Today while doing my daily surf through different threads and news clippings I stumbled across a "new" project by Andrew Maynard called Corb2.0. My first response is to discredit him for his blatant use of a completed idea by LOT/EK called the Mobile Dwelling Unit.
Now that I have read the brief of Maynard's project, I now understand his position is an attempt to expand from the LOT/EK position (as a critique) by eliminating the shipping containers. However, one cannot expand a position without giving the proper credit to the original source, in this case LOT/EK's MDU project. Furthermore, it seems that Corb 2.0 is a bit of a hijack of the hard work conducted by another firm.
What do you think? I am I missing some essential points of these two projects? What would you have done differently? Is there a lock on this type of idea?
The way I understand the "legalities" of it is that you can't patent or copywrite an idea such as this. While it does follow the same lines of thinking, the forms are different and the mode of "movement" is different. Ethically it seems, to me, to be a blatant rip off and I can't honestly believe that someone would do that. That being said, it could possibly be two completely different designers simply coming to the same conclusion on a particular design challenge. We'll probably never know, but I'm sure it will be good ranting fodder for Archinecters everywhere.
I would agree with your understanding of this in legal position, but I think from reading Maynard's position on this it would lead one to make the assumption that he indeed did see the LOT/EK project which is why he disses the shipping container. I think I'm more inclined to see this dilemma as what are the ethical issues...although some people might decry the position of there is no authentic ideas in architecture, I think you must debate the merits and origins of ideas--if nothing else to have an informed public and architectural community.
Feb 20, 07 3:15 pm ·
·
Legally, it is not copyright infringement.
Defamation of (Andrew Maynard's) Character might become an issue here, however.
on the archigram front--I would agree that they are one of the main theorists of this position of nomadic living, but the point of departure from plug-in city to MDU is not as smooth as MDU to CORB2.0
no one is defaming anyone. I just thought it was an interesting departure from one idea to another and that Maynard's project hints at but never mentions the LOTEK original. this is a happy debate and not an argument of right or wrong. I just wanted to stimulate a discussion.
Feb 20, 07 3:29 pm ·
·
Is that why you quickly changed the title of this thread to not include "copyright infringement"?
I said defamation of character might become an issue.
well I changed the title because on closer inspection I didn't think it was the proper use of the term and I didn't want the discussion to enter into matters of legal do's and don'ts but more on the scale of ideas and ideas in a global sense.
we like both andrew maynard and lotek, but we also seek to discuss ideas on a broader slate, and I think it merits a discussion. if we thought it was news it would be in the news section---it's more of an attempt to discuss projects and ideas.
Feb 20, 07 3:40 pm ·
·
In that case, both Maynard's and LoTek's projects have reenactionary architecturism written all over them.
however, I would pose a question to you dear friend why do you care about this discussion? there are plenty of these types of discussions swirling these forums. what is your agenda here?
furthermore I will be fully forthcoming here, I know LOT/EK and Mason White has obviously interviewed Andrew Maynard. I have no allegiance or malice directed toward either of these firms. This was a simple observation and my original intent was purely to discuss these as like projects--and the error, in my opinion, of making an attack but not representing the other side! I would for the most part agree with Maynard's position that these units should be designed and not shipping containers. But at the same time if I was to make a critique I would state who I was critiquing... And now directed toward you sir, I would also use my real name when doing so.
Feb 20, 07 4:02 pm ·
·
John, it never occurred to me before that you thought of me as a "dear friend". In fact, I always imagined you hateed me.
The issue of copyright has long been of interest to me, especially how it relates to creativity. (I possess several registered copyrights, since 1995, if that further explains my interest.)
I have multiple virtual agendas, but rarely do my agendas manifest a reality, so dear friend, I wouldn't concern myself too much over me if I were you.
but I think your threats are sincere and I think your motives questionable. and I would also add that this isn't my fight you are trying to wage against me.
Feb 20, 07 4:16 pm ·
·
John, you know exactly who I am. Stephen Lauf.
Now, why don't you repost the original title to this thread and your original first post.
Don't make it look as if I'm the one being shifty.
