CalArts two-day symposium on “The Politics of Parametricism” opened last Friday with a conversation between Reinhold Martin, associate professor at Columbia University’s GSAPP, and Patrik Schumacher, partner at Zaha Hadid Architects. Their debate, while at times tending more towards dysfunctional improv theater than academic discussion, revolved around the relationship between architecture and politics -- generally speaking, Martin sees the two as indelibly linked, while Schumacher idealizes their explicit separation. Their debate didn’t concern the visual aesthetics of parametric design, so much as argue about its utility in political systems.
Patrik Schumacher
As an event presented by CalArts’ MA Aesthetics & Politics program, the Martin-Schumacher debate did not explicitly discuss individual architecture projects, but tended more on the side of critical architectural theory. To introduce their debate, both Martin and Schumacher presented papers on their approach to parametric design, which I will try my darndest to make accessible. Martin took an intellectual historical angle, relating parametricism to linguistic theory and our construction of grammatical systems that determine “right” and “wrong” communication. Considering design based on the grammar of scripted parameters, the aesthetic outcome is simply an expression of that procedure, what Martin referred to as the “performativity of procedure”. The power to have a written code dictate the aesthetic terms of the architecture completely, and come to wholly define the architecture, is to Martin a “legitimation of power”. So if politics can generally be understood as a network of power systems, then parametricism is certainly in the political pocket.
Schumacher, who coined the term parametricism and has certainly taken flak for it before, took a much more divisive approach to defining the genre. He saw politics as best left to the “professionals”, and certainly not appropriate for architectural intervention, which could only make things worse. Because architecture has no power to affect political realities, it can only reinforce hegemony and can’t be counted on to resolve anything. When architecture is allowed to float on the whims of a liberal democracy, it produces a “garbage spill” of varied forms and styles within a city, leading to a dissonant and illegible, “white noise” urbanism. To fix this, Schumacher argues for a “private planning” city-building system: a free-market-driven collaboration between private development corporations and architects. These collaborators can then consistently apply their parametric designs to the city texture, increasing order and therefore, legibility.
Reinhold Martin
Even while discussing systems of legibility, the conversation that followed was pretty muddled. Initiated by co-organizer Manuel Shvartzberg’s prompt, “What makes a good city?”, the conversation devolved into that dysfunctional improv, where neither party said “yes” to the other long enough to establish any argumentative threads. By the Q&A period, the only clearly established trend was a public shaming of Schumacher’s parametricism as a totalitarian design method. It seemed as if many people had showed up to the conference only to (eloquently) bash Schumacher, leaving a good-humored Martin to try and pick up the pieces.
Maybe Day 2’s round of speakers brought more clarity, with lectures from Teddy Cruz, Phil Bernstein, Neil Leach, Christina Cogdell, Peggy Deamer, Laura Kurgan, Benjamin Bratton and Andrés Jaque. More information on the conference can be found here, courtesy of CalArts:
167 Comments
Kartal project was a big threat and seriously tried the easy way out with planned bulldozing a working class neighborhood with potentially re-usable factories and existing mid rise housing. Transforming it for the new ruling class high end residences. It literally proposed great injustice to thousands of people and the project which spread on thousands of acres terminated at a luxury yacht harbor in a place where average teacher supports a family with a newly increased salary of $800. That is a very significant criticism in this particular case.
Let's not parametric wash the issues of 21st century urbanism. That figure ground relationship map does not stitch anything other than newly (and speculatively) rich powers with architects of ultra wealthy people. At that point, does it even matter it is parametric or not? After screwing large number of people out of their households that is.
Suggested reading here:
Critique of the Kartal-Pendik Project by Massimo Santanicchia
This is not a cocktail hour for ZHA.
These clowns should be posting in suri's thread.
"Martin sees the two as indelibly linked, while Schumacher idealizes their explicit separation."
It seems both presenters see parametric design and politics as indelibly linked - but Schumacher's rhetorical denial primes the stage for pragmatic hypocrisy.
