Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Paisajes Emergentes - 2010.03.09
Visiting Toronto (as well as Canada in general) for the first time ever, Luis Callejas spoke at U of T's Buthaup Series, representing Paisajes Emergentes (Emerging Landscapes) a landscape architecture practice based in Medellin, Columbia.
Paisajes Emergentes have received much media attention and critical praise since the firm first came about in 2007. Luis as well as two other fellow graduates started their practice fresh from school, where the firm now stands at a strong number of eleven individuals.
Luis spoke about recent projects including:
"Weightless". Surrey, Canada, 2010.
El Campin Stadium. Bogota, Columbia. 2009/10.
"The Hours". Lagoon Park. Venice, Murano. 2010.
Aquatic Complex for Panamerican Games. Medellin, Columbia. 2008.
Where P.E. exceeds at is the conceptual level. While the projects and concepts themselves seem deceptively simple, they are actually quite provocative (not only on a theoretical level, but when realized and/or visualized, also at an existential level).
for more information on the company and their projects, please visit:
http://www.archdaily.com/17671/ad-futures-6-paisajes-emergentes/
http://www.paisajesemergentes.com/
Paisajes Emergentes have received much media attention and critical praise since the firm first came about in 2007. Luis as well as two other fellow graduates started their practice fresh from school, where the firm now stands at a strong number of eleven individuals.
Luis spoke about recent projects including:
"Weightless". Surrey, Canada, 2010.
El Campin Stadium. Bogota, Columbia. 2009/10.
"The Hours". Lagoon Park. Venice, Murano. 2010.
Aquatic Complex for Panamerican Games. Medellin, Columbia. 2008.
Where P.E. exceeds at is the conceptual level. While the projects and concepts themselves seem deceptively simple, they are actually quite provocative (not only on a theoretical level, but when realized and/or visualized, also at an existential level).
for more information on the company and their projects, please visit:
http://www.archdaily.com/17671/ad-futures-6-paisajes-emergentes/
http://www.paisajesemergentes.com/
thought entry #03
A --> B
"The only thing getting in the way between point A and B, are buildings."
A notion of unimportance, unless of course you are an architect. Much like a thing I realized a few years ago: the best places I like in Toronto aren't actually designed by interior designers (e.g.- Sydney's, The Hoof/The Hoof Cafe, etc.)
The quote itself carries relation to a discussion I was having with an architect last weekend at a friend's party. I've noticed that many partners at architecture firms don't actually have an architecture background, but rather a landscape architecture and/or urban architecture degree/masters... Thus, my point was that it is possible that the understanding of the negative space (i.e.- landscape and urban) is more important than the positive (architecture) itself. Architecture is after all, simply sculpture. Moreover, landscape and urban design seems much more difficult because of a (more-or-less) two dimensional limitation, not to mention extremely drastic differences in programming.
To relate back to the quote itself, is it A or B that is more important or more memorable than the path itself? OR is it vise versa? It would seem both are equally important. But as sculpture, I believe, is something which is an inherent ability and understanding of form and proportions, a study in landscape and urban design would seem to be more necessary than the latter.
That night, I finished my point and silence floated between us. The architect stood there without reaction or expression, seemingly stunned...
whether because of the point itself, or the fact that it was coming from an interior design student, I am not sure.
"The only thing getting in the way between point A and B, are buildings."
A notion of unimportance, unless of course you are an architect. Much like a thing I realized a few years ago: the best places I like in Toronto aren't actually designed by interior designers (e.g.- Sydney's, The Hoof/The Hoof Cafe, etc.)
The quote itself carries relation to a discussion I was having with an architect last weekend at a friend's party. I've noticed that many partners at architecture firms don't actually have an architecture background, but rather a landscape architecture and/or urban architecture degree/masters... Thus, my point was that it is possible that the understanding of the negative space (i.e.- landscape and urban) is more important than the positive (architecture) itself. Architecture is after all, simply sculpture. Moreover, landscape and urban design seems much more difficult because of a (more-or-less) two dimensional limitation, not to mention extremely drastic differences in programming.
To relate back to the quote itself, is it A or B that is more important or more memorable than the path itself? OR is it vise versa? It would seem both are equally important. But as sculpture, I believe, is something which is an inherent ability and understanding of form and proportions, a study in landscape and urban design would seem to be more necessary than the latter.
That night, I finished my point and silence floated between us. The architect stood there without reaction or expression, seemingly stunned...
whether because of the point itself, or the fact that it was coming from an interior design student, I am not sure.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Alexa Meade
This blows my mind. Alexa Meade does acrylic paintings on three dimensional objects (humans, objects, clothing).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)