| 1. |
- Van Toorn, Roemer, 1960-, et al.
(author)
-
The odd Couple. Travelling with Images.
- 2018
-
In: Flat Out. - Chicago : Flat Out Inc.. - 2578-8612. ; :3, s. 34-43
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Flat Out 3 plots an escape from the incessant demands and feedback loops of the present, calling forward alternative futures via flat-earth conspiracy theories, productive working relationships, Bertolt Brecht’s fascination with Chicago, and punching bags.The Odd Couple hashes out travel photographs depicting bewildering contemporary conditions. A contribution based on the photography of Roemer van Toorn's Image-texts. The cast for this issue features (in order of appearance) Penelope Dean, Ellen Grimes, R. E. Somol, Sophia Vyzoviti, Albert Pope, Francesco Marullo, Jonathan Miller, Roemer van Toorn, Julia McMorrough, Brett Steele, Mauricio Pezo, Jayne Kelley, James Carter, Sarah Blankenbaker, Emanuel Admassu, Adam Doster, Peter Eisenman, and John McMorrough. Character portraits are by Na Kim.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bouman, Ole, et al.
(author)
-
Architecture is too important to leave to architects : A conversation with Giancarlo de Carlo
- 2005
-
In: Volume. - Amsterdam : Archis. - 1574-9401. ; 20:2
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Giancarlo de Carlo has a long career as an architect and writer behind him. As an architect he has been self-taught, having mastered the profession during the war while at the same time being involved in the resistance. In those days he was an enthusiastic admirer of the masters of the modern movement. Later on, however, in the fifties, together with contemporaries such as Aldo van Eyck, Jacob Bakema and Ralph Erskine, he founded Team 10, a group that was fiercely critical of the rigid functionalism of the CIAM. Since that time De Carlo has not ceased to analyze and criticise new developments and trends in architecture. In his public appearances and in his writings De Carlo denounced the anonymity of bureaucratic clients, the frivolous concern with symbolism in architecture that ducked any attempt to discuss its content and the prevalence of special interest groups in the field of architecture. A constantly recurring theme was accountability in architecture. In the eighties architecture went through a phase of being depoliticised; now in our own age his approach has again become amazingly topical. One article of his that is particularly striking is entitled Legitimising Architecture (Forum Vol.III, 1972, no. 1, pp. 8-20). In it he accused the profession of surrendering to the interests of people without any principles (‘the expert exploiter of building areas, the manipulator of building codes, the cultural legitimator for the sacking of the city organised by financiers, politicians and bureaucrats’). This article deserves to be quoted in detail.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Van Toorn, Roemer, 1960-
(author)
-
A de ambigüedad, B de banalidad, C de crítica…. : Conversación con Lars Lerup
- 2019
-
In: Minerva (Madrid). - Madrid : Círculo de Bellas Artes de Madrid. - 1886-340X. ; :33, s. 13-20
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Conversation over email with dean, architect and designer Lars Lerup, analysing, reviewing and discussing his work, and approach. Abridged version and translated for the journal that paid attention to his exhition in Madrid.A Lars Lerup (Suecia, 1940) ocupa un lugar inclasificable en el mundo de la arquitectura y el diseño. Como Manfredo Tafuri y otros arquitectos de su generación, ha escapado de la indentificación de arquitectura con edificación y desarrolla su obra en los campos del dibujo, la escritura y el diseño de mobiliario e interiores, así como en la docencia (es profesor de la Universidad de Rice, tras haberlo sido en Berkeley).
