Sod pods, this is the age of juxtaposition and clutter
Jan Kaplicky of Future Systems will build a new library in Prague. The blotchy green and purple building has its opponents in the Czech Republic, Stephen Bayley tells us in his Guardian article, but now looks as if it will shortly rise, like a blob, a noro-viral spore or a jellyfish, in the centre of the city of Kafka.
I have to say I'm a bit tired of this style. It smacks of the recent past, evoking my 1990s Swatch pod-phone, my old JBL Creature subwoofer. Sure, the rounded organic curves of the International Pod style are preferable to the razor-sharp angles of sharkitecture unleashed by Liebeskind, Hadid and co. But blobitecture, over the past fifteen years, has replicated too quickly, mutating its "natural" forms through a whole range of plastic consumer products. It's time for something fresh.
I posed in front of another Jan Kaplicky building -- Selfridges in Birmingham -- a year or so ago, and wondered at the time whether its "panspermian" futurism wasn't already retro (and not in a good way). I can't help thinking of 90s Bjork albums when I look at this stuff; it seems informed by the same collision of techno and the computer-organic. We even have some of it in the London skyline now in the form of the gherkin-shaped Swiss:Re building.
I have to say I'm tired of this style. It's time for something fresh. I posed. A year or so ago! I can't help thinking of. Personally I'm much more excited by. I've been watching. Think of.
Oh, and while I'm signalling cool things. I think. I find.
Your band wagging jumping skills does seem to of diminished somewhat. Why so? Although you are good enough to write for those free papers they bombard you with here on the streets of London. Thats something I suppose. Not sure if they would pay you a lot if anything. Tout it around sunshine, you never know.
When my parents moved from London to rural Ireland in the early seventies(was that ever a culture shock!) we lived close to an old man whose kitchen quite resembled Meire's so to me this idea seems quite retro already. Goat crap in the kitchen....that's sooo passe. Such uniquely odd personal associations aside Kaplicky's library's or more specifically that amorphous blobular architecture seemed oddly retro even in the nineties,so regardless of the importance of observing trends I suppose some things just date better than others...at least Meire's living space seems more eccentrically inviting rather like a kitchen populated by chickens seemed to a six year old boy from London. Thomas S.
Chris Alexander is one of those things I keep hearing recommended, and baulk at for textural-political reasons. A bit like The Sartorialist blog... and for almost the same reasons.
I agree--a little of that tacky blobbery went a very long way. I don't understand why people equate "organic" with flaccid forms, when rigorous, dramatic forms abound in nature, even at the microscopic level.
I'll go along with you on the eclectic, inexpensive aesthetic, but with big qualifiers. I find the idea itself a good one, but in general the examples you tend to show when describing this sensibility seem to use depressingly shrill elements and shabby prefab textures that grate the eye. I'd rather see this eclectic clutter applied in a less jarring, more nurturing way, with living things providing the textures, or at least acting as a counterpoint to the architecture. Why surround ourselves with crappy petroleum products when we can surround ourselves with life? Houseplants aren't expensive, especially since they can be propagated and traded with others. The architectural template I would propose would resemble greenhouses, which employ light materials, crisp grids, and are usually jury-rigged to the gills (fans, humidifiers, sprinkler systems, all patched and improvised and barely getting by). They are versatile, ranging from the plastic pup-tent variety to the grand glass pagodas. A cheap aluminium geodesic dome structure could contain smaller structures to live in, which also could be made of cheap materials.
James Howard Kunstler wrote about this building in his recent Eyesore of the Month column. I have lately found myself a fan of Kunstler's, even though his criticisms have lead me to feel harshly critical of building types that do not fall into the "new urbanism" category. But New Urbanism has been guilty of regurgitating imitations of old buildings in its attempt to repair America's destroyed urban fabric. I happen to think it's better to have a good building type with an uninspired execution than the other way around, but wish these things didn't seem to be mutually exclusive in new developments.
I live in central Detroit, where the urban fabric has been destroyed to the degree that it's almost like a new kind of suburbanism. This creates a mindset that any new development is good, regardless of whether or not it's ghastly. Yesterday, a new building was announced to fill a very important site in the center of downtown, closing in the new Campus Martius Park. I think it looks like two tornadoes playing tug-of-war with an exercise belt in front of a glass slug, but my critical facilities have been dulled by the excitement of new development such that I can't decide whether I think tornadoes and slugs are good for downtown.
Yes, Kunstler is where I found out about Christopher Alexander.
I live in Columbus, Ohio which is a rotten place for architecture. Our star buildings are the Convention Center and the Wexner Center for the Arts, both Peter Eisenman creations. I really dislike having to live around tboth of those buildings, and they both require constant bizarre upkeep. Much has been made of the antagonistic debate between Eisenman and Alexander. They are almost presented as a binary. So pardon me if my bias falls on Alexander's side- I may be biased.
Here in Prague I'd say there is a 50/50 split on public approval of the Kaplicky blob library thing. It is ugly and ridiculous. I don't think it will age well .. a bunch of dirty green and purple plastic in the end.
A shame it got pushed through. I wish the public had more say in these decisions.
The library itself is a treasure and although it is a shame to house it in such an ugly childish blob, its better than the idea of moving the library to Brno, which was suggested.
The Sartorialist is probably not conscious that the male attire he photographs is only "timeless" because so many issues of GQ have said it so. I suppose that could get on your nerves. Or you could view it as endearing or amusing.
The problem is that in these posts you also appear to give "freshness" a real objective, absolute value. I'm sure you don't believe that.
So, if the Sartorialist were to admit that "tradition" is just a subjective value, would you be willing to forgive him?
The problem is that in these posts you also appear to give "freshness" a real objective, absolute value. I'm sure you don't believe that.
You're right, I don't believe that. How could a concept like "freshness" be measured "objectively"? How could we claim that something was "fresh" in a "real, absolute" sense? It wouldn't make sense. The closest you could get to objectivity here would be intersubjectivity. You could poll people on what they considered "fresh", or conduct psychological research to see what sights activated lesser-used parts of the brain. You could then, conceivably, show that such stimulation had health, alertness or creativity pay-offs, helped ward off Alzheimer's disease, or made you better able to produce responses to a Uses of Objects test.
I'm really not very interested in whether cultural questions are "subjective" or "objective" -- it's something Kumakouji brings up all the time, and I have no idea why. It seems clear to me that culture is totally subjective, but that it's also intersubjective (in other words, there are general agreements on meanings that work within cultures, and are contractual). In that sense, Sartorialist and I must agree to differ because he's an aesthetic conservative and I'm an aesthetic radical. Nevertheless, we do require each other's presence to generate the meaning of our statements. There's no radicalism without conservatism.
Pitchfork: How do you feel about filesharing programs like Oink or Soulseek, where kids can download your music for free?
Yoshimi Yokota: When you download music, in any case you have to listen to it as an mp3. When I listen to mp3s they make the inside of my ears feel itchy, and mp3s have this abrasive quality so I get irritated when I listen to them. So I am not into downloading music. I can't do it.
Problem with the UK is that by the time they get round to commissioning what the commissioners believe to be cutting edge architecture it is often already retro, Will Alsop being the biggest case in point.