ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2009
- www.ted.com Daniel Libeskind builds on very big ideas. Here, he shares 17 words that underlie his vision for architecture -- raw, risky, emotional, radical -- and that offer inspiration for any bold creative pursuit.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at www.ted.com/translate. Watch a highlight reel of the Top 10 TEDTalks at www.ted.com/index.php/talks/top10 - แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
This guy loves what he does, he gets everyone excited about architecture, great for the industry, great for the future of humanity - keep up the energy - keep talking - and sharing ideas!
I've turned on 0,5 speed of the video and now everything is understandable :D
lool :DDD
maybe it is cause I am a fast talker cause I enjoyed that speech!
indeed a men that have great knowledge and a interpretation of space that goes beyond the common stereotypes of architecture we see every day.......truly inspirational.....
its a shame not many people here have the knowledge to undestand what he is saying
imagine if each building was its own unique space, each space was a wonder a new place to explore!
think of when you are buying a new house or moving for the first time as a child, each room was new exciting deserving of exploring
now days buildings do not provide us with the same kind of mental stimulation as kids because over time we have realized all buildings are simmular....
that is why we love to travel and see other places, it is because we thirst for that mental stimulation
Also architects are artists before engineers.
Art is about expression. The artist trying to find meaning in his artwork. For someone its just random strokes, for another its the story of a lifetime!
If you observe Daniel's work you'll realize that Daniel basically created a formula for creating architecture, which basically in a way disregarded everything he just said. I respect his input but i think he is a bit focused on one side. Architecture should fill whatever purpose it has to serve emotionally, aesthetically, economically, ect. Too much radicalism isn't good. Too much safety on the other hand is horrible too. There should be no formulas in architecture.
like his building or not, he does always make the most inspiring speech in architecture
Yeah, the problem for me is that he talks a good game but the nuisance is sometimes lost- not always but sometimes it’s just about flash and making money.
wonderful proclamation of the vitality of creative inventiveness...it applies to music, it applies to gardening, to relationships, to art, to everything. Without experimentation and a celebration of new sensuous effects, how can music be fresh and speak of new life?.
i understand that there is more to architecture than simple aesthetics, but the normal person cannot recognize sequence of programs or space like architects. Libeskind's work has many layers of understanding the exterior elements let's people know this is something different.
Damn it Daniel BREATHE!
Looool!!!!
It's like Woody Allen, the same culture.
Very emotional, I likes. There is a delicate balance though, he may have a little too much emotion (not a bad thing). We need more buildings that push the rules, our buildings could be (or not be) inadequate to the environment later in time. He is suggesting a change in architecture, like a change in car technology for example.
Yet, take what you want from his speech. He is very expressive and bold, and some may not like that. I'd rather have liked to hear Frank Gehry but he is interesting too
I'm all for the idea of bringing nature into the city.
@dimeloloco
I think you misinterperated - I was saying that a building is not a piece of art, it is a building. The aesthetics of that building are far more important than any expression you put into them, for the general public.
It is not an art gallery. You cannot choose to go and see it, or not if you don't like it.
I didn't know this man.
He is just a genius !!
I said it once and I'll say it again. Architects are the philosophers of our time. We look for meaning in everything as Daniel Libeskind does.
This is what i like.
Architecture should be radical. It should be expressive, artistic and aesthetic.
Everyday i walk through the streets of Dublin and all i see around is bland architecture. Square buildings, with square windows and square driveways. Plain brick walls. This city lacks design. Even the new buildings are as plain and square square as they can get!
Its function over design and aesthetics. Why should function be plain? Radical and extreme designs for function is what i'm for!
Happy birthday Daniel
tradition we forgot: The use of cannabis, whether it be smoking it or making materials out of it. Legalize cannabis and you will see an explosion of ideas generated out of smoking it....compare to the dumbing down alcohol & cigarettes, as well as the drone mind drug coffee...but coffee is relatively better than alcohol and cigarettes.
why is everyone so mean???????even some of the stuff he said may not all be true..he is an amazing archtiect..who has definitely his own distinctive style???What is wrong with you people??? Of course he has to be a salesman..in order to make clients like his work...