Feb 20, 07 4:19 pm ·
·
John, there were no threats on my part. If anything, I was cautioning you to be careful.
I've never hated you Stephen. if that's who you are, you change your names so frequently its hard to keep track of you. if I hated you so much why would I post your book to the archinect book list? we have disagreements Stephen, but I've never hated you. sorry you've felt that way.
now as I said before I changed the name of the discussion because I didn't want to discuss the legal question. it has nothing to do with your postings. in fact I changed before I saw your reply.
well, the big question here is: does LOTek hold a patent on the idea, if not then it is general knowledge and Andrew would have to prove his improvements to the invention as not being obvious....then the market would decide which idea wins out. a patent isn't really protection except when validated in the courts. i think the real question here is: "has andrew furthered the discussion sufficiently through his proposal". maybe yes, maybe no. there are a ton of ideas out there similar to this, i'd say it is an interesting take on it and could potentially yield fruit...but it is a bit obvious currently. i'd like to see more done with it.
andrew is obviously a talented young architect, but the proposal rings of a conceptual project with limited if any real validity in terms of a physical artifact. LOTek's idea, maybe slightly more....the questions that need to be asked are "why would anyone really want their house to move each day?"
I acknowledge your initial post was directed toward the title. and you are right, it's not proper for the title to have been about copyright, as its not the issue here.
this is a great question futureboy, especially when considering the future and the after peak oil? will people really be nomadic if they have to wait for their house/container for months?
Feb 20, 07 4:31 pm ·
·
John, let's just leave it that I didn't threaten you. I was writing my initial response here while the original 'copyright infringement' content was present. You changed the original content. Then I said "reenactionary arcitecturism" (which is a dead give-a-way as to who I am). Then you began interrogating me.
Again, there's no reason you should feel threatened by me.
but let's not leave it stephen I'd like to hear your opinions on the two projects
Feb 20, 07 4:38 pm ·
·
They seem to be solutions for a fabricated problem. The projects would be great if there were thousands of nomads looking for an architectural solution to their problem. But, until those nomads do show up and indeed do have a problem that needs architectural solving, what's the point?
Also, aren't there continual "connection to utilities" issues?
Otherwise, since I personally know what it's like to have lived in the same house for 48 years, I'm more or less the exact opposite of a nomad. So...you can guess the rest.
if i was to improve andrew maynards project, i'd skip the continued waste of energy by constantly moving large capsules and for more interesting cartoon script, i'd keep the modules static and rotate the people.
less mechanical problems.
less energy consumption
less wear and tear
better use of stackers for stacking new complexes for the unsustainable world of population growth instead of fucking with the same privilaged circle of people over and over. i mean like orgy of resources and expensive stackers.
peace of mind that you have saved the energy and resources for better uses.
other than that, the idea is totally less sophisticated and less charged than the previous concepts. ie; metabolism, archigram, green machine, etc,. nice presentation.
i will look lo-tek later. but their bar code logo seems like a bluffing copyright statement in itself.
The intention as I read it by Maynard was to make a more sustainable option to the metabolic/LoTEK. What makes the proposal significant has little to do with the pods themselves but what has always been the disposability of the project...the crane, how can we make it into an efficient system of which he deals with by the incorporation of wind turbines.
Also and I'm here trying to steer clear of the pissing contest between John & Gentleman, is that the project's variety - which might I add has been so copied and reused to render it a 20th building typology.
Let us for argument sake call it the "dockyard as housing"
just to reiterate my major point, which I derailed with my sensational title was to question the Maynard's critique as a usurpation? I wish he would have made his position clearer.
But as far as the sustainable issue, this is the clearest example of what architects consider sustainability! put some windmills on something and its sustainable. I'd really like to see a vision thats all inclusive and not a don't worry be happy future model. the future is clear and its not going to be happy
as far as lotek goes, i hope they don't fuck up weiner's building, because he can be a mean client. oh yeah red bedroom behind the truck doors. go ask alice..
I think you can trace them both from Archigram independently. Might be missing it, but I don't see where LO/TEK calls out A-Gram in the first place, so why isn't that an issue? Maybe because Maynard and LO/TEK are contemporaries?
