Remember...
F for Fake [French: Vérités et Mensonges], Orson Welles, 1975
12.10.08
Fake is beautiful...
GO FAST CONNEXION BY KOURTRAJME
GO FAST CONNEXION BY KOURTRAJME
Vidéo envoyée par Kourtrajme_Productions
Après le clip « Justice / stress » de Romain Gavras, Kourtrajmé présente le documentaire GO FAST CONNEXION.
Dans la lignée de 365 JOURS A CLICHY MONTFERMEIL, Ladj Ly nous revient avec GO FAST CONNEXION, un reportage exclusif sur le trafic de cannabis. Ce documentaire, présenté par Charles Villeneuve, est entièrement tourné dans le grand ensemble de Clichy Montfermeil, une « zone de non droit », réputée impénétrable.
Le documentaire GO FAST CONNEXION sera diffusé en avant première sur dailymotion, le mardi 30 septembre à partir de 18 heures. Également sur kourtrajme.com
DVD "365 Jours à Clichy Montfermeil" toujours disponible sur Crakedz : www.crakedz.com
Contact : ktprod@gmail.com
www.gofast-lefilm.com
www.kourtrajme.com
www.mecdetess.com
22.9.08
Enfin!!!
Enfin, les deux livres compilants les conversations entre Hans Ulrich Obrist et DGF et PP sont disponibles dans les bonnes librairies prés de chez vous... il ne manque plus que PH...
11.9.08
9.9.08
7.9.08
The Book of the month
Paulo Mendes Da Rocha: Bauten Und Projekte/Works and Projects, Anette Spiro, Arthur Niggli Publisher, avril 2007.
4.9.08
8.8.08
18.7.08
Tektonic is has been... Now is Melbourne Shuffle...
from the other side of the world...
HARDCORE...
isn't it?
1.7.08
Black Hole
The biggest black hole in the universe weighs in with a respectable mass of 18 billion Suns!
Fortunately, it’s 3.5 billion light years away, forming the heart of a quasar called OJ287.
Fortunately, it’s 3.5 billion light years away, forming the heart of a quasar called OJ287.
9.6.08
2.6.08
26.5.08
.jpg)
20.5.08
Peter is upset! .... again students...
L'architecte Peter Eisenman expose ici ses pensées sur l'architecture.
Il est particulièrement remonté contre les étudiants et les ordinateurs [???] et de l'usage dont en font ces derniers....
Peter Eisenman set out his thoughts on architecture at RIAS 2008
1. Architecture in a media culture
2. Students have become passive
3. Computers make design standards poorer
4. Today’s buildings lack meaning or reference
5. We are in a period of late style
6. To be an architect is a social act
Point one: Architecture in a media culture
Media has invaded every aspect of our lives. It is difficult to walk out on the street or stand in a crowded elevator without encountering people speaking into cellular phones at the top of their voices as if no one else was around. People leave their homes and workplaces and within seconds are checking their Blackberries. Their iPhones provide instant messaging email, news, telephone and music—it’s as if they were attached to a computer.
Less and less people are able to be in the real physical world without the support of the virtual world. This has brought about a situation in which people have lost the capacity to focus on something for any length of time. This is partly because media configures time in discrete segments.
Focus is conditioned by how long one can watch something before there is an advertisement. In newspapers stories keep getting shorter, the condensed version is available on the internet. This leads today to a corruption of what we think of as communication, with a lessening of the capacity to read or write correct sentences. While irrelevant information multiplies, communication diminishes. If architecture is a form of media it is a weak one. To combat the hegemony of the media, architecture has had to resort to more and more spectacular imaging. Shapes generated through digital processes become both built icons that have no meaning but also only refer to their own internal processes. Just think of any architectural magazine today devoted, supposedly, to the environment, and instead one finds media.
Point two: Students have become passive
The corollary to the prevalent media culture is that the viewing subject has become increasingly passive. In this state of passivity people demand more and more images, more visual and aural information and in a state of passivity people demand things that are easily consumed.
