....Astounding!...Everytime I hear Zaha's beautiful accent she affectionately reminds me of the character and fashion designer called "Edna" from the movie "The Incredibles" who designed costumes for Superheroes! Lol!☺️ I Love her to Life!☺️...Rest in Peace, Thou Architectural Princess & Master of Sacred Geometry!
bonjour cher monsieur Hadid qui vent dire en arabe en Acier car vous l'êtes c est la premiere que je decouvre cette vidéo qui m a éblouie par le travail que vous faites bravo. je suis un vieux monsieur qui vient de découvrir archicad et je suis des cours sur youtub.
Despite the fact that Zaha is one of the top architects of the world in our time (in the sense of popularity, marketing and other factors) she seems detached from her projects as she explains them. Maybe im confused, but the explanation of her work sounds vain. I could give the same justification to her buildings with any other project instead of hers. I am not saying i would not like to work in her office and maybe learn architecture from another point of view but from what I can understand from this lecture, this work is a pure and exclusive manifestation of an architects intentions and trademark in order to create an icon in every place she goes. The best explanation was given in the galaxy soho with the rice fields and terraces, but only the shape is reinterpreted from here and for what? I heard people destroying BIG for less than this. I am not comparing them and defending anyone, but I really dont understand why so many people say her architecture is of the best of this decade. At plain sight it really seems astonishing, but as a sculpture, architecture is not about making sculptures. A building has sculptural aspects, but it should do much more than that. Sure buildings look pretty, people will take tons of photographs in the site but where is the sense of conciousness in context, in history, the relationships in spaces. I really could not appreciate it from her explanation even though by seeing different pictures online I can sense a strong conciousness for creating a specific type of space. But, why doesn't she explain this? Why are things like this and not like that? I am not making the typical commentary about Zaha and this long seen debate about her architecture being "meaningless" or "sculptural". I just want to know the reasons for some things to keep learning and finally lean why everyone loves her so much and maybe understand even more her works and appreciate better what she does. If anyone has an answer, please comment, I would really like someone with a different view.
Because that's all that there is to it! I share your view 100%. Blame me for daring to speak like that about the ,,avantgarde"; but if characters like her get very famous, then there must be something to it. The Zaha signature works astonishingly well with marketing and media language as well as the machinations of urban development.
Your perspective makes sense, however you've got to remember that being an artist or creative is still work, and at a certain level of creative output, you become detached from the work no matter how much you may love it. It's kind of like satiety in economics; the first chocolate bar's a lot tastier than the tenth. Same with art. At some point you become very distant from the work, especially the more productive you are, even happened to Picasso in his later years.
Santiago Carlos Peña Fiorda to understand her work you need to have an artistic view ...simple people can’t understand...she is world best .....tow reason her up brining and living in different places ....she connect the west with east ...and that’s why you can’t find an answer to some of her work ...extraordinaries
Santiago. These days popularity is inversely proportional to authentic content. In other words, that many people give likes to something doesn't mean much, whether in architecture or other activities. It's the society of spectacle and social media. Therefore, don't feel intimidated or perplexed by the gratuitous likes and the presumed mystique. Creative life is becoming ever lonelier, but at least you know you're on the right track.
I have the same concern, Is it when an architect designs "bizarre" forms in an attractive way he/she gets more attention?! e.g. Frank Gehry as well. she is one of the "architects with signs" i.e. her projects have similar configurations, I missed the contextual relationship, and the concept of the building itself, although she motioned how important is to create a space to enrich people's social life yet the projects were more symbolic and imposed allegory architecture. I think she challenged the rules of statistics and engineering with such forms and structures that seem to be too futuristic to be built in real life, yet she succeeds The only thing that was different was the relationship between the vertical structures meeting the ground.
I used to be wary of this kind of architecture but I have come to see it differently now. For private clients this is conspicuous consumption, much like buying a Lamborghini or Versace suit; existing not so much for meaning as for existing at all. For public clients, in the right guise it is buying a "franchise player" a brand identity icon with proven intrinsic value. "starchitecture for sure, but but not necessarily a frivolity and perhaps not judicable by the traditional yardstick of the profession.
