7 ms·

My personal favorite comes from designer Philippe Starck: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/197 http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/197 Very i

My personal favorite comes from designer Philippe Starck: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/197 http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/197 Very inspiration for designers and engineers alike.

dcurtis 18y ago
Yeah, his is one of my favorites too: "ramble, ramble, ramble, ramble, ramble... and that is why I design toothbrushes."
peakok 18y ago
We often like to think we are morally superior and smarter than our ancestors, yet the success of Philippe Stark (The Caliban, as nicknamed in 2100's History books) is a clear sign of our own moronity - the moronity of our times as we should call it - and will be the subject of mockery from our grand children. The damage these people did (Starck and the architects in the same school, wich are currently overwhelming) to our cities and landscape would have been more than enough for a guillotine ride two centuries ago. If you want to figure out what we have escaped from these people, look at this nightmare : "Until recently, European architects have either connived at the evisceration of our cities or actively promoted it. Relying on the spurious rhetoric of Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius, they endorsed the totalitarian projects of the political elite, whose goal after the war was not to restore the cities but to clear away the “slums.” By “slums,” they meant the harmonious classical streets of affordable houses, seeded with local industries, corner shops, schools, and places of worship, that had made it possible for real communities to flourish in the center of our towns. High-rise blocks in open parkland, of the kind that Le Corbusier proposed in his plan for the demolition of Paris north of the Seine, would replace them. Meanwhile, all forms of employment and enjoyment would move elsewhere. Public buildings would be expressly modernist, with steel and concrete frames and curtain walls, but with no facades or intelligible apertures, and no perceivable relation to their neighbors. Important monuments from the past would remain, but often set in new and aesthetically annihilating contexts, such as that provided for Saint Paul’s in London." If you want to learn about a real architect, you should start by Léon Krier : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Léon_Krier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Léon_Krier He says : "“Humanity lives by trial and error, sometimes committing errors of a monumental scale. Architectural and urbanist modernism belong—like communism—to a class of errors from which there is little or nothing to learn or gain. . . . Modernism’s fundamental error, however, is to propose itself as a universal (i.e., unavoidable and necessary) phenomenon, legitimately replacing and excluding traditional solutions.”" The ugliness of US cities all has to do with the "modernist" rational approach to architecture. Unlike the europeans brains, cities were not importable. What is the point of living, sleeping and working in ugly places ? The damage done in Europe was attenuated because of our patrimoine, aka the things that our ancestors gave us, but we still have to fight against crooks like Starck. They have success, they have recognition, they have money, and they are the prominent icons of what we lack in our days of cultural relativism : taste. Full article about Krier (a must read) : http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_urb-leon_krier.html http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_urb-leon_krier.html
- asdflkj 18y ago
  That's just, like, your opinion, dude. And the ferocity with which you put it forth, in absence of any argument to support it, only emphasizes that.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  >The ugliness of US cities all has to do with the "modernist" rational approach to architecture. Unlike the europeans brains, cities were not importable. I think New York is pretty awesome. It's not ugly, it's intensely functional. With the density of services, a life can be lived on any given street. You can find a town's worth of people that share any given common interest. Despite being immense, it feels cozy and organic in a way that DC does not. It has thriving art and theatre scenes and hundreds of subcultures. Does any European city come close to its beauty? I'm asking honestly here, not rhetorically. New York is the most awesome city I've ever seen, but I've not traveled much.
  - peakok 18y ago
    San Francisco and New York are two cities definitly worth the trip. I have a personal preference for S.F as a tourist, maybe because I was younger when I visited it and was really impressed by the Golden Gate wich is a masterpiece. You'll find a strong soul in both cities. Of course I was speaking of the average US city and it's suburbs and malls. I had in mind Los Angeles for example. My grand-mother lives in a very beautiful place in Orange County, but when I "visited" L.A there was nothing at all worth it. U.S are worth the trip for the sole natural landscapes and national parks. I visited a lot of these and it was more than impressing. Wherever you go, you are overwhelmed by space, the diversity, the endless cornfields, the infinite horizon, and a sense of liberty that is unmatched anywhere else I went. It's even better than in the movies. Regarding the beauty of New York compared to other cities, you'll have to appreciate it by yourself, a travel to Europe is definitly worth the trip, Italy and France might be your best options. One thing for sure that you'll find is that these cities are really different.
- menloparkbum 18y ago
  Philipe Starck is not a modernist. He's not even an architect! He's an interior designer. His work has nothing to do with the likes of Le Corbusier or Van der Rohe. Your timelines aren't even right. The modernists all died in the late 1960s. Starck didn't become popular until the late 1980s. Calling him a crook because he's associated with the modernist school of architecture (which he isn't) is utterly beyond incorrect... it doesn't even make sense. In fact, it so doesn't make sense, I feel like I'm the victim of a clever troll. If that's the case - touche.

