Or so they say. The conference was rather enlightening as they all should be. It's truly a humbling experience whenever practicing architects speak of their ideas and work. Whether or not you agree and glofiry their sentiments does not matter, one still appreciates the virtue and shyt that they convey. Point worthy of taking note: a good speaker does not necessarily represent a good architect. Nor good architecture. Expecting another Bjarke this year was also rather naive I guess. As a BIG fan, lol, this year's line up of 10 was rather weak compared to last year's. Nonetheless, 5, or 6 of them rather, did intrigue me enough to google and find out more about their works.

You'd be surprised to learn more from a 2 day convention than a year's work in college. It's not to say that these speakers give you notes and books to memorize and learn by rote, it's the stimulation and controversy that is provoked within you. If I were to expect answers and solutions fed to me, I'd end up very much disappointed and stupefied. And I guess it pertains to everything to a certain extent. I have this tendency to google n wiki like nobody's business after watching a movie or show. The idea is not to search for your answers, but to deduce your own. One with reason and amazing architectural bullshyt.

junya.ishigami+associates. His projects definitely speaks louder than his words. Check out the human scale in his balloon project, made of aluminium yet freakin floating. omggungho.

The idea of basic design debated was a perplexing one for me. At first, I didn't and still do not fully grasp nor comprehend the term. I don't believe that it stands for a distinct philosophy or decree that we should or should not choose to follow. Innit more of a perception, a vogue or fad, a certain trend in not only architecture but design, extensively. How do you separate basic to complex design in the first place.?

Theme aside, (or maybe it's related, I can't tell for sure), Winy Maas made a really good point in his talk I felt, questioning human's greed intelligently, while I sighed pessimistically in accordance. The issues of our local building and construction remains also in question. I remember questioning the question in question in last year's conference as well. Architecture overseas demean our architecture so much, in perspective. Clients want value for money, fair enough. But sadly there's this misconception that value for money means no space is wasted, which means each squarefoot in their land is concrete and artificially built, which means the box, which means no architectural voids, which means all our buildings look the same, rather than getting your money's worth for the design as a whole. Stubborn architects who disagree then refuse and refute archetypal clients as such, and then accordingly get the finger and the sacking soon after. Compliant architects however oblige and design as we see. They get the job, whilst the stubborn ones don't; the richer get richer, the poorer get poorer.