From the earliest days of Egypt, Greece, Persia, China and Rome, architecture has always been a tool of wealthy and imperialistic powers who wished to use their building programs to display and enhance their wealth and power and impress their minions and foreign guests. It is no different today. A large part of any architecture of any age is monumentalism. What is different is that frequently today the imperialistic powers are not governments and religions, but private corporations. I would give Zaha a bit more credit than simply ascribing her appeal to her "star" power. Honestly, her name is not that well known... maybe in the Middle East and London, but not in the USA. I would say, rather, that her firm has gotten good at winning large-scale building contracts. It takes a certain critical team size, a cultivation of the right external resources, and adequate capitalization to bid on such projects in the first place. Being a woman and having a foreign name was also probably more of a help than a hindrance in England where affirmative action would work in her favor. Beyond that, much of her firm's work is refreshingly original and not to be sniffed at by traditionalists armed with yardsticks and T-squares. Yes, she's got some Brutalist projects in her portfolio that I'm not impressed with. But in this lecture we see her better, more fluid work for the most part.
السلام عليكم ست زها أرجو ان تكوني بخير انا مصطفى من العراق حلمي دراسة الهندسة المعمارية أعيش في ولاية كونيتيكت (C.T U.S) انا مهندس مساحة انا جديد في امريكا لأعرف من أين أبدا وكيف احتاج النصيحة والمساعدة من حظرتك ست زها وشكراً
I'm surprised at how inarticulate she is about her projects. She has a lot more to say about her coworkers than she does about her architecture. Most of what she says about the projects can be readily seen from the pictures themselves. I suspect that she spent very little time actually working on these projects and a lot more time getting the commissions and running her architectural firm. Most of the actual architectural design and engineering work seems to have been done by her assistants. I do like most of the buildings/landscapes. I like the fluid lines. The more Brutalist work I don't like, but she didn't show much of that in this lecture. The one point that she made that seems really pertinent is that how a tower meets the ground is very important. Too often modern architects put their tower on stilts as though touching the ground would contaminate the tower, or they interpose a slab of a platform with the same idea of separating their pristine tower from direct contact with Mother Earth. Towers should relate better than that to their surroundings.
i just have to say i real dont like this new style of buildings... modern style is not for me. i know there is beatifull builingd build that way but yeah... i like more 1930´s styles, like art deco.
Hello Everyone, Requesting " Harvard School of Design" to review my plans for the development of a Project that will depict the History, Culture, and Heritage of the Bahamas..The idea will be the first one in our Region.Carefully crafted Architecture and Designs by the experts will produce the success of this landscape.
Are you guys serious? This is deconstructivism and blob-architecture, it's architecture with no meaning, mindless. It has no attention for the context or the environment of the building, it just destroys the landscape and is only a reflection of the architect him- or herself. It only deals with the wishes of the architect and not the wishes of the people interacting with the building. Just like Gehry this kind of architecture is only made for the eye, imposing shapes and facades but classic and not very interesting blueprints. It's the kind of architecture they normally try not to teach on universities, in fact on my school some teachers, obviously especially engineers use her as an example for how it should not be because it only shows how to waste more material and especially more money than necessary. Personally I also think this architecture-style can not withstand time, unlike for example some of the designs of Le Corbusier I can imagine these buildings being considered very ugly and disturbing in a couple of years, so bad people willing to demolish it. I don't believe this is a future for architecture, I'd rather follow the Japanese ideology. Architects like Shigeru Ban, Fujimoto or Atelier Bow Wow have more respect for the quality of a building in its context than its looks only. If you've only heard of architects like Zaha Hadid than I really recommend reading stuff like Behaviorology from Atelier Bow Wow. It creates a better vision for architecture suiting these difficult times for economics and little room to build for enough people.
This is definitely one of the most common discussions lately but with no absolute solution to it. However, all modern products and services should be considered in one united context, that is of financial pragmatism and outcome. Shortly, her design works because it is desired by the clients and their consumers. Yes it creates adulation and that is exactly what it is supposed to do. Drawing from Le Corbusier, take his Towards a New Architecture, the car and air plane analogy, apply it to our age. Looking at the high end car-makers like BMW, Mercedes, Porsche; can you imagine a conservative, outdated and austere looking car? Obviously high performance can be achieved with less material but no project is completed without a beautiful finish. And please be aware by stating the lack of attention to context and environment (whether true or not) , you are deprecating the overall Roman Architecture at the same time, which produced artificial interior environments rather than harmonizing with the outside.Lastly, she is successful because her office is one of the most prolific and busy offices which I believe is the most appropriate way to assess success in 21st century. Like it or not, she is popular, successful and preferred.