It's possible Maynard's shipping container dis isn't a direct dig at L/T, if you think about it, he's right. Shigeru Ban: "Containers are for things, not people." Containers are 8' X 8' X 20', not so nice. Especially offensive when you see them proposed as 'refugee' housing (which, in fairness, L/T isn't guilty of, AFAIK).
Maynard's use of an off the shelf Rubber Tired Gantry also makes a lot more sense than L/T's weirdly modified railed forklift. So if he is referencing their stuff, in this case he's improving on it.
What's more interesting to me: what do we get out of this aesthetic in the first place? Psuedo-utilitarian. The solution to an imaginary (longed for) problem of mobility and nomadism (nice one, Lauf). I'm as fascinated by it as anyone, I'm a huge fan of Maynard, LO/TEK, and Archigram. But I can't quite figure out why ...
good points, this is something I didn't fully consider which I guess touches on the idea of authenticity in design ideas, but I think archigram's initial thrust shouldn't be conflated into a direct translation...influence yes, but hardly similar...archigram's plug-in city isn't a linear structure nor does its form operate on or through the technologies it utilizes unlike the Maynard/LOTEK schemes.
I think what is conclusive is that both Maynard and LOTEK were playing with similar ideas evolved out of these kit of parts technologies which create this type of system. Now that is why they are juxtaposed. whether or not Maynard saw the LOTEK is a small issue, but my reading of his text would lead me to believe that this is exactly what he was doing otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned containers at all. why do containers even enter into his discourse without the LOTEK project?
You are aware of course that Andrew Maynard has been developing modular and 'podular' design ideas for a number of years now. He also is a director/partner of a prefabricated start-up in Melbourne called prefabhouse and has recently had another mobile design unit called BOB that was seen all around the net. It is in fact part of a lineage of the practices interests.
Also people were thinking about containers as prefab home for a number of years before Lot-ek rocked up. They are the default unit. This project could have quite easily evolved without knowledge of Lot-ek's project - what came first with Maynard? The container crane, the port, the container? This project is pure speculation. AMA, like a number of other practices [particularly in Melbourne] float these ideas with a range of intentions and motivations.
Kind of off topic, but if anyone's interested in learning more about container shipping technology, a great way to do it is on board one of Eimskip's ships. They're an Icelandic line and their container ships in the North Atlantic take three passengers per run in the summertime. You can find out more info here.
It's an amazing way to see the port cities of northern Europe from a different perspective, they go from Rotterdam to Reykjavik over like seven days. For the industrial/logistics geek there is no better way to travel.
Hi Folks,
Thanks for the heads up Diabase. This is actually an interesting topic.
I often encourage my students to borrow and copy to the point of theft. If you take someone else's idea and sincerely and rigorously apply it to a new problem and a unique site you will inevitably end up with something interesting and different. I think it was Sir Isaac Newton that once said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giant".
That being said, I am afraid that in this case it is a simple coincidence [a mildly embarrassing coincidence I must admit]. Though I very often reference Archigram's work, and I have seen [and fallen in love with] LOT/EK's mobile units, I'm afraid that I have not seen LOT/EK's MDU housing project before. I am a fan of LOT/EK. They are a point of inspiration. They have been exploring these ideas far longer than I and it may have been inevitable that I accidently step on their toes. Perhaps we can describe CORB V2.0 as a respectful toth of the hat to my beloved Archigram and LOT/EK.
Regarding the concept of "putting locks on ideas". I think this would be a terrible shame. I am currently reading Bruce Mau's book MASSIVE CHANGE. He describes the need to get rid of the designers ego and simply throw ideas into the mix to allow them to grow organically for the greater good. Set ideas free so that they can take on a life of their own. I will never accuse anyone of stealing an AMA idea. If we [at AMA] are ever referenced then I my only hope is that the new design is far better than my original attempt.