The more passive people become the more they are presented by the media with supposed opportunities to exercise choice. Vote for this, vote for whatever stories you want to hear, vote for what popular song you want to hear, vote for what commercial you want to see. This voting gives the appearance of active participation, but it is merely another form of sedation because the voting is irrelevant It is part of the attempt to make people believe they are participating when in fact they are becoming more and more passive.
Students also have become passive. More passive than students in the past. This is not a condemnation but a fact. To move students to act or to protest for or against anything today is impossible. Rather they have a sense of entitlement. The generations that remember 1968 feel that those kinds of student protests are almost impossible today. For the last seven years we have had in the US one of the most problematic governments in our history. Probably the most problematic since the mid-19th century and president Millard Fillmore. Our reputation in Europe, our dollar, our economy, the spirit of our people, has been weakened. In such a state of ennui people feel they can do little to bring about change. With the war in Iraq draining our economy there is still the possibility that the political party responsible for today’s conditions will be re-elected.
Will this have consequences for architecture?
Point three: Computers make design standards poorer
This passivity is related to architecture. Architecture today relies on one of passivity’s most insidious forms—the computer.
Architects used to draw volumes, using shading and selecting a perspective. In learning how to draw one began to understand not only what it was like to draw like Palladio or Le Corbusier but also the extent of the differences in their work. A wall section of Palladio felt different to the hand than one of Le Corbusier’s. It is important to understand such differences because they convey ideas. One learned to make a plan. Now, with a computer, one does not have to draw. By clicking a mouse from point to point, one can connect dots that make plans, one can change colours, materials and light. Photoshop is a fantastic tool for those who do not have to think.
The problem is as follows. “So what?” my students say, “Why draw Palladio? How will it help me get a job?” The implication is this: “If it’s not going to help me get a job, I don’t want to do it.” In this sense, architecture does not matter. In a liberal capital society, getting a job matters, and my students are in school precisely for this reason.
Yet education does not help you get a job. In fact, the better you are at Photoshop the more attractive you are to an office, the better you will work in that office.
If I ask a student to make a diagram or a plan that shows the ideas of a building, they cannot do it. They are so used to connecting dots on a computer that they cannot produce an idea of a building in a plan or a diagram. This is certain to affect not only their future, but the future of our profession.
Point four: Today’s buildings lack meaning or reference
The computer is able to produce the most incredible imagery which become the iconic images of magazines and competitions. To win a competition today one has to produce shapes and icons by computer.
But these are icons with little meaning or relationship to things in the real world. According to the American pragmatist philosopher C S Peirce there were three categories of signs: icons, symbols, and indices. The icon had a visual likeness to an object.
Robert Venturi’s famous dictum categorised buildings as either “a duck or a decorated shed”; the difference between an icon and symbol in architectural terms.
A “duck” is a building that looks like its object—a hotdog stand in the form of a giant hotdog or, in Venturi’s terms, a place that sells ducks taking the very same shape as a duck. This visual similitude produces what Peirce calls an icon which can be understood at first glance.
Venturi’s other term, the “decorated shed”, describes a public facade for what amounts to a generic box like building. The decorated shed is more a symbol, in Peirce’s terms, which has an agreed upon, or conventional meaning. A classical facade symbolises a public building, whether it is a bank a library or school.
Today the shape of buildings become icons which have none of these external references. They may not necessarily look like anything or they may only resemble the processes that made them. In this case they do not relate outwardly but refer inwardly. These are icons that have little cultural meaning or reference. There is no reason to ask our more famous architects: “Why does it look like this?”
There is no answer to this question because “Why?” is the wrong question.
Why? Because the computer can produce it. One could ask these architects: “Why is this one better than that one?” Or “Which one of the crumpled paper buildings is better?” Or “Which one is the best and why?”
There is no answer again to these questions. Why? Because there is no value system in place for judging, and there is no relationship to be able to judge between the image produced and its meaning as an icon.
These icons are made from algorithmic processes that have nothing to do with architectural thinking.
Point five: We are in a period of late style
Edward Said in his book On Late Style describes lateness as a moment in time when there are no new paradigms or ideological, cultural, political conditions that cause significant change. Lateness can be understood as a historical moment which may contain the possibilities of a new future paradigm.