Order and legibility indeed.
the conversation devolved into that dysfunctional improv, where neither party said “yes” to the other long enough to establish any argumentative threads.
That about sums up the depth of most architectural discussions in our polarized world of architecture. Just the fact that one must struggle to make this discussion comprehensible shows how out of touch the profession has become to the wider world. We reap what we sow.
In my opinion stating that architecture has no power to affect reality, political or otherwise, is a lazy point of view. But on the other hand I don't see the script in parametricism wielding any more power than SketchUp or a T-square. They're all tools that operate by whatever input they are given. The input, and then the output, will reflect the aesthetic terms of the person, not the tool.
building on what Orhan posted - if architecture is apolitical - then what is political? I think it's the urban fabric - i.e. landscape.
an building conceived in isolation is really just a vessel or an object - but placed in a particular context, it gains meaning (sorry for the simplified Derrida). However - people don't get quite as upset when a single building is torn down (regardless of it's cultural significance) - when they get really upset, to the point of civil unrest, is when they lose entire neighborhoods or a public park. once you start messing with urban fabric is when it gets political.
I think Schumacher doesn't realize that he is, in fact, leaving the realm of architecture, and is suddenly into urban design and planning and landscape - which is very political. That Kartal project isn't just about architecture.
Because architecture has no power to affect political realities, it can only reinforce hegemony and can’t be counted on to resolve anything. When architecture is allowed to float on the whims of a liberal democracy, it produces a “garbage spill” of varied forms and styles within a city, leading to a dissonant and illegible, “white noise” urbanism. To fix this, Schumacher argues for a “private planning” city-building system: a free-market-driven collaboration between private development corporations and architects. These collaborators can then consistently apply their parametric designs to the city texture, increasing order and therefore, legibility.
is some of the most ridiculous nonsense I've heard in a while - he's basically proposing what already exists in pretty much everywhere - private developers working within zoning codes (i.e. parameters). if you want to increase "legibility "- why not make a bunch of snob-zoning laws that dictate material, color, and "style?" those are parameters.
if you read Schumacher from the vantage point of view of neoliberalism, yes, then yes, he is deliberately and justifiably apolitical.
that neoliberalism has socio-economic repercussions which may -or may not- resolve themselves politically (as they did in latin american countries for example) is another issue.
i think schumacher cognizes his inability, as an architect, to play a political role and therefore, views that neither is his work (or architecture conceived within the neoliberal frame) able to manifest political valour. by a political valour, i understand it as the degree of differentiating oneself politically from the status quo. Can architecture differentiate itself politically from the system it exists within? Can it resist? Is it not inherently formed around the backbone of the system, the economy? Is it not, in fact, the de facto environmental sediment of the subconscious of that system? in other words, is it not much more feasible to read the political valour of an architecture retroactively within the contextualizing system of power than to try and actively engender it/or read it with a political valour, a politically differential one - a rather useless exercise as the system of power (and the people will always organize themselves into a system of power) will only accommodate it in its acquiescence and not in its difficulty. People resist, spaces don't.
yes, personally, i have distaste for the total acquiescence to, even embracing of, this apolitical neoliberal model. schumacher is being honest within the system of mainstream operation - it really does not afford him with political tools which allow him to situate himself outside the system of production, he has to cater to the system or he has no job. in other words, the architecture being produced will necessarily carry the politics of this system. but so do most if not all of you. what differentiates you is parametricism. as architects, schumacher is saying you don't have much choic
but what is distasteful is that through the formalism of parametricism, he fetishizes neoliberalism. its another kind of non-space as conceived by Marc Augé, a space that precludes local identity, precludes difference, precludes social identity and so on - the extension of the global space of neoliberalism that is being branded with a certain global style. it certainly is a clever thing to do and actually a very political thing to do - but not political (i.e.e politically differentiating) deliberated at the level of architecture and space (that are indeed de-politicized, bearing the imprint of the global style of choice)- rather political at the level of selling the idea of parametricism.
