Architects have their own language. Example: an interview with the architects, Delugan Meissl, of the Eye – Amsterdam’s new film centre.
How did you derive the shape of the building? How does this relate formally to cinema?
Film is an illusion created by the scenic coordination
of light, space, and movement, which becomes real through projection. In architecture, the interplay between these parameters defines the intensity and effectiveness of the individual spatial perception significantly. They are understood to be integrative components of spatial enactment, their effect being projected through sequences of human motion and unfolded in multilayered ways.
A bit later:
Our work is determined by as many multivalent relationships between architecture and its contextual environment as possible, incorporating the context of the building and the physical presence of its users. Independently from location, scale and function, the urban context represents an essential parameter of our approach.
I think I can condense that: ‘Design, meet site.’
Further examples welcomed.
Haven’t these guys learned yet that architecture succeeds or fails on how well it meets its goals and whether or not it’s appreciated by its users – not on how obtusely you can describe what inspired the design. Please leave obfuscation to the lawyers…
He could have just said: “the essence of cinema is light and shadow, so I strived for a design that could feature and play with these elements while complementing the location”. (Of course if he had then he’d have missed out the cinematic importance of sound…)
I think I threw up in my mouth a little bit.
Architects are loath to admit that their style is derived in large part from what is current. Like fashion. They strive to justify everything as deriving solely from the program when in fact the design is just an amalgam of what they’ve seen in the last six months of the Architectural Record. The explanation above is at least amusing. Often they are absolutely incomprehensible.
When the design for the convention centre expansion was unveiled in Vancouver, the architects said that their angular forms came from the landscape and they were carrying it up over the building. Actually those angular forms were just fashionable – as they still are – and they were just following the trend. The Chapters building on Robson also has a little bit of that angularity, and I don’t think that they were mimicking the landscape.
Speaking of the convention centre expansion and that angular prow over the water in the photo above, maybe the Vancouver architects were actually taking their cues from the multifaceted projections of powerpoint presentations to future conventioneers.
That said, there isn’t any problem per se with following fashion. That is one way how ideas about style are transmitted, and how more people can benefit from good style ideas. And the current angular vogue, which had been going on for a bit, can be quite appealing.
Anything written by an architect that includes ‘manifesto.’
It looks a bit like a dog. No pun intended.
In trying to find a particularly precious example from Libeskind that I remember reading, I came across several other posts related to the phenonemon. Seems like it is called either ‘archibabble’ or ‘talkicture’. This is a good one:
Reacting to the porous edge of the site, stimulated the concept of temporality, and the fluidity that water has on developing connections, fostering interactions and leaving a reminisce of what has passed.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/11/19/annals-of-archibabble/
Create your own archibabble here:
http://bluearchitecture.wordpress.com/tag/how-to-speak-like-an-architect/