dcurtis 18y ago

Yeah, his is one of my favorites too: "ramble, ramble, ramble, ramble, ramble... and that is why I design toothbrushes."

peakok 18y ago

We often like to think we are morally superior and smarter than our ancestors, yet the success of Philippe Stark (The Caliban, as nicknamed in 2100's History books) is a clear sign of our own moronity - the moronity of our times as we should call it - and will be the subject of mockery from our grand children. The damage these people did (Starck and the architects in the same school, wich are currently overwhelming) to our cities and landscape would have been more than enough for a guillotine ride two centuries ago. If you want to figure out what we have escaped from these people, look at this nightmare : "Until recently, European architects have either connived at the evisceration of our cities or actively promoted it. Relying on the spurious rhetoric of Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius, they endorsed the totalitarian projects of the political elite, whose goal after the war was not to restore the cities but to clear away the “slums.” By “slums,” they meant the harmonious classical streets of affordable houses, seeded with local industries, corner shops, schools, and places of worship, that had made it possible for real communities to flourish in the center of our towns. High-rise blocks in open parkland, of the kind that Le Corbusier proposed in his plan for the demolition of Paris north of the Seine, would replace them. Meanwhile, all forms of employment and enjoyment would move elsewhere. Public buildings would be expressly modernist, with steel and concrete frames and curtain walls, but with no facades or intelligible apertures, and no perceivable relation to their neighbors. Important monuments from the past would remain, but often set in new and aesthetically annihilating contexts, such as that provided for Saint Paul’s in London." If you want to learn about a real architect, you should start by Léon Krier : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Léon_Krier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Léon_Krier He says : "“Humanity lives by trial and error, sometimes committing errors of a monumental scale. Architectural and urbanist modernism belong—like communism—to a class of errors from which there is little or nothing to learn or gain. . . . Modernism’s fundamental error, however, is to propose itself as a universal (i.e., unavoidable and necessary) phenomenon, legitimately replacing and excluding traditional solutions.”" The ugliness of US cities all has to do with the "modernist" rational approach to architecture. Unlike the europeans brains, cities were not importable. What is the point of living, sleeping and working in ugly places ? The damage done in Europe was attenuated because of our patrimoine, aka the things that our ancestors gave us, but we still have to fight against crooks like Starck. They have success, they have recognition, they have money, and they are the prominent icons of what we lack in our days of cultural relativism : taste. Full article about Krier (a must read) : http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_urb-leon_krier.html http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_urb-leon_krier.html

asdflkj 18y ago
That's just, like, your opinion, dude. And the ferocity with which you put it forth, in absence of any argument to support it, only emphasizes that.
Prrometheus 18y ago
>The ugliness of US cities all has to do with the "modernist" rational approach to architecture. Unlike the europeans brains, cities were not importable. I think New York is pretty awesome. It's not ugly, it's intensely functional. With the density of services, a life can be lived on any given street. You can find a town's worth of people that share any given common interest. Despite being immense, it feels cozy and organic in a way that DC does not. It has thriving art and theatre scenes and hundreds of subcultures. Does any European city come close to its beauty? I'm asking honestly here, not rhetorically. New York is the most awesome city I've ever seen, but I've not traveled much.
- peakok 18y ago
  San Francisco and New York are two cities definitly worth the trip. I have a personal preference for S.F as a tourist, maybe because I was younger when I visited it and was really impressed by the Golden Gate wich is a masterpiece. You'll find a strong soul in both cities. Of course I was speaking of the average US city and it's suburbs and malls. I had in mind Los Angeles for example. My grand-mother lives in a very beautiful place in Orange County, but when I "visited" L.A there was nothing at all worth it. U.S are worth the trip for the sole natural landscapes and national parks. I visited a lot of these and it was more than impressing. Wherever you go, you are overwhelmed by space, the diversity, the endless cornfields, the infinite horizon, and a sense of liberty that is unmatched anywhere else I went. It's even better than in the movies. Regarding the beauty of New York compared to other cities, you'll have to appreciate it by yourself, a travel to Europe is definitly worth the trip, Italy and France might be your best options. One thing for sure that you'll find is that these cities are really different.
menloparkbum 18y ago
Philipe Starck is not a modernist. He's not even an architect! He's an interior designer. His work has nothing to do with the likes of Le Corbusier or Van der Rohe. Your timelines aren't even right. The modernists all died in the late 1960s. Starck didn't become popular until the late 1980s. Calling him a crook because he's associated with the modernist school of architecture (which he isn't) is utterly beyond incorrect... it doesn't even make sense. In fact, it so doesn't make sense, I feel like I'm the victim of a clever troll. If that's the case - touche.