For example there were reasons in the late 19th century for architecture to change. These included changes in psychology introduced by Freud; in physics by Einstein; in mathematics with Heisenberg; and in flight with the Wright brothers. These changes caused a reaction against the Victorian and imperial styles of the period and articulated a new paradigm: modernism.
With each new paradigm, whether it is the French revolution or the Renaissance, there is an early phase, which in modernism was from 1914-1939; a high phase, which in modernism occurred 1954-1968 when it was consumed by liberal capital after the war; and a period of opposition. The year 1968 saw an internal, implosive revolution, one that reacted against institutions representing the cultural past of many of the western societies. This was followed by post modernism’s eclectic return to a language that seemed to have meaning. The Deconstructivist exhibition at the MoMA in 1988 put an end to this cliché and kitsch style.
Today I say we are in a period of late style. A period in which there is no new paradigm. Computation and the visual may produce a shift from the notational but this in itself is not a new paradigm. It is merely a tool. The question remains: What happens when one reaches the end of a historical cycle? On Late Style by Edward Said describes such a moment in culture before a shift to a new paradigm. A moment not of fate or hopelessness but one that contains a possibility of looking at a great style for the possibility of the new and the transformative. He uses as an example Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis, written at the end of Beethoven’s career. This was the composer’s response to the seeming impossibility of innovation. Instead Beethoven wrote a piece that was difficult, even anarchic, that could not be easily understood and was outside of his characteristic and known style. Beethoven’s later work is an example of the complexity ambivalence, and the “undecidability” that characterises a late style.
Point six: To be an architect is a social act
This last point deals with architecture and its unique autonomy. Since the Renaissance in Italy when Brunelleschi, Alberti and Bramanti established what can be called the persistencies of architecture—subject-object relationships—these persistencies have remained operative to this day. Alberti’s dictum that “a house is a small city and a city is a large house”, remains with us in all works that we see. In other words the relationship between the part and the whole: the figure and the ground, the house to its site, the site to the street, the street to its neighbourhood and the neighbourhood to the city.
These issues constitute the basis of what would be called the dialectical synthesis as an aspect of the ongoing metaphysical project. Thus one of the things that must be investigated is the problematic part-to-whole relationship—which is part of a Hegelian dialectical idea of thesis and anti-thesis forming a new whole or synthesis—and the relationship of building to ground.
Architecture has traditionally been concerned with these dialectical categories, whether it is inside/outside, figure/ground, subject/object. For me today, it is necessary to look within architecture to see if it is possible to break up this synthetic project from within. This attempt is what post-structuralism would consider the displacement of the metaphysics of presence.
If we continue to think that what is presented is necessarily truthful or what we see is truthful and also beautiful then we will continue to subscribe to the myth that architecture is the wonder of the metaphysics of presence. It may become possible with such an awareness to move away from what I call the hegemony of the image.
People always say formalism is the project of architecture’s autonomists. For me it is precisely this autonomy which is architecture’s delay of engaging with society. If it is architecture’s activity and its own discourse which in fact impacts society, then to be an architect is a social act.
This does not mean social in the form of making people feel better or happy. Or building houses for the poor or shopping malls for the rich or garages for Mercedes. I am talking about understanding those conditions of autonomy that are architectural, that make for an engagement with society in the sense of operating against the existing hegemonic social and political structures of our time. That is what architecture has always been.
1. Architecture in a media culture
2. Students have become passive
3. Computers make design standards poorer
4. Today’s buildings lack meaning or reference
5. We are in a period of late style
6. To be an architect is a social act
Point one: Architecture in a media culture
Media has invaded every aspect of our lives. It is difficult to walk out on the street or stand in a crowded elevator without encountering people speaking into cellular phones at the top of their voices as if no one else was around. People leave their homes and workplaces and within seconds are checking their Blackberries. Their iPhones provide instant messaging email, news, telephone and music—it’s as if they were attached to a computer.
Less and less people are able to be in the real physical world without the support of the virtual world. This has brought about a situation in which people have lost the capacity to focus on something for any length of time. This is partly because media configures time in discrete segments.
