25 May

depressing typological shapes
Villa Garches

1990.05.25

first exhibit
Body, Imagination, and Architecture
Absecon and Bye Houses

1997.05.25

hi Susan
1999.05.25

interview 2.2a
1999.05.25 10:25

00052501.db mesh surface, model, perspectives
00052502.db virtual studio, models, perspective

been reading, etc.
2000.05.25 20:43

CQ MO
2002.05.25 13:17

Re: Ceausescu and 'Comrade Corbu'
2004.05.25 10:51

Art that is Otto and Einstein at Princeton
034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100
2004.05.25

07052501.db Infringement Complex Plus Ultra, model
07052502.db Infringement Complex Plus Ultra, perspectives
07052503.db Infringement Complex Plus Ultra, perspectives

CQ MO
2002.05.25 13:17

The 'seek you' aspect within the movie CQ is one of self seeking rather than the notion of one being sought by others, although this latter notion may be the MO of the movie in the movie.

Another aspect of the movie is "what is the ending going to be?" of the movie in the movie (actually there are two movies in the movie--does this make it a movie with a double theater in it?) Without giving it away, I can say that the ending of the movie-movie in the movie, i.e., the 'big' production movie, does have a great (albeit symbolically simple) double twist 'unexpected' ending.

Since revisiting the Bernini double theater that I read about almost 25 years ago, I've come to greatly admire the creative fecundity of double theaters as both a means and an end within the creative process. There is something almost magical about working with a vehicle/medium where there are literally twice the possibilities and where inversion (of self, for example) and mirroring (again of self, for example) provide, again, double the possibilities. Or is it all just 'too much play(ing)' in what is really just a virtual place?

I'm at the point now where the evolving question is whether I and my work should strive to be as virtual as possible. I'm not worried about any of my architectural work every being real simply because I'm lazy and I just get lazier whenever someone (like a client) expects something from me--my eventual death is the only dead line I care to encounter the rest of my life, thus I'm literally in no hurry. So being a virtual architect is something I believe I'm now very good at, however, being a virtual artist seems to be a whole other matter.

ps
so there is no confusion, MO = modus operandi



««««

»»»»

7004 7005 7006 7007 7008 7010 7011 7012 7013 7014 7015 7016 7017 9556 9557 9558 9559 9561 9562 9563 9564 9565 9566 9567 9568 9569 9570 9571 9572 9573 9574 9575 9576 9577
www.quondam.com/06/0525.htm

Quondam © 2009.08.11