This issue of OASE takes as its point of departure the cross-cultural conditions in which architects, urban designers and landscape architects work. It focuses in particular on architects working in a condition of displacement – in other words in relation to cultures, far away or nearby, that are not their own.
This issue of OASE is situated within a tradition that gives a central role to questions of use and appropriation in architectural reflection. The general attention to use and appropriation is part and parcel of a layered critique of architecture. The critique of a vulgar take on functionalism in favour of an open interpretation of the relationship between form and use (Rossi). The critique of commodification by placing the focus on use value rather than exchange value (Lefebvre). The critique of the hegemony of design (and the designer) in favour of design practices centred around use and usership (Jacobs, Gehl).
This issue of OASE will focus on the marked revival of forms of architecture that explicitly address questions of use and appropriation in the development of a sociocritical architecture. How can designers incorporate experience and use into their design process and architecture projects? Is this self-obvious or a point of contention? To what extent are designers ready to engage in processes of use and appropriation?
Between the belief in the autonomy of architecture on the one hand, and heteronomic, user-centred forms of design on the other, lies a broad spectrum of practices that radically question the traditional separation between design and use. In this issue, the opposition of design and use, of autonomy and heteronomy, is not addressed as a matter to be resolved, but rather as a productive force field for architectural production, as a dialectic to be spatially articulated and from which architecture and the city may derive meaning. In short, OASE #96 wishes to explore architectural projects that put great stock in the poetics of use and appropriation in the production of architectural meaning.
Call for Papers
We invite contributions of maximum 1500 words discussing critical architectural or urbanist design practices that mobilise use and appropriation as poetic material. These practices will be combined to produce both case-specific insights and shared ideas and arguments. In this way, we hope to move beyond the polemical theoretical discussions that have dominated this subject in the past. We ask authors to explicitly address the position adopted by themselves or other designers in the creation and articulation of possibilities of use. The papers must present a specific project or design practice that sheds light on the conceptual framework, the underlying motivations and the specific context in which this practice was developed.
The central question in this issue of OASE is how design can proactively engage with future users and possibilities of use. This involves much more than the legitimation of design choices and is not limited to discussions on user participation or user-centred design. We are, for example, interested in the various ways in which possibilities of use are conditioned by changes in the public or private character of a space, its accessibility, its visibility, etcetera. We are equally interested in projects that carve out conditions outside of the public-private dichotomy and create new collective worlds, new commons, counter spaces of the urban regularity. We would like to include practices that move beyond the classical role play of client, architect, user, and situate design in a broader ecology of actors and users. We are looking for practices that display a keen awareness of the possible positive or negative impact of architectural or urban intervention and incorporate that reflection in the design. Strategies that work for the protection of the city as use value against the effects of land speculation, for instance, belong in this category. We are looking projects that conceive of use as a learning process and explore together with users the changing meaning of architecture. There is room for places concerned with reuse, reappropriation and the recycling of building elements and materials. We are interested in projects that work with traces of use (cf. usure), that conceive of use as patina rather than wear and tear. In the relationship between architecture and furnishing, and between furniture and its use we may also find clues for an architecture of appropriation. We look for contributions discussing questions of multiple use and appropriation, of different temporalities of use, time windows and rhythms, temporary and permanent.
Deadline for full papers: 20 August 2015
be written in English or in Dutch.
You may contact the editors to discuss possible contributions.
The selection of papers will be made in function of the quality of the papers and the diversity of practices.
Léa-Catherine Szacka [LCS]: In 1980, OMA was invited to be one of the 20 exhibitors in the Strada Novissima at the Venice Biennale, entitled The Presence of the Past. Last year, in the catalogue of the 14th Biennale, you referred to that exhibition, saying that it felt like the end of architecture ‘as we know it’, and pointing out to the beginning of the Reagan era in 1981 and to the advent of neoliberalism. The Strada Novissima was a marketplace, the perfect performative space of consumption. How did you perceive this pivotal ‘postmodern’ moment?