Focus is conditioned by how long one can watch something before there is an advertisement. In newspapers stories keep getting shorter, the condensed version is available on the internet. This leads today to a corruption of what we think of as communication, with a lessening of the capacity to read or write correct sentences. While irrelevant information multiplies, communication diminishes. If architecture is a form of media it is a weak one. To combat the hegemony of the media, architecture has had to resort to more and more spectacular imaging. Shapes generated through digital processes become both built icons that have no meaning but also only refer to their own internal processes. Just think of any architectural magazine today devoted, supposedly, to the environment, and instead one finds media.
Point two: Students have become passive
The corollary to the prevalent media culture is that the viewing subject has become increasingly passive. In this state of passivity people demand more and more images, more visual and aural information and in a state of passivity people demand things that are easily consumed.
The more passive people become the more they are presented by the media with supposed opportunities to exercise choice. Vote for this, vote for whatever stories you want to hear, vote for what popular song you want to hear, vote for what commercial you want to see. This voting gives the appearance of active participation, but it is merely another form of sedation because the voting is irrelevant It is part of the attempt to make people believe they are participating when in fact they are becoming more and more passive.
Students also have become passive. More passive than students in the past. This is not a condemnation but a fact. To move students to act or to protest for or against anything today is impossible. Rather they have a sense of entitlement. The generations that remember 1968 feel that those kinds of student protests are almost impossible today. For the last seven years we have had in the US one of the most problematic governments in our history. Probably the most problematic since the mid-19th century and president Millard Fillmore. Our reputation in Europe, our dollar, our economy, the spirit of our people, has been weakened. In such a state of ennui people feel they can do little to bring about change. With the war in Iraq draining our economy there is still the possibility that the political party responsible for today’s conditions will be re-elected.
Will this have consequences for architecture?
Point three: Computers make design standards poorer
This passivity is related to architecture. Architecture today relies on one of passivity’s most insidious forms—the computer.
Architects used to draw volumes, using shading and selecting a perspective. In learning how to draw one began to understand not only what it was like to draw like Palladio or Le Corbusier but also the extent of the differences in their work. A wall section of Palladio felt different to the hand than one of Le Corbusier’s. It is important to understand such differences because they convey ideas. One learned to make a plan. Now, with a computer, one does not have to draw. By clicking a mouse from point to point, one can connect dots that make plans, one can change colours, materials and light. Photoshop is a fantastic tool for those who do not have to think.
The problem is as follows. “So what?” my students say, “Why draw Palladio? How will it help me get a job?” The implication is this: “If it’s not going to help me get a job, I don’t want to do it.” In this sense, architecture does not matter. In a liberal capital society, getting a job matters, and my students are in school precisely for this reason.
Yet education does not help you get a job. In fact, the better you are at Photoshop the more attractive you are to an office, the better you will work in that office.
If I ask a student to make a diagram or a plan that shows the ideas of a building, they cannot do it. They are so used to connecting dots on a computer that they cannot produce an idea of a building in a plan or a diagram. This is certain to affect not only their future, but the future of our profession.
Point four: Today’s buildings lack meaning or reference
The computer is able to produce the most incredible imagery which become the iconic images of magazines and competitions. To win a competition today one has to produce shapes and icons by computer.
But these are icons with little meaning or relationship to things in the real world. According to the American pragmatist philosopher C S Peirce there were three categories of signs: icons, symbols, and indices. The icon had a visual likeness to an object.
Robert Venturi’s famous dictum categorised buildings as either “a duck or a decorated shed”; the difference between an icon and symbol in architectural terms.
A “duck” is a building that looks like its object—a hotdog stand in the form of a giant hotdog or, in Venturi’s terms, a place that sells ducks taking the very same shape as a duck. This visual similitude produces what Peirce calls an icon which can be understood at first glance.
Venturi’s other term, the “decorated shed”, describes a public facade for what amounts to a generic box like building. The decorated shed is more a symbol, in Peirce’s terms, which has an agreed upon, or conventional meaning. A classical facade symbolises a public building, whether it is a bank a library or school.
