Architecture today

[jdp]

as someone suggested in this thread, glossy reflections (cocolas), I want to start a dicussion about the state of art in architecture.

Bests architects today?
Do you think architecture is still alive, or it is almost dead?

Regarding this, what do you think about digital architecture represantations in most known architect's projects?
Do you think realism is important in arch renderings, or a conceptual aprroach sometimes is more interesting?

Ok, lets start talking, obviously, feel free to add argument to this topic, or insult me

p.s.: I know my english is horrible, so please let me know if something appears to be not so clear.
---------------------
fede

[cocolas]

I think arch (as in designed arch) not just the usual run of the mill, catalog architecture is definatly alive today.......

my favourite architect is probably Santiago Calatrava, a spanish architect and civil engineer, because his work is very different then the usual Decon designs that you see today, frmo REM to MSRDV to Peter Eisenman
and Frank Geri.......
here's the link to Calatrava :
http://www.calatrava.com/

as for viz in arch: I think it definatly depends on where the stage of the project is - you're still in preliminary conceptual phase it's worthless to show the client a highly polished, photorealistic rendering because that restricts the design too much......so and NPR would work better.....it's also a metter of personal taste.....

[Miguel]

Calatrava, his a good architect, but his references are to direct for my taste, Waro Kishi is one of my favs in these days, hi is very powerful, in the sense that is quite minimalistic, and can do a very small place look good, have you seen his work?

What is a NPR?

[Brim]

NPR means Non Photorealistic.

[rhino]

I think there will be a move to more stylized depictions of architecture. Everyone can create a realistic render nowadays, it will be refreshing to see some "art" back in this field.

I also find some of the younger Architects are becoming too reliant (lazy) on technology, loosing the ability to "see" Instead of using the technology to create the imposible, they are using it to reinforce what is already possible. But there are always those who excel, the brave stupid few who will drive a culture rather than taking a back seat to life and will make the most of these exciting new technologies

[3dform]

the biggest problem of architects is that they belive to be artist, what they not are.
the whole tradition of great buildings is builded up a cooperation of artists and stoneworker masters. Today, I would say that most architects (99%) are manager who are responsible for many things. There biggest problem is that they belive to be an artist. So, instead of asking real artists, designer, light artist, workers, etc... they look in a magazin and watching the actual trends in milan or new york, then switch to another magazin showing the prices of decor, walls, stairs, etc. Then they do the calculation, the recalculation and so on...
I say this because it's what I see every day. There may be great architects who do nothing else then drawing and designing, but this is about 1%.
There are many examples to see in the world. Just look at the so called new quarters of town, whit modern architecture (most time it's to dangerous to go). In NewYork it, just compare the downtown with modern NewJersey. NJ is really a dead place.
But that is all the point of view, from somebody who studied art, and therefor not modern enough.

regards,

robert

[cocolas]

I think you hit the nail on the head, Richard.
you're right about the need of "art" comeback in arch viz, and about the "lazyness" of designers using tech for just reinforcing what's already there instead of seein g new ways/ designs.

in the next year or two EVERYONE will be able to do a GI render w/ all the goodies that are just now only offered by the higher end renders........

it will change the way arch viz is done, when you won't need a max wiz to put out a highly realistic rendering.....but just some designer that doesn't know much about 3d or techy stuff....

paul.

[shytigercp]

it will change the way arch viz is done, when you won't need a max wiz to put out a highly realistic rendering.....but just some designer that doesn't know much about 3d or techy stuff....

Are you saying that folks that do only 3D viz should start looking for a new career in the next year or two?....reminds me of the similar situation of what happened to web-designers. To tell you the truth I can kind of see it coming in a way.

[Dogzilla]

...Today, I would say that most architects (99%) are manager who are responsible for many things. There biggest problem is that they belive to be an artist. So, instead of asking real artists, designer...

Architects don't go to university for 5 years to learn how to be managers. It is a design based and artistic education supported by historical and cultural critical analysis.

Managerial and administrative duties are something thrust upon the young graduate architect in the commercial world. It's not something 99% of architects actually want to do, or are even good at doing. We are designers first and foremost, just not many of us are allowed to be

And the idea of designing by flicking through magazines is a lazy habit pushed on the young architect by older principals as its believed to be more time efficient than actually letting the architect think.
[/quote]

[Miguel]

I second that, I'm a designer not a manager, and yes Architecture is an art, but one that has a use.

[jdp]

I like the way this discussion is going on.
By my side I think architecture is not only art: sure, it is design, but design means a lot of think. I don't want to start a critical essay, so I won't talk about fucking Vitruvio three principles or stuff like that.

In spite of this I think there is a misunderstanding in the way a lot of people use digital tools, particularly architecture students. A lot of them think they must use renderings because is cool, fashonable, and most of times results are worse than a medium skill hand drawing. But what is really funny for me is the amount of time given to digital modelling and rendering, without any idea about real design and plan issue. This is true for some big names as well; I'm thinking about some recent projects of Nouvel and Fuksas, maybe fantastic on the screen or paper, but absolutely fake, not possible to be realized as drawn.

By the way, I don't want to be too much negative, sometimes, you can find people working strictly on architecture and art issues, (I'm thinking about some projects of Diller+scofidio, Herzog&DE Meuron), or people investigating the way computers can lead shape and interface designs (eg: Asymptote), or how new technologies can change our way of life (ecological and self-sufficient buildings like Shigeru Ban, Future System, Foster, Rogers did sometimes...) or, finally, some people looking deep in designing as programming (eg: lab[au]). Of course they use digital images, but in order to represent some ideas. I also like to see again Archigram, Cedric Price and Candilis visionaries projects, and, to be honest, I think some Koolhaas researches on urban development are quiet interesting, and his director's eye gives an interesting way of representation (have a look at S,M,L,XL).

About architects/managers, yes, you are right, a lot of architects are managers, but I think they are not forced to, they choose to: so what's the problem? The important think is what they give us, not if they are more concerned in make money. this names represents teams, maybe they exploit works of others, but they won't live forever, so we can do better.

I know I was not short,
so thx for reading this and, as always, sorry for this horrible english.

-------------

fede

[jdp]

...mmm... maybe I've killed this discussion!?!

[metroberlin]

oh, it´s a very instresting and important discussion and i have an opnion about it...but not in english

[cocolas]

oh, it´s a very instresting and important discussion and i have an opnion about it...but not in english

why not??

[Psy]

because its probably a bad word.