|
hiccupingminor (June 24, 2008 at 9:31 pm)
Beautifully put.
Impresioniste (June 23, 2008 at 6:19 pm)
They are famous, rich,etc. But their architecture is not good. I know people will laught me but it is thrue.There is no aesthetical relationships in their buildings. They are ugly, not proportioned, not elegant, not perfectioned, not critic architecture. Their architecture is like fast food.The most important thing about the future of architecture is to be critic whit this people, like always, to be critic with the recent past and the actual time, to understand it and belong to it: zeitgeist
learnrv (June 10, 2008 at 6:01 pm)
the true artists realise that there is nothing more cliched than trying to avoid the cliche
BuckYooper (June 1, 2008 at 6:58 am)
Peter Eisenman is a great mind who understands there is more to to building than symmetry and space, well most architects do I hope. But I don't think he is the architect to bring about this new revolution in the art, rather, he is like John the Baptists orating a new vision for practicing architects to hear and perfect the style. but then again, what do I know?
mgnssss (May 4, 2008 at 8:00 pm)
greg lynn is the only guy on that panel who actually makes sense, and prophecises in the direction we are experiencing now. too bad he didnt get more screentime
laasook (April 29, 2008 at 10:25 pm)
Is Architecture a Philosophy?...from an Urban Planner.
scottishlowoflow (April 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm)
i think that "contemporary" architecture fails on all feilds. it fails to please the eye or the functionality. the 60s buildings were at least functional but incredibly ugly. these buildings are neither
eman3310169 (April 25, 2008 at 8:10 am)
Architecture is functionality in its purest form....after all we rely on shelter for life, no? And no matter how "artistic" architecture may become, it all comes down to the building/landscape's functionality and how it fulfills its intended purpose. Im not a huge fan of Eisenman, but it must be said that he seems to understand the necessity of function...as he himself acknowledges, he is not a master of facades...instead he excels in a masterful creation of functional interiors.
NewLeaseProds (April 22, 2008 at 9:19 am)
The old guys all talked about the building as a non-object. But when the young [female] Ph.D. candidate begged to differ--arguing that the building could indeed be "an object building"--she was almost completely ignored.But how can a building that is designed "to disturb"--a building where you must SEEK OUT the front door--how can such a building NOT be an object building?Not every building has the luxury of making its users constantly self-aware--that's indeed the architect's signature/ego.
JazzTemura (April 21, 2008 at 8:36 am)
pretty good but i am based here in australia. all documentors are ppl working in malaysia.we are in charge of design schematics and development - cool huh? |