Today the shape of buildings become icons which have none of these external references. They may not necessarily look like anything or they may only resemble the processes that made them. In this case they do not relate outwardly but refer inwardly. These are icons that have little cultural meaning or reference. There is no reason to ask our more famous architects: “Why does it look like this?”
There is no answer to this question because “Why?” is the wrong question.
Why? Because the computer can produce it. One could ask these architects: “Why is this one better than that one?” Or “Which one of the crumpled paper buildings is better?” Or “Which one is the best and why?”
There is no answer again to these questions. Why? Because there is no value system in place for judging, and there is no relationship to be able to judge between the image produced and its meaning as an icon.
These icons are made from algorithmic processes that have nothing to do with architectural thinking.
Point five: We are in a period of late style
Edward Said in his book On Late Style describes lateness as a moment in time when there are no new paradigms or ideological, cultural, political conditions that cause significant change. Lateness can be understood as a historical moment which may contain the possibilities of a new future paradigm.
For example there were reasons in the late 19th century for architecture to change. These included changes in psychology introduced by Freud; in physics by Einstein; in mathematics with Heisenberg; and in flight with the Wright brothers. These changes caused a reaction against the Victorian and imperial styles of the period and articulated a new paradigm: modernism.
With each new paradigm, whether it is the French revolution or the Renaissance, there is an early phase, which in modernism was from 1914-1939; a high phase, which in modernism occurred 1954-1968 when it was consumed by liberal capital after the war; and a period of opposition. The year 1968 saw an internal, implosive revolution, one that reacted against institutions representing the cultural past of many of the western societies. This was followed by post modernism’s eclectic return to a language that seemed to have meaning. The Deconstructivist exhibition at the MoMA in 1988 put an end to this cliché and kitsch style.
Today I say we are in a period of late style. A period in which there is no new paradigm. Computation and the visual may produce a shift from the notational but this in itself is not a new paradigm. It is merely a tool. The question remains: What happens when one reaches the end of a historical cycle? On Late Style by Edward Said describes such a moment in culture before a shift to a new paradigm. A moment not of fate or hopelessness but one that contains a possibility of looking at a great style for the possibility of the new and the transformative. He uses as an example Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis, written at the end of Beethoven’s career. This was the composer’s response to the seeming impossibility of innovation. Instead Beethoven wrote a piece that was difficult, even anarchic, that could not be easily understood and was outside of his characteristic and known style. Beethoven’s later work is an example of the complexity ambivalence, and the “undecidability” that characterises a late style.
Point six: To be an architect is a social act
This last point deals with architecture and its unique autonomy. Since the Renaissance in Italy when Brunelleschi, Alberti and Bramanti established what can be called the persistencies of architecture—subject-object relationships—these persistencies have remained operative to this day. Alberti’s dictum that “a house is a small city and a city is a large house”, remains with us in all works that we see. In other words the relationship between the part and the whole: the figure and the ground, the house to its site, the site to the street, the street to its neighbourhood and the neighbourhood to the city.
These issues constitute the basis of what would be called the dialectical synthesis as an aspect of the ongoing metaphysical project. Thus one of the things that must be investigated is the problematic part-to-whole relationship—which is part of a Hegelian dialectical idea of thesis and anti-thesis forming a new whole or synthesis—and the relationship of building to ground.
Architecture has traditionally been concerned with these dialectical categories, whether it is inside/outside, figure/ground, subject/object. For me today, it is necessary to look within architecture to see if it is possible to break up this synthetic project from within. This attempt is what post-structuralism would consider the displacement of the metaphysics of presence.
If we continue to think that what is presented is necessarily truthful or what we see is truthful and also beautiful then we will continue to subscribe to the myth that architecture is the wonder of the metaphysics of presence. It may become possible with such an awareness to move away from what I call the hegemony of the image.
People always say formalism is the project of architecture’s autonomists. For me it is precisely this autonomy which is architecture’s delay of engaging with society. If it is architecture’s activity and its own discourse which in fact impacts society, then to be an architect is a social act.