Skymoon. Well it's a very fascinating and fun discussion and I believe as long these discussions take place architecture will progress. But although I can see you try to defend Zaha Hadid with some of these arguments of yours, I personally disagree with most of them but its not that easy for me to motivate my disagreements in another language. But I think you're missing my point. I'm not trying to say we all have to go back in time and start designing modernistic architecture like Le Corbusier again, of course not. But we have to learn from it, it's really remarkable his architecture survives these days, you actually can still call it up-to-date, with some goodwill. Le Corbusier's architecture studied the environment and connected it from the outside to the inside, Kahn and Niemeyer studied relations between different shapes and places and 'experimented' with structural elements, etc. These kind of architecture still gives us inspiration and can teach us upon this day. They teach us how space can be interpreted, be used or not used. Be served or be servant. They teach us how columns can have more meaning than just be structure. They give us definition of what can be working and living areas. They give words like spatiality meaning. I cannot see how Zaha Hadid's architecture can succeed in that, or even try doing it. She really isn't busy with these factors, she just does what she wants, not considering any other elements than she makes for herself. What she does is just simply formalism. Making forms without a purpose or meaning that just can't be justified in the world of architecture anymore. I hope you get what I'm trying to say? Zaha Hadid lacks these kinds of philosophies which can make designs more interesting, evolving, inspiring, innovative,... I even dare to say every architect agrees formalism isn't a correct path to design in efficient ways. It's the same for cars (to come back on that one argument of BMW, mercedes,..). The fact is that these designs of today's cars are developed from knowledge that can improve it's performance like its aerodynamic shape, safety-issues or the choice to not use double glazing which could prevent a greenhouse effect, fogged windows and improve acoustic insulation, just to make the car lighter. These design's are investigated and not just made to make it look beautiful. If you would compare this to architecture you would not link Zaha Hadid. Today's cars are definitly not formalism, it would just cost to much to make materials that are not even used. I don't really get the Roman architecture argument, I can't see how that is related to Zaha Hadid but okay. My respond is getting to long I guess but I just want to make a quick final statement that maybe surprisingly she isn't that popular in the architectural world as people might think. I honestly don't know anybody that is encouraging Zaha Hadid's architecture. She might be popular and succesful with the 'common folk' but so are a lot of American 'pop-musicians', which I'm not gonna name, but does that mean their music is great? I doubt it. Unlike really great musicians like the stones or beatles lots of these musicians will be forgotten in some 50 years. I think Zaha Hadid awaits the same. She's also only 'preferred' by 'clients and customers' who have money and power and they just want to show that. That's just something architects should not do. That was also the strength of Le Corbusier. I don't want to make this any longer so if you're interested this is a great example of future architecture and why. /watch?v=q43uXdOKPD8
Matthias M. It's not like us common folk don't understand the philosophies of efficiency in architecture and all that stuff. That trend is nothing new. It's just that that alone is insufficient at inspiring human emotion. People live in boring efficient homes made of boring things that made their homes somewhat affordable, go to work in efficient and boring transportation, to mostly efficient and boring cubicles in cheap and efficient yet boring office buildings. So when they have a weekend off they can go to the theater - and even if they can't afford to watch a show there, they can click a picture of their family with the building in the background and feel happy. People don't buy flowers because they are efficient. It's to please their soul.
