coop himmelblau is like a rap-rock band that is still putting out albums in 2005. did they not get the memo that deconstructivism has been filed under "bad ideas"?
yeah, but where do you place hadid, koolhaas, morphosis, and HdM then? I don't think they got that message either, and I'd place them all firmly in decon. not all of them in the same formalist position as Coop (which perhaps is dated), but still rooted firmly in the decon project. or Gerhy for that matter, where does he lay on your triquarter reading of "bad ideas?"
Koolhaas and HdeM, decon? not in my book. not even Gehry, actually - although on the surface he may appear that way.
those practices have evolved beyond a label.
though i'd say that Himmelb(l)au seem to cling to the label with fervent prideful posing.
there are lots of good ideas out there, i just dont think perpetuating the appearance of decon (without the thought, if you can call it that) in a post-derrida world is a good one.
have you ever seen Wolf speak? it is a bit like a Zaha lecture.
well, growth or expansion of a concept are the foundations of Koolhaas' praxis. and I must admit HdM are in my own personal decon category, however, I don't see how you redeem the rest, even gehry. as they have been part of the unit/object of deconstructivist thought. if the issue is Coop continuing a practice which isn't hip and perpetuates their same old formalist pragmistism then I agree with you. but I don't think that the spirit or method of the deconstructivist project is dead - it's just morphed...or perhaps evolved
if you forget the words/rationalizations (which i haven't heard, in this case), this akron addition has a very similar formal language - and appears to take the same position re: the existing building - as libeskind's r.a.m.
shocked? are you also shocked that OMA has been or is catergorized as deconstruction in some tomes of architecture? my placing HdM here has to do with their interpretation of art as a device for "investigating" architecture. maybe this is abit hokie because of the strong visual position of the objects within the decon movement. I have a harder time placing HdM in minimualism.
I thought there was another label lost somewhere called 'phenomenological architecture', that came after decon and before minimalism and that's where people put H&dM (and Holl, etc.), because of the facade skins, experimental textures, new materials, and the -apparently- higher degree of sensorial stimulation that a building or a certain space provides?
I take all these 'architiquettes' (does this word exists at all?) with a grain of salt anyway... though I think its a pretty funny way of designating works and create an architectural historic continuum... in the end, a building is just a building.
Now that PJ is pushin' up the daisies, who has enough influence to develop new labels? I never heard of any starchitect call himself this or that either..
Coop Himmelblau's conceptual process that informs their aesthetic is separate from the Decon tag, so the fact their buildings resemble what they did ten or twenty years ago is irrelevant. Their method (blind sketches) and style are unique, though I think one criticism that can be levied at them is that their work doesn't show as much evolution or change as other firms that have been mentioned. But I don't see that being related to Decon, even though they were included in MOMA's PJ show.
But I have to admit that their rooftop remodeling in Vienna is one of my favorite pieces of architecture. I'll take that any day of the week.
Aug 18, 05 12:43 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.
15 Comments
coop himmelblau is like a rap-rock band that is still putting out albums in 2005. did they not get the memo that deconstructivism has been filed under "bad ideas"?
has it?
if firms want to be "post-critical" they can't have it both ways.
sorry jj - just one mans opinion - a recent lecture by the Coop left me architecturally vacant and numb.
yeah, but where do you place hadid, koolhaas, morphosis, and HdM then? I don't think they got that message either, and I'd place them all firmly in decon. not all of them in the same formalist position as Coop (which perhaps is dated), but still rooted firmly in the decon project. or Gerhy for that matter, where does he lay on your triquarter reading of "bad ideas?"
which then begs the question what are good ideas?
Koolhaas and HdeM, decon? not in my book. not even Gehry, actually - although on the surface he may appear that way.
those practices have evolved beyond a label.
though i'd say that Himmelb(l)au seem to cling to the label with fervent prideful posing.
there are lots of good ideas out there, i just dont think perpetuating the appearance of decon (without the thought, if you can call it that) in a post-derrida world is a good one.
have you ever seen Wolf speak? it is a bit like a Zaha lecture.
well, growth or expansion of a concept are the foundations of Koolhaas' praxis. and I must admit HdM are in my own personal decon category, however, I don't see how you redeem the rest, even gehry. as they have been part of the unit/object of deconstructivist thought. if the issue is Coop continuing a practice which isn't hip and perpetuates their same old formalist pragmistism then I agree with you. but I don't think that the spirit or method of the deconstructivist project is dead - it's just morphed...or perhaps evolved
i personally don't think architects are always the best people to explain their work.
JJ I am shocked about your mention of HdM. it would be interesting to hear nmore about your own decon category
if you forget the words/rationalizations (which i haven't heard, in this case), this akron addition has a very similar formal language - and appears to take the same position re: the existing building - as libeskind's r.a.m.
call it what you will...
Ludwig,
shocked? are you also shocked that OMA has been or is catergorized as deconstruction in some tomes of architecture? my placing HdM here has to do with their interpretation of art as a device for "investigating" architecture. maybe this is abit hokie because of the strong visual position of the objects within the decon movement. I have a harder time placing HdM in minimualism.
can anyone name any recently founded firm that would call itself deconstructivist?
and why would there be? did anyone actually call themselves deconstructivist?
I thought there was another label lost somewhere called 'phenomenological architecture', that came after decon and before minimalism and that's where people put H&dM (and Holl, etc.), because of the facade skins, experimental textures, new materials, and the -apparently- higher degree of sensorial stimulation that a building or a certain space provides?
I take all these 'architiquettes' (does this word exists at all?) with a grain of salt anyway... though I think its a pretty funny way of designating works and create an architectural historic continuum... in the end, a building is just a building.
Now that PJ is pushin' up the daisies, who has enough influence to develop new labels? I never heard of any starchitect call himself this or that either..
Coop Himmelblau's conceptual process that informs their aesthetic is separate from the Decon tag, so the fact their buildings resemble what they did ten or twenty years ago is irrelevant. Their method (blind sketches) and style are unique, though I think one criticism that can be levied at them is that their work doesn't show as much evolution or change as other firms that have been mentioned. But I don't see that being related to Decon, even though they were included in MOMA's PJ show.
But I have to admit that their rooftop remodeling in Vienna is one of my favorite pieces of architecture. I'll take that any day of the week.
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.