Rem Koolhaas [RK]: I think the year 1980 marked the introduction of postmodernism at an enormous scale in Europe. I have always thought that postmodernism was the style par excellence of market economy. There was a strange discrepancy: probably the thinkers involved in the exhibition had the impression that they were working on a highly intellectual enterprise, with a lot of historical sophistication and dimension. But actually, I, at the time, perceived the exhibition as the first manifestation of the free market. The Strada Novissima showed what architecture, ruled by the market economy, would imply.
figure 1: Strada Novissima, Venice Architecture Bienniale 1980 (© Paolo Portoghesi).
LCS: It was not the inception of postmodernism, it was merely its diffusion to a larger public.
RK: It was the Europeanization of postmodernism. I lived in New York in the 1970s, so I was there when American postmodernism was born and when the arguments for it were being developed. I had an intimate overview of all the authors and how they interacted. I was alert to what postmodernism implied and I was horrified when I realized that it had reached Europe. That is probably why I tried to show a strong opposition to it. Taking part in the 1980 Venice Architecture Biennale was the occasion to make my opposition manifest.
LCS: As stated in the catalogue you were asked to design a facade: ‘your dwelling or a personal museum, a space for the exhibition and “sale” of your own ideas’. In other words: a billboard or a self-portrait. You went for a very simple design: a semi-translucent canvas, exposing the Arsenale. Lifted in the bottom left corner, the fabric was pierced by a red pole holding a neon sign saying OMA (or AMO). Your facade was not a copy of a facade from another project. It was a project in itself. How did it come about?
RK: Stefano made the drawings. We always had difficulties designing facades so this project was confronting us with our incompetence in a way. We had to do a kind of anti-facade or a non-facade.
Stefano de Martino [SdM]: The piece of canvas was a temporary screen – the only concession to an exterior presence was the OMA neon sign. We did not play the formalist game, proving that architecture can be very little, that you can concentrate on content.
figure 2: Strada Novissima, OMA/Rem Koolhaas, drawing by Stefano de Martino (© OMA).
LCS: Rem, in 2011 you said, in an interview with Charles Jencks in Architectural Design: ‘we were uncomfortable with the notion of the street’.
RK: I hated the idea of having to do a facade, even more a facade to represent oneself. So there were essentially a number of things that we wanted to avoid.
SdM: Yes, and the Biennale confirmed that we were on the right track. To know that we were in a minority was exhilarating. We upset a lot of people. Everyone else fell into a camp: the morphologists who couldn’t help considering cities as pieces of cheese that you cut up in blocks, and those who could only think of the ‘wow factor’ of their inventions… We were trying to see what was essential, before you need bricks. When you have a system of relations, then you have architecture.
LCS: Your facade, like all the others, was built by the set designers of Cinecittà. In what way did this imposed collaboration between architecture and cinema change the outcome? Could we speak of a fictional element in the facade?
RK: Our facade was fundamentally different. It was not even made by the Cinecittà technicians. But I think that the role of Cinecittà in the exhibition was tremendously interesting in the sense that it represented an early announcement of how unsubstantial architecture had become. Delirious New York was also about that: showing that architecture was no longer a substance but an illusion.
SdM: We were never into facadism. Maybe now that it’s all about facades, you don’t hear this word anymore, but at the time it was an insult. We saw the Strada Novissima as a kind of postmodern Potemkin village. Knowing the people invited, we could very well imagine what would happen. We knew it would be a horrendous pastiche. Our project moved in another direction: it was ephemeral, non-referential, and it produced its own logic, defining a situation instead.
LCS: Behind the facade you presented two projects concerned with preservation: one dealing with a medieval fortress, the extension of the Dutch parliament in The Hague (1978); and the renovation of the panopticon prison in Arnhem (1980). These projects resonated with the gesture of the wall: they were about opening the wall, creating a breach. How and why were these projects shown?