Also, I must admit that I like the title of the thread. It reminds me of mashed up music, playing one track over the other. Or perhaps sampled music. Very post-modern. I feel like De La Soul.
went to a lo/tek lecture about a month ago. i asked them whether they added irony to their work or removed irony from their work. i do enjoy their brand of castoff industrial regionalism, but i believe its an acquired taste as some of my colleagues didn't respond that favorably and frankly, although the idea of using recycled industrial products and shipping containers may be intriguing to some, most people do not respond to the idea of living in a container or living in a robotic container environment. symbolism regarding the idea of home may be so branded into our collective consciousness that these solutions just don't matter on the larger scale.
I also think he did himself a disservice by backing away from this one. Additionally, I find it a bit suspect to admire another firms work and not know one of their central concepts?
but really I am more interested in the idea that maynard was making a critique that needed its oppositional partner. I think his project is far more interesting as a critique of the shipping container fetish.
I would also add that my initial post was to stimulate a discourse in the community and not to necessarily slam maynard...
"I would also add that my initial post was to stimulate a discourse in the community and not to necessarily slam maynard..."
I accept that.
Having thought about it, I am not sure about this project. What is the difference between the modules proposed and a container? A slightly bigger container? A non-container container?
I did a project when I was a student at RMIT, I think in 2000 or 2001 about a structure comprising a massive grid of 'big-rig' trucks that were stacked upon each other and used as immigrant housing stuck out in the Australian outback near Uluru. It was a critique of the Howard government policy in refugees and immigration.
What I am saying is I guess that this is a speculation, but with a rather narrow range of inputs, and a narrower range of applications...
However I do commend AMA on their continuous development in regards to modular/prefab ideas.
When multiple people are working with the recombination of pre-existing elements, surely it is inevitable that there will be overlap? My pet theory is that ideas often exist independent of those who think them.
I'm glad you're in favour of copying and borrowing, andy: I just used some images from your sketchbook (off your website) for a drawing class! Properly referenced, of course...
Expansion of Concept LOT/EK VS Andrew Maynard
Today while doing my daily surf through different threads and news clippings I stumbled across a "new" project by Andrew Maynard called Corb2.0. My first response is to discredit him for his blatant use of a completed idea by LOT/EK called the Mobile Dwelling Unit.
Now that I have read the brief of Maynard's project, I now understand his position is an attempt to expand from the LOT/EK position (as a critique) by eliminating the shipping containers. However, one cannot expand a position without giving the proper credit to the original source, in this case LOT/EK's MDU project. Furthermore, it seems that Corb 2.0 is a bit of a hijack of the hard work conducted by another firm.
What do you think? I am I missing some essential points of these two projects? What would you have done differently? Is there a lock on this type of idea?
The way I understand the "legalities" of it is that you can't patent or copywrite an idea such as this. While it does follow the same lines of thinking, the forms are different and the mode of "movement" is different. Ethically it seems, to me, to be a blatant rip off and I can't honestly believe that someone would do that. That being said, it could possibly be two completely different designers simply coming to the same conclusion on a particular design challenge. We'll probably never know, but I'm sure it will be good ranting fodder for Archinecters everywhere.
Plug-in City, Archigram 1964
archiphreak,
I would agree with your understanding of this in legal position, but I think from reading Maynard's position on this it would lead one to make the assumption that he indeed did see the LOT/EK project which is why he disses the shipping container. I think I'm more inclined to see this dilemma as what are the ethical issues...although some people might decry the position of there is no authentic ideas in architecture, I think you must debate the merits and origins of ideas--if nothing else to have an informed public and architectural community.
Legally, it is not copyright infringement.
Defamation of (Andrew Maynard's) Character might become an issue here, however.
on the archigram front--I would agree that they are one of the main theorists of this position of nomadic living, but the point of departure from plug-in city to MDU is not as smooth as MDU to CORB2.0
no one is defaming anyone. I just thought it was an interesting departure from one idea to another and that Maynard's project hints at but never mentions the LOTEK original. this is a happy debate and not an argument of right or wrong. I just wanted to stimulate a discussion.
Is that why you quickly changed the title of this thread to not include "copyright infringement"?
