Several people commented that they had difficulty understanding Mayne's presentation. Admittedly, his world has its own special language. Architects and designers speak a certain way, using words that are outside normal conversation. "Generative, methodology, aggregates, multiplicity of forces, etc." Essentially Mayne is an unconventional formalist, with an interest in alternative figurations so this places him in a category of esoteric thinkers. He does speak at a fast clip, so anyone with just a basic understanding is going to get lost.

@rr7firefly

9 жыл бұрын

+spikedpsycho You present a good point. Architects on this star level appear to be so fixated on promoting architecture theory that they adapt a project's programatic requirements to accommodate a new aesthetic exercise. Mayne talks about "giving it form" in this TED Talk, which indicates that he considers the search for an expanded formalist vocabulary a critical concern that he claims "enhances" the container for his clients' functional needs by generating a special experience. I don't think that he or other architects give much thought to where the money comes from. For them finding necessary funds is what matters. The end product is an icon which assumes its own legitimacy beyond any of the players in the story. The Farnsworth House by Mies is a classic example of this.

@johnnylee8194

3 жыл бұрын

He is deliberately trying to be mysterious to fake complexity that is not there. Nothing in this profession is really hard like STEM. It is hard if you want to call it that like art.

@rr7firefly

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnnylee8194 Aside from what your wrote, what do you think of particular projects he has designed? I'd like to know what you think.

@dhungryarchitect

Жыл бұрын

@@johnnylee8194 i suggest you take up architecture and design and create structures. and do post your end result so all of us can see and experience it. if it's so easy then let's get rid of all architects and design boxes with holes on them as doors and windows. goodluck with your culture and civilization.

@dhungryarchitect

Жыл бұрын

@@rr7firefly ofcourse we do. budget is always an issue. and on a low budget, you can only accomplish so much. sure it is possible. but if there are no architects that push the limits of the potentials of architecture, (meaning in spaces and structures that conveys art, spaces that inspires life and such,) you end up with a mediocre space that is just there for basic function. ofcourse there are architects that produces standard and ordinary spaces, but goodluck with having a boring city like that. it's like saying chefs shouldn't be making extraordinary dishes coz it just cost a lot. it's like saying scientist and engineers shouldn't dare to explore space coz it costs a lot. every great endeavor (whether it fails or succeeds) requires money.

Holy crap he looks like Steve Jobs...

These Ted videos are great. I've been waiting to see lectures from people like Mayne and McDonough for a long time. I hope there will be more.

@dhungryarchitect

Жыл бұрын

cant believe this was a comment 15 years ago and im replying to it. hey man how its been??? still alive?

Such a genious...yet so damn confusing. He really is the next level of architects--Sustainability, creativity, and functionality. I hope i can someday reach his level of architectural ability, he truly is an inspiration for me and many others.

@dhungryarchitect

Жыл бұрын

you can reach that level with psychedelics.

Thom Mayne is one of my favorite architects, but there's definitely a strong sculptural/aesthetic quality to his work that he seems to not talk about. I actually asked him about it after a lecture once, and Hernan Diaz Alonso answered for him & said "once you're the Rolling Stones, you don't have to talk about how you sound like the Rolling Stones..."

@seangorton9654

4 жыл бұрын

isn't his entire point that his works aren't sculptural for the sake of sculpture? Unlike someone like Ghery, who embraces his sculptural tendencies as a method to elicit intense emotion from viewers, Thom seems, at least to me, to allow the form of the building to be governed strictly by a series of factors that are more or less uninterested in aesthetic appeal.

architecture is the generative process that creates the physical forms of a building.

that documentary was really interesting. I had never heard of this species before.

Nice discussion, very interesting, well played.

@readux Exactly. This is the only language he can use to convey the ideas in 20ish minutes. To explain fully and in terms everyone can understand would take much longer than he had.

I would definitely love to have something of his in downtown São Paulo. It would be a fantastic rupture with that ugly, grey and unimaginative district.

There is never a wrong or right approach in architecture. I know this phrase is corny, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

@bv32ification

4 жыл бұрын

thom isnt interested in creating something beautiful, thats not the point of architecture. he wants to engage people. in other videos you can commonly hear him say, "i dont care if someone loves or hates my projects, as long as theyre not indifferent."