he is an honest opportunist - even if his opportunism, and what it carries with it, is distateful and has negative consequences. many of you, however, are dishonest opportunists. yes, of course he is more dangerous but there are many more of you building bland office buildings or houses, perfecting details that rely on mass produced parts that are in turn produced by factories owned by rich people who are in turn helping prop up the system.
about those who speak of a political architecture, an architecture that carries with it a political valour, although the sentiment always has more chaleur to it, more warmth, i tend to find that there is another kind of fetishism, an easy relaxed leftist intellectualizing that has little to do with reality, that has little to do with an appreciation of how entrenched architecture within the system and how devious power is.
in reality, its quite stupid of the architect to think that he or she is able to affect reality, that is true. but its not stupid of the architect think that to "sink" to the level of the concerned citizen, one would be able to affect reality.
and why are people surprised? Zaha has been the queen bee architect of neoliberalism. She is a perfect candidate on many fronts. If you open up a country after its soviet past, its imperialist past, its introvert eurasian past, its axis of evil past....call Zaha!
if you read Schumacher...then you've got too much time on your hands.
"schumacher is being honest within the system of mainstream operation - it really does not afford him with political tools which allow him to situate himself outside the system of production, he has to cater to the system or he has no job."
Such is the glory of our modern life - castles and serflands. The deep anxiety for contrary and comfortable leftist liberality seems to center on apologetics - the cynicism which generally accompanies acceptance of all the neoliberal bullshit is a rhetorical life-jacket against the vast and obvious (but graciously displaced) amoralities of globalization.
I agree that architects are fairly politically impotent - we manage and produce the assets of a specific class, do we not?
When the obvious, the seemingly necessary/ inevitable, colonizes even your imagination. Lets talk about this more over a starbucks coffee
In my opinion stating that architecture has no power to affect reality, political or otherwise, is a lazy point of view. But on the other hand I don't see the script in parametricism wielding any more power than SketchUp or a T-square. They're all tools that operate by whatever input they are given. The input, and then the output, will reflect the aesthetic terms of the person, not the tool.
Amen! I Agree 100%
The power to affect reality, politics, etc....is not in the "what" but rather in the "who when where and why." Who we design for, when we design (or just leave well enough alone), where we design (not much architecture in the hood), and why we design (to make life better, to reduce co2, etc....) These are qualitative and philosophical questions.
these are also economic questions!
The thing that pisses me off the most about zaha, and shumacher is that they have MONEY!!! They can actually affect real change by funding or investing in real projects! that's all there is to it! Instead though, they create another "ism" and suggest vague ways of affecting politics and reality when in fact they have the resources to actually affect these things in a concrete way!
I really wish these people would take a lesson from Brad Pitt. Say what you want about the guy, but his simple method of taking money and building stuff has more of an affect on politics and reality then all the fucking archi-babble coming out of this guys mouth (or ass)....
Brat pitt works within the framework of the system. One of the priciples of Neoliberalism is handing over social welfare to privatized charities.and, in the so called third world, in the form of NGOs (most of which carry ulterior motives). You're not saying anything at all except that you're fine with this. The state should handle social welfare not charities. The soros-popper principles of the open space/society necessitate exactly whats happening in these familiar forms... establishment leaders freeing up the open space by setting up charities to absolve tge state of its responsibilities.
Charities can never cope of course. Secondly, you start feeling grateful for living in a cage because a hand pops in every now and then to give you something to eat. And you've now expressed your gratitude.
Problem with the state is that assholes like Schumacher end up running it.