I said defamation of character might become an issue.
well I changed the title because on closer inspection I didn't think it was the proper use of the term and I didn't want the discussion to enter into matters of legal do's and don'ts but more on the scale of ideas and ideas in a global sense.
we like both andrew maynard and lotek, but we also seek to discuss ideas on a broader slate, and I think it merits a discussion. if we thought it was news it would be in the news section---it's more of an attempt to discuss projects and ideas.
In that case, both Maynard's and LoTek's projects have reenactionary architecturism written all over them.
Thanks Archigram.
however, I would pose a question to you dear friend why do you care about this discussion? there are plenty of these types of discussions swirling these forums. what is your agenda here?
furthermore I will be fully forthcoming here, I know LOT/EK and Mason White has obviously interviewed Andrew Maynard. I have no allegiance or malice directed toward either of these firms. This was a simple observation and my original intent was purely to discuss these as like projects--and the error, in my opinion, of making an attack but not representing the other side! I would for the most part agree with Maynard's position that these units should be designed and not shipping containers. But at the same time if I was to make a critique I would state who I was critiquing... And now directed toward you sir, I would also use my real name when doing so.
John, it never occurred to me before that you thought of me as a "dear friend". In fact, I always imagined you hateed me.
The issue of copyright has long been of interest to me, especially how it relates to creativity. (I possess several registered copyrights, since 1995, if that further explains my interest.)
I have multiple virtual agendas, but rarely do my agendas manifest a reality, so dear friend, I wouldn't concern myself too much over me if I were you.
why would I hate you. I have no way of knowing who you are.
but I think your threats are sincere and I think your motives questionable. and I would also add that this isn't my fight you are trying to wage against me.
John, you know exactly who I am. Stephen Lauf.
Now, why don't you repost the original title to this thread and your original first post.
Don't make it look as if I'm the one being shifty.
John, there were no threats on my part. If anything, I was cautioning you to be careful.
I've never hated you Stephen. if that's who you are, you change your names so frequently its hard to keep track of you. if I hated you so much why would I post your book to the archinect book list? we have disagreements Stephen, but I've never hated you. sorry you've felt that way.
now as I said before I changed the name of the discussion because I didn't want to discuss the legal question. it has nothing to do with your postings. in fact I changed before I saw your reply.
well, the big question here is: does LOTek hold a patent on the idea, if not then it is general knowledge and Andrew would have to prove his improvements to the invention as not being obvious....then the market would decide which idea wins out. a patent isn't really protection except when validated in the courts. i think the real question here is: "has andrew furthered the discussion sufficiently through his proposal". maybe yes, maybe no. there are a ton of ideas out there similar to this, i'd say it is an interesting take on it and could potentially yield fruit...but it is a bit obvious currently. i'd like to see more done with it.
andrew is obviously a talented young architect, but the proposal rings of a conceptual project with limited if any real validity in terms of a physical artifact. LOTek's idea, maybe slightly more....the questions that need to be asked are "why would anyone really want their house to move each day?"
I acknowledge your initial post was directed toward the title. and you are right, it's not proper for the title to have been about copyright, as its not the issue here.
this is a great question futureboy, especially when considering the future and the after peak oil? will people really be nomadic if they have to wait for their house/container for months?
John, let's just leave it that I didn't threaten you. I was writing my initial response here while the original 'copyright infringement' content was present. You changed the original content. Then I said "reenactionary arcitecturism" (which is a dead give-a-way as to who I am). Then you began interrogating me.
Again, there's no reason you should feel threatened by me.
I honestly thought you were someone else. no harm no foul. just like my title miscue
but let's not leave it stephen I'd like to hear your opinions on the two projects
They seem to be solutions for a fabricated problem. The projects would be great if there were thousands of nomads looking for an architectural solution to their problem. But, until those nomads do show up and indeed do have a problem that needs architectural solving, what's the point?
Also, aren't there continual "connection to utilities" issues?
