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
|