Artists who design intentionally difficult buildings were victims of Madoff
R.U. Sirius says: "This must be a prank. The Wall Street Journal today reports on a couple of "immortalists" whose dreams of living forever were wrecked by Best Scammer Ever Bernard Madoff."
From the WSJ:
[Arakawa and Madeline Gins'] work based loosely on a movement known as "transhumanism," is premised on the idea that people degenerate and die in part because they live in spaces that are too comfortable. The artists' solution: construct abodes that leave people disoriented, challenged and feeling anything but comfortable.They build buildings with no doors inside. They place rooms far apart. They put windows near the ceiling or near the floor. Between rooms are sloping, bumpy moonscape-like floors designed to throw occupants off balance. These features, they argue, stimulate the body and mind, thus prolonging life. 'You become like a baby,' says Mr. Arakawa... A typical apartment has three or four rooms in the shapes of either a cylinder, a cube, or a sphere. Rooms surround a kitchen-living room combination with bumpy, undulating floors and floor-to-ceiling ladders and poles. Dozens of colors, from school-bus yellow to sky blue, cover the walls, ceilings and other surfaces.
But as R.U. points out, "This is conceptual art folks, not someone's actual dream of immortality. The WSJ simply did a poor job of framing the story."
Here's the WSJ's slideshow of Arakawa and Madeline Gins' whimsical work.
Artists who design intentionally difficult buildings were victims of Madoff
the latest
latest episodes
Aesthetically those (that?) house isn't really hitting the spot, but it looks like it'd be a lot of fun to live in. For a while.
If I were independently wealthy, and could custom make furniture, I'd totally love to live there. Until I got to an age of frail-hips. Then the house would shorten your life, remarkably quickly I'd imagine.
wackos
J France @1 - Somewhere to store the young perhaps? 'Til they get useful?
I'd live in such a place. I remember seeing once an article about this mansion a rich guy bought and hired an architect or designer to make it filled with secrets and puzzles for his kids. It was awesome. If I find the link, I'll throw it in here
"...premised on the idea that people degenerate and die in part because they live in spaces that are too comfortable..."
If evolution has taught us anything, it's that humans can adapt to any environment that is within the narrow range of either freezing to death or being baked alive -regardless of what that environment 'looks' like. Honestly.
@1, well bone density increases if you are subject to small impacts regularly, which you would probably have living with a bumpy floor... you'd probably end up one indestructibly dense crotchety old person continually wondering who's sick joke the floor was.
Well you have Madoff and he's in jail. But you have all his underlings that did the day to day dirty work of making the phony statements to mail out that still have yet to be arrested and prosecuted.
"people degenerate and die in part because they live in spaces that are too comfortable."
I'd say there are any number of people living on heating grates and in alleyways who must be downright immortal then.
I thought that they had already built some of these condos. This was already reported on in BoingBoing back in early 2007.
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/13/tokyo-eldercondos-de.html
bullcrap
It seems to me that if you would WANT to live in a given house, then you are explicitly precluding the transhumanist doctrine not to live in a "comfortable" place.
So any transhuman who volunteers to live in a trans.etc. house would automatically become a non-trans.etc.
/bullcrap
Give me a break. =) It was a wacko idea to begin with.
R.U.:
Sorry, chap you got it wrong. I've met Arakawa and Gins many years ago when they first began their foray into architecture-- his background is coming from painting, hers a a writer, right around the time of their show at the Guggenheim, and they are absolutely, completely one hundred percent serious about reversible destiny architecture, as they call it. They completely stand by the statement that living in one of their buildings could reverse one's destiny. If you don't believe me, please contact either Arakawa or Madeline and ask them yourself. They would bristle with disgust at the notion of their work as being "conceptual".