The problem with comment facilities is that they get polluted by senseless invective ... However, i would like to clarify the proposition i tried to communicate. The article misrepresents my position and this misunderstanding led to further misleading comments. My starting point is the social efficacy of architectural design in general and in particular the historical pertinence and societal importance of parametricism as a new global best practice methodology and paradigm able to register and facilitate the new complex and dynamic social communication processes of post-fordist network society. I was explicit in positing the key category of productivity gains - inclusive of better working conditions and Lighter environmental footprint - as key criterion for all human progress including the progress of the designed environment. All progress in terms of prosperity, freedom, charity, emancipation, life quality and the realisation of more peaceful and caring forms of sociality depend on productivity gains. (In the debate i had to emphasize this truism as panelists focussed on isolated issues of equality and social justice without analysis and overarching proposition.) All productivity gains now depend on the intensification of communication. This is reflected in my thesis that architects should design the built environment as information-rich 360 degree layered interface of communication. The task is to maintain navigability and legibility in the face of a new diversity, density and complexity of communicative offerings that need to be spatially organized and articulated. Concerning the relationship between architecture and politics: as professional architects we need to presuppose that our (public and private) clients' powers and rights are established via politically legitimate procedures and that their land use decisions are therefore presumed to be politically legitimate. In any case the architect has no legitimacy to subvert politically constituted client rights. Neither could a "critical" practice that attempts this have any viability. When it comes to the question of the architectural avant-garde, research and the innovation leadership of the discipline's progress my position is as follows: the task of the discourse of architecture is the adaptive upgrading of the discipline's intelligence and repertoire in co-evolution with simultaneously progressing developments in the techno-scientific, socio-economic, and political spheres. Architecture and its discourse is not the appropriate arena within which to argue for radical political reforms. These are to be debated and pursued within the political system, by means of forming political groups, movements or parties. Those - like Reinhold Martin - who feel that architectural advancement is impossible under the current socio-economic and political conditions and that radical political transformations are a precondition for meaningful architectural work should shift their agitation into the political system and expose their arguments to the much more informed and experienced discourse protagonists there. There is no point in prosyletizing politics in front of architects. The architectural discourse consumes itself in the futile and naiv attempt to substitute itself for the political debate proper. Political arguments can not be solved by architects or architectural theorists. Instead the architectural discourse needs to start with the general socio-economic and political realities. A forward looking architectural theory might at best attempt to identify the most progressive of the current prevailing (powerful) tendencies and try to extrapolate from there. This is what I do by proposing to think about how an enhanced urban order might be possible under the presumption of a continued ascendance of market processes in the allocation of land uses and urban development with private entrepreneurial initiatives further substituting bureaucratic power. I am thus posing the possibiity of a free market urban order as architecture's task to overcome the disorienting urban disarticulation and generalized lack of urban identities that has so far been the result of the new degrees of freedom that resulted from the progressing market liberalisation that has marked the built environment as much as society at large since the late 1970s and early 1980s. Without being blind to the many problems my leftwing academic friends focus on, my overall assessment is that both world society at large and its built environments have progressed since the 1970s. I believe our task is thus to first of all understand the relative rationality of the reality that was achieved. World society is a total package and neither cherrypicking nor spotting and focussing on blemishes is a viable stance. I for my part came to the conclusion that architecture can contribute to societal progress without presupposing a prior radical transformation of the current socio-economic and political system. Therefore i do not have to switch over into the political system, and continue to make proposals for the advancement of our discipline's capacity to improve the built environment within the bounds of the political constitution being forged within the political system and in line with the techno-scientific opportunities afforded and socio-economic challenges posed by contemporary society (post-fordist network society).
one can hardly advance a debate by accusing the participants of the discussion of having money ... or by switching the debate to the demand for charitable giving ... On this basis the conversation quickly descends into the abyss of mutual personal denunciation ... Finally extermination
This does clarify your stance significantly, Patrik. Thanks for posting here. But can you explain further your assertion that All progress in terms of prosperity, freedom, charity, emancipation, life quality and the realisation of more peaceful and caring forms of sociality depend on productivity gains ?
I don't think it's necessarily germane to the conversation to bring up your/your firm's specific financial state, but I do think it's fair to question your - and every - architect's willingness to deeply probe whether what's good for their client is also good for their community.
Hi patrick.Please not that in some posts here, we did not condescend to attacking your person. Kindly take the time to read the comments and differentiate between them. While there are comments that truly do indeed gravitate towards the personally invective and profuse with insults, there are others that aim to rationalize and criticize. Simply plugging with a chunk of text that does not take the serious questions or concerns posted is, in my opinion, preemptive dismissive. Your stance apropos neoliberalism/freemarket ideology has been actually dealt with above. I will read your text here more carefully later, my little phone doesnt help...
are you trying to decode the urban genome? that's an interesting proposition, but what does this have to do with architecture?
