tall buildings
"While it may be reasonable to assume that the items featured in a museum exhibition be small enough to fit into a room (or at least into the museum itself), or that they would actually, well, exist, such is not always the case.
This summer, for example, the Museum of Modern Art has been casting a curator's eye on skyscrapers - few of which are finished structures, and none of which would fit through the front door. In the MoMA's temporary Queen's headquarters, this dilemma was solved with the use of models. On the companion website, the solution included, but was not limited to, the 2-D world of artists' conceptions - and given the necessarily virtual nature of the artifacts in both locations, and the opportunity for leisurely at-home viewing online, MoMA: Tall Buildings may be one of those few exhibits which is actually better surveyed on the web."
I saw that show. It scared me.
was it that it didnt reveal any post 9/11 wisdom?
It actually seemed to be going the other way. "How can we make a more ostentatious terrorist target?"
the "you cant let the terrorists win" faulty rational. god forbid anyone should absorb anything in this town. the moratorium was on irony not learning from life lessons.
Paul Virilio's prognostication isn't being borne out in the architectural community, if that show is any indication: "Instead of being a place of dominion, as the dungeons of the past, the tower has become a place of weakness: vertically, it is henceforth the equivalent of the outer wall which the artillery blew up...."
I don't think there should be any post 9/11 architectural wisdoms. I think any 'improvements' that can be made - or should be incorporated - have to do with human behavior (therefore, okay maybe some structural changes will be made - how do we use fire escapes, who comes up while others are trying to go down etc). I don't think our esthetics should be undermined by the possibility of what might happen. Ostentatious, modest, extreme, ugly, beautiful, sublime, these are pre and post characteristics, and hopefully terms we will always use in debating architecture. Will design really define a target? We need to understand we are vulnerable, from inside to out: fundamental changes need to be made more so to the inside than to the out. (Emotionally, would we choose to move into one? Well that is another question..)
i still think the height thing is a real problem. not for nothing was wtc chosen as a target that would be returned to. now a 1776' replacement is in the works. the port authority plans to
take a lot of the space for their employees. for some that would be returning to a location thats been whacked at on two occasions. three using silversteins logic.
weve discussed virilio. his model in pure war was that we are societies oppressed by our governments insistence on the false threat of opposed super powers. with the ussr gone our government replaced the old cold war foe with a real whopper, an abstract noun.
selma, the wisdom should not be confined to architects. it would have to be a collective (client) wisdom too and that hasnt happened with (amoung other things) so many still connecting sadam to 9/11. and it is not going to happen without leadership from our democratic candidate. of all things, the only plain speak critique im hearing is from pat buchanan. but, when asked who he would vote for he said bush. when asked why he said carry offered no alternatives to the problems he found in the bush administration.
I agree. Of course. I was confining my comment to the architecture but my point (not clear) was wisdom and critique obviously needs to start at another level. (If we learned anything from 9/11 I had hoped it would be that we are vulnerable and not the 'super power' once prescribed. What did 'we' do instead, we had to go and flex our muscles).
Architecturally, and maybe metaphorically, buildings (usually) have longer life lines than we do. Is it interesting to see a building designed in response to 9/11, sure. Do we want our entire building-scape to reflect 9/11, I sure hope not.
guess who :
"'Tall Buildings'' benefits from a polemical edge. The show was conceived in the aftermath of 9/11. At the time, some believed that the future of the skyscraper was in doubt. Amid sound concerns about the safety of tall buildings, a degree of guilt hung in the air. It's naughty of a society to crave heights, the thinking went. Remember Babel!
Americans are easily shamed these days into renouncing habits. And we are quick to thwart the desires of those who won't go along with our disapproval. Skyscrapers need no justification. But it would be worth building higher merely to disembed ourselves from fear.
Does it need to be said that arousing fear is one of the things architecture is actually good for? Every visitor to the Eiffel Tower knows this. Tall buildings transport us to the far side of dread. "
|
"While it may be reasonable to assume that the items featured in a museum exhibition be small enough to fit into a room (or at least into the museum itself), or that they would actually, well, exist, such is not always the case.
