surfing

as for freedom of choice, i think architecture as building(s) will always be impoverished in terms of communication. That is, buildings will always suffer a crisis of representation, unable to confer a consistent meaning. This is why i think of architecture, as the powers that be at columbia will preach, as a discourse. Naming is not an innately architectural operation, metaphor is a borrowed tactic, without these Liebeskind's tower is just a tall building that blinds you once in a while. That said, the discourse is, like Adam Smith's invisible hand, a great leveller... Liebeskind's (read: Child's) tower will be talked about just as much for the reflectivity in the glass (post-modern, modern or contemporary? just check the mullions, reflectivity and iron content of the glass) as for the final height of the spire (measured from what datum?).

That said, i think an incredibly interesting project is why architects choose to represent their buildings in certain ways at certain times. What was it that made DL turn to metaphor? Why did this resonate with the jury (the people?) at the time? Why do we now scoff? The corrollary to this project is which representations get picked up, recycled, and churned out. Which will make believers... which will be worthy of our boredom, and which will never enter into our temporary canons? Currently I'm looking at how those who deal with (in?) landscape-y buildings by way of the diagram come at them from entirely different directions, and they end up rendering (designing?) them in ways that abolishes the difference. In effect, the 'meaning' in a winka building no longer seems all that different from a bjarke building... what would peter and rem think? apparently it doesn't matter any more if you read deleuze or musil... there is a great levelling force at work in architecture that is coming at a time that cannot mutter the word manifesto. The 'freedom' of ideological pluralism has allowed for a focus within the field. Where's the difference? Have you ever looked at the first three pages of Mark magazine? If it's there at all, is it washed out by speed and mediation? In short, has representation, Evan's first chapter, caused for a washing over of difference?

Finally, to respond to Evan's ideas about site, I'm reminded of Jeff Kipnis' exhibition at Wexner on the Perfect Acts of Architecture... all made during the economic slowdown of the 70s and 80s... all not built... all 'perfect'... that said, many of them were 'sited': thom mayne's was sited on 6th street, rem's in london. bernard's eponymously in manhattan... i think site is a constituent part of architecture, but it is not always a physical entity, or geography... and it is always sited in the cultural. I am beginning to believe more and more that culture is the best field of expertise for any architect. Rem has said that he was always plagued by an instinct that put his ideas 2 years ahead of their time, and I think his success as a builder is due to the fact that he, amongst many other things, has been able to choreograph the propagation of his ideas into the world in a way that is 'timely'... perhaps you have to be able to see the future to know which borrowed techniques to employ. Also, don't forget that architecture is a slow sport... metaphors are delivered almost instantaneously, but to hold up, they have to survive the years it takes to make a building... even in dubai (or wherever), where buildings go up in months, the rate of critique speeds up to compensate and tear down architecture before it is even occupied (cf. jesse reiser).

for more, see: www.troyconradtherrien.com/KIMSTUDIO/surfing.pdf