in honor of…

A tribute of sorts to someone whose work I disagreed with entirely, but who I have to admit was a provocateur of the first order…Today’s discussion question in ARCH 517x:

“Given today’s news, it seems appropriate to consider Zaha Hadid’s architecture in relation to the course’s thesis. In particular, her powerful forms rarely coincided with any real structural or material logic, for which she’s been heavily criticized. But this argument could easily apply to many forms we’ve looked at today, in particular some of Candela’s more exuberant forms, or Saarinen’s or Utzon’s shells. Pick a structure by one of these three (Candela, Utzon, Saarinen) and compare and contrast the formal and structural rationales of these with those of your favorite Zaha building. Are there important philosophical differences–are the forms involved right, beautiful, true, and/or good? Or just geometrical and mathematical ones? How does the form of each example relate to the tools used to design it?”

2 thoughts on “in honor of…

    • This is the other half of that question! I suspect Utzon and Saarinen would have been entranced by the formal possibilities…Candela I think would have found more disciplined forms that could have been built with his concrete technique using ruled surfaces…but who knows?!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s