The latest issue of the student-edited publication features student work, as always, but highlights the studio reviews by transcribing the crits by notable jurists, like Zaha Hadid and Peter Eisenman. A typical example:
Kenneth Frampton: ...These computer renderings produce aesthetic effects very well, seamless, very seductive, but they are not about anything. They are delusions! They are mirages! I'm sorry, it's very aggressive to say this, but aren't we going to start talking? It's just ridiculous to say, "Ok -- individual interpretations," "So on and so forth." One has to talk about something fundamental, otherwise we're never going to talk about anything anymore.
Demitri Porphyrios: I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Frampton: I'm talking about the fact that there is a total degeneration...
Porphyrios: Do you want some coffee?
Frampton: No, I don't. Sorry, I don't...
Porphyrios: Look, look, look. This is a disgusting situation. It's not right to get upset...
While Beirut's focus is on the appeal of this dialogue over the typical jargon, going so far as recommend a Car Talk radio show for design, I can't really say I ever got into a jury's commentary as a student. Maybe that was due to lack of sleep or the fact I just wanted to get the presentation over with, but my first instinct is not to revisit those times.
On second thought, though, not being the one critiqued definitely changes things, and probably hearing eminent scholars and architects spew forth their words of wisdom isn't the worst way to kill an hour. But, ultimately, I prefer the "when I feel like it" aspect of the printed page, as well as its visual nature, over the scheduled programming of radio. Call me old-fashioned.
0 comments:
Post a Comment