This is just a pompous marketing campaign for parametricism (the historical pertinence and societal importance of parametricism as a new global best practice methodology and paradigm - as key criterion for all human progress including the progress of the designed environment) aimed directly at the starchitect competition.
The attempt to position himself above politics as the sole determiner of what is appropriate - through the use of his undemonstratively superior philosophy - is absurd. Architecture exists within the socio-economic-political system. Even if you are a developer, determining both the social context and the economic strategy, you have to work within the existing local (not global) political environment. Architects, as that segment of society that is somewhat responsible for the built environment, should influence politics but as far as I see do not have the economic clout to do so. And those that do design high-fashion shoes and boats instead.
Too bad the high ideals cited (better working conditions and Lighter environmental footprint) are not demonstrated in the work.
+++Miles Jaffe!
Sorry, should have said luxury yachts instead of boats.
Kanye West and Patrik Schumacher discus architectural trends in our post-fordist world.
Will comment on other posts later ... Standards of living can only increase via productivity gains, i.e. more products and services for less toil ... Once more concerning the relationship between discourses/practices like architecture, politics, economy, technology etc.: these discourses co-evolve in parallel rather than being ordered hierarchically ... they are all infinite, interminable ... thus the idea of resolving political questions first before moving on to architectural questions is hopeless ... once you open up fundamental political questions likelihood is that you wont return to architectural questions ... what does work and happens instead that the various specialized discourses co-evolve by each taking the latest well-established results (rather than the very latest cutting edge potentials) of all the other specialized discourses/practices as premises for their own adaptive upgrading. we can not be radical innovators in all arenas at once or even across a life-time ... to presume we could would be incredibly naive, we would be running against the wall that is the complexity barrier of our advanced civilisation ... both the operative and the reflective intelligence of this civilisation is a distributed intelligence
thus the idea of resolving political questions first before moving on to architectural questions is hopeless ... once you open up fundamental political questions likelihood is that you wont return to architectural questions
First off sorry for calling you an asshole. I am mentally unstable sometimes...
I do not believe that architecture can change society. I do not believe that a good brutalist fine art museum affects society any differently than a good modernist fine art museum. A temple is a temple regardless of its tectonic form, and a mansion is a mansion... The elitists in the bank tower will still call in the riot police to disperse the crowd from its plaza whether that plaza lies beneath a parametric twisted tower or an art deco one. So long as the architect focuses solely on the architecture in the tectonic sense affecting society will be impossible. Affecting the culture of art is another story. It is important, but artistic culture does not affect social order or urban order or economic order. To affect these things, a new architect is required, not a new architecture.
While "architecture" itself can not change society, I do believe that certain architectural typologies can change society. These typologies are being suppressed and/or destroyed by the plutocrats and the oligarchs. Architecture is shaped by its context. The architect that affects change will have to affect the context in either an activist role, an entrepreneurial role, or a philosopher role to bring about new typologies or preserve old ones that empower the people.
I'm with you on the idea of working within the free market system, but this system can only materialize a truly democratic city if the system itself can be democratized and decentralised. The system of funding new projects specifically. Money and power needs to be decentralized. A city built by the people (not designed by, but funded by) rather than for the people will naturally look and work differently. Socially conscious architects need to engage socially conscious investors. Towards a new architecture....should be the focus of 21st century discourse, not towards another new architecture...
It's none other than my main man patrikschumacher, word salad chef and bonvivant sharing some of his favorite recepies for the holiday season...
