Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
RAIA conference #2
RAIA Conference - April 2007
Creative Director Timothy Hill of Donovan Hill. The RAIA webpage for the conference gives a lot of attention to something called BIM, or Building Information Modelling, in case you didn't know.
http://www.architecture.com.au/i-cms?page=1.19.38.8667
Creative Director Timothy Hill of Donovan Hill. The RAIA webpage for the conference gives a lot of attention to something called BIM, or Building Information Modelling, in case you didn't know.
http://www.architecture.com.au/i-cms?page=1.19.38.8667
Comments
Unfortunately missed most of the conference due to work - but did follow the program and reviews closely afterwards. I did, however, make it down to see Michael Markham present a 4hr lecture on the Thursday night as part of the SONA component of the conference. A rare occasion to witness the dying art of a prepared lecture that illustrated the potency of one of Australia's most criticial architectural thinker/comentator/practioners. His 'style' was both infectious and conclusive - a clearly argued position about the unwavering strive for a genuine moment through architecture.
Commentary from around the traps here in Brisbane is that the conference was a success despite the shroud of secrecy surrounding the lead up. At last, a conference that put students first (supertute), did not ostracize the belly of the profession (BIM), introduced some unique architectural thinkers/doers(DL) - and managed to tie it all together in a truly genuine moment of global/video/voyerism.
Others?
The 4 hour epic sounds like a good contrast to the Pechakucha-ish rapidfire slideshows that are springing up all over Oz (and the world).
it was irrelevent then.
now an epic is irrelevant.
melbourne is relevant.
Thats why the Conference was there - to be in the centre of the mainstream.
RAIA awards 2002
tedious
self interested
racist
and obsessed with playing with its shit years after the stink left it.
-refer Architect Victoria Winter 2007.
And I thought the chip on my shoulder was big!
Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. No 'movement' in architecture or otherwise has had to look for detractors but all movements need affirmation of the claim to be such a thing. Constant affirmation. With post partum recognition never being good enough, an article of faith, can we be so mean as to deny Micheal Markham his efforts to convey the meaning he so obviously finds in 'his' moment.
Unfortunately Kevin didn't give enough away for me to make an informed comment but as a concerned designer, merely the phrase 'strive for a genuine movement through architecture', gives rise to whole swag of concerns.
Things like a real application of enviromental credentials to building design as apposed to the tick-a-box piss-in-a-pocket that passes for a star ratings regime. Or the rehumanising efforts made by the Gherkin for what is essentially a giant workstation, being applied to all giant workstations. Or 'geuine' efforts being made to discourage the rampant waste of resources and profligate greed and infantile posturing represented by the hundreds of acres of McMansions that are put up without question by people working under the flawed guidance of architects who frankly, should know better.
Ah!, for any movement that strives for genuineness.
Melbourne might be :
"tedious" - yes it undoubtedly is and I live here working for architects, so I know
"self interested" - I would suggest more self-absorbed-if it was self interested it might result in more insight in its journals
and "obsessed with its shit years after the stink left it"-probably but then isn't this the basis of one of our most mesmerising myths of psychoanalysis?
BUT I fail to see how that edition of that journal is "racist "- or this directed at any of the editors or contributors ?
ARCHITECT WINTER 2007 catalogues a claim that melbourne's architecture is infected by the grotesque - that the city's built culture is oppressed by figures of beauty - (presumably the rest of the continent).
No mention is made by either the editors or the contributors of a culture other than that of the last 200 years.
Indigenous people and their spaces, whether occupied, appropriated or erased, isn't of interest to the writers.
Melbourne makes either the lame claim to be the European city amongst Australian cities in mainstream conversation or gazes at the belly button on its white guts when it comes to the architects.