jump...i see you're clearly an architect....probably have ideologies and ethics and a weird understanding of social insteraction with human beings.
you don't have to be formally in charge to be in charge and i don't mean stomping your feet and screaming like a princess douche bag.
let me preface this as follows: Peter Eisenman is the greatest academic architect ever. PE is the master of theorizing conceptual design. Does that make him a good architect?
let's stick with Football analogy here, something both normal people and architects can understand.
Jerry Jones (Dallas Cowboys) just fired Wade Phillips. Jerry Jones is the client and Wade Phillips is the Architect. Jerry Jones with all his money expected a guy like Wade with the talent he had (even Kitna - 17 years back-up quarterback) to have a winning season. Failure at such a level to be fired mid-season has many factors, many personal, political, and even understanding of the game at the time.
It's funny that PE used exactly the same example about monkey as Foucault (or Deleuze) said to explain the concept "statement".
In a sense, PE is right and I don't think he is saying to the student but to Wold d Prix as a teacher and architect.
However, the problem is we don't have any discipline in Architecture. We had lost discipline and no one has been able to make one since then.
However, at least a teacher have to guide a student how to find out the way to search a discipline rather than letting his student do anything she want, which, I think, is what PE wanted to say to prix. Without any discipline we should recycle the old one at least...rather than doing just craps
Even according to Deleuze, everything that works has a discipline or a code even in Capitalism society although that discipline should be blocked and latent.
Only thing that has no discipline is something schizophrenic which is our absolute limit and never can be realized in reality.
And that is the reason that someone pretending to have nothing about discipline is just a fool whom most of our contemporary pseudo-avant gardes in architecture is.
based on what you just said - some disciplines can be talked about , other disciplilnes can't. clearly Eisenman wants to talk about a discipline that can be communicated and surely it's in the language he'd like to establish, otherwise you've chosen the wrong discipline.
back on your subject...
if one can't draw or model a building in a computer in say less than a day then don't even bother talking about the discipline of architecture. you may talk about the discipline of architecture before computers, but just understand - the complete inability to think in a new rational that clearly defines the discipline makes your opinions ultimately obsolete.
PE is clueless, like most famous architects who keep spreading their garbage...except that Schumacher guy for Zaha he may actually know what's going on.
Is he saying about language and plans? I didn't know that? I understood that he is saying about discipline in Architecture and he couldn't see any architectural discipline in her drawings.
Where did you get the clue that he is saying about plans and language?
A way to build a model in a computer has became architectural discipline? since when? Just like you said "really who reads buildings?", I would say "who care about the way to build a model in a computer except the one who built the model?". who care about how to draw a drawing in a computer except the one who draw? No one!
When you say about architecture and computer, you are emphasizing technology too much. Technology doesn't work if reality or "social mechine" doesn't let that work.
Computer is just a useful tool we could use but that can never define our reality because any of single element cannot do that any more.
Syp all valid points requiring elaboration on my part, on my blackberry so references will surely require elaboration later
I have read a lot of Eisenman, a lot on Eisenman, and in short the proof for most his thought is ultimately a 2D drawing or a 3D iso, his more abstract version of both is the diagram, which in architecture is a drawing. This is acceptable for 20th century and before, symmetry and the grid probably would of never been realized had it not been for 2d drawings. Although exceptional masons and carpenters might of envisioned such architecture naturally, but the rest of us needed something to read to understand their visions.
Drawing is a very different language than using a computer. Its like English to Chinese.
If we are going to talk about discipline or accept a discipline we must first agree on a language. If you are going to talk about architecture these days, on how to read buildings besides actually reading the building you need to speak the language. If you don't understand the genius of parametrism or whatever you call it you probably don't speak the language of architecture written in the compouter. I don't draw much, nor does a 2d drawing mean much to me other than a very basic drawing representing very little of reality, so in short besides good lineweights and enough instruction to cover my ass and have the GC build it ocrrectly - there is no signficance or semantic semiotic abstractions there for me.
Speaking of social networks..lefevre in one of his books basically calls out architects on their irrelavent theory of inhabitating architecture since its based on reading drawings...advanced diagrams and not the ontologial experience of space.
I am suggesting computer language is correct either but can be a million times more precise than a drawiing ever could be.
Drawings compared to computers for architecture is like radio to the internet or trains to planes...Eisenman is writing architecture in the language of a primitive means for thinking, but he himself is thinking stratospheres above the level of thinking required for reading drawings...its overkill for the obsolete.
So I am going to establish a 2nd nature understanding, almost intuitive use of speaking architecture in computer is required by anyone who would like to begin a relevant theory on the discipline of architecture. Assuming you have acquired this language than we can talk discipline. Parametricism is a discipline very true to architecure and its praxis and is spoken most accurately in computers. If we agree this is an acceptable discipline.or theory from which discipline can be derived we can now talk about your design.