Standards of living can only increase via productivity gains, i.e. more products and services for less toil
I especially hate the toil part, it's so unhealthy and get's you all up in your environment. It will never replace the happiness one gets from buying more products and services.
once you open up fundamental political questions likelihood is that you wont return to architectural questions
Don't try this at home without adult supervision, the likelihood is great
we can not be radical innovators in all arenas at once or even across a life-time ... to presume we could would be incredibly naive, we would be running against the wall that is the complexity barrier of our advanced civilisation ... both the operative and the reflective intelligence of this civilisation is a distributed intelligence
You definatly don't want to come off as naive, that would be bad form, especially in our advanced civilization. Wait till you're in a backwards civilization where they don't have complexity barriers. As for my own operative and reflective intelligence, they're shot, but I still have my emotional and spatial intelligence. (No edibles!)
The master chef has spoken. Now remember kids, quantities vary for differing audiences. In Continental Europe I'd recommend a straight salad, but for North American audiences, throw in some grilled chicken and cream sauce.
Thayer, this is one time that your snarky jokes are really not welcome. Please try to have a serious approach here.
jla-x I think you've hit on an important distinction. Towards A New Architect is exactly right! Schumacher and other form-makers are so invested in form that they can't see context - either physical OR social. He admits as much above: as architects, we must pre-suppose that our clients came by their power legitimately. In other words, we must put on blinders if we want to get the commission. We all do this, to some extent. But it's legitimate to ask those who practice on the global stage if they can, ethically, ignore the global implications of the legitimization of their lients' power. Slave labor is a much bigger ethical question than whether my clients' family room addition sits an inch over the setback line. The more high-profile the project, the more high profile the criticism.
Some architects - New Architects - will make the decision to find a way to operate within the system while critiquing the system, to make improvements not only to the built world but to how it gets built too. Going back to my original comment on this thread, IMO if you're not, as a professional, taking on both aspects of our field then you're being willfully blind aka lazy.
(I realize it's easy to critique me, a nobody from nowhere, as not having to grapple with issues of a scale that global starchitects grapple with. And it's true. But I do live by the belief that we all have to take responsibility for how our actions affect others, whether that be on the scale of global human trafficking or on the scale of Textastrophe - now *that* guy is an asshole.)
it's great to have a starchitect engage in a discussion about his beliefs instead of just pushing a one-way conversation with a book. i appreciate your input, and hope we don't push you away too fast.
as i understand it, you think you can build a better environment with parametricism, because your software can take the increasingly complex 'parameters' involved with architecture and urban design, and find a solution that might be beyond what a person could come up with on their own (or at least it would be easier/faster with a computer). i don't entirely understand what 'parametricism' is, so that's my assumption. i agree that there are increasingly complex 'parameters' involved in urban design, and if you can create a tool that helps simplify that, more power to you. i have the luxury of not designing the tool, so i'll just sit back and wait until it's had a chance to mature, and look at it with an open mind then.
as architects, we aren't legislatures, we don't set the rules, we just do our best to abide by them (or not, as the case sometimes may be). i agree with your starting assumption that architects should do their best to operate in the real world as it exists, rather than pretending there is some sort of more ideal world we can operate in.
however, every human being has a moral standard. we know right from wrong, though we can all choose where to draw that line for ourselves. you should have a goal as an architect, since architects are human beings, to try to design an environment that aligns with that moral standard. if all you want to do is make money, then yachts are fine way to go. but if all you want to do is make money, you might not be the best person to lead new urban design initiatives.
growing wealth disparity is a huge problem pretty much everywhere these days. you're advocating for urban design focused on productivity in a socio-political environment where workers aren't being adequately compensated for their labor. if you are able to design an urban environment that improves productivity in this climate, it will only enhance the standard of living for the people at the top.
i think your conclusions are good and architectural, but they help the wrong people. it's important to get the wealth created by your productivity gains to be spread among the people doing the work. maybe it's only monetary policy and politics that can do that, but as far as i'm concerned, until productivity gains benefit the people doing the work, it would be better from a soci-political standpoint to not increase productivity.
my interpretation of recent history is that giving dumb rich people piles more money tends to lead to asset bubbles that can have pretty negative effects on the standard of living of people who are just trying to get by working for a living. focusing on 'productivity' as a way to increase people's standard of living doesn't seem to be the right direction.
