Pritzker Prize 2010 winner – Architects Ryue Nishizawa, Kazuyo Sejima SANAA

The Pritzker committee made history by naming Ryue Nishizawa and Kazuyo Sejima as recipients of the 2010 Pritzker Architecture Prize

It’s only the second time that the award has gone to a woman, the second time the award has gone to a duo, and   the first-ever award for a male-female duo.

“For architecture that is simultaneously delicate and powerful, precise and fluid, ingenious but not overly or overtly clever,” reads the jury citation. “For the creation of buildings that successfully interact with their contexts and the activities they contain, creating a sense of fullness and experiential richness; for a singular architectural language that springs from a collaborative process that is both unique and inspirational; for their notable completed buildings and the promise of new projects together, Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa are the recipients of the 2010 Pritzker Architecture Prize.”

The duo will receive the prize at a ceremony on Ellis Island, New York on 17 May 2010. They will receive bronze medallions and a US$100,000 grant at the ceremony.

The Japanese Sejima and Nishizawa, who practice under the name SANAA, have worked together since 1995. They are probably best known for their New Museum of Contemporary Art building on the Bowery in New York City, a stacked, wire-mesh wrapped sculpture that nodded to its in-transition surroundings.

Their biggest major building was just completed in Switzerland, the undulating concrete planes of the Rolex Learning Center which appear to rise naturally out of the site.

The Glass Pavilion at the Toledo Museum of Art opened in 2006 and features hundreds of curved glass panels that make up most of the exterior and interior walls.

More glass wraps the circular 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art in Kanazawa, Japan, which has no front or back, making for a truly accessible, public building.

A cube with seemingly-random punched-out windows that flood the interiors with light created a landmark structure for the Zollverein School for Management and Design in Germany.

Do Buildings Have Gender?

Are sex and architecture related? Are some buildings "male" and others "female"?

Yes, of course, some architects are male and some are female. But what of the buildings?

Does a Victorian cottage, dolled up in gingerbread, seem "female"? Is a rough-hewn stone castle "male"? How would you describe the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, Turkey?

The questions might strike you as a bit absurd, but many serious architecture scholars are looking closely at the relationship between architecture and human anatomy and human sexuality.

Some architecture critics say that the tall, forceful shape of a skyscraper expresses masculinity.

Any number of skyscrapers, such as the Empire State Building in New York, might be called male.

A building does not have to be tall or phallic to suggest masculinity.

Some architecture critics believe that "male" architecture is architecture that expresses heaviness, strength, or power. Something about its shape, proportions, or sheer mass shouts out, "Uh! Me Tarzan!" Or, perhaps, "Uh! Me Bill Gates!"

Architect I.M. Pei seemed to express masculine ideas when he designed the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art at Cornell University. The building is composed of heavy angular shapes.

Some architecture critics believe that "female" architecture is architecture that seems to express femininity. There is something womanly about the building's shape, size, proportions, color, or texture.

Curved shapes may suggest the womb. Perhaps you long to crawl inside the building and curl into a fetal position.

The dumpling-shaped Esplanade in Singapore has a round shape that might be called feminine.

A "female" building doesn't have to be delicate. Perhaps the building is bold and brassy - not the sort of girl you'd bring home to your mother. The "femininity" of the building is expressed in its curving forms.

Architecture critics might say that Jorn Utzon's Sydney Opera House expresses a bold "female" energy.

Many buildings have both male and female qualities. Perhaps the texture is male, and the shape female. Or, the color is female, but the proportions... Well, you get the point.

A building that has both male and female characteristics might be called androgynous.

The Taj Mahal in Agra, India combines rounded shapes with masculine forms.

Does the gender of the architect affect the gender of the building?

Apparently not.

Julia Morgan's many buildings at Hearst Castle can be viewed as male, female, or both.

Imagine a building designed for sex. Would it resemble those so-called cathedrals of the flesh, the ancient Roman baths?

Would it look like a Victorian brothel in a Montana mining camp?

Or, would it seem more like the back seat of a 1959 Chevrolet?