heyzutube The biggest names and projects in the architecture-world are yet not considered boring and are still great inspirations to most of today's designs. But they are not particularly known for their 'astonishing or extreme' facades. It's the way how they interact with human life, directly and indirectly. It doesn't matter if the 'common folk' understands the philosophies or not, the most important thing that matters is if the philosophies are right and carried out correctly. If they are, the humans, they who use AND not use the building, will both indirectly experience a far more fascinating architecture for a bigger amount of time than only a building that has a 'modern' approach of a facade. These philosophies are the concept of the building and will always affect the people, whether they want it or not. People can argue and disagree with the concept but the fact is that the building will always decide how the people behave at that moment. And the way how architects use this concept is the true art of architecture; interacting and influencing the behaviour in a somewhat poetic manner. Architecture can even design behaviours in a way. But that's where its form and structure is born and comes alive, not just by making these facades. Anybody who has a computer, some time and at least one hand can do that. The 'problem' is when you start to see architecture as a static decor on a stage that represents the city, a town or in general human life. A decor just meant for one group of people and an building for another group of people (in your case of a theater, a decor for the not-wealthy and an actual building for the wealthy). This is when people start judging architecture just for its looks. It loses all its characteristics and you can only watch at it. The most interactive thing you would be able to do at that point is yes, taking a picture with the building in the background and feel happy afterwards looking at the picture and not experiencing the actual building. I believe that's not what architecture is meant to be. If only Zaha Hadid would use her money more for studies and more investigations into her projects, she would be able to make more inviting and interesting designs. Instead she uses it to create computer-shapes, renders and animations which do not explain very much how her projects work. Untill this day a hand-drawn sketch says more than these high-tech pictures. It gives us more freedom to explain things and use our fantasy to design. Even in this 1,5h long video she can not say anything more about her own pictures than we can see for ourself. You see many curved and random geometric shapes but she gives me the impression she hasn't got much imagination to explain her projects, why they are curved and stuff. It says enough for me what kind of a big architect she actually is. (Sorry again for the long response)
Matthias M. '' If only Zaha Hadid would use her money more for studies and more investigations into her projects Instead she uses it to create computer-shapes, renders and animations which do not explain very much how her projects work'' That's rich coming from someone who talks about beers and listens to artificial repetitive computer music. I can understand if her designs are not to your taste but your comments are very shallow and you throw it about a little without actually researching into the matter. She couldn't comment in detail on every project within that short hour as there were so many slides, merely briefing on her various jobs over a long period and how it has evolved into various ideas. I personally think she is here to stay, you musn't forget she did not become successful overnight.
السلام عليكم ست زها أرجو ان تكوني بخير انا مصطفى من العراق حلمي دراسة الهندسة المعمارية أعيش في ولاية كونيتيكت (C.T U.S) انا مهندس مساحة انا جديد في امريكا لأعرف من أين أبدا وكيف احتاج النصيحة والمساعدة من حظرتك ست زها وشكراً
Zaha finally speaks at 8:37
WONDERFUL ARCHITECTURE!!!
If I was residing in London, I would love to work for her. She's the best Architect in the world.
She is truly the most magnificent architect in the history of the world.
Rest now my dear mentor! Thank you for everything
You are a very lucky person, Sherwin, to have met Zaha Hadid!
You will be missed. RIP Zaha.
....Astounding!...Everytime I hear Zaha's beautiful accent she affectionately reminds me of the character and fashion designer called "Edna" from the movie "The Incredibles" who designed costumes for Superheroes! Lol!☺️ I Love her to Life!☺️...Rest in Peace, Thou Architectural Princess & Master of Sacred Geometry!
She's an amazing inspiration. "Being an Arab and a woman is a double-edged sword" - Zaha Hadid
she is Iraqi before being Arab ok
Understood, but that was her own quote from the video.
She is obviously Iraqi, originally from Mosul, in the north, but her mother's family name, Sabundji, which means a soap dealer or maker is Turkish.
bonjour cher monsieur Hadid qui vent dire en arabe en Acier car vous l'êtes c est la premiere que je decouvre cette vidéo qui m a éblouie par le travail que vous faites bravo.
je suis un vieux monsieur qui vient de découvrir archicad et je suis des cours sur youtub.
Are you still live?
her executions of spaces still make me crazy. wonder how she can do it ! surely she is one of the best in architecture.
That Moscow house is just so stunning. A real vision of the future.
Despite the fact that Zaha is one of the top architects of the world in our time (in the sense of popularity, marketing and other factors) she seems detached from her projects as she explains them.
Maybe im confused, but the explanation of her work sounds vain. I could give the same justification to her buildings with any other project instead of hers.
