what rem is talking about nor architecture's full usefulness.
i wasn't addressing you quondam.
I agree there's more to it than "feelings" and the satisfaction of a brief. My argument is that of priorities, not so much about limiting anyone's expressive opportunities.
The more one can communicate, the better, but beyond the patron, or along side the patron, the public's 'feelings' are paramount. It's hard to discount the feeling a place gives you when one considers how little conscious thought the majority of people expend on architecture.
Think of a partner who's perfect on paper, but you feel isolated from. How long is that going to last? Genuinly curious to hear your thoughts because I didn't mean to 'reduce' the architectural experience to any one thing.
Thayer-D,
It sounds to me like you are arguing that if an action isn't explicit about its political aims and successful in achieving those aims, then it was not a political action to begin with.
Its like in 8-ball pool, if you don't call the shot, it doesn't count.
Yes, China is still a severely oppressive society. What should the international community's reaction be? Should it isolate China? Or should it develop an interdependent relationship with China? This is part of the political context in which the 2008 Olympics took place, and in which much of the new Architecture in Beijing was produced.
Thayer-D
REM's work has always revolved around covert political signification (have you read delirious NY). Obviously it is not overt or it would never get built. If you don't see the sophisticated and covert political statement of the CCTV building then you don't truly understand Koolhaas' work. You just see a building that you assume to be gaudy and boisterous and then proceed to make quick knee-jerk criticisms. Regardless of what you think of the CCTV project, only someone who is sophisticated at political maneuvering could ever get it built.
Any type of engagement with non-Western democracies is written off, and worse, the do-good narrative has overshadowed any content or quality in architecture. However, while Koolhaas' work for China, etc are well-thought out, and even could be politically subversive, many lesser minds may take it as a license to work with whatever Dictator or oppressive government they deem ok. Every situation is different. Since we already trade with many countries like China, it's not as if anyone is implicated.
Either way, we need a new way to discuss architecture that doesn't rely so heavily on simplistic political narratives, but that doesn't mean everyone should get a pass for working for brutal regimes.
If you don't see the sophisticated and covert political statement of the CCTV building then you don't truly understand Koolhaas' work.
That's the problem with the Koolhaas type of 'conceptual' work that dominates academia and the media. You have to "get it". It's not that I'm against polemics, it's just that they shouldn't come before the actual experience of a building.
Regardless of what you think of the CCTV project, only someone who is sophisticated at political maneuvering could ever get it built.
True, but then again it's not a character fault to lack the desire to be a Machiavellian.
My concern is with the people who have to live around these monstrosities, not with those who prefer to read about them. Architecture is a sensory experience first and foremost, if your willing to humble your intellectual ambitions and listen to how people say buildings make them feel. Our whole (western) history is an essay in how buildings make one feel. Even the Chinese government has had enough of this kind of stuff.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/world/asia/china-weird-architecture.html?_r=0
Like Louis Armstrong said, if I have to explain it, I probably shouldn't play it.
In 2014, Xi Jinping criticized "weird" Architecture.
But in 2016, the government went further and issued a directive halting “oversized, xenocentric, weird”. The inclusion of xenocentric stands out to me as a acknowledgment that challenging aesthetics are, implicitly, a form of criticism from the outside world.
In other words: fuck subtext.
Its very interesting to see what Ai Weiwei, the Chinese artist and architect who collaborated with Herzog and de Meuron on the design of the Olympic stadium in Beijing, had to say about all this. In 2011, Weiwei was arrested and disappeared for over a month. Chinese authorities also imposed a 4-year travel ban on him.
Earlier this year, he spoke about this issue at the Asia Society Switzerland:
“The discussion does not benefit who is going to be profited. So authorities doesn’t like this kind of discussion — any discussion related to aesthetics. That means [conversation] about philosophy, legitimacy of power — then that’s very dangerous [to officials].”
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.