RK: We didn’t have a lot of work, and these were the two things that we were working on. By coincidence they both addressed the conversion of historical compound. The approach did not fit with the exhibition mentality. It was a convenient demonstration of how history could be approached in a different way. It was only when I started working on Cronocaos that I realized how consistently that has been a theme of our work. To some extent, I am a child of that mentality, but it took a different expression.
SdM: Next to the large charcoal, the watercolour drawings and the tiny models in plexi cases was Rem’s text ‘Our New Sobriety’, with the assertion that ‘the plan is of primary importance’. I remember quite some people were puzzled: ‘What is he saying? Ma che…?!’. But that was the real message. Rem wrote the text in ten minutes flat, in London. This manifesto was published in the catalogue for OMA’s first retrospective at the AA, in 1981.
RK: The text, together with our non-facade, was a way of asserting difference.
figure 3: Strada Novissima, OMA/Rem Koolhaas (© Charles Jencks).
LCS: You elaborated the project for the Strada Novissima parallel to the study for Boompjes Rotterdam (1980) and for housing projects in Berlin: Kochstrasse/Friedrichstrasse (1980) and Lützowstrasse (for IBA 1984).
RK: For Boompjes we were invited after the Biennale. It was the moment of separation between Elia Zenghelis and myself. The Dutch parliament project was still a collaboration, while the prison one was already just us. The separation was never about issues, it was just that it became difficult to work on the emergence of an architecture office, as a team. I don’t think that the Biennale influenced these projects, nor the other way around, but it could be that the Biennale made Boompjes possible, that it helped us to get the commission. A lot of things were coming together: in 1978 I published Delirious New York, then we almost won the competition for the Dutch parliament, and then there was the Biennale.
SdM: The Koch/Friedrichstrasse project was an alternative to the idea of the city current at the time – the street, making facades, rebuilding blocks… It took as a model the courtyard house, which has a boundary but no facade, and a void at its core, the inversion of a block. Next to the Berlin Wall, on a site with little substance left, this seems almost contextual…
LCS: What about the relation between the Strada and later OMA-projects?
SdM: The polemic was more relevant than the project itself. With the proposals for the Exposition Universelle in Paris, right after the competition for Parc de la Villette in 1982, we elaborated an immaterial, ephemeral architecture to get away from representation, especially in relation to the national pavilions. Architecture as national representation becomes very exhibitionist: it’s all about facades. In our proposal, the plan organises the activities on the two sites, focusing on the systemic aspects of the program, creating conditions for specific interpretations. It was abstract, but we had no trouble – and a lot of fun – to translate that into scenarios through collages.
LCS: The project for the Strada Novissima is not mentioned in official chronologies: not in S,M,L,XL, neither on the OMA website. Do you consider it as an architectural project or more as a discursive endeavour, a text, transformed into ephemeral architecture?
RK: I think that project was important because it was the first time we were recognized as part of an official group. It is an oversight rather than a deliberate repression. It has to do with the fact that, at the time, the office was a fiction. Stefano de Martino and I were working at my home. It was like a pre-office.
figure 4: Strada Novissima, OMA/Rem Koolhaas (© Charles Jencks).LCS: If we do read your facade as postmodern, should we consider it as a sign (Venturi), a historic fragment (Rossi), or a communication device (Jencks)?
RK: Of course, we wanted to appeal to the street. We made the neon sign to find a blatant and perhaps American way of appealing – a sort of Venturian sign. The funny thing was that Venturi, at the time, was very much criticized, even in America. In New York the scene was dominated by Peter Eisenman and Robert Stern, and the two of them agreed that Venturi should be ‘out’.
LCS: Out of what?
RK: Out of everything he could be kept out of: out of books, out of architecture, out of history… They were united in hatred and contempt for Venturi. I was close to Eisenman, but I was also close to Venturi. I have always told Eisenman that one of the weaknesses of his intellectual position was his polemical blindness. Nevertheless, part of my reading of the 1980 Biennale was that Stern won.
LCS: The exhibition was hijacked and became perceived as historicist?