I am not saying i would not like to work in her office and maybe learn architecture from another point of view but from what I can understand from this lecture, this work is a pure and exclusive manifestation of an architects intentions and trademark in order to create an icon in every place she goes.
The best explanation was given in the galaxy soho with the rice fields and terraces, but only the shape is reinterpreted from here and for what? I heard people destroying BIG for less than this. I am not comparing them and defending anyone, but I really dont understand why so many people say her architecture is of the best of this decade. At plain sight it really seems astonishing, but as a sculpture, architecture is not about making sculptures. A building has sculptural aspects, but it should do much more than that.
Sure buildings look pretty, people will take tons of photographs in the site but where is the sense of conciousness in context, in history, the relationships in spaces. I really could not appreciate it from her explanation even though by seeing different pictures online I can sense a strong conciousness for creating a specific type of space.
But, why doesn't she explain this? Why are things like this and not like that? I am not making the typical commentary about Zaha and this long seen debate about her architecture being "meaningless" or "sculptural". I just want to know the reasons for some things to keep learning and finally lean why everyone loves her so much and maybe understand even more her works and appreciate better what she does.
If anyone has an answer, please comment, I would really like someone with a different view.
Because that's all that there is to it! I share your view 100%. Blame me for daring to speak like that about the ,,avantgarde"; but if characters like her get very famous, then there must be something to it. The Zaha signature works astonishingly well with marketing and media language as well as the machinations of urban development.
Your perspective makes sense, however you've got to remember that being an artist or creative is still work, and at a certain level of creative output, you become detached from the work no matter how much you may love it. It's kind of like satiety in economics; the first chocolate bar's a lot tastier than the tenth. Same with art. At some point you become very distant from the work, especially the more productive you are, even happened to Picasso in his later years.
Santiago Carlos Peña Fiorda to understand her work you need to have an artistic view ...simple people can’t understand...she is world best .....tow reason her up brining and living in different places ....she connect the west with east ...and that’s why you can’t find an answer to some of her work ...extraordinaries
Santiago. These days popularity is inversely proportional to authentic content. In other words, that many people give likes to something doesn't mean much, whether in architecture or other activities. It's the society of spectacle and social media. Therefore, don't feel intimidated or perplexed by the gratuitous likes and the presumed mystique. Creative life is becoming ever lonelier, but at least you know you're on the right track.
I have the same concern, Is it when an architect designs "bizarre" forms in an attractive way he/she gets more attention?! e.g. Frank Gehry as well.
she is one of the "architects with signs" i.e. her projects have similar configurations, I missed the contextual relationship, and the concept of the building itself, although she motioned how important is to create a space to enrich people's social life yet the projects were more symbolic and imposed allegory architecture.
I think she challenged the rules of statistics and engineering with such forms and structures that seem to be too futuristic to be built in real life, yet she succeeds
The only thing that was different was the relationship between the vertical structures meeting the ground.
She is the best and towers over all other architects.
Do you know who is frank gehry?
Thanks for video YOU ARE GENIUS WONDERFUL AMAZING BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE. YOR JOB IS FANTASTIC MAGICAL 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Great designs, I wonder how she creates all those things.
...Easy!...It's called IMAGINATION!🤫
Seja muito abençoado, Arquiteto Zaha Hadid, iluminado Artista Criador!!
Fantástico!!! Bjkas
the best architect or in the world----mabrouk is zaha....inti ..ward at..all Arab....joumbouda..
She is the best Iraqi architecture in Iraq and the world
🔥🌀 I LOVE YOU ZAHA THANKS !
Endless creativity
Zaha, you are a super genious in the world.
Your legacy will be continued! RIP to the Queen Herself.
I used to be wary of this kind of architecture but I have come to see it differently now. For private clients this is conspicuous consumption, much like buying a Lamborghini or Versace suit; existing not so much for meaning as for existing at all. For public clients, in the right guise it is buying a "franchise player" a brand identity icon with proven intrinsic value. "starchitecture for sure, but but not necessarily a frivolity and perhaps not judicable by the traditional yardstick of the profession.