Very concentrated thoughts. Very interesting. Отдельное спасибо каналу за перевод субтитров на русский, хоть иной раз и не точно.

he looks like steve jobs !! there were some really interesting thoughts and ideas in this talk ..

Architecture is a field that resolves its issues not through words but instead in a variety of needed elements. The english language is very inefficient at producing a desired answer in architecture, thus architects often have a difficult time manipulating what imagery they have in their head into a coherent sentence. Architects can only translate to a certain degree before the english language isn't enough. Clarity isn't possible unless you understand the field.

@danno1111 The main question I can think of is: Who is his audience? Do you know?

great post

I second this, it is practicly impossible to take most of what he has said and get something out of it. there were a few mentions of his principles, but really it seemed more confusing than informative.

Thom Mayne is a visionary architect who unfortunately suffers from what many great architects suffer from: the ability to convey his ideas to non-architects. They're perfectly able to communicate to clients, but in an environment like TED they rely on their portfolios to speak for them. And they end up doing what Mayne has done: explain the images on the screen, rather than expose us to their ideas about architecture as a field. A manifesto-style would have been more appropriate here.

the most interesting is the non stoping use of ambiguous terms as if they were neutral and clear to everyone. I mean, using the adjective tectonic doesn't make clear the idea, even if we needed to think on it while we were solving the problem. there is no clue of causal sequence... because it does not lead to a defined result. what could have been told on the contrary is a more practical or a kind of process description so that we could evaluate how it came up... without that ambiguous labels

Nice Vid!

multiplicity of forces

Great discussion, TED Talks are great.

I loved ❤

The Eiffel tower is an example of something that our culture teaches us is beautiful. Angelina jolie is beautiful because she has characteristics that evolution has caused us to favour. Beauty is both culturally and genetically determined. Some things, like enjoyment of a good view, are universal, hence usually biological, while the awe for architectural simplicity is cultural. For the cultural i agree: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder or culture. Not for the hard-wired biological.

what makes an "architecture" different to a building?

@bv32ification

3 жыл бұрын

architecture responds to the social, cultural, and political conditions that gave rise to its inception. buildings just facilitate them

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. There are human universals. When asking large numbers of people the wast majority agree on what is beautiful and not, especially those not indoctrinated by the education. Ask 10 people yourself whether they find Canterbury Cathedral or some same-sized warehouse most beautiful. Ask anyone whether Venice or London is most beautiful. Ask anyone whether Angelina Jolie or the Queen of England is most beautiful. The wast majority will answer the same

In all fairness, you could easily be lying to support your own comment. However, I do agree with you. Just wanted to point out how frivolous it is to make claims like that on the Internet specifically with the intent of supporting an argument.

i'm a cake decorator and i'm offended

@rr7firefly

7 жыл бұрын

At one point in history, several centuries back, architecture was an exalted form of cake decorating. The Bauhaus was a reaction to that.

you know its so funny that you say the vast majority clarifies the "right" answer. Since you study architecture, you should know that the Effiel Tower was thought of as "ugly" and was so close to being torn down due to the majority's view of it. Now look in our modern time the Tower is the very icon of Paris. So what do think about what I said? I take criticism very kindly so you can feel free to say whatever. ; )

I think architecture should come from both brain and gut in a nice healthy balance. You need the brain to logically analyze how, when and where the structure shall be built. But you also need to incorporate that special intuitive factor that makes the building worth experiencing. It is that intuitive factor that binds us all together and makes us gaze at unbelievable beauty. But that alone will not things get "done". Were all bullshitters to some point ;)

well i wouldn't say he was bullshitting, his personal approach to architectural investigation tends to be very conceptual and intellectual. Of course, translating his complicated ideas into built form must be very difficult given the constraints of the real world. I would say that his approach is overly analytical, convoluted and is ineffectively expressed both verbally in his presenation and his designs. Architecture, I think, should come mainly from the gut rather than the brain.

He has a hard time expressing his ideas in words because he doesn't really have any ideas. The only idea behind this style of architecture is to attract attention to yourself by doing something weird and different. But the architects have to justify it, so they invent theories so arcane that no one can see they are not really saying anything. The plaza of this building is the bleakest public space I have seen: whenever the wind blows, it fills up with a whirlwind of dust and trash.