RK: Whether it was historicist or not, I don’t really care, but Stern won simply as an influence. And with that it became a commercial proposition, representing the kind of postmodernism that became the style of choice for developers. That was very visible and I think Europeans were so naive that they couldn’t see that.
LCS: Portoghesi, when embarking on the daunting task of organizing the Biennale, asked Charles Jencks but also Robert Stern, Christian Norberg-Schulz, Vincent Scully and Kenneth Frampton to be part of the organization committee – Frampton soon quit because he didn’t agree with the curatorial and theoretical positions. Who do you think was responsible for your presence?
RK: I think it was Jencks. I didn’t know Portoghesi. At the Biennale I shook his hand, but barely talked to him. Now, in retrospect, I think he is a very interesting architect. But with Jencks and Frampton, I was in an extremely unstable situation. I was a friend of Jencks since 1968, when I met him at the AA. Of course, I totally disagreed with Jencks’ positions and I still do, but we remained good friends. A little later, in the 1970s, I became friends with Frampton. In the 1970s, I agreed with his position. When I was writing Delirious New York he became more and more negative about my work. He thought it was terrible to write about Dalí. At the beginning of the 1970s Frampton had a good sense of me; at the end of the decade, he had a bad one.
figure 5: Strada Novissima, Venice Architecture Biennale 1980 (© Paolo Portoghesi).
LCS: Another ‘official group’ came eight years later, when you took part in the Deconstructivist Architecture exhibition at MoMA.RK: In the Strada Novissima the majority of people was supporting and endorsing the message of the exhibition. They thought they could assert a particular thing. But no one wanted to be a Deconstructivist. In this way, 1980 was the last time a kind of coherence emerged between architects; in 1988, this had become impossible.
LCS: The Strada Novissima was the end of an agreement between architects?
RK: Exactly. If anyone was responsible for the Deconstructivist exhibition, it was Johnson. He really felt the need to reassert his power and to declare an agenda. He was convinced of being the true curator of the 20th century.
LCS: If Johnson’s move was political, so could have been Portoghesi’s. He was very close to Bettino Craxi who was head of the PSI in 1980 and Prime Minister from 1983 to 1987. Did you sense a political agenda in 1980? Was the exhibition linked to the political climate, to the tension of the anni di piombo?
RK: I missed that completely, partly because I had been living in America until 1979. It’s only in the last twenty years that I got a better understanding of Italian politics. Maybe it was asserting the possibility of a more cheerful Italy, but that would not have occurred to me at the time.
LCS: What happened after? It is difficult to assess or measure the ‘impact’ of an exhibition but it’s interesting to question the leap from the street of papier maché to the postmodern architecture of the 1980s. Some see the IBA, the Internationale Bauaustellung in Berlin, as a transposition of the Strada in the city.
RK: There is definitely a connection. It’s difficult: at a certain moment something is in the air…
SdM: The IBA owed a lot to the Strada. In 1979, it had been taken over by Josef Paul Kleihues and Vittorio Lampugnani, who propounded the idea of critical reconstruction to fill up a city that was losing inhabitants in droves. They operated with the idea of completing streets where there were no streets left, something like Woody Allen cloning the Leader from his nose in Sleeper… And of course the cadavre exquis that typified the Strada Novissima showed that you could produce diversity within a strict scheme.
LCS: Was it important to be part of that vibe at the beginning of the eighties?
RK: I love being part of a group, but when the moment is there I find it terribly uncomfortable. I probably experienced a mixture of anxiety and fun.
LCS: You said at one point you were not so different from the others in the Strada Novissima.
RK: No, I wasn’t that much different. That is the whole point of Delirious New York: exaggerate the differences. You have no idea how controversial the idea was at the time to work on New York. Everyone thought it was a serious mistake and an irrelevant subject. And that is why I was always interested in Venturi and Scott Brown. Because I realized that they were extremely SMaRt and creative in the way they looked at things. I wanted to be part of that.
LCS: So, in retrospect, you were postmodern?