Whether you think of architecture as "male" or "female," there is no doubt that buildings can suggest sensuality.

Some buildings, like the X-rated temples of Khajuraho, India are explicitly erotic.

Other buildings are sensuous because they are pleasing to both the eyes and the fingers.

Many people find adobe pueblo homes sensual, perhaps because they are hand-crafted from the earth.

Great architecture touches the soul and lifts the spirit. The most beautiful buildings also reflect our physical bodies and celebrate our senses.

Buildings that are bland, uninteresting, or downright ugly may strike you as neuter. They lack a sense of masculine or feminine energy, and they do not appeal to the senses.

For some people, streamlined Bauhaus architecture can seem neuter. But for many people, the most simple architecture is also the most sensual. A Bauhaus building such as theWalter Gropius house shown here can express the best of the physical and the spiritual realm.

What do you think makes a building "sexy"? Lets comment guys!

courtesy-http://architecture.about.com/od/architectureandsex/ss/gender.htm

Architecture or Engineering?

Someone brought up a very good question in MetaFilter.com. It goes:

Which is better, pays more, has more personal freedom?

I’m an undergrad architecture student questioning my career choice. I like design work, but I understand that the life of an architect is characterized by stress, sleep deprivation and no personal time.

I’d like to hear from people in the field:

*Is architecture really as torturous as it sounds (I get about 5 hrs sleep average as a student, does it get better?)? *Do you have any artistic influence as an engineer? *Are the hours as demanding? Job security? *Any special training or certification required (like the licensing exam for architects)? *Environmental/civil/structural??? *Bachelor’s or Master’s?

I’ve browse thru the answer posted by various readers of the article, some are quite true for example reader Orangemiles said that engineers think architects are the dreamers, and architects think engineers are the killjoys.

Another reader Salvia pointed out that architecture graduates design stairwells, spec out bathroom tile, and are “AutoCAD monkeys” (this is the phrase other people use) for the first 5 years after graduation. I’m not sure they get any artistic influence there. Of course, people tell you scare stories about almost every profession — I’m sure the talented and self-motivated escape this somehow, which is very true.

Personally, I think what salvia said is very true and I hate it when people use the word architorture. If architecture is indeed so torturing, then why in the world one would want to take up the course? They said that only architecture student sleep 5 hours per day, and they spend most of their time in studio not knowing what life is all about, I say that is so untrue. It doesn’t matter what course you are studying, if it is torturing then you are in the wrong course. If it is interesting, then you has passion for it, and if you know every facts at your fingertips then you are a bookworm, constantly updating yourself with magazines and books.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5a836arwi8 

 discussion going on over there is well worth reading, what are you waiting for?

We Shape Our Buildings and Afterwards, Our Buildings Shape Us

What did you see? What is above the woman’s head? What element is the backdrop? Researchers showed an identical image to people from East Africa, almost all of those took part in the experiment said the lady was balancing a box on her head, in an African culture where there are few angular visual cues, the group of people is seen sitting under a big tree. On the other hand, Westerners are used to corners and rectangular architecture, thus they are more likely to visualize the group of people in an indoor space and to interpret the rectangular shape above the lady’s head as a window opening.

The studies showed the influence of different culture and environment can have an effect on our visual perception, this theory was first explored by Robert Laws, a Scottish missionary working in Malawi, Africa, during the late 1800’s.

Winston Churchill’s epic statement, “We shape our buildings and afterwards, our buildings shape us,” is a fantastic observation of the architectural phenomenon, illuminating the fact that physical architecture is a static artifact and continues to transform us  long after construction.

 Couple with Churchill’s famous quotes and the illusion above, does a person who comes from a third world has the same creativity in architecture compare to someone whom was brought up in a historically rich city such as Paris? 

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my friend (not an architecture student) last year, we were arguing about the use of Roman / Doric columns in most of the houses in Malaysia, a typical Malaysian trend where these columns are an essential element in every houses, an eye sore. Not only the use of these mini Doric columns are ugly, he was defending the overall design as well, saying it is beautiful.

It is hard to convince them that these houses are tasty for the tasteless