Its funny how some of you here are willing to disparage a well known name behind his back and then form a line to politely -almost obsequiously so- to give your 'critique' in front of him. Its funny that the same bunch of people are willing to stoop down to viciously attacking and insulting others who have different point of views immediately-si vous pourriez pardonner mon anglais- start to kissing ass in tone if not in content. At least Thayer did not change his tone, Donna.
To complete: start to kissing ass -in tone if not absolutely in content- others solely on the basis of fame. At least Thayer did not change his tone, did not tone down, is not acting obsequiously differential and so on... Donna. If you have an issue with Thayer, you're likely to find much more (that is less :-) substance in that roll-of-toilet paper thread (we..the public...ad nauseum) everyone is using to wipe their free time with. Reprimand him to your hearts content then.
tammuz, that's the nature of the internet. If Schumacher is interested in engaging here, then it does behoove the entire community for those of us engaging with him to do so in a way that will not chase him off through petty namecalling, even if that requires a change in tone.
I put on a suit for job interviews, too, but I'm posting right now in my pajamas. Do you want to call me out for that?
i think you might miss the context tammuz.
personally, i am kind of interested in what mr. schumacher has to say about architect's role in urban design. also, i've always been a bit curious as to what parametric design is supposed to be, and what benefit it has. previously, we mostly had i r giv up on here calling people stupid and telling them to read a book, without ever actually explaining what it was that interested him.
schumacher has other, and probably more important, things to be doing instead of having a dialogue with us on the internets, such as maybe writing a book or whatever. you, me, and thayer obviously don't have better things to do.
nobody in their right mind would read or post to the 'modern v traditional' thread unless they were interested in entertaining themselves by feeding trolls. there is no amount of logic, reason, truth, or anything else that will get some of the people in that thread to consider anything outside their dogma. this thread has the potential to rise above that. i think it would be worthwhile to see if could have an engaging and thoughtful discussion with someone for once, but that would require us to be nice and act like adults.
Donna, Did I advocate petty name calling? Read my post again. Why didn't you stand up to jla when he called patrick schumacher an asshole Knowing that Iits worse than what thayer said. from that perspective, it does not matter whether patrick schumacher passed by here or not. Whatcame before or aftdr. He has a couple of interesting books out anyway (scanned through... ut I enjoyed the section on semiotics even if I do not concur). What im saying is that we should respect their person and each other's person and difference of opinion whether we\he\object of discussion are present or not. We should be able to give our criticism irrespective of this as well.Fame does not change this.its telling of the kind of characters we deal with here when they condescend to that duality. No, I totally support Thayers right to be snarky and not rude.
Also Donna thats not the nature of internet at large. There is a specific context here. This place has become like a bar with xenophobe frequenters (if theres such a word). Xenophobic to other ideas and provocations. You have formed a clique that is not above disparaging others. You would attack someone not part of the clique but you obviously ignore ignorance and stupidity perpetrated by someone within your thread-centrally core clique. As a clique, i have observed you elect individuals to disparage over and over. So please dont bullshit me. Sometimes its like dealing with a pack of dogs rather than individuals
Actually Tammuz, since this is an anonymous thread I did not have to apologize. I could have been a troll and kept on name calling for my own amusement, but instead, I apologized because I realized that it was stepping over the line to name call. Ever see that experiment where participants administer shock more frequently to a subject when they are anonymous? I guess that's kind of related here. Once you see the other person is really there it makes you feel different. Any way, I admitted I was wrong and apologized. Will try to be more civil in here from now on.
Quonda, strange indeed. Its like if there were drain holes unplugged in the le corb plan, the result would well end up looking like the ZHA plan. What do you mean by 'enforced' thou? Formally (intrinsic to the design process) or political (extrinsic)?
The problem with comment facilities is that they get polluted with senseless invective
Thank you Thayer, tammuz and Quondam.
tammuz if you have an issue with me on TC please take it over to TC. Really, truly, everyone is welcome there, and I really, truly would like to see this thread be a conversation about a legitimate topic, not about the people doing the talking.