From the earliest days of Egypt, Greece, Persia, China and Rome, architecture has always been a tool of wealthy and imperialistic powers who wished to use their building programs to display and enhance their wealth and power and impress their minions and foreign guests. It is no different today. A large part of any architecture of any age is monumentalism. What is different is that frequently today the imperialistic powers are not governments and religions, but private corporations.
I would give Zaha a bit more credit than simply ascribing her appeal to her "star" power. Honestly, her name is not that well known... maybe in the Middle East and London, but not in the USA. I would say, rather, that her firm has gotten good at winning large-scale building contracts. It takes a certain critical team size, a cultivation of the right external resources, and adequate capitalization to bid on such projects in the first place. Being a woman and having a foreign name was also probably more of a help than a hindrance in England where affirmative action would work in her favor. Beyond that, much of her firm's work is refreshingly original and not to be sniffed at by traditionalists armed with yardsticks and T-squares. Yes, she's got some Brutalist projects in her portfolio that I'm not impressed with. But in this lecture we see her better, more fluid work for the most part.
@@dlwatib very well said
Great Zaha
i love zaha hadid
Oh My God what a brain, what a vision, what a genius ! Let the others keep making boxes until in 50 years they are nearly able to catch up ...
right man
...Indeed!....Imagination and Creativity always leads to Mastery of the Most Sacred of Geometry!...Rest in Peace Architectural Princess of Geometry!☺️
excellent conversation 🏈👷💨
السلام عليكم ست زها
أرجو ان تكوني بخير
انا مصطفى من العراق حلمي دراسة الهندسة المعمارية أعيش في ولاية كونيتيكت (C.T U.S) انا مهندس مساحة انا جديد في امريكا لأعرف من أين أبدا وكيف احتاج النصيحة والمساعدة من حظرتك ست زها
وشكراً
She is the best of all.
always brilliant
amazing architect
great Zaha الله يرحمها
*very great personne RIP!*
I was tutored by one of her apprentice. She broke him with the stress and demands. Great woman though.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Pretty sure she forgot to answer the first guy's question, which for me as a student is quite an important one :(
exactly, youve finished with school now
la mejor.....icon de la mujer
amazing human being
I'm surprised at how inarticulate she is about her projects. She has a lot more to say about her coworkers than she does about her architecture. Most of what she says about the projects can be readily seen from the pictures themselves. I suspect that she spent very little time actually working on these projects and a lot more time getting the commissions and running her architectural firm. Most of the actual architectural design and engineering work seems to have been done by her assistants.
I do like most of the buildings/landscapes. I like the fluid lines. The more Brutalist work I don't like, but she didn't show much of that in this lecture.
The one point that she made that seems really pertinent is that how a tower meets the ground is very important. Too often modern architects put their tower on stilts as though touching the ground would contaminate the tower, or they interpose a slab of a platform with the same idea of separating their pristine tower from direct contact with Mother Earth. Towers should relate better than that to their surroundings.
Creatif woman
PEAce and ETERnity
For her soul 🕊🌹🕊
wonderful
sad that she died early....she was incredible....
she is from Mars..
i love iraq .....zaha hadid
love it.
I need Prof.Dr.Mostafavi's email.
Sueño con que esto este en español
harvard graduate school of design faculty at architecture
great woman!!!
I want to be an apprentice. :)
respect
Love
她真是太厉害了！
why most of artists use to smoke
ليش العراقيين القدماء كانوا عمالقة من الأجيال السابقة ولماذا الجيل الحالي اصبح نوعا ما دون المستوى؟
Zaha Hadid should never be allowed to talk about and to do urbanism.
Martin Mikush and what have you built?!
who is asking ?
@@MartinMikush 🤣
i just have to say i real dont like this new style of buildings... modern style is not for me. i know there is beatifull builingd build that way but yeah... i like more 1930´s styles, like art deco.
this is not modern btw. modern is dead
ok boomer
Art Deco is amazing. Things done in that era can never be bettered, including Modernism, which will never die.
rigamortis from a babe!
padachone avarude
Hello Everyone, Requesting " Harvard School of Design" to review my plans for the development of a Project that will depict the History, Culture, and Heritage of the Bahamas..The idea will be the first one in our Region.Carefully crafted Architecture and Designs by the experts will produce the success of this landscape.