|
|
| 5. |
- Van Toorn, Roemer, 1960-
(author)
-
Architecture Against Architecture : Radical Criticism Within Supermodernity
- 1997
-
In: CTheory. - : University of Victoria. - 1190-9153.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Radical immanent criticismThe concept of radical immanent criticism is inspired by traditions drawn from film, literature and theatre, from the ideas of the International Situationists and from recent studies of the urban field and of social theory. It is a form of criticism that tries to unmask the representation of institutions, but without disqualifying that representation or the predominant visual culture in its own right. 'Unmasking' is not something you do in order to uncover an authentic ideal unsullied by the spectacle, but to break the representation open. The aim is to be able to see realities that are free of a simulation where nothing matters any more. Seeking the authentic is a praiseworthy starting point, but a quest for authenticity that depends on the negation of spectacle is a hopeless, naIve struggle. It is more fruitful to seek a constant unmasking of all kinds of institutional values that reside and hide in our society of the spectacle. This implies that movement, dialogue and conflict are primary. Hope lies in the permanent unmasking of alienation. After all, in everyday life there will always be alienation. And without alienation there can be no philosophy.I shall try to elucidate radical immanent criticism by comparing the ideas of architect Rem Koolhaas with those of the film directors Quentin Tarantino, David Lynch and Jean-Luc Godard. The films of the latter three offer interesting parallels with the cinematographic approach of Rem Koolhaas.Criticism and the representation of reality. The logic of film 1 is once again high on the agenda of many architects. Besides film providing a source of inspiration for 'star architecture' 2, it has a long tradition of immanent criticism3. Film is not only interesting because it captures time, space and movement of everyday life in a fictitious representation4, but because it can also offer a set of instruments for the discussion of reality5. In this context, architects and film makers can venture out in search of a different reality within the culture of spectacle.With reference to this, Walter Benjamin states: "By close-ups of the things around us, by focusing on hidden details of familiar objects, by exploring commonplace milieus under the ingenious guidance of the camera, the film, on the one hand, extends our comprehension of the necessities which rule our lives; on the other hand, it manages to assure us of an immense and unexpected field of action. Our taverns and our metropolitan streets, our offices and furnished rooms, our railroad stations and our factories appeared to have us locked up hopelessly. Then came the film and burst this prison-world asunder by the dynamite of the tenth of a second, so that now, in the midst of its far-flung ruins and debris, we calmly and adventurously go traveling. With the close-up, space expands; with slow motion, movement is extended [...] An unconsciously penetrated space is substituted for a space consciously explored by man [...] The camera introduces us to unconscious optics as does psychoanalysis to unconscious impulses."
|
|
| 6. |
- Van Toorn, Roemer, 1960-
(author)
-
Architecture as political practice : Roemer Van Toorn in conversation with Markus Miessen
- 2009
-
In: CONDITIONS magazine. - Oslo. - 1891-2672. ; :1, s. 52-59
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Roemer van Toorn: The good news is that politics is on everybody lips, the bad news is that politics is about everything and nothing nowadays. Ten years ago a New York fashion line was born named Theory. Buzzwords of the cultural elite – like the return to the sixties – become the next luxurious Theory Icon project. Facing the crisis of neoliberalism, Politics has become the next project of intellectual entertainment. Many contemporary artist, curators, philosophers, sociologist, journalists, critics and architects do tap into politics, knowing that they can no longer celebrate their work on its own autistic terms. How do you read this current trend of politics as fashion in architecture?Markus Miessen: Suddenly, architects tend to think that they are facing the urgencies of the world. What scares me a bit is when these proclamations are based on the realisation that, without stating them, their faces might no longer furnish the cover of magazines and journals. Recently, even the most formally driven protagonists have declared an interest in politics. Most architects who build are complete nerds in the most positive sense of the word. They know very well how to do certain things but are very bad at doing others. The Renaissance idea of the polymath is long gone and, unfortunately, is no longer on the agenda of most educational institutions, which has resulted in a situation where there are some amazing people who can do perfect drawings and wire-frame models, but when they begin to talk about politics, social frameworks or policy proposal, reminds me of sitting in a pub with your best mate listening to a 70-year old at the bar, debating foreign politics.RvT Do you mean that with the disappearance of the homo-universalis out of the equation of the role of architecture – in fact all theories of critical architecture as defined by Michael Hays and Peter Eisenman for instance – with their preoccupation for