Sep '04 - May '12
Why do Architects, and architecture students (and all their surrounding machinery) fall so easily for big, fancy, pseudo-interesting pretentious words, instead of actual good pieces of architecture?
Why in order to describe a building and/or an architecture-related topic we need so many stupid and pretentious words?
The faster we put our ideas in simple worlds, the faster architecture would be understandable to 'simple' people (by simple im trying to refer to those without an academic architectural education).
***thinking that while i listen to the livestream of the Congreso Arquine, this lectures are literally making me yawn.
http://www.livestream.com/arquine
i should get back to my project where we try to blur the boundaries between those lines traced in the territory by the interaction of the inhabitants in a terraine vague within the limits of a contemporary metropolis which tends more and more to fade into a 'glocal' condition of de.location of architecture generating a landscape of opportunities that we identified and mapped while they control, divide and represent in a parametric method what i could be just drawing with a simple pencil. If you read this far, you are a bitch for big pseudo-architectural terms!
Tales and Adventures of my time at the IaaC when this was in it's early years. Feel free to contact me for more reference, in any case i would advice you to enroll here.
No Comments
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.