Why did he never pause in his talk. Very rushed

The work done by morphosis is evocative, architectonic, and forward thinking in terms of integrated technology and construction processes. I have always held Thom Mayne high in my books. I'm a little disappointed when i heard him speak in this video though.. unfortunate. typical flakey architecture speak. but anyways, still a fan of his (or at least his talented, under paid, slave driven employees) work. I'm a graduate architecture student btw..

Creía que era el único que pensaba que había algo muy extraño en esta presentación, sinceramente veo un intento desmedido y fallido por justificar un formalismo excesivo, que podría no ser malo, si tan solo lo aceptara y lo asumiera de manera honesta, pero intenta desesperadamente crear conceptos donde no los hay, y la verdad queda muy mal. Me gusta mucho las formas que genera, pero al final son solo eso. Hubiera sido más interesante que describa su proceso de generación formal, y con eso ya estaba. Que pena que quiera vender algo que no es.

Practically, he's using the idea of 'controlled chaos' to spice up glass and steel, sometimes referring to natural landforms, and sometimes to ink splotches scattered on a piece of paper. Glass and steel are responsible for the tragic sterility and purposelessness we are seeing in the modern world, so the crux of the issue is: will the chaos, over time, prove to be stimulating enough to negate the sterility? Seeing people as 'tissue' (in some sort of metaphysical body) is a mistake, because it means they're disposable, unseeing beings. And "There is no such thing as Nature anymore." - this is going to be out civilization's fatal mistake.

I couldn't agree more. I am studying architecture and long for the attempt of clarity in scientific writings, where jargon is used when needed, instead of architecture pseudophilosophy where it is used as substitute for good ideas.

When a person is required to takes only humanities classes in college (architecture degree in US is all combination english, history& art classes in college to graduate. Highschool kid heading to JC takes more STEM classes) and pontificates as much as Nobel Prize winner, how do you respond to that? Dilusion.

@y3ko86 Are you and architect? have you worked as an architect? If not then pleeeeeease read my comment again and try to understand the context in which I am writing it before replying. If you are an architect and still think you get something out of this kind of ranting, then I can only assume you are the product of that very thing that I am criticizing, and I am sorry for you, but more for the world you make architecture for.

They had more interesting buildings in Star Wars...

hehehe don't tell me your one of those critics that dance around the question with fancy words but never answer it directly? I simply said that the Effiel Tower was hated around its time of erection and in our modern time its the very icon of Paris. you barely responded as to why the Effiel Tower turned from hideous to the essence of Paris...if you say culture made society see it as beauty so quickly, then i guess anything can turn beautiful over night pretty much hehehe

This presentation tells us nothing about the skills if the architect. A truly great Architect should never need to justify his/her work. Happy occupiers, happy maintenance staff, happy builders - the true test of an architect is the opinion of the people who experience their buildings and there is no evidence of that here. Just lots of pictures with as little people in them as possible. Soon many high profile architects will be seen to have no clothes when we hit energy stress.

@johnnylee8194

4 жыл бұрын

all known architect sell themselves hard

full respect Thom... but he is pretty sh++ty at explaining architecture to non-architects. Not to mention the picture he shows of the primitive hut...

too general to be told, but good for a nerd speech...

Smug competitive applied art major

so much lies told...

So this is the jerk who razed Bradbury's home?

One word - pretentious. So what was that about - Architecture is a new way to connect to the world? It is as old as the wold. Yet, did not understand how Thom was connecting the world?

There are not many professions that are as full of bullshitting as architecture. And I am one of them, so I know how meaningless these rambles of words really are. Its embarrassing, and the discussion of architecture needs to be saved from these people whose only accomplishment is to detach architecture even further from the realm of the real

WEIRDO

what the fk is the guy talking?

One of those guys who is obviously quite intelligent and talented, yet lacks any ability to convey his ideas in words. It would have been interesting to be introduced to any of the design concepts he put forth, but he goes over them without clarity or depth.

@johnnylee8194

4 жыл бұрын

he is deliberately trying to be mysterious to fake complexity that is not there. nothing in this profession is really hard like stem. it is hard if you want to call it that like art.

Boastful applied arts major. Very quick to being political and petty with co workers.

M is lazing.

wtf is this guy talking? how is whatever he is showing and saying going to chance the place i/we/us live in??? please wake up