This summer, for example, the Museum of Modern Art has been casting a curator's eye on skyscrapers - few of which are finished structures, and none of which would fit through the front door. In the MoMA's temporary Queen's headquarters, this dilemma was solved with the use of models. On the companion website, the solution included, but was not limited to, the 2-D world of artists' conceptions - and given the necessarily virtual nature of the artifacts in both locations, and the opportunity for leisurely at-home viewing online, MoMA: Tall Buildings may be one of those few exhibits which is actually better surveyed on the web."
- bill 9-16-2004 7:17 pm
I saw that show. It scared me.
- tom moody 9-16-2004 7:19 pm [add a comment]
was it that it didnt reveal any post 9/11 wisdom?
- bill 9-16-2004 7:31 pm [add a comment]
It actually seemed to be going the other way. "How can we make a more ostentatious terrorist target?"
- tom moody 9-16-2004 7:44 pm [add a comment]
the "you cant let the terrorists win" faulty rational. god forbid anyone should absorb anything in this town. the moratorium was on irony not learning from life lessons.
- bill 9-16-2004 7:57 pm [add a comment]
Paul Virilio's prognostication isn't being borne out in the architectural community, if that show is any indication: "Instead of being a place of dominion, as the dungeons of the past, the tower has become a place of weakness: vertically, it is henceforth the equivalent of the outer wall which the artillery blew up...."
- tom moody 9-16-2004 8:10 pm [add a comment]
I don't think there should be any post 9/11 architectural wisdoms. I think any 'improvements' that can be made - or should be incorporated - have to do with human behavior (therefore, okay maybe some structural changes will be made - how do we use fire escapes, who comes up while others are trying to go down etc). I don't think our esthetics should be undermined by the possibility of what might happen. Ostentatious, modest, extreme, ugly, beautiful, sublime, these are pre and post characteristics, and hopefully terms we will always use in debating architecture. Will design really define a target? We need to understand we are vulnerable, from inside to out: fundamental changes need to be made more so to the inside than to the out. (Emotionally, would we choose to move into one? Well that is another question..)
- selma 9-16-2004 8:28 pm [add a comment]
i still think the height thing is a real problem. not for nothing was wtc chosen as a target that would be returned to. now a 1776' replacement is in the works. the port authority plans to take a lot of the space for their employees. for some that would be returning to a location thats been whacked at on two occasions. three using silversteins logic.
weve discussed virilio. his model in pure war was that we are societies oppressed by our governments insistence on the false threat of opposed super powers. with the ussr gone our government replaced the old cold war foe with a real whopper, an abstract noun.
- bill 9-16-2004 8:28 pm [add a comment]
selma, the wisdom should not be confined to architects. it would have to be a collective (client) wisdom too and that hasnt happened with (amoung other things) so many still connecting sadam to 9/11. and it is not going to happen without leadership from our democratic candidate. of all things, the only plain speak critique im hearing is from pat buchanan. but, when asked who he would vote for he said bush. when asked why he said carry offered no alternatives to the problems he found in the bush administration.
- bill 9-16-2004 10:05 pm [add a comment]
I agree. Of course. I was confining my comment to the architecture but my point (not clear) was wisdom and critique obviously needs to start at another level. (If we learned anything from 9/11 I had hoped it would be that we are vulnerable and not the 'super power' once prescribed. What did 'we' do instead, we had to go and flex our muscles).
Architecturally, and maybe metaphorically, buildings (usually) have longer life lines than we do. Is it interesting to see a building designed in response to 9/11, sure. Do we want our entire building-scape to reflect 9/11, I sure hope not.
- selma 9-16-2004 10:15 pm [add a comment]
guess who :
"'Tall Buildings'' benefits from a polemical edge. The show was conceived in the aftermath of 9/11. At the time, some believed that the future of the skyscraper was in doubt. Amid sound concerns about the safety of tall buildings, a degree of guilt hung in the air. It's naughty of a society to crave heights, the thinking went. Remember Babel!
Americans are easily shamed these days into renouncing habits. And we are quick to thwart the desires of those who won't go along with our disapproval. Skyscrapers need no justification. But it would be worth building higher merely to disembed ourselves from fear.
Does it need to be said that arousing fear is one of the things architecture is actually good for? Every visitor to the Eiffel Tower knows this. Tall buildings transport us to the far side of dread. "
- bill 9-17-2004 11:29 pm [add a comment]