I don’t know. I think everyone is. One exhibition I was happy to be part of was
Les Immatériaux at the Centre
Pompidou in 1985. I really felt at home, much more than at the Biennale, and much
more than in the Deconstructivist
Architecture exhibition. In Les Immatériaux,
I showed the Boompjes project – it is, by the way, very similar to the Rotterdam
building we recently (and finally) realized. I felt close to that exhibition
because it was not connected to an architectural movement: it proposed a kind
of thinking through a condition. I have always felt closer to Lyotard and
Latour or to other French intellectuals than to any one in America or England. It
was exhilarating! It was Pompidou at its best and its most profound. It had
nothing to do with matter or substance – it was concerned with thought.
Chabard will discuss Criticat’s production process as well as its editorial line-up and approach to architectural criticism. Patteeuw will present OASE within the field of architectural publishing and its latest issue addressing the question “what is good architecture?”.
8 August 2013, 6:00 pm
The recently published issue n°90 of the architectural journal OASE is entitled “What is good architecture?”. Bob Van Reeth and the curators of the Bob Van Reeth exhibition, Bart Verschaffel and Christophe Van Gerrewey contributed amongst others to this issue. On June 27, during the nocturne at BOZAR, the issue will be presented by OASE editor Véronique Patteeuw. Afterwards Bob Van Reeth will talk about his view on architectural quality, a view that will be challenged by other definitions of good architecture.
27th of June 2013, 7:30 pm
at the entrance of the exhibition Bob Van Reeth: Architect
free — reservation via www.bozar.be
Bozar Architecture, A+Belgian Architectural Review
Le graphiste néerlandais Karel Martens occupe une place essentielle dans le paysage du graphisme, de l’art et du design d’aujourd’hui. L’un des praticiens les plus importants de sa discipline, Martens a développé depuis 1961 un travail à la fois appliqué et autonome, personnel et expérimental.
Ses contributions au graphisme incluent des timbres et des cartes téléphoniques, des revues et des livres, mais également de la signalétique et des interventions spécifiques dans des bâtiments. Sa pratique d’artiste, intimement liée à celle du graphiste, se développe autour d’une fascination pour la matérialité du papier, l’impression d’artefacts industriels et des constructions géométriques et “kinétiques”.
Parmi ses nombreuses distinctions: le prix H.N. Werkman (1993) pour la conception graphique de la revue OASE, le prix Dr A.H. Heineken de l’art (1996), la médaille d’or à la Foire du livre de Leipzig (1998) et la Gerrit Noordzijprijs (2012). Martens enseigne à la Yale School of Art, et a co-fondé l’école Werkplaats Typografie en 1997.
OASE 89 is dedicated to the image of the mid-size city. Not just the way this is interpreted, but also how it is produced by urban designers and architects. The urbanism discourse has long focused on phenomena such as the generic city. OASE 89, on the other hand, also devotes attention to the typically European condition characterized by its vast number of small and mid-size cities. In contrast with the (Asian) generic city, typified by its massive scale and loss of (historical) identity and public domain, there is the European mid-size city: a city with historical and geographical identity. This makes the model of this European generic city a resilient model, one with staying power in light of today’s urban challenges.
OASE 88 examines the role of the architecture exhibition as a site of production. Bridging theory and practice, and relating historical examples to contemporary concerns, this issue considers the exhibition as a medium for experimentation, providing an alternative to the built project as a bearer of the practice of architecture.
Throughout modernity, exhibitions have played an essential part in the formation and differentiation of the culture of architecture. Apart from their historiographical role, they have been a means to identify commonalities in the present, stage discourse and instigate new forms of practice. But exhibitions are also built spatial manifestations in themselves and spaces in which unrealized proposals can be made public. As such, they offer various occasions for the elaboration of experimental design practices.
OASE 87 is dedicated to the thinking and the position of British architect Alan Colquhoun, situated within today’s debate on architecture criticism. The issue presents not only the different themes that Colquhoun has addressed in his work, but also the various positions that he has taken in his career: scholar, critic and practitioner.