architecture itself, as act of cultural resistance, is futile?MM Cultural resistance – hmm. If you resist, the most important thing is that you know what you are resisting against. There are not many seriously political architecture projects that I can think of. Some of Team 10’s projects are amazing in this regard, also the underlying notion of Buckminster Fuller, or, more recently Tomas Saraceno. If you think of Louis Kahn’s National Assembly Building in Dhaka, Bangladesh, it has a vision that goes beyond the mostly central European, idea of ‘this architecture project is to build a parliament’. Rather, it builds on the vision of community and forum without being colonial, patronizing or romantic about notions of inclusion/exclusion. What I am slightly scared about is that most practitioners within the field today somehow tend to fall into the default romantic, leftist mode of politics as soon as they consider ‘the political’. This is not to say that I would rather not have them base their political ideas left of centre, not at all, but rather that project-making of an ‘alternative spatial practice’ kind should aim to go beyond small, well-informed audiences from the same cultural milieu, but try to address larger publics without becoming populist. This sounds great, or not so great, but of course, I also haven’t come up with the project that can prove this yet.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Van Toorn, Roemer, 1960-
(author)
-
Fresh Conservatism : Landscapes of Normality
- 1998
-
In: Quaderns. - Barcelona : Association of Architects of Catalonia (COAC). - 0211-9595. ; :219
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction"The sort of economies of signs and space that became pervasive in the wake of organized capitalism do not just lead to increasing meaninglessness, homogenization, abstraction, anomie and the deconstruction of the subject. Another set of radically divergent processes is simultaneously taking place. These processes may open up possibilities for the recasting of meaning in work and leisure, for the reconstitution of community and the particular, for the reconstruction of a transmogrified subjectivity, of space and everyday life." Scott Lash & John UrryThe landscape in which we move is becoming increasingly artificial. There is much talk of a second modernity. Old values and instruments no longer work. Property developers, architects, artists, banks, the media, scientists and multinationals are all devising new spaces and images in order to give a lead to this new reality. This incoherent situation allows for plenty of room for experiment. The smoothly operating newness of everyday moments is something that attracts many innovative or critical designers. A vacuum has been created in which an unprecedented degree of innovation has a chance of success because nobody knows what the appropriate response to this situation really is. Research, analysis and experiment are being promoted by almost all the parties that have a stake in the artificial landscape. There is scope for a host of inventors of the new.In this article I want to describe the potential and the dangers of a strategy that makes no bones about operating, not outside the second modernity, but quite specifically in and with the complexity of "ordinary" everyday life with all its contradictions. True, many experiments do not go beyond a tendency that I will call Fresh Conservatism. In the end Fresh Conservatism achieves the opposite of the potential behind the basic principles of this approach. Simply defined, Fresh Conservatism is a tendency that presents the normally discreet character of conservatism in a spectacularly fresh fashion, as a work of art. This freshness is of course itself an inseparable part of our conservative industry of spectacle
|
|
| 10. |
- Van Toorn, Roemer, 1960-
(author)
-
Globalization : to renew from within
- 2010
-
In: Manifold. - Houston : Manifold Publishing Group. ; :4, s. 128-132
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- When I was asked to moderate this forum on globalization—given the context of Lars Lerup’s thinking and research, and what we, as friends here today, seem to share—I thought that we all look for routes to renew architecture (and with it society) from within. But before I ask the forum members for their opinions, and their answers to my question as to which projects, according to them, are moving either in the wrong or right direction, I would like to highlight a few issues. Late capitalism in the twenty‐Oirst century has become Deleuzian. Disorganization, deregulation, privatization (of property and free time), and the free market economy, together with globalization and the end of the nation state, have generated the critical condition we are in today. Neither linear nor dialectical logics structure our society today; rather, rhizomic and bio‐political systems do. The once progressive Deleuzian idea that the “And” (multiplicity) will liberate us from any totalitarianism has generated a whole other idea: the bewildering interdependence of our times. In fact, a new specter is haunting the world - namely, the specter of the And, of additivity, of a world of cohabitation and intermixing, in short, of And, And, And…. It is true we live in a disorderly order, not just a bewildering disorder, but this order is also highly interdependent, full of hidden centralities, a network society intermixed with spontaneity and control as a kind of open source ideology.
|
|
