THOM MAYNE: ARCHITECTURE IS A NEW WAY TO CONNECT TO THE WORLD
www.ted.com Architect Thom Mayne has never been a single to take a easy option, as good as this whistle-stop debate of a buildings he’s combined creates we blissful for it. These have been large ideas expel in element form.tedtalks is a every day video podcast of a most appropriate talks as good as performances from a TED Conference, where a world’s heading thinkers as good as doers have been invited to give a speak of their lives in eighteen mins — together with speakers such as Jill Bolte Taylor, Sir Ken Robinson, Hans Rosling, Al Gore as good as Arthur Benjamin. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, as good as Design, as good as tedtalks cover these topics as good as science, business, governing body as good as a arts. Watch a Top 10 tedtalks upon TED.com, during http
simple thought could be more noble,as frank gehry talks…,maybe,,,
The work done by morphosis is evocative, architectonic, and forward thinking in terms of integrated technology and construction processes. I have always held Thom Mayne high in my books. I’m a little disappointed when i heard him speak in this video though.. unfortunate. typical flakey architecture speak. but anyways, still a fan of his (or at least his talented, under paid, slave driven employees) work. I’m a graduate architecture student btw..
His buildings are beautiful and interesting both as concept and as object . Go Thom !
The majority is not always right. A wise man once said, “When you find yourself in the majority, it’s time to stop and reflect.”
I ask you: Do you think potato-sack dresses are attractive?
Thom Mayne is a visionary architect who unfortunately suffers from what many great architects suffer from: the ability to convey his ideas to non-architects. They’re perfectly able to communicate to clients, but in an environment like TED they rely on their portfolios to speak for them. And they end up doing what Mayne has done: explain the images on the screen, rather than expose us to their ideas about architecture as a field. A manifesto-style would have been more appropriate here.
I wouldn’t say this is a mere bullshit. There exists a whole area of architecture theory which master architects of the past such as Le Corbusier fully engaged in. It’s a hard concept to understand unless you’ve endured years of architecture school but it proves that architecture indeed is a very demanding field, beyond just creating stable or nice looking buildings.
This presentation tells us nothing about the skills if the architect. A truly great Architect should never need to justify his/her work. Happy occupiers, happy maintenance staff, happy builders - the true test of an architect is the opinion of the people who experience their buildings and there is no evidence of that here. Just lots of pictures with as little people in them as possible. Soon many high profile architects will be seen to have no clothes when we hit energy stress.
I think architecture should come from both brain and gut in a nice healthy balance. You need the brain to logically analyze how, when and where the structure shall be built. But you also need to incorporate that special intuitive factor that makes the building worth experiencing. It is that intuitive factor that binds us all together and makes us gaze at unbelievable beauty. But that alone will not things get “done”. Were all bullshitters to some point
well i wouldn’t say he was bullshitting, his personal approach to architectural investigation tends to be very conceptual and intellectual. Of course, translating his complicated ideas into built form must be very difficult given the constraints of the real world. I would say that his approach is overly analytical, convoluted and is ineffectively expressed both verbally in his presenation and his designs. Architecture, I think, should come mainly from the gut rather than the brain.
hehehe don’t tell me your one of those critics that dance around the question with fancy words but never answer it directly? I simply said that the Effiel Tower was hated around its time of erection and in our modern time its the very icon of Paris. you barely responded as to why the Effiel Tower turned from hideous to the essence of Paris…if you say culture made society see it as beauty so quickly, then i guess anything can turn beautiful over night pretty much hehehe
The Eiffel tower is an example of something that our culture teaches us is beautiful. Angelina jolie is beautiful because she has characteristics that evolution has caused us to favour. Beauty is both culturally and genetically determined. Some things, like enjoyment of a good view, are universal, hence usually biological, while the awe for architectural simplicity is cultural. For the cultural i agree: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder or culture. Not for the hard-wired biological.
you know its so funny that you say the vast majority clarifies the “right” answer. Since you study architecture, you should know that the Effiel Tower was thought of as “ugly” and was so close to being torn down due to the majority’s view of it. Now look in our modern time the Tower is the very icon of Paris. So what do think about what I said? I take criticism very kindly so you can feel free to say whatever. ; )
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. There are human universals. When asking large numbers of people the wast majority agree on what is beautiful and not, especially those not indoctrinated by the education. Ask 10 people yourself whether they find Canterbury Cathedral or some same-sized warehouse most beautiful. Ask anyone whether Venice or London is most beautiful. Ask anyone whether Angelina Jolie or the Queen of England is most beautiful. The wast majority will answer the same
I couldn’t agree more. I am studying architecture and long for the attempt of clarity in scientific writings, where jargon is used when needed, instead of architecture pseudophilosophy where it is used as substitute for good ideas.
There are not many professions that are as full of bullshitting as architecture. And I am one of them, so I know how meaningless these rambles of words really are. Its embarrassing, and the discussion of architecture needs to be saved from these people whose only accomplishment is to detach architecture even further from the realm of the real
He has a hard time expressing his ideas in words because he doesn’t really have any ideas. The only idea behind this style of architecture is to attract attention to yourself by doing something weird and different. But the architects have to justify it, so they invent theories so arcane that no one can see they are not really saying anything. The plaza of this building is the bleakest public space I have seen: whenever the wind blows, it fills up with a whirlwind of dust and trash.
There is never a wrong or right approach in architecture. I know this phrase is corny, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder…
I would definitely love to have something of his in downtown São Paulo. It would be a fantastic rupture with that ugly, grey and unimaginative district.
Such a genious…yet so damn confusing. He really is the next level of architects–Sustainability, creativity, and functionality. I hope i can someday reach his level of architectural ability, he truly is an inspiration for me and many others.
Thom Mayne lectured at my college. I agree that he has a hard time conveying his thought process in words, but I do admire that he was still in awe of his work and was very modest. I didn’t agree with one of his comments that hand drawings have become obsolete, but I did like his humor.
One of those guys who is obviously quite intelligent and talented, yet lacks any ability to convey his ideas in words.
It would have been interesting to be introduced to any of the design concepts he put forth, but he goes over them without clarity or depth.
I second this, it is practicly impossible to take most of what he has said and get something out of it. there were a few mentions of his principles, but really it seemed more confusing than informative.
archibabble?
great post
architecture is the generative process that creates the physical forms of a building.