Alan Colquhoun (b. 1921) has managed for decades to link his practical experiences with a particular way of thinking about architecture history and theory. Colquhoun has been making his mark since the 1950s, with constructive contributions to the discourse and the theorization of architecture. He has written important books like The Oxford History of Modern Architecture, and published essays in Architectural Criticism and Modernity and the Classical Tradition. Colquhoun’s work illustrates that architecture – even today – needs its own theory and cultural position.
Hatherley is a writer who lives in London. He writes on architecture, urbanism and popular culture and is one of the contributors to OASE’s upcoming issue OASE 87 ‘Alan Colquhoun’.
Friday 6 July 17:00-18:00
followed by exhibition opening with drinks, 18:00-21:00
De Ateliers, Stadhouderskade 86, 1073 AT Amsterdam
OASE 87 is dedicated to the thinking and the position of British architect Alan Colquhoun (1921), situated within today’s debate on architecture criticism. Colquhoun has been making his mark since the 1950s, with constructive contributions to the discourse and the theorization of architecture.
‘Not Individual Property’: The Ideas of Alan Colquhoun
Stanislas von Moos
Re-Reading A.C. on L.C.
What Is Meant by ‘History’?
Ristretti: Alan Colquhoun’s 90th
Two Notes on Alan Colquhoun
The River and the Ferry / A Brief Reflection on Alan Colquhoun’s ‘Typology and Design Method’
After the Avant-Garde
In order to enhance OASE’s academic profile, the journal publishes from issue #81 onwards abstracts for all its articles. These abstracts permit an accurate insight into the contents of each contribution and allow scholars to explore OASE for research material. The contents of all abstracts is searchable through the website’s search engine.
The 86ste edition of the journal for architecture OASE is completely dedicated to baroque. On the relation between a small Czech pilgrimage church, the Berlin Philharmonic and a National parc Centre in the Swiss Zernez.
Christophe Van Gerrewey is scientific researcher (FWO) at the Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Ghent University. He is preparing a PhD on post-war architecture criticism. He is the editor of Rooted in the Real. Writings on Architecture by Geert Bekaert (2011) and publishes on architecture and the arts. In 2012 appeared his first novel Op de hoogte, De Bezige Bij Antwerpen.
Sign up for the OASE newsletter to stay informed on new issues of OASE and other activities.
In OASE 86, the architecture of the baroque is revisited and assessed with specific regards to its relevance for modern and contemporary architecture. On the basis of several historical studies, this issue examines how the complex geometric compositions, surface treatments and semantic operations of the baroque might be connected to contemporary design practice. To that end, the authors turn their attention to relatively underexposed practices, such as the Bohemian baroque of Santini Aichel and the work of Nicholas Hawksmoor, and examine the reception of the baroque by modern architects such as Hans Scharoun and Luigi Moretti. The way in which the baroque figures as a fertile medium for recent architectural practice in Europe is investigated in interviews with Hermann Czech and Christ & Gantenbein, and assessed in studies of the work of Robbrecht & Daem and Valerio Olgiati.
Europe is a continent of small and medium sized cities. This could be a geographical statement, but is perhaps a more pertinent observation on the dominant collective imagination regarding the city. If the metropolis is the place of the modern urban experience, then the small and medium sized city is the context in which modernity is being absorbed and gains its familiar and honorable face. It is the natural habitat of a reformist type of urbanism and architecture that embrace modernity without choosing for the uncompromising idiom of modernism but chooses to package the new within a project that chooses for identity and legibility.
Once the center of its own territory, the mid-size-city is more than ever the part and parcel of a horizontal network within which the opportunities and problems of the contemporary urban condition manifest themselves. The big assignments, demography, migration, mobility, ecology, are just as well the challenges of the large, mid-sized or small cities. From this perspective, the mid-size city has become today again the place in which the images and imaginaries surrounding the European city are being tuned and readjusted . This is both manifest not only in the return of traditional images and urbanisms that take the small town as the reference point for a narrative on sustainable development (e.g. transition towns), but also in the rediscovery of the mediating role of the mid-size-city and its capacity to generate new imaginaries (e.g. the project ‘Mid-Size-Utopia’, Zandbelt&vandenBerg). The mid-size-city, it turns out, is well equipped to accommodate the changing roles and positions within the networked landscape of cities. We are being witness to the reinvention of a historical cities’ network, in which no longer the central position of the different cities with respect to their hinterland is leading, but rather their respective interaction and relative position within an open network.
