Talk:Rem Koolhaas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Rem Koolhaas: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand lead section
  • Expand paragraph about film in the 'early life and career' section
  • Expand paragraph about education in architecture in the 'early life and career' section
  • Embed quotes in article or move them to Wikiquote
  • Expand award section
  • Format references

While Rem Koolhas is undoubtably an adept and brilliant mind in the contemporary world of architecture. It should be considered that he is adept in two fields, both equally important. First, the creation of the physical acrhitecture and -perhaps more proliferously than any other- the creation of the fantastic.

"Random Meaning" is definitly a term in which he revels in and is quite good at using in his buildings, books and lectures alike. His books especially have brought many in the profession to dream or at least consider options outside the box, or even as mundane as a box.

But, lastly it should be noted that within the 'profession' (alive, dead, dying, or elsewhere) Rem Koolhas has a strong, and articulate following as well as equally strong amount which do not consider his architectural constructions to hold up to the complex descriptions, or view the examples or diagrams and randomness as a detractor rather than a additive element.

This particular article is a good introduction to Rem Koolhas, but the line between the old profession and the hyper-modern of Koolhas and others is also worth looking into, especially with an architect such as Koolhas.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.129.76.237 (talk • contribs) .

i think i agree on the whole...so go for it! contribute! i enjoy koolhaas's attempts at re examining the position and relationship of the profession to society but have trouble articulating it. - Chwe 02:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it possible to give people who haven't studied architecture an idea about who Rem Koolhaas is? I couldn't make heads or tails of the last paragraph, as it's far too technical in its use of (presumedly) architectural descriptions. --Romann July 7, 2005 09:21 (UTC)

Could someone knowledgeable edit the article for more encyclopedic value and less pretentious pseudo-intellectual babble? Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.15.243 (talk • contribs) .

I find it strange that Koolhaas is still said to be "perhaps more famous for his books than his buildings"; maybe at the beginning of his career (when "Delirious New York" was published) this was true, but his most famous book today, "S, M, L, XL" uses hundreds of drawings and photographs of dozens of realized projects to illustrate his theoretical ideas.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.118.62.167 (talk • contribs) .

There is too much drivel in this article (e. g. "Using a canny direction of observation and diagram, Koolhaas mobilizes the omnipotent forces of urbanism into unprecedented forms and connections organised along the lines of present day society."). B.

If one compares merely the length of this article to that for Robert Venturi, it should be clear that this subject area lacks for a proper sense of proportion.


[edit] Tags

I've tagged this article because, quite frankly, it's a pretentious piece of crap. I couldn't find a template that could convey that, so I added the two that I think best suit this article. Just take a look at this paragraph:

Using a canny direction of observation and diagram, Koolhaas mobilizes the omnipotent forces of urbanism into unprecedented forms and connections organised along the lines of present day society. Shopping is examined for intellectual comfort whilst the unregulated taste and densification of Chinese cities is analysed according to "performance", a criterion involving variables with debatable credibility - density, newness, shape, size, money etc. Through his ruthlessly raw approach, Koolhaas hopes to extract the architect from the anxiety of a dead profession and resurrect a contemporary sublime however fleeting it may be.

--Osprey39 18:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree it is important to make note of Koolhaas' theoretical innovation, I also agree this article is overtly pretentious and sounds like some undergrad arch student's research paper. I hope someone can clean this up. -hmt 208.200.11.155 17:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)