I love his philosophy
It is called concept!!! people have to move on! pretty buildings are not enough! people need the architect to challenge their emotions!
here should be also 0.75 speed on the youtube player :)
Advertisement.
you could say the same think about any creative or artistic endeavour
Loved the video! Would love to connect.
I wonder if I die while hiking in the woods away from architecture, is that like dying without my soul?
I have to agree with IdleBystander, his pace makes me uneasy.
His buildings are like architectural oedipus complex run amok regardless of his pretty words.
What he says can be applied to almost anything.
So I wasn't supposed to infer from your comment that you think the audience is either jobless or lazy? If by some chance you were actually looking for a straight answer, here it is: the audience is made up of some of the best and brightest minds around the world, coming together to share ideas and possibly benefit from a greater understanding of each others fields. And yes, they have jobs.
If you want a straight, non-hostile answer, don't phrase your question like a jerk.
Wow so refreshing to see other opinions here from people who don't like this trend in architecture as well. I was nearly mobbed out of my design class at uni once by pretentious art students for saying I thought work like this and Ghery's stuff is pretentious nonsense :D
Libeskind is just trying to preserve a place for architects in society. I don't think society can afford him and his ilk. Under his bravado and flash may be a man who can be part of a collaborative effort to improve society but in this forum he is perpetuating a myth. His answer to the final question was more to the point about what architecture can become. Suggest reading Jeremy Till's 'Architecture Depends'.
where does this guy get his oxygen?! convincing ideas
Why do I get the feeling this guy has read The Fountainhead?
its important. i work but i would definately be at them lol. especially if i lived near
@dimeloloco
Perhaps I phrased it better originally... I have a comment somehwere explaining my point of view.
Libeskind's confrontational architecture would be totally awesome if only he didn't feel it necessary to unilaterally impose it on the material world in which the rest of us are forced to live and interact. Musicians don't get to put in art installations in an urban environment that blast awesomely heavy metal in all directions for the greater part of a century. Why do architects get to do it visually?
Lamborghini vs Ferrari is the perfect example to go here.
You've got Ferrari, the ultimate driving machine built on years of racing heritage and pedigree. Its conservative design resonates of the achievements of its predecessors.
Then there's Lamborghini, conceived out of spite. The punk story of the tractor designer who took on Ferrari. And that what the cars portray. Expressive, radical, extreme engineering and design which is what it relies on than its history.
And I choose the Lambo.
those buildings were all formed around the ideas of the time they were built. Architects are like artists and scientists. they strive to try new things. not turn out the same shit we've seen for 5000 years. The past has been celebrated and accepted, let's please move forward and create new buildings to represent man's current vision and potential
I am surprised he is not familiar with the Constructivist architecture that flourished in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and early 1930s. It was radical.
Expressive is fine, bu people forget that simple aesthetics has far more to do with architecture.
Agreed, but thumbing up for agreeing.
So many examples of enormous material and space waste for the benefit of architectural ego and aesthetics.
Nothing wrong with pretty buildings, but they serve a function first and foremost.
If all the buildings that were out there were pointed and warped it would be a terrible burden on my eyes! It's nice and interesting when it's done once in awhile though
epic way to end any speech- Hollywood strategy :p
buildings should be efficient
buidings owned by people can be pretty they can look whatever those people want
but cities should be efficient so we have to pay least taxes to have money to spend on other taxes:P also on other pleasures and even on vacation
Efficiency is truly beautiful
just because people dont see it right away
it doesnt mean its less beautiful
you're the only one thus far that made a positive comment.
Wow - Most comments on TH-cam are positive - take a look at the TED website: He got terrible reviews there
Seems to me like there is a lot of fluffy nonsense in this talk. He could have slowed down and cut the silly stuff.
9:20 "architecture is entwined with the human heart/soul because we are all born somewhere and we die somewhere..."
TRUE THAT.
If I'm the owner of a large business, and I want to build a large building, I'm not going to build an artistic building. I'm going to build a something that is functional.
firmitas, utilitas and venustas yo build is not to make architecture
The trouble with this kind of architecture is that it always seems to be trying to improve the human condition through buildings. So there designed around what the architect thinks is the perfect human so when real people try to use them they don't work. In my opinion he shouldn't be trying to improve humans through building he should be trying to improve buildings for humans.