However, your last sentence tell me more than rest of your writing.
"If we agree this is an acceptable discipline.or theory from which discipline can be derived we can now talk about your design."
As you said, and "Saussure" had shown us already, making a language is not what some individuals intentionally can do, and we don't think parametriciism in a computer is architectural language yet. You went too far too early. You cannot criticize PE with your own language, parametricism.
Let me talk you a story about a project Zaha is doing in Seoul.
Zaha designed a really fluid building in Seoul and they drew and made computer models probably with a parametric modeling method as you said.
And when its contractor had been given their drawings and models, do you know what the contractor had thought about their documentation?
One of my close friends who is working there told me "zaha's drawing was really terrible and really inaccurate so we the contractor drew drawings and built parametric models all again because the architect's drawing technology is far below than us."
And the architect, zaha, didn't co-ordinate structure and MEP and they actually couldn't because the complexity of the building they "designed" is technically out of their ablility. So, the contractor co-ordinated everything (what a shame on the architect) and asked the architect to confirm their co-ordination. However the architects from Zaha's office couldn't even confirm the contractor's work and fleed(again shame on the architect).
Contractors don't care if or not architects think parametric computing method
as an architectural language or theory. They only care if or not architect's draws and design WORK and they think they are far better than architects in making that work.
Consequently we architects are losing our position and giving contractor more strength because of our own design which architects himself couldn't handle.
What a irony and shame...
Syp I agree with you Zaha story, I don't even bother calling myself an architect (even if I legally could) its embarassing...designers
I wasn't saying parametricism is the way and you went off subject again, but I believe this is due to the fact English isn't your first language, no offense meant just speculating that's the reason.
We are talking about architecure as a discipline with a language. You may be suggesting the reality of materials and energy as architecture should be the language and discipline...I fully agree. Fuck this virtual ideoligical theoretical buu shit that continues to insult our intelligence anf embarass us.
despite the setbacks and near financial ruin resulting for the client of house 6, the owner still adores that house. obsessively.
architecture can still be emotive despite some seemingly absurd reactions against the normative.
some of PE's work is pretty bad, but i have yet to experience a more profound moment than the time i was submerged into the holocaust memorial. or the discoveries i made looking at wright through the lens of 'formal basis'. or indulging in 'house of cards' and retracing the procedures for each. or seeing corb's ghost in venice.
to preserve these milestones and moments, i'd take a shit outdoors any day.
Architects are some of the lowest paid participants in the construction game because many of them refuse to acknowledge the functions and duties required of a building versus say a pure sculpture. Digging in your heels and declaring that the general populace is ignorant and we are the holders of some secret truth is the kind of self righteousness usually reserved for religious zealots. Money is not the be all end all, but those of us without a silver spoon would prefer that four+ years of school and tens of thousands of dollars of debt leads to more than 27k per year in NYC.
There is also a major flaw in the idea it is the consulting architects fault. If you don't know how your design is going to be soundly built you are starting off wrong and expecting someone else to come in and clean up your mess. Knowing construction technology is what enables you to design a building instead of a piece of art. Is it possible the design was extremely difficult or nearly impossible to waterproof? Did the contractor not build it properly? Or is it another example of someone who should be designing anything but buildings masquerading as an architect?
Perhaps owners will get sick of spending top dollar for shoddy work and make architects an optional, and rarely used, part of building design. I am sure the structural engineers association will be more than happy to lobby for their stamp to be all that is necessary on a set of plans.
yet another Eisenman f' up
The old made mistakes from their beginning, and the youngs are not brave and smart enough to fix the mistake that the old made.
That is a real architectural crisis we are facing and a way more serious crisis than that leaking crap.
New render of what the DAAP building will look like once they hire a real architect.
Come on.
There are a lot of other good architecture that can make PE feel guilty.
Your example just gave PE an indulgence.
jump...i see you're clearly an architect....probably have ideologies and ethics and a weird understanding of social insteraction with human beings.
you don't have to be formally in charge to be in charge and i don't mean stomping your feet and screaming like a princess douche bag.
let me preface this as follows: Peter Eisenman is the greatest academic architect ever. PE is the master of theorizing conceptual design. Does that make him a good architect?
let's stick with Football analogy here, something both normal people and architects can understand.
Jerry Jones (Dallas Cowboys) just fired Wade Phillips. Jerry Jones is the client and Wade Phillips is the Architect. Jerry Jones with all his money expected a guy like Wade with the talent he had (even Kitna - 17 years back-up quarterback) to have a winning season. Failure at such a level to be fired mid-season has many factors, many personal, political, and even understanding of the game at the time.
to be continueed...
I thought you could get LEED points for harvesting rain water? Isn't the building collecting water a good thing?
"let's stick with Football analogy here, something both normal people and architects can understand."