Donna, please be topical. I did not say that i had an issue with your person. Furthermore, if you follow the posts above, you will note your posts were as untopical as this one im writing now...as were posts above authored by the dishrivelled bitter member of your pack and the younger scruffy yelping ones.
Please dont play miss manners with me or anyone else ifyou are unable to play miss manners with your pack. I note that you timed your softer reply after the snarl of the toorhless snarler.
Tammuz, what is your position on the topic? Without the usual vague rhetoric....
Also curious to know what your political position is. I'd like to debate with you but you rarely ever state a clear position. I know what are opposed to but what is it that you support? Opposition alone is not much of a platform to launch a creative thesis.
Jla-x, please accept that you don't have the right to expect anything from me. Your question is condescending. Perhaps it is your 'vague' reading abilities that are to blame not my writing ones. Also, forgive me but you have made many stupid comments in the past; i have never attempted to point out that you or your language were lacking in anything. Its your business as long as you don't encroach on other's as you do now.
I think the topic is quite interesting and if you read one or two of my posts above, you will see how i think about the topic. If there is something specific about what i said that interest you, lll try to explain if i like/can.
I also was thinking of its connection to Steven Ward's not-too-distant post concerned with finding alternative ways of practicing to side step the overarching system in place. Then that in turn brought one post above contrasting honest yet distateful opportunism with dishonest, even if well intentioned, opportunism.
Another development in my mind is that, although, we may accuse patrick schumacher of partially forming his theory as propoganda for parametricism, there is exactly the same reason to accuse rheinhold martin of the same apropos his viewpoint.
This then in turn brought to mind the quite distateful recent trend in schools for architectural analyses of the arab revolution spaces and indeed how necessarily short sighted they are-in fact, how short sighted they were in understanding their place in the larger picture.
Within the establishment, the best intentions, if indeed they were good intentions to begin with, will only be used to the ends that serve the the establishment. So perhaps both schumacher and rheinhold were wrong and foucault was right. French understands the dualities better it seems.
A
No my reading abilities are just fine and you write very well, it's just that your position is not very clear. I completely understand what you oppose, but that's only half of a position.
"encroach on others" lol. That's the nature of a debate. You dont like it when your ideas are challenged. When the crude disheveled uncivilized scruffy folks challenge you. So let's debate. What are you for?
"Without the usual vague rhetoric...." This is where you encroach, not when you do actually challenge my ideas (and you contradict yourself here : if you don't understand my rhetoric, how would you be able to afford such a challenge- something that you didn't afford to anyone on this thread in an of your posts). If you truly wantrd to be civil, jla-x, you could have asked what I meant -pointing to the specific area of confusion or possible contradiction (that would indeed be challenging) and not accused me of a 'usual vague rhetoric'. I see it more like a lazy ego (non topical) challenging yelp on your part than an actual a ttempt to reach engage. Put the effort and try to understand my position from what what ive said so far. You also confuse rhetoric with position. You are provng that it is more than your reading abilities that are found to be lacking. Again, do not accuse me for the lack in you. In future, should you wishto engage me, please be topical or simply ignore my posts. This last should have been elementarily enough expressed for you to understand.
I still disagree that "productivity gains" is the holy grail. We have finite resources and people get bored if they don't have enough to do. Surely a balance of meaningful labor, resource consumption, and leisure time is the goal. In this context, parametricism used purely for aesthetically-based form-making is quite efficient at creating more and poorly considered consumption of resources, more leisure time for the form-describers, and less meaningful labor for the laborers.
But parametricism is just a tool. It just as easily *could* be used to minimize consumption of resources (both material and energy), ensure fair labor conditions, minimize disruption of activity near the construction site, manage work-flow remotely, and in myriad other ways that make the process of the project more meaningful to everyone.
I disagree that as architects our only loyalty and priority is to our client's desires. We also - definitely in the US - have a responsibility to the community in which the project happens. When the project is global, so is our responsibility as professionals.
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.