It is "espresso" not "expresso."
Radical means going back to the philosophical/ethical roots, not rooted in a tradition. Conservative means rooted in a tradition.
What about shibumi?
A building should have understated elegance. It should function elegantly, without drawing attention too itself for the purpose of making the architect famous.
To be different for the sake of being different is affectation.
The opposite of authoritarian is not democratic. It is libertarian.
This guy has a lot of hot air.... but enough of that.
#1-#3 is that architecture itself must be functional efficient and aesthetic,
Beyond that everything he says is valid
Agreed, but thumbing down for irrelevancy.
Corruption exists everywhere, regardless of who's saving the money or wasting it.
Architecture is not a waste of money. It means something to the people who fund it, design it, work towards it and build it, the same way that it means something to the people who appreciate it everyday.
According to your ideas, the eiffel tower is a useless cantilevered bridge to the sky, a complete waste of money. Which it is, but you can't imagine Paris without it.
A helluva salesman!
Sophistry... he uses broad arguments, by themselves very hard to deny (god, democracy, complexity, liberty...), trying to justify the way he decided to do things. But there is no bonding reason to link those principles with, say, his dislike for square angles. The same argumentation would do for anything else, even using the "dead forms" he so named.
'Freedom' and 'America is Great' and everyone stands up LOL
no he doesn't, you have some serious hearing issues. Lol, j/k. I find him quite easy to follow even though he talks fast; he talks very structured. (not surprising considering he's an architect :))
All the buildings featured look like they were designed by Zaha Hadid (not sure how you spell her name). I disagre when he says "Architecture is about space and not fashion, its not about decoration". He's wrong, decoration is the future and the past.
Libeskind's okay
In a bit of constructive criticism for the speaker, he needs to take a public speaking class. He has some serious pacing issues.
im not sure what to say about Dan. I believe he is an artist but his logic is very one dimensional and not easily related to the "human reality" he claims to relate to
passionate man but i don't agree with everything he says. some designs are interesting but, in general, incredibly jarring just for the sake of it it seems and aren't wholly reflective of his verbalised opinion. as already said, he's a great salesman.
lol that's libeskind
Architectural discussion is often full of fluff.
Souds like he wants to complicate something that is simple and works. This all looks cool, but none of this is ralistic..
He's talking about our architecture like there's a problem with it is but it's practical.
man this dude is far out
blaw blaw blaw...
A god?
not a bad gay .... but most of all good pictures
Sammwoman,
Please inlighten me on your idea of practical instead of mumbling gibberish and then refering me to a dictionary.
Hypocrite
Architecture is habitable sculpture. You don't know anything about art or architecture.
Sorry, what?
I may as well say you don't know anything about art or architecture.
Is this getting us anywhere? No.
Grow up.
both wrong.
architectural marvels mentioned by Libeskind made in the worst of times were only possible due to corruption. Corrupt banks and corrupt funders backing construction of elaborate edifices. We are living above are means, and times are tough call for efficiency .. not wasting money.
His art is junk. Frank Gehry is another junk architect. If humans are ever going to make a serious endeavor off of this planet, we must wholly ignore and shun this sort of wasteful architecture and instead embrace efficiency and minimalism. Libeskind's work is no different than Victorian era wasteful ornamentation, but without the aesthetic appeal.
This man likes building weird architecture, ignoring accumulated knowledge so far, like people that use concept to build monstrosity
So what is YOUR explanation for why all of the modern artists and architects whose work is basically junk are about 90% jewish? I'm not a damn Nazi, I'm pointing out something that is obvious to anyone who looks into details rather than just the surface. Sorry for thinking you were an independent minded person. "Racist" and "Nazi" is the new "witch". Facts be damned, eh?
He almost believes in everything... annoying..
this one was pretty boring. didn't like it that much
The standards of architecture couldn't possibly be lower. These building aren't aesthetically pleasing let alone practical. New's flash, placing giant shards everywhere doesn't make for good architecture. This man abuses his power by creating giant middle fingers to historical architecture.