Otherwise, since I personally know what it's like to have lived in the same house for 48 years, I'm more or less the exact opposite of a nomad. So...you can guess the rest.
if i was to improve andrew maynards project, i'd skip the continued waste of energy by constantly moving large capsules and for more interesting cartoon script, i'd keep the modules static and rotate the people.
less mechanical problems.
less energy consumption
less wear and tear
better use of stackers for stacking new complexes for the unsustainable world of population growth instead of fucking with the same privilaged circle of people over and over. i mean like orgy of resources and expensive stackers.
peace of mind that you have saved the energy and resources for better uses.
other than that, the idea is totally less sophisticated and less charged than the previous concepts. ie; metabolism, archigram, green machine, etc,. nice presentation.
i will look lo-tek later. but their bar code logo seems like a bluffing copyright statement in itself.
i'll shut up after this...
there is the fornute few always taking cruise vacations.
perhaps part of the script for waterworld 2?
shipping containers ahoy...
okay, thats it...
The intention as I read it by Maynard was to make a more sustainable option to the metabolic/LoTEK. What makes the proposal significant has little to do with the pods themselves but what has always been the disposability of the project...the crane, how can we make it into an efficient system of which he deals with by the incorporation of wind turbines.
Also and I'm here trying to steer clear of the pissing contest between John & Gentleman, is that the project's variety - which might I add has been so copied and reused to render it a 20th building typology.
Let us for argument sake call it the "dockyard as housing"
So far, a virtual typology, at best.
just to reiterate my major point, which I derailed with my sensational title was to question the Maynard's critique as a usurpation? I wish he would have made his position clearer.
But as far as the sustainable issue, this is the clearest example of what architects consider sustainability! put some windmills on something and its sustainable. I'd really like to see a vision thats all inclusive and not a don't worry be happy future model. the future is clear and its not going to be happy
as far as lotek goes, i hope they don't fuck up weiner's building, because he can be a mean client. oh yeah red bedroom behind the truck doors. go ask alice..
I think you can trace them both from Archigram independently. Might be missing it, but I don't see where LO/TEK calls out A-Gram in the first place, so why isn't that an issue? Maybe because Maynard and LO/TEK are contemporaries?
It's possible Maynard's shipping container dis isn't a direct dig at L/T, if you think about it, he's right. Shigeru Ban: "Containers are for things, not people." Containers are 8' X 8' X 20', not so nice. Especially offensive when you see them proposed as 'refugee' housing (which, in fairness, L/T isn't guilty of, AFAIK).
Maynard's use of an off the shelf Rubber Tired Gantry also makes a lot more sense than L/T's weirdly modified railed forklift. So if he is referencing their stuff, in this case he's improving on it.
What's more interesting to me: what do we get out of this aesthetic in the first place? Psuedo-utilitarian. The solution to an imaginary (longed for) problem of mobility and nomadism (nice one, Lauf). I'm as fascinated by it as anyone, I'm a huge fan of Maynard, LO/TEK, and Archigram. But I can't quite figure out why ...
good points, this is something I didn't fully consider which I guess touches on the idea of authenticity in design ideas, but I think archigram's initial thrust shouldn't be conflated into a direct translation...influence yes, but hardly similar...archigram's plug-in city isn't a linear structure nor does its form operate on or through the technologies it utilizes unlike the Maynard/LOTEK schemes.
I think what is conclusive is that both Maynard and LOTEK were playing with similar ideas evolved out of these kit of parts technologies which create this type of system. Now that is why they are juxtaposed. whether or not Maynard saw the LOTEK is a small issue, but my reading of his text would lead me to believe that this is exactly what he was doing otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned containers at all. why do containers even enter into his discourse without the LOTEK project?
You are aware of course that Andrew Maynard has been developing modular and 'podular' design ideas for a number of years now. He also is a director/partner of a prefabricated start-up in Melbourne called prefabhouse and has recently had another mobile design unit called BOB that was seen all around the net. It is in fact part of a lineage of the practices interests.
Also people were thinking about containers as prefab home for a number of years before Lot-ek rocked up. They are the default unit. This project could have quite easily evolved without knowledge of Lot-ek's project - what came first with Maynard? The container crane, the port, the container? This project is pure speculation. AMA, like a number of other practices [particularly in Melbourne] float these ideas with a range of intentions and motivations.
