tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3973215316119445314.post7438736722985230637..comments2024-02-15T06:40:00.335+01:00Comments on NOTES ON BECOMING A FAMOUS ARCHITECT: 87. You Don't Have to be Good Part 5: The Taxonomy of Architectural FameConrad Newelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13361919565513238957noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3973215316119445314.post-41322340355226646462012-12-16T00:29:44.723+01:002012-12-16T00:29:44.723+01:00Hi Mark,
You can contact me by writing in the tex...Hi Mark,<br /><br />You can contact me by writing in the text box in the upper right hand side at the top of this page. Directly under my handsome portrait.<br /><br />or you can email me at <br />architect.journal(at)gmail.comConrad Newelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361919565513238957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3973215316119445314.post-85743756819791074752012-12-15T14:31:43.445+01:002012-12-15T14:31:43.445+01:00Conrad,
How contact you ?
Thanks,
Your all time...Conrad,<br /><br />How contact you ? <br /><br />Thanks,<br />Your all time reader.<br />Mark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3973215316119445314.post-58565961048777688702012-09-01T22:32:24.768+02:002012-09-01T22:32:24.768+02:00Hi Katherina,
Thank you so much for your thoughtf...Hi Katherina,<br /><br />Thank you so much for your thoughtful note. <br /><br />I am working with a very narrow definition of good architecture here. By no means is it meant to be an attempt at a comprehensive definition as it omits a long laundry list of considerations. As you said, it's not an easy task. The term "good" perhaps qualifies the task subjective and therefore futile. The other problem with trying to nail it would be that it would reduce the term good architecture to a formula and ... well end all discussion; that would be sad and boring.<br /><br />What I wanted to do in this post was to narrow it down to one or two parameters so that it would be easier to discuss and limit the subjectivity.<br /><br />What makes for interesting ideas? Bingo! That’s the question that I have been mulling over for past several weeks. I have already started writing and making notes on it for a future post. <br /><br />Like "good", "interesting" is also subjective and therefore impossible to quantatively define. However, I will argue that there is a collective, though fleeting consensus of “what is interesting” within the architectural community. It is political and social, and filled with juicy tidbits and details. <br /><br /> <br />However, as much as I admire an agree with your criteria and benchmark for what good/interesting architecture should be, it is irrelevant unless you are in a position of influence in the architecture world. This is part of what I find frustrating with the profession.<br /><br />On the issue of Herzog & de Meuron, I would like to point you to Note #56 - Listen to the little devil on your shoulder: Link here: http://famousarchitect.blogspot.no/2008/07/56-listen-to-little-devil-on-your.htmlConrad Newelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361919565513238957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3973215316119445314.post-62400669587422737632012-09-01T21:25:10.057+02:002012-09-01T21:25:10.057+02:00Those are all good points. However it's not ea...Those are all good points. However it's not easy to nail a working definition for "good architecture": while good craftsmanship & detailing is generally universally understood, what makes for interesting ideas? Do BIG's buildings (for example) really function any differently than a commonsense building? <br />However I see a striking refusal on architects' side (famous or not) to critically tackle through their architecture the larger context of society, politics, urban change etc. In this regard, I can't help but remember Herzog (or Meuron)'s response to a critic who pointed out that not so long after they loudly announced they're not going to design in non-democratic countries, the Nest appeared. So Herzog (or Meuron) said that actually this is a subversive building because people can gather in its many niches and freely discuss politics (I'm paraphrasing). I wonder how he failed to mention that they designed it in collaboration with Ai Weiwei, what more subversion could you possibly want? I don't think any architecture can be good before getting over this schematic superficiality and actually studies and takes in account how buildings are used and what far-reaching effects they have in their broader context. The rest is just pretty stuff.Katherinanoreply@blogger.com