I have to chime in: I'm an architectural theorist, professor, and digital designer; I knew Madeline and Arakawa pretty well ten years back, and wrote some pieces on them for the Guggenheim, ANY magazine, etc. They are extremely smart, charming, intense people, very intent on realizing the ideas they discuss in numerous publications and of course their work- buildings, proposals, artwork, poetry, theory. Their work is not universally acknowledged in the architecture community, simply because even avantgarde architects can sometimes have trouble thinking 'outside the box', and A&G are never willing to compromise in how wildly and enthusiastically they pitch their ideas. To mainstream folks they do indeed sound on the fringe.
Most people assume that architects simply aim to satisfy their clients' presupposed needs for utility, beauty, longevity of building. However, good architects critically challenge such criteria and bring a dialog to the table, asking often difficult questions about the function of architecture- whether designing a house, a train station, a museum, a school, a city... Madeline and Arakawa are just extending the sincerity of that questioning to the limit.
Here's a link to a pretty good [theory heavy] article that situates their work in the context of contemporary/recent art thinking and philosophy. Their own books are of course the place to go to get more detail.
http://www.janushead.org/9-2/Keane.pdf
It's really unfortunate that they are experiencing this setback due to the Madoff situation, but I hope they will prevail and continue to pursue their thought provoking work.
cheers
Ed Keller
Back in my grad school days I lived for about 2.5 years in a house that sounds like it was designed by these guys. 300 sq feet, ~12" sag in the middle where the floor was caving in, uneven floors, crooked walls - 1 wall was a) not 90 degrees from the neighboring wall, ceiling, or floor b)paneled with wood grain paneling that was not in alignment with the wall or any of the above c) hung with cabinets that were also not square & not in alignment. all sorts of stuff like that. Took about 2 weeks before I literally stopped noticing any of the weirdness, tripping over the floor, etc. People adapt amazingly fast to their environment.
NY times did an interesting interview with them last year:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/garden/03destiny.html?scp=3&sq=arakawa&st=cse
I'm pretty sure I've been in that building. I think it was in Super Mario Galaxy, though.
What a load of garbage.
I think transhumanist architects will design better buildings if they are constantly dodging automatic weapons fire. This is because without hot lead flying at them constantly they become too comfortable with their environment and ideas. The gunfire will serve to stimulate the creative process and elevate their synergies outside the intramodal denkweise.
Just saying something does not make it so.
Mark, you end your post by quoting R.U. Sirius: "The WSJ simply did a poor job of framing the story." But you left off the punchline. Here's R.U.'s full thought:
"The WSJ simply did a poor job of framing the story. Or maybe they were in on the prank."
As a result, your post seems to mischaracterize the WSJ story, and also mischaracterize R.U.'s take on the story.
So, is this a meta on "difficult" or "challenging" living?
Mr. Keller,
Neither architectural design nor philosophy are science in any meaningful sense. They are "conceptual" principally because they made up the connection between odd buildings and long life.
I don't know them, though I've read a bit here and there; they may well be "serious" about what they're doing, but that hardly makes it meaningful or useful in the terms they've taken up.
Living in oddly designed buildings may or may not increase your lifespan ~ I couldn't say; but neither can they, which makes them 'wackos' in the sense that they live their lives according to rules they made up to suit themselves.
I assume you wouldn't accede to the notion that constantly being forced to communicate in dead languages (Anglo-Saxon is my personal preference) will help increase your life span by forcing you to constantly think outside your comfort zone. Yet that's what this pair has done. At least my A/S plan has the benefit of scientific research that shows some level of puzzle/challenge thinking benefits mental acuity in old age.
Sheesh. Why people like this get press is beyond me.
Lanval
Mind you, buildings like these are being marketed at seniors in some places (such as japan) on the idea that they force a higher degree of mental interaction with the environment, and thus may reduce and/or delay senility.
"..based loosely on a movement known as "transhumanism," is premised on the idea that people degenerate and die in part because they live in spaces that are too comfortable."
A gross misrepresentation of the ideas of transhumanism, an idea that Francis Fukuyama declared the worlds most dangerous idea a couple of years back, check this out on TED for a better idea of what it really is:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/tags/id/235
Really fascinating material, and while it seems a little far fetched at times, it is an interesting meme.