I'm going to wager that a good percentage of architects know nothing about football. Or maybe it's just me.
Peter Eisenman does though.
i'm sure this poor girl didn't know anything about football...
ah shit prix totally PWNS eisenman with that electric geetar analogy!
Classic
I worry, frequently, that I come across as just as big a pompous ass as Eisenman does in that video. Using shorter words, though.
short words not equal pompous
but if you use words like - neoclassicaldeconstructedmodernrationalizationpostscriptepitaphphooey then maybe
Deconstructivists... nuff' said
the beast of all architecture is anti-architecture.
PE has been riffing on Guiseppe Terragni for years and years. I like Eisenman's 1980's work, but I think he lost steam once he finished with Terragni.
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&expIds=25657,25907,27404,27601&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=terragni+eisenman&cp=17&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1366&bih=573
I stll like Log, however. Cynthia Davison, whilst never building a thing, as invoked some decent dialog.
It's funny that PE used exactly the same example about monkey as Foucault (or Deleuze) said to explain the concept "statement".
In a sense, PE is right and I don't think he is saying to the student but to Wold d Prix as a teacher and architect.
However, the problem is we don't have any discipline in Architecture. We had lost discipline and no one has been able to make one since then.
However, at least a teacher have to guide a student how to find out the way to search a discipline rather than letting his student do anything she want, which, I think, is what PE wanted to say to prix. Without any discipline we should recycle the old one at least...rather than doing just craps
disciplline...what are we non-talented space engineers who need strict and tedious ideological concepts to guide us in ultimately sensous decisions?
really who reads buildings? PE doesn't even read buildings, he reads plans, and when he is talking about reading buildings he is talking in plans.
i do architecture then plans....so the philosophy is great, but non-sensical when applied as PE does.
Even according to Deleuze, everything that works has a discipline or a code even in Capitalism society although that discipline should be blocked and latent.
Only thing that has no discipline is something schizophrenic which is our absolute limit and never can be realized in reality.
And that is the reason that someone pretending to have nothing about discipline is just a fool whom most of our contemporary pseudo-avant gardes in architecture is.
you're getting off subject...
based on what you just said - some disciplines can be talked about , other disciplilnes can't. clearly Eisenman wants to talk about a discipline that can be communicated and surely it's in the language he'd like to establish, otherwise you've chosen the wrong discipline.
back on your subject...
if one can't draw or model a building in a computer in say less than a day then don't even bother talking about the discipline of architecture. you may talk about the discipline of architecture before computers, but just understand - the complete inability to think in a new rational that clearly defines the discipline makes your opinions ultimately obsolete.
PE is clueless, like most famous architects who keep spreading their garbage...except that Schumacher guy for Zaha he may actually know what's going on.
Is he saying about language and plans? I didn't know that? I understood that he is saying about discipline in Architecture and he couldn't see any architectural discipline in her drawings.
Where did you get the clue that he is saying about plans and language?
A way to build a model in a computer has became architectural discipline? since when? Just like you said "really who reads buildings?", I would say "who care about the way to build a model in a computer except the one who built the model?". who care about how to draw a drawing in a computer except the one who draw? No one!
When you say about architecture and computer, you are emphasizing technology too much. Technology doesn't work if reality or "social mechine" doesn't let that work.
Computer is just a useful tool we could use but that can never define our reality because any of single element cannot do that any more.
Syp all valid points requiring elaboration on my part, on my blackberry so references will surely require elaboration later
I have read a lot of Eisenman, a lot on Eisenman, and in short the proof for most his thought is ultimately a 2D drawing or a 3D iso, his more abstract version of both is the diagram, which in architecture is a drawing. This is acceptable for 20th century and before, symmetry and the grid probably would of never been realized had it not been for 2d drawings. Although exceptional masons and carpenters might of envisioned such architecture naturally, but the rest of us needed something to read to understand their visions.
Drawing is a very different language than using a computer. Its like English to Chinese.
If we are going to talk about discipline or accept a discipline we must first agree on a language. If you are going to talk about architecture these days, on how to read buildings besides actually reading the building you need to speak the language. If you don't understand the genius of parametrism or whatever you call it you probably don't speak the language of architecture written in the compouter. I don't draw much, nor does a 2d drawing mean much to me other than a very basic drawing representing very little of reality, so in short besides good lineweights and enough instruction to cover my ass and have the GC build it ocrrectly - there is no signficance or semantic semiotic abstractions there for me.
Speaking of social networks..lefevre in one of his books basically calls out architects on their irrelavent theory of inhabitating architecture since its based on reading drawings...advanced diagrams and not the ontologial experience of space.
I am suggesting computer language is correct either but can be a million times more precise than a drawiing ever could be.
Drawings compared to computers for architecture is like radio to the internet or trains to planes...Eisenman is writing architecture in the language of a primitive means for thinking, but he himself is thinking stratospheres above the level of thinking required for reading drawings...its overkill for the obsolete.
