Scott Cohen's question about flatness is great. He unmasks the fact that parametricism has yet a lot of personal influence of the architecture studio who is working with it. The question goes way further than the flat floor but it is relative to all the process and all the decisions taken, and you can see this is a weak point in this style of architecture when Patrik starts mumbling around and does not have an answer.
I really enjoyed the last part of the video when dialog started and i became aware of one thing: A rigid curved line offers less degrees of freedom than a rigid straight line.
He is the rare bird within people in architecture. If they could try read his book and look him in CZcams it could be revolution in designing our social reality.
This is quite a sophisticated discourse and the theoretical contribution is clearly articulated, even if based on an outdated view of architectural history centered on western exceptionalism. However, I see the problem of incoherency in the desire to transform this social theory into a blueprint for practice: incoherency between the claims of revolution/avantgardism and the outcomes of this approach, which is conservatism at its best. The autopoiesis of architecture makes sense in a functionally differentiated society. But society is constantly evolving, and, as the book "Capital in the 21st Century" by Piketty shows, there is good evidence to belief that functional differentiation does not portray the whole spectrum of today's society and will not in the immediate future. And so, the belief in autopoiesis might not be that revolutionary after all, because it argues along with functional differentiation, rather than helping practice to deal with our present age and problems. It is on the contrary a quite conservative approach, despite the hype and fumes surrounding ZHA's buildings, and as such it helps to not see and neglect what is already obvious and evident rather than manifesting imperceptible relations, addressing relevance and "reducing stupidity", to quote Cedric Price.
If you mean for the work, he mentions in the Q/A at the end that it's a variety of design and scripting software tools like Rhino3D, Maya, 3DS Max, and others.
I liked the video , I have a question to manage the program which uses Zaha Hadid NECESSARY FOR YOUR PYOYECTOS master mathematics 'd really appreciate it ?, THANKS
It seems to me like he has a completely different approach to architecture than Zaha Hadid, even though he worked with her for over 20 years. The point of her style was that she felt free to express herself and she always liked breaking any boundaries. Schumacher on the other hand has an approach like Le Corbusier, trying to organise architecture in boxes and working on a style that is pretty interesting but trying to make it the one and only style in the world. No architecture style could ever be the one and only. This thing people call "uniformity" shall never exist.
Patrik uses a puritanical phenomenology to beat the dead and fossilized steel and mortar constructions of classism and recast them with an accretion of winsome geospatial order that displays itself as as dative of disclosure of human ambition and vision to collage space and time.
Maybe the good question, instead of what kind of software he's using, would be what kind of architecture he proposes. One of strictly regulated territory, where normative social types are applied. A dangerous stupidity. And the philosophical collapse of architectural ideas.
Scott Cohen's question about flatness is great. He unmasks the fact that parametricism has yet a lot of personal influence of the architecture studio who is working with it. The question goes way further than the flat floor but it is relative to all the process and all the decisions taken, and you can see this is a weak point in this style of architecture when Patrik starts mumbling around and does not have an answer.
I really enjoyed the last part of the video when dialog started and i became aware of one thing: A rigid curved line offers less degrees of freedom than a rigid straight line.
He is the rare bird within people in architecture. If they could try read his book and look him in CZcams it could be revolution in designing our social reality.
This is quite a sophisticated discourse and the theoretical contribution is clearly articulated, even if based on an outdated view of architectural history centered on western exceptionalism. However, I see the problem of incoherency in the desire to transform this social theory into a blueprint for practice: incoherency between the claims of revolution/avantgardism and the outcomes of this approach, which is conservatism at its best. The autopoiesis of architecture makes sense in a functionally differentiated society. But society is constantly evolving, and, as the book "Capital in the 21st Century" by Piketty shows, there is good evidence to belief that functional differentiation does not portray the whole spectrum of today's society and will not in the immediate future. And so, the belief in autopoiesis might not be that revolutionary after all, because it argues along with functional differentiation, rather than helping practice to deal with our present age and problems. It is on the contrary a quite conservative approach, despite the hype and fumes surrounding ZHA's buildings, and as such it helps to not see and neglect what is already obvious and evident rather than manifesting imperceptible relations, addressing relevance and "reducing stupidity", to quote Cedric Price.
If you mean for the work, he mentions in the Q/A at the end that it's a variety of design and scripting software tools like Rhino3D, Maya, 3DS Max, and others.
Is it evolution when a cannibal uses the fork? (Stanislav Lec)
I liked the video , I have a question to manage the program which uses Zaha Hadid NECESSARY FOR YOUR PYOYECTOS master mathematics 'd really appreciate it ?, THANKS
Parametricism is definitely a paradigm shift in design and architecture. As a mid age architect, I feel completely outdated. Sigh...
1:29:00
It seems to me like he has a completely different approach to architecture than Zaha Hadid, even though he worked with her for over 20 years. The point of her style was that she felt free to express herself and she always liked breaking any boundaries. Schumacher on the other hand has an approach like Le Corbusier, trying to organise architecture in boxes and working on a style that is pretty interesting but trying to make it the one and only style in the world. No architecture style could ever be the one and only. This thing people call "uniformity" shall never exist.
1:15:04
if it does not come down to doing more with less, it will not become the next big thing.
its strictly maya guys
2:10:35
1:18:20
i think it's powerpoint
Patrik Schumacher doesn't represent the GSD he's a guest lecturer and his ideas are meant to be provocative.
Patrik uses a puritanical phenomenology to beat the dead and fossilized steel and mortar constructions of classism and recast them with an accretion of winsome geospatial order that displays itself as as dative of disclosure of human ambition and vision to collage space and time.
EPIC;;
Maybe the good question, instead of what kind of software he's using, would be what kind of architecture he proposes. One of strictly regulated territory, where normative social types are applied. A dangerous stupidity. And the philosophical collapse of architectural ideas.