Bernard Madoff made the lives of a lot of people a lot less comfortable. He may have saved a lot of lives that way.
MmmMMmmm. I love the smell of irony in the morning.
"Most people assume that architects simply aim to satisfy their clients' presupposed needs for utility, beauty, longevity of building."
I can vouch for this. Our house was designed by a young architect who had some critically challenging ideas, and we have learned over the years that it does not in fact satisfy our needs for utility or longevity of building. However, it is useful to know that our needs for things like adequate lighting and ventilation and functioning doors are merely presupposed, and that the house is saving us from the horrors of death by too much comfort.
Actualy, twosix, you're the one misreading, here. The full sentence reads, "[Arakawa and Madeline Gins'] work based loosely on a movement known as "transhumanism," is premised on the idea that people degenerate and die in part because they live in spaces that are too comfortable."
The proper way to parse it would be [Arakawa and Madeline Gins'] work (based loosely on a movement known as "transhumanism,") is premised on the idea that people degenerate and die in part because they live in spaces that are too comfortable.
In other words, their work is based loosely on transhumanism and ALSO is premised on the idea, etc etc. Whereas you're reading, their work is based loosly on transhumanisim, which is premised, etc. etc. But that's not what they're saying, although they could definitely have used somewhat clearer writing to clarify that point.
Stupid plebians, wanting to live in places that are attractive, are designed to meet their needs, and don't fall apart!
looks like a game of towerblock gone wrong.
Hmmm. I will try to avoid suggestions that someone has taken too many hits on a water pipe and put forward some simple reasoning.
1. Sadly, humankind has many destructive traits.
2. These traits manifest themselves in many ways: War, Greed, Hatred, Opposing religions, Love... and so on.
3. Mankind has a need to strive as a psychological justification for their existence. The very act of struggling is in itself destructive in that there is a lot of energy required to do so.
4. Technology has been utilized by mankind for more harm than good. It has also been misused and under-used by the masses in many ways. Perhaps the simplest example being the existence of spelling and grammar checkers yet little apparent use of this.
5. Mankind (those with access to the technology) have an incredibly powerful tool in front of them yet choose it in many mindless 'none productive" ways (social networking, mindless videos, game playing...).
The arrival of a 'singularity' or a transhuman, robotized intelligence would clearly look at someone swinging a nunchuck and dismiss them as a very basic form of life with little understanding of what it is to be intelligent. Simply compare our view of primates using simple tools to dig insects out of a tree branch. Additionally, they would see the disorder and chaos created by humankind and do everything possible to remove the threat to a stable environment.
Humankind would be viewed as irrelevant.
Clearly, someone designing 'wonky' buildings that have philosophical form over function would be viewed in a similar fashion.
Logic does not incorporate philosophy or beauty.
Pass the bong, please...
"Technology has been utilized by mankind for more harm than good."
I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.
#28
Nuclear bomb, land mines, 'improved' weapons, pollution, CCTV, phone tapping, ... a few that come immediately to mind.
I've often thought that architects should be sentenced to live in any building they've designed for a minimum of six months, as it would get them to pay more attention to such mundane matters as usability and comfort.
I'd really love to see the houses that Arakawa and Gins actually do live in. I'm willing to bet there's no trippy floors.
You don't live forever, but it sure feels like forever.
#27 HotPepperMan
I would conjecture that a 'singularity' type intelligence, arriving presumably from elsewhere in the universe (one emerging here as part of the exponentially exploding economic and technical upward curve we are currently seeing the benefits of would presumably be aware of the totality of human history) might mistake 'functional' buildings for nests.
I'm happy to learn that Arakawa is still alive and productive. He's been working since the early sixties, and his paintings occasionally get reproduced in glossy art history books with little explanation. I'd like to see a retrospective.
#31 ill lich
Not all the time, from personal experience: when you're falling from a height, when you're (nearly) drowning, and sometimes when you're perfectly ok and glad to be alive.