Kind of off topic, but if anyone's interested in learning more about container shipping technology, a great way to do it is on board one of Eimskip's ships. They're an Icelandic line and their container ships in the North Atlantic take three passengers per run in the summertime. You can find out more info here.
It's an amazing way to see the port cities of northern Europe from a different perspective, they go from Rotterdam to Reykjavik over like seven days. For the industrial/logistics geek there is no better way to travel.
have you done this 765?
.
Highly recommended.
Hi Folks,
Thanks for the heads up Diabase. This is actually an interesting topic.
I often encourage my students to borrow and copy to the point of theft. If you take someone else's idea and sincerely and rigorously apply it to a new problem and a unique site you will inevitably end up with something interesting and different. I think it was Sir Isaac Newton that once said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giant".
That being said, I am afraid that in this case it is a simple coincidence [a mildly embarrassing coincidence I must admit]. Though I very often reference Archigram's work, and I have seen [and fallen in love with] LOT/EK's mobile units, I'm afraid that I have not seen LOT/EK's MDU housing project before. I am a fan of LOT/EK. They are a point of inspiration. They have been exploring these ideas far longer than I and it may have been inevitable that I accidently step on their toes. Perhaps we can describe CORB V2.0 as a respectful toth of the hat to my beloved Archigram and LOT/EK.
Regarding the concept of "putting locks on ideas". I think this would be a terrible shame. I am currently reading Bruce Mau's book MASSIVE CHANGE. He describes the need to get rid of the designers ego and simply throw ideas into the mix to allow them to grow organically for the greater good. Set ideas free so that they can take on a life of their own. I will never accuse anyone of stealing an AMA idea. If we [at AMA] are ever referenced then I my only hope is that the new design is far better than my original attempt.
Also, I must admit that I like the title of the thread. It reminds me of mashed up music, playing one track over the other. Or perhaps sampled music. Very post-modern. I feel like De La Soul.
Keep up the good work folks. Very interesting.
765, great photo album and drawings.
andymaynard,
what are the further advances in your design?
went to a lo/tek lecture about a month ago. i asked them whether they added irony to their work or removed irony from their work. i do enjoy their brand of castoff industrial regionalism, but i believe its an acquired taste as some of my colleagues didn't respond that favorably and frankly, although the idea of using recycled industrial products and shipping containers may be intriguing to some, most people do not respond to the idea of living in a container or living in a robotic container environment. symbolism regarding the idea of home may be so branded into our collective consciousness that these solutions just don't matter on the larger scale.
So I am curious John, what's your response?
to what?
To Andrew Maynard's reply to this thread - what do you think?
I think maynard has real tact.
I also think he did himself a disservice by backing away from this one. Additionally, I find it a bit suspect to admire another firms work and not know one of their central concepts?
but really I am more interested in the idea that maynard was making a critique that needed its oppositional partner. I think his project is far more interesting as a critique of the shipping container fetish.
I would also add that my initial post was to stimulate a discourse in the community and not to necessarily slam maynard...
what do you think?
"I would also add that my initial post was to stimulate a discourse in the community and not to necessarily slam maynard..."
I accept that.
Having thought about it, I am not sure about this project. What is the difference between the modules proposed and a container? A slightly bigger container? A non-container container?
I did a project when I was a student at RMIT, I think in 2000 or 2001 about a structure comprising a massive grid of 'big-rig' trucks that were stacked upon each other and used as immigrant housing stuck out in the Australian outback near Uluru. It was a critique of the Howard government policy in refugees and immigration.
What I am saying is I guess that this is a speculation, but with a rather narrow range of inputs, and a narrower range of applications...
However I do commend AMA on their continuous development in regards to modular/prefab ideas.
When multiple people are working with the recombination of pre-existing elements, surely it is inevitable that there will be overlap? My pet theory is that ideas often exist independent of those who think them.
I'm glad you're in favour of copying and borrowing, andy: I just used some images from your sketchbook (off your website) for a drawing class! Properly referenced, of course...
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.