This does not mean social in the form of making people feel better or happy. Or building houses for the poor or shopping malls for the rich or garages for Mercedes. I am talking about understanding those conditions of autonomy that are architectural, that make for an engagement with society in the sense of operating against the existing hegemonic social and political structures of our time. That is what architecture has always been.
19.5.08
15.5.08
Vous avez dit Postmoderne?
Ce texte capital du célèbre théoricien américain Fredric Jameson, professeur émérite de littérature comparée à Duke University, où il dirige le Centre de Théorie Critique, est pour la première fois traduit en français.
Jameson y décrit le postmodernisme comme un ensemble de phénomènes qui succèdent au modernisme, et qu'il analyse comme une étape du capitalisme tardif, «la logique culturelle» de ce dernier.
Au delà des enjeux économiques et de tout ce qu'englobe sa vision du postmodernisme, il se penche tout particulièrement sur l'art, l'architecture, la littérature, le cinéma et la vidéo. Ce livre démontre supérieurement l'acuité et la pénétration de ses analyses, son immense culture littéraire et philosophique, son aisance théorique sans égal. Il témoigne aussi de la vision résolument cosmopolite d'un grand penseur dans la tradition de Hegel et de Marx.
Jameson y décrit le postmodernisme comme un ensemble de phénomènes qui succèdent au modernisme, et qu'il analyse comme une étape du capitalisme tardif, «la logique culturelle» de ce dernier.
Au delà des enjeux économiques et de tout ce qu'englobe sa vision du postmodernisme, il se penche tout particulièrement sur l'art, l'architecture, la littérature, le cinéma et la vidéo. Ce livre démontre supérieurement l'acuité et la pénétration de ses analyses, son immense culture littéraire et philosophique, son aisance théorique sans égal. Il témoigne aussi de la vision résolument cosmopolite d'un grand penseur dans la tradition de Hegel et de Marx.
"Le plus sûr est d'appréhender le concept du postmoderne comme une tentative de penser le présent historiquement à une époque qui, avant tout, a oublié comment penser historiquement. Dans ce cas, soit le postmoderne «exprime» un élan historique profond et irrépressible (sous quelque forme biaisée que ce soit), soit il le «réprime» et le dévie efficacement, selon le côté de l'ambiguïté qui a votre faveur. Le postmodernisme, la conscience postmoderne, pourrait bien alors n'être rien d'autre qu'une théorisation de sa propre condition de possibilité, ce qui se résume, au fond, à une simple énumération de changements et de modifications. Le modernisme, lui aussi, réfléchissait compulsivement sur le Nouveau et cherchait à en observer l'apparition (inventant dans ce but des moyens d'enregistrement et de notation analogues à la chronophotographie historique), mais le postmoderne aspire, pour sa part, aux ruptures, aux événements plus qu'aux nouveaux mondes, à l'instant révélateur après lequel il n'est plus le même; au «moment où tout a changé», comme le dit Gibson ', ou, mieux encore, aux modifications et aux changements irrévocables dans la représentation des choses et dans leur manière de changer. Les modernes s'intéressaient à ce qui pouvait résulter de ces changements et à leur tendance générale : ils réfléchissaient à la chose elle-même, substantivement, de manière utopique ou essentielle. Le postmodernisme est plus formel en ce sens, et plus «distrait» comme aurait pu le dire Benjamin; il ne fait que mesurer les variations et ne sait que trop bien que les contenus ne sont que des images de plus. Dans le modernisme, comme je vais tenter de le montrer plus loin, subsistent encore quelques zones résiduelles de «nature» ou d'«être», du vieux, du plus ancien, de l'archaïque; la culture parvient encore à exercer un effet sur cette nature et œuvre à transformer ce «réfèrent». Le postmodernisme est donc ce que vous obtenez quand le processus de modernisation est achevé et que la nature s'en est allée pour de bon. C'est un monde plus pleinement humain que l'ancien, mais un monde dans lequel la «culture» est devenue une véritable «seconde nature». En effet, un des indices les plus importants pour suivre la piste du postmoderne