For a new issue of the journal OASE dedicated to this theme we are in search of contributions on projects and design research specifically concerned with the Mid-Size-City as the place where the quite transformation of the European contingent takes on concrete spatial form and becomes the object of architectural and urbanistic intervention. Authors who approach the issue of the mid-size city from a perspective other than the project or design research are advised to respond to the Call For Papers of the Ghent Urban Studies Team for the colloquium ‘Mid-Size City. The dual nature of urban imagery in Europe during the long 20th century’ (Ghent, 19-21 April 2012). Authors can respond to both Call for Papers as well.
Abstracts of max. 500 words are due before 31 January 2011, e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
OASE 89 will be released in the Fall of 2012; selected authors will be expected to deliver their full papers by the end of March 2012.
What possible relations can the exhibition assume in relation to architectural practice? How does its dual character, appearing both as a spatial situation in its own right and as a vehicle for making unrealised proposals known to a public, provide an opportunity to produce new discourses, experimentally stage architectural practice, or reconsider disciplinary limits?
OASE 88 examines the role of the architectural exhibition as site of production, rather than a strictly representative device. Bridging theory and practice, and relating historical examples to contemporary concerns, it considers the exhibition as a medium for architectural experimentation, providing an alternative to the built project as a bearer of architectural practice.
OASE invites architects, historians and theorists to contribute to the upcoming issue. We specifically welcome case studies of historical exhibitions related to the above-mentioned questions.
OASE 88 will be released in the course of 2012; selected authors will be expected to deliver their full papers by spring 2012.
The work of Karel Martens has taken an important place in the European art and design landscape. During his 50-year-long career, Martens has designed books and magazines, facades, signs and stamps. Since 1990, he is the designer of all OASE issues.
Martens will be featured in television programme ‘De Canvasconnectie’, 13 november 2011, on CANVAS (BE) at 20.15.
The evening programme:
19:00 Doors open and possibility to visit the exhibition MärklinWorld.
19:30 Start of the symposium.
The symposium will be held in Dutch and will end at 22:00.
See the website of Kunsthal KAdE for more information.
On Saturday 5 November, OASE editors Veronique Patteeuw and Tom Vandeputte will chair a discussion at the Architectural Association, London on new modes of criticism in recent publishing practices. Participants in the discussion will include Tina di Carlo (Log), Matteo Ghidoni (San Rocco), Benedikt Boucsein (Camenzind), Ian Pollard (matzine), Tiago Casanova (scopio) en Sebastian Craig (Touching on Architecture).
The event takes place between 4pm and 5pm in the New Soft Room, Architectural Association, 36 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3ES.
OASE will take part in the exhibition ARCHIZINES at the Architectural Association School of Architecture, London. ARCHIZINES celebrates the recent resurgence of alternative architectural publishing with 60 new fanzines, magazines and journals from around the world. The exhibition, curated by Elias Redstone, is open to the public from 5 November to 14 December 2011. The private view takes place on Friday 4 November, followed by two chaired discussions in the Architectural Association on Saturday 5 November.
Indeterminacy in spatial design, planning and management.
Recent times have demonstrated how swiftly the social, political, cultural and economic circumstances can change. The disciplines of landscape design, urban planning and architecture find themselves facing the consequences. OASE 85 investigates how the indeterminacy and instability of contemporary programmes, contexts and ambitions can be regarded as a potentially productive factor in spatial design and day-to-day management.