Are you guys serious? This is deconstructivism and blob-architecture, it's architecture with no meaning, mindless. It has no attention for the context or the environment of the building, it just destroys the landscape and is only a reflection of the architect him- or herself. It only deals with the wishes of the architect and not the wishes of the people interacting with the building. Just like Gehry this kind of architecture is only made for the eye, imposing shapes and facades but classic and not very interesting blueprints. It's the kind of architecture they normally try not to teach on universities, in fact on my school some teachers, obviously especially engineers use her as an example for how it should not be because it only shows how to waste more material and especially more money than necessary. Personally I also think this architecture-style can not withstand time, unlike for example some of the designs of Le Corbusier I can imagine these buildings being considered very ugly and disturbing in a couple of years, so bad people willing to demolish it. I don't believe this is a future for architecture, I'd rather follow the Japanese ideology. Architects like Shigeru Ban, Fujimoto or Atelier Bow Wow have more respect for the quality of a building in its context than its looks only. If you've only heard of architects like Zaha Hadid than I really recommend reading stuff like Behaviorology from Atelier Bow Wow. It creates a better vision for architecture suiting these difficult times for economics and little room to build for enough people.
This is definitely one of the most common discussions lately but with no absolute solution to it. However, all modern products and services should be considered in one united context, that is of financial pragmatism and outcome. Shortly, her design works because it is desired by the clients and their consumers. Yes it creates adulation and that is exactly what it is supposed to do. Drawing from Le Corbusier, take his Towards a New Architecture, the car and air plane analogy, apply it to our age. Looking at the high end car-makers like BMW, Mercedes, Porsche; can you imagine a conservative, outdated and austere looking car? Obviously high performance can be achieved with less material but no project is completed without a beautiful finish. And please be aware by stating the lack of attention to context and environment (whether true or not) , you are deprecating the overall Roman Architecture at the same time, which produced artificial interior environments rather than harmonizing with the outside.Lastly, she is successful because her office is one of the most prolific and busy offices which I believe is the most appropriate way to assess success in 21st century. Like it or not, she is popular, successful and preferred.
Skymoon. Well it's a very fascinating and fun discussion and I believe as long these discussions take place architecture will progress. But although I can see you try to defend Zaha Hadid with some of these arguments of yours, I personally disagree with most of them but its not that easy for me to motivate my disagreements in another language. But I think you're missing my point. I'm not trying to say we all have to go back in time and start designing modernistic architecture like Le Corbusier again, of course not. But we have to learn from it, it's really remarkable his architecture survives these days, you actually can still call it up-to-date, with some goodwill. Le Corbusier's architecture studied the environment and connected it from the outside to the inside, Kahn and Niemeyer studied relations between different shapes and places and 'experimented' with structural elements, etc. These kind of architecture still gives us inspiration and can teach us upon this day. They teach us how space can be interpreted, be used or not used. Be served or be servant. They teach us how columns can have more meaning than just be structure. They give us definition of what can be working and living areas. They give words like spatiality meaning. I cannot see how Zaha Hadid's architecture can succeed in that, or even try doing it. She really isn't busy with these factors, she just does what she wants, not considering any other elements than she makes for herself. What she does is just simply formalism. Making forms without a purpose or meaning that just can't be justified in the world of architecture anymore. I hope you get what I'm trying to say? Zaha Hadid lacks these kinds of philosophies which can make designs more interesting, evolving, inspiring, innovative,... I even dare to say every architect agrees formalism isn't a correct path to design in efficient ways. It's the same for cars (to come back on that one argument of BMW, mercedes,..). The fact is that these designs of today's cars are developed from knowledge that can improve it's performance like its aerodynamic shape, safety-issues or the choice to not use double glazing which could prevent a greenhouse effect, fogged windows and improve acoustic insulation, just to make the car lighter. These design's are investigated and not just made to make it look beautiful. If you would compare this to architecture you would not link Zaha Hadid. Today's cars are definitly not formalism, it would just cost to much to make materials that are not even used. I don't really get the Roman architecture argument, I can't see how that is related to Zaha Hadid but okay. My respond is getting to long I guess but I just want to make a quick final statement that maybe surprisingly she isn't that popular in the architectural world as people might think. I honestly don't know anybody that is encouraging Zaha Hadid's architecture. She might be popular and succesful with the 'common folk' but so are a lot of American 'pop-musicians', which I'm not gonna name, but does that mean their music is great? I doubt it. Unlike really great musicians like the stones or beatles lots of these musicians will be forgotten in some 50 years. I think Zaha Hadid awaits the same. She's also only 'preferred' by 'clients and customers' who have money and power and they just want to show that. That's just something architects should not do. That was also the strength of Le Corbusier. I don't want to make this any longer so if you're interested this is a great example of future architecture and why. /watch?v=q43uXdOKPD8
Matthias M. It's not like us common folk don't understand the philosophies of efficiency in architecture and all that stuff. That trend is nothing new. It's just that that alone is insufficient at inspiring human emotion. People live in boring efficient homes made of boring things that made their homes somewhat affordable, go to work in efficient and boring transportation, to mostly efficient and boring cubicles in cheap and efficient yet boring office buildings. So when they have a weekend off they can go to the theater - and even if they can't afford to watch a show there, they can click a picture of their family with the building in the background and feel happy. People don't buy flowers because they are efficient. It's to please their soul.
