3 ms·

As someone who recently spent 4 years in architecture school, Gins (and Arakawa) were some of the few practitioners of nominal fame who were truly pursuing some

As someone who recently spent 4 years in architecture school, Gins (and Arakawa) were some of the few practitioners of nominal fame who were truly pursuing something different in architecture. That their primary goal is plausibly impossible did not make their active principles any less rigorous than the agendas of more widely accepted conceptual architects. I think it's worth the read, if only to hear that an architect can actually concern themselves with the well-being of their users vs the visual impact of their design. In HM terms, are they guilty of over promising? Absolutely, but they were seeking a new paradigm, not just iterating to get to their next series of financing.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
>That their primary goal is plausibly impossible did not make their active principles any less rigorous than the agendas of more widely accepted conceptual architects. It's not about "active principles" so much as the fact that - after economics - no other profession manages to maintain social status while promoting such obvious, unquestionable crankery and/or snake oil. >I think it's worth the read, if only to hear that an architect can actually concern themselves with the well-being of their users vs the visual impact of their design. And the irony is that when they were done, all they had was visual impact and rhetoric, and no evidence of improvements in well-being. The visual impact is distinctive. The Mitaka Lofts look pretty cool from the outside (maybe not so much on the inside though.) But all the nonsense about life extension, "reverse destiny", and links to the immune system is just such obvious bullshit you have to wonder how it was ever taken seriously. It's self-evident that architecture is important to health and well-being on all kinds of levels. But it often seem that at some point 20th century arts threw all criticism out of the window and started giving a pass to almost any academic-sounding rhetoric, no matter how nonsensical. (Maybe all the ornamentation moved from buildings to text?) Unfortunately stating boldly that you're dealing with an issue doesn't mean you actually are - even less that you're dealing with it with insight and effectiveness.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

>That their primary goal is plausibly impossible did not make their active principles any less rigorous than the agendas of more widely accepted conceptual architects. It's not about "active principles" so much as the fact that - after economics - no other profession manages to maintain social status while promoting such obvious, unquestionable crankery and/or snake oil. >I think it's worth the read, if only to hear that an architect can actually concern themselves with the well-being of their users vs the visual impact of their design. And the irony is that when they were done, all they had was visual impact and rhetoric, and no evidence of improvements in well-being. The visual impact is distinctive. The Mitaka Lofts look pretty cool from the outside (maybe not so much on the inside though.) But all the nonsense about life extension, "reverse destiny", and links to the immune system is just such obvious bullshit you have to wonder how it was ever taken seriously. It's self-evident that architecture is important to health and well-being on all kinds of levels. But it often seem that at some point 20th century arts threw all criticism out of the window and started giving a pass to almost any academic-sounding rhetoric, no matter how nonsensical. (Maybe all the ornamentation moved from buildings to text?) Unfortunately stating boldly that you're dealing with an issue doesn't mean you actually are - even less that you're dealing with it with insight and effectiveness.