With contributions by: Michiel Dehaene, Els Vervloessem, John Habraken, Thierry Lagrange, Yeoryia Manoulopoulou, Dimitri Messu (Exyzt), Erik Rietveld, Ronald Rietveld, Iris Schutten, Hannes Schwertfeger (Baubotanik), Tom Vandeputte
The complete list of winners was announced at the CICA Symposium held within the UIA World Congress Tokyo 2011 on September 28th in the Tokyo International Forum. The international jury consisted of: Joseph Rykwert (USA/UK), Manuel Cuadra (Germany), Sengül Gür (Turkey), Louise Noelle (Mexico) and Jennifer Taylor (Australia).
OASE’s editor and publisher are very interested in the opinion and appreciation of it’s readers. That’s why we invite all our readers to participate in OASE’s Readers survey.
In OASE 84 the architectural model takes centre stage. Models are such a self-evident aspect of the architectural métier that barely any thought has been given to the specific contribution that these physical models make to the discipline. In an era when computer visualizations dominate architectural (re) presentation, the demise of the model seems to be looming on the horizon. While in architecture the role of the model remains underexposed and is even being called into question, in the visual arts the spatial capability of the model is currently being discovered. The models made by artists are revealing the power and quality of architectural models anew, and these special attributes are the subject of investigation in OASE 84.
Launch of OASE issue 84 on Wednesday July 6th, 2011 at Gemeentemuseum Den Haag
This exhibition, held in Gallery The Narrows in Melbourne, focuses on Martens’ contribution to the graphic style of OASE. From 1990 (Issue 28) Martens took over the art direction of the journal, often working with students from the Werkplaats Typografie, an experimental typography school he founded in 1998 with Wigger Bierma. What began as a student magazine, evolved into an international professional journal in which a reflective and critical approach to architecture, urban design and landscape architecture is the mainstay. Recently celebrating its 75th issue, the success of OASE is, in part, due to Martens’ refined graphic statement, often absorbing his experiments in print and typography, while upholding the dialogue between graphic design and architecture. The exhibition features all 56 issues of OASE designed by Martens along with printed matter from his experimental studio practice.
This issue of OASE takes as its point of departure the cross-cultural conditions in which architects, urban designers and landscape architects work. It focuses in particular on architects working in a condition of displacement – in other words in relation to cultures, far away or nearby, that are not their own.
The Architecture of Use and Appropriation.
This issue of OASE is situated within a tradition that gives a central role to questions of use and appropriation in architectural reflection. The general attention to use and appropriation is part and parcel of a layered critique of architecture.
and performative spaces have long been at the centre of OMA’s – and now mostly AMO’s
– work. Two key exhibitions of the late 20th century roughly bookend
the time span covered by OASE 94 –
which title is inspired by OMA’s The
First Decade 1989 show at the Museum Boijmans van Beuningen in Rotterdam. On
the one hand, OMA’s participation in the Strada
Novissima at the First International Architecture Exhibition of the Venice
Biennale, for which a facade had been elaborated between 1979 and 1980; and on
the other hand, the Deconstructivist
Architecture exhibition that opened in June 1988 at the MoMA in New York. Yet
the Strada Novissima facade has been omitted
from all OMA’s chronologies. What sense can we make of that project and what
did it represent? Which were the commonalities between OMA’s agonistic
participation and other projects featuring Koolhaas’ paradoxical use of history?
This thematic issue of OASE sheds new light on the architectural
production of OMA during its first decade (1978-1989) – a mythical but
at the same time not very well known period in the history of the
world-famous office of Rem Koolhaas.
On November 20th OASE and the Architecture Film Festival, will screen “Robinson in Ruins” by Patrick Keiller in Floriscoop Rotterdam at the launch of the new OASE #93 magazine. The film will be introduced by the editors Michiel Dehaene and Claudia Faraone in English. Entrance is 5 euro. Seats are limited, please reserve a seat by filling in the form on the website of the AFFR.
With this theme issue of OASE we would like to transcend national or polemical discussions, and look at the architectural production of O.M.A. during this first decade, leading to 1989 — a mythical but at the same time not very well-known period in the history of the office.