heyzutube The biggest names and projects in the architecture-world are yet not considered boring and are still great inspirations to most of today's designs. But they are not particularly known for their 'astonishing or extreme' facades. It's the way how they interact with human life, directly and indirectly. It doesn't matter if the 'common folk' understands the philosophies or not, the most important thing that matters is if the philosophies are right and carried out correctly. If they are, the humans, they who use AND not use the building, will both indirectly experience a far more fascinating architecture for a bigger amount of time than only a building that has a 'modern' approach of a facade. These philosophies are the concept of the building and will always affect the people, whether they want it or not. People can argue and disagree with the concept but the fact is that the building will always decide how the people behave at that moment. And the way how architects use this concept is the true art of architecture; interacting and influencing the behaviour in a somewhat poetic manner. Architecture can even design behaviours in a way. But that's where its form and structure is born and comes alive, not just by making these facades. Anybody who has a computer, some time and at least one hand can do that. The 'problem' is when you start to see architecture as a static decor on a stage that represents the city, a town or in general human life. A decor just meant for one group of people and an building for another group of people (in your case of a theater, a decor for the not-wealthy and an actual building for the wealthy). This is when people start judging architecture just for its looks. It loses all its characteristics and you can only watch at it. The most interactive thing you would be able to do at that point is yes, taking a picture with the building in the background and feel happy afterwards looking at the picture and not experiencing the actual building. I believe that's not what architecture is meant to be. If only Zaha Hadid would use her money more for studies and more investigations into her projects, she would be able to make more inviting and interesting designs. Instead she uses it to create computer-shapes, renders and animations which do not explain very much how her projects work. Untill this day a hand-drawn sketch says more than these high-tech pictures. It gives us more freedom to explain things and use our fantasy to design. Even in this 1,5h long video she can not say anything more about her own pictures than we can see for ourself. You see many curved and random geometric shapes but she gives me the impression she hasn't got much imagination to explain her projects, why they are curved and stuff. It says enough for me what kind of a big architect she actually is. (Sorry again for the long response)
Matthias M.
'' If only Zaha Hadid would use her money more for studies and more investigations into her projects Instead she uses it to create computer-shapes, renders and animations which do not explain very much how her projects work''
That's rich coming from someone who talks about beers and listens to artificial repetitive computer music. I can understand if her designs are not to your taste but your comments are very shallow and you throw it about a little without actually researching into the matter.
She couldn't comment in detail on every project within that short hour as there were so many slides, merely briefing on her various jobs over a long period and how it has evolved into various ideas.
I personally think she is here to stay, you musn't forget she did not become successful overnight.
architecture arab
Disgusting how they copied her works!
zaha is dead now...
السلام عليكم ست زها
أرجو ان تكوني بخير
انا مصطفى من العراق حلمي دراسة الهندسة المعمارية أعيش في ولاية كونيتيكت (C.T U.S) انا مهندس مساحة انا جديد في امريكا لأعرف من أين أبدا وكيف احتاج النصيحة والمساعدة من حظرتك ست زها
وشكراً
Hi ,are you still live?