random tangents

Jesse Reiser from RUR spoke at Tulane last night...and through some discussions with some other architecture students and i wanted to continue the discussion here...

so during this presentation reiser was showing mostly urban schemes and more recent work since the famous[and in some cases infamous] West side convergence and the new york waterfront development competition. in this case he was showing the project from 2004 on the alishan railway through taiwan and china, and then went through some of the classics of sagaponac house, west side, and the waterfront development....but to conclude his presentation he showed a 15 minute film that he had produced dealing with the ideas of rethinking the freeway....







now for the discussion:
in a history class that my friend is currently taking, the professor posed the question of what the impression was of rur's work and it's relevance to the students...many of the students said that they were quite impressed with their work and that they felt that rur was a very forward thinking firm in practice....
my friend and i discussed this and we both agreed...
granted that rur deals mainly with the ideas of infrastructuralism and that the freeway is a definite fundamental aspect of infrastructure of any city, but i would argue this:
their practice as a whole is simply dealing with the utopian ideology of the modernists through the filter of the newest computer technology of our architectural age. i feel that i can state this because even when they talk about the "new material condition" that they are putting forth through the West Side Convergence, they are dealing fundamentally with the truss system of the post-industrial era....their urban planning scheme is not as progressive as the way in which they actually deal with the truss system and they are more than willing to admit this through their writings...stating that they use the truss as a field condition to which almost all other is subservient. referencing ONLY their west side convergence project, what occurs UNDERNEATH the truss field is based on the natural flows of traffic from penn station down to the river...but any series of rigorous diagramming based within the general theme of infrastructure could produce such programmatic results. the other projects that they have produced seem to carry this same general theme....program and much of the architectural significance that could be derived from such a study seems to be usurped by a simple rethinking and reinterpretation of the utopian ideals of the modernists by taking one peice of structural or infrastructural siginificance and reproducing it through the newest technological means...even on the waterfront development and the final[and most recently produced]movie that they are planning to soon post or sell or whatever...the way that they deal with the freeway references DIRECTLY[especially in the case of the movie] Eisenhower's ideal usage of the highway system by american's in the 50's....in each case of rur's work, there is a focused examination of a structural system from the truss system, to bucky fuller's dome, to even the maison domino and the tweaking of these systems through a modern technological and engineering eye, THEN, and ONLY THEN an actual architectural or urban construct from these investigations....

jenn argued that she didn't know if she could respect the fact that they had only been published and had never produced an actual building[until most recently i beleive, because we were shown some construction photos from the alishan railway...but again reiser mentioned that they do construction on this railway all the time....so who actually knows..]
---BUT i WOULD argue against that [to an extent] in that a theoretical and process based practice is in a way progressing the field of architecture through the polemic form/format/program/whatever that they are generating...as in yes it may or may not be built, but by challenging the profession, and the reality of materials to be able to create such architecture IS valid...
had we not challenged the materials of the industrial era the truss system and other new innovations of materials would never have been acheived....should we base our progressive architectural discussion on rethinking those same antiquated systems is something altogether different....
to me there is no relevance in re-reviewing the aspects of modernism ideology beyond it's educational value in the fact that we as designers of the 21rst century have learned, seen and experienced the restrictive and proscribed utopia that modernism FAILED to produce....LET THE GREAT MODERNIST DESIGNERS LIE IN THEIR GRAVES UNDISTURBED!!!

i have said my piece...but i would like feedback from those willing to contribute...
i'm getting a little feklemt...discuss amongst yourselves....modernity...is it a rethinking of the modern or a zeitgeist thinking...

i will include some drawings from my rhino model soon...

posted by ekeith @ 4:53 PM