pourrait bien être le sort de la culture : une immense dilatation de sa sphère (la sphère des marchandises), une acculturation du Réel immense et historiquement originale, un grand saut dans ce que Benjamin appelait «l'esthétisation» de la réalité (il pensait que cela voulait dire le fascisme, mais nous savons bien qu'il ne s'agit que de plaisir : une prodigieuse exultation face à ce nouvel ordre des choses, une fièvre de la marchandise, la tendance pour nos «représentations» des choses à exciter un enthousiasme et un changement d'humeur que les choses elles-mêmes n'inspirent pas nécessairement). Ainsi, dans la culture postmoderne, la «culture» est devenue un produit à part entière; le marché est devenu absolument autant un substitut de lui-même et une marchandise que n'importe lequel des articles qu'il inclut en lui-même : le modernisme constituait encore, au minimum et tendanciellement, une critique de la marchandise et une tentative pour qu'elle se transcende. Le postmodernisme est la consommation de la pure marchandisation comme processus. Par conséquent, le «style de vie» propre au super-État a le même rapport avec le fétichisme de la marchandise de Marx que les monothéismes les plus avancés avec les animismes primitifs ou le culte des idoles le plus rudimentaire; toute théorie élaborée du postmoderne devrait donc entretenir avec l'ancien concept d'«Industrie de la culture» de Horkheimer et Adorno un rapport un peu du même type que celui de MTV et les publicités fractales avec les séries télévisées des années cinquante.
Entre temps, la «théorie» a changé et offre un indice de son cru sur ce mystère. En effet, la façon dont toutes sortes d'analyses tendancielles de types jusqu'alors très différents - prévisions économiques, études de marché, critiques culturelles, nouvelles thérapies, lamentations (en général officielles) sur la drogue ou la permissivité, critiques de manifestations artistiques ou de festivals de films nationaux, cultes ou «renouveaux» religieux -se sont fondues en son sein pour former un nouveau genre de discours, que nous pourrions tout aussi bien appeler la «théorie du postmodernisme», est l'une des caractéristiques les plus frappantes du postmoderne et requiert une attention particulière. Il s'agit clairement d'une classe qui fait partie de sa propre classe, et je ne voudrais pas avoir à décider si les chapitres qui suivent constituent une étude sur la nature de cette «théorie postmoderne» ou n'en sont qu'une simple illustration."
Entre temps, la «théorie» a changé et offre un indice de son cru sur ce mystère. En effet, la façon dont toutes sortes d'analyses tendancielles de types jusqu'alors très différents - prévisions économiques, études de marché, critiques culturelles, nouvelles thérapies, lamentations (en général officielles) sur la drogue ou la permissivité, critiques de manifestations artistiques ou de festivals de films nationaux, cultes ou «renouveaux» religieux -se sont fondues en son sein pour former un nouveau genre de discours, que nous pourrions tout aussi bien appeler la «théorie du postmodernisme», est l'une des caractéristiques les plus frappantes du postmoderne et requiert une attention particulière. Il s'agit clairement d'une classe qui fait partie de sa propre classe, et je ne voudrais pas avoir à décider si les chapitres qui suivent constituent une étude sur la nature de cette «théorie postmoderne» ou n'en sont qu'une simple illustration."
14.5.08
"Streets in the sky"
LINKED HYBRID
Beijing, China, 2003-August 2008
PROGRAM: 622 apartments, cinematheque, galleries, retail shops, 60-room hotel, kindergarten, underground parking garage
CLIENT: Modern Investment Group, Beijing
SIZE: 210,000 sm
STATUS: construction phase
link
13.5.08
12.5.08
7.5.08
28.4.08
27.4.08
Jean Nouvel in a popular french talk show
L'architecte Jean Nouvel - nouveau Pritzker Price - sur le plateau de "On est pas Couché" présenté par Laurent Ruquier, le samedi 26 avril 2008 sur France 2.
Peopelisation des architectes star?
Watch the video here
22.4.08
Vanitas, vanitas...
cover of the april issue of L'UOMO Vogue
now the new field of the stararchitects is to be a People, a Top Model...
17.4.08
8.4.08
7.4.08
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)