ARCHITECTURE –
Exhibition
Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA), Montréal, 23 October 2002 to 6 April 2003; Heinz Architectural Center, Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh, 5 June to 7 September 2003; Schaulager, Münchenstein/Basel, Spring 2004
More than any of their contemporaries, Swiss architects Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron are challenging the boundaries between architecture and art. Natural History explores that challenge, examining how the work of this formidable pair has drawn upon the art of both past and present, and brought architecture into dialogue with the art of our time. Echoing an encyclopedia, this publication reflects the natural history museum structure of the exhibition which it accompanies, organized by the Canadian Centre for Architecture. Models and projects by Herzog & de Meuron, as well as by other artists, are structured around six thematic portfolios that suggest an evolutionary history of the architects’ work: Appropriation & Reconstruction, Transformation & Alienation, Stacking & Compression, Imprints & Moulds, Interlocking Spaces, and Beauty & Atmosphere. Each section is introduced with a statement from Herzog, and more than 20 artists, scholars, and architects have contributed essays, including Carrie Asman, Georges Didi-Huberman, Kurt W. Forster, Boris Groys, Ulrike Meyer Stump, Peggy Phelan, Thomas Ruff, Rebecca Schneider, Adolf Max Vogt, and Jeff Wall.
pp. 459 illusts First Edition #160625
Architecture / Individual Architects & Firms / General
Architecture / Regional
Literary Collections / Essays
Popular passages:
Page 28 –
… other, and the same is true of space and time.8 Lefebvre is quick to point out that his unitary theory does not imply a privileged language, nor even a metalanguage. Instead, it stresses the dialectical character of spatial decoding: The project I am outlining . . . does not aim to produce a (or the) discourse on space, but rather to expose the actual production of space by bringing the various kinds of space and the modalities of their genesis together within a single theory.
Page 441 –
The reading for this paper was made possible by a stay in 1990-91 at the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities in Santa Monica, California.
Page 267 –
One knew of places in ancient Greece where the way led down into the underworld. Our waking existence likewise is a land which, at certain hidden points, leads down into the underworld — a land full of inconspicuous places from which dreams arise. All day long, suspecting nothing, we pass them by…
Page 219 –
Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse,” October 28 (Spring 1984): 125-33.
Page 28 –
… fields” which are apprehended separately, just as molecular, electromagnetic and gravitational forces are in physics. The fields we are concerned with are, first, the physical – nature, the Cosmos; secondly, the mental, including logical and formal abstractions; and, thirdly, the social. In other words, we are concerned with logico-epistemological…
Page 29 –
The illusion of transparency goes hand in hand with a view of space as innocent, as free of traps or secret places. Anything hidden or dissimulated – and hence dangerous – is antagonistic to transparency, under whose reign everything can be taken in by a single glance from the mental eye which illuminates whatever it contemplates.
Page 442 –
Professor of Performance Studies at the Tisch School of the Arts, New York University, where she chaired the Department of Performance Studies for more than a decade.
Page 13 –
… behaves like an advertising copywriter, it exploits the field of art, taking advantage of art in order to renew the image of its architecture without reflecting its conceptual and intellectual foundations. ln our view, the proximity between the work of art and the work of architecture is justified, but l think that to apply the image of art to architecture is the worst thing you could do, and this is just what is happening more and more frequently. For example, the images of minimal art, of deconstructivism…
Page 30 –
The visible bodies are of two kinds only, of which the first is without shape or any distinct or definite extremities, and these though present are imperceptible and consequently their colour is difficult to determine. The second kind of visible bodies is that of which the surface defines and distinguishes the shape.