So I am going to establish a 2nd nature understanding, almost intuitive use of speaking architecture in computer is required by anyone who would like to begin a relevant theory on the discipline of architecture. Assuming you have acquired this language than we can talk discipline. Parametricism is a discipline very true to architecure and its praxis and is spoken most accurately in computers. If we agree this is an acceptable discipline.or theory from which discipline can be derived we can now talk about your design.
You may also disagree but in a language of work that is relevant, computer toolbase logic and feedback
Don't tell me I am wrong in Chinese, I won't know what the hell you are saying.
Good to read your comment.
However, your last sentence tell me more than rest of your writing.
"If we agree this is an acceptable discipline.or theory from which discipline can be derived we can now talk about your design."
As you said, and "Saussure" had shown us already, making a language is not what some individuals intentionally can do, and we don't think parametriciism in a computer is architectural language yet. You went too far too early. You cannot criticize PE with your own language, parametricism.
Let me talk you a story about a project Zaha is doing in Seoul.
Zaha designed a really fluid building in Seoul and they drew and made computer models probably with a parametric modeling method as you said.
And when its contractor had been given their drawings and models, do you know what the contractor had thought about their documentation?
One of my close friends who is working there told me "zaha's drawing was really terrible and really inaccurate so we the contractor drew drawings and built parametric models all again because the architect's drawing technology is far below than us."
And the architect, zaha, didn't co-ordinate structure and MEP and they actually couldn't because the complexity of the building they "designed" is technically out of their ablility. So, the contractor co-ordinated everything (what a shame on the architect) and asked the architect to confirm their co-ordination. However the architects from Zaha's office couldn't even confirm the contractor's work and fleed(again shame on the architect).
Contractors don't care if or not architects think parametric computing method
as an architectural language or theory. They only care if or not architect's draws and design WORK and they think they are far better than architects in making that work.
Consequently we architects are losing our position and giving contractor more strength because of our own design which architects himself couldn't handle.
What a irony and shame...
By the way, I am not a chinese.
In spite of all my blah blah, I agree that parametric computation is a really useful tool and I wish your great achievement on that...
Syp I agree with you Zaha story, I don't even bother calling myself an architect (even if I legally could) its embarassing...designers
I wasn't saying parametricism is the way and you went off subject again, but I believe this is due to the fact English isn't your first language, no offense meant just speculating that's the reason.
We are talking about architecure as a discipline with a language. You may be suggesting the reality of materials and energy as architecture should be the language and discipline...I fully agree. Fuck this virtual ideoligical theoretical buu shit that continues to insult our intelligence anf embarass us.
my grad building used to be a freaking shoestore. srsly...
a blast from the archinect/eisenmanpast enjoy!
despite the setbacks and near financial ruin resulting for the client of house 6, the owner still adores that house. obsessively.
architecture can still be emotive despite some seemingly absurd reactions against the normative.
some of PE's work is pretty bad, but i have yet to experience a more profound moment than the time i was submerged into the holocaust memorial. or the discoveries i made looking at wright through the lens of 'formal basis'. or indulging in 'house of cards' and retracing the procedures for each. or seeing corb's ghost in venice.
to preserve these milestones and moments, i'd take a shit outdoors any day.
A shit outdoors
Sub title to all of eisenmans books
" i have yet to experience a more profound moment than the time i was submerged into the holocaust memorial" uhhhhh
Someone needs to go out and get laid
how about a substantial response? i can't roll my eyes any harder.
hhuh, you didn't substantiate anything yourself.
Architects are some of the lowest paid participants in the construction game because many of them refuse to acknowledge the functions and duties required of a building versus say a pure sculpture. Digging in your heels and declaring that the general populace is ignorant and we are the holders of some secret truth is the kind of self righteousness usually reserved for religious zealots. Money is not the be all end all, but those of us without a silver spoon would prefer that four+ years of school and tens of thousands of dollars of debt leads to more than 27k per year in NYC.
There is also a major flaw in the idea it is the consulting architects fault. If you don't know how your design is going to be soundly built you are starting off wrong and expecting someone else to come in and clean up your mess. Knowing construction technology is what enables you to design a building instead of a piece of art. Is it possible the design was extremely difficult or nearly impossible to waterproof? Did the contractor not build it properly? Or is it another example of someone who should be designing anything but buildings masquerading as an architect?
Perhaps owners will get sick of spending top dollar for shoddy work and make architects an optional, and rarely used, part of building design. I am sure the structural engineers association will be more than happy to lobby for their stamp to be all that is necessary on a set of plans.
olaf, did you get fired from PEs office?
anyone know if the nunotani building is experiencing similar problems?
I do waterproofing detail PE who not a PE fire me. He barely a RA, but definetely a AIA.
He's a great paper architect...
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.