>who can name the associate architects on the wexner center? I sure we could
>all fumble around or hit the mag collection and come up with it, but what
>comes to mind immediately? More than a few people who worked either around
>that project, or in the area when it happened argue that the assoicates had
>as much to do with that project succeeding as Eisenman,
If the associate architects were capable of bringing whatever the 'name'
brings to the project, why would they accept the anonymous position?
Shouldn't we admit that all too often the associate firms have elected to
fill their offices with draftsmen (or their modern electronic equivalent)
for economic reasons and openly abandoned any hope of making significant
contributions to the future of architecture?
Without minimizing the productive work of those in the trenches, do we
really want to valorize the corporate side of architectural production?
Would we want to train our students for behind-the-scenes roles in those
corporate structures? In our rush to recognize the more modest
contributions of the associates (thus puncturing the mediatized balloon of
the 'name'), do we not lose sight of the visionaries like Bucky Fuller who
dared to pursue a BIG idea? [And jya, once we start puncturing
hype-balloons, don't we lose Sorkin and Leb in addition to Eisenman?]
>all fumble around or hit the mag collection and come up with it, but what
>comes to mind immediately? More than a few people who worked either around
>that project, or in the area when it happened argue that the assoicates had
>as much to do with that project succeeding as Eisenman,
If the associate architects were capable of bringing whatever the 'name'
brings to the project, why would they accept the anonymous position?
Shouldn't we admit that all too often the associate firms have elected to
fill their offices with draftsmen (or their modern electronic equivalent)
for economic reasons and openly abandoned any hope of making significant
contributions to the future of architecture?
Without minimizing the productive work of those in the trenches, do we
really want to valorize the corporate side of architectural production?
Would we want to train our students for behind-the-scenes roles in those
corporate structures? In our rush to recognize the more modest
contributions of the associates (thus puncturing the mediatized balloon of
the 'name'), do we not lose sight of the visionaries like Bucky Fuller who
dared to pursue a BIG idea? [And jya, once we start puncturing
hype-balloons, don't we lose Sorkin and Leb in addition to Eisenman?]