OMA AMO Cr it ical Prac tice
Jason Hitchcock
::
ARCH 525 - Critical Practice
::
Prof. Akerman
::
May 13, 2011
Introduction. Critical architecture practice begins and ends with the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA). Groundbreaking and innovative since its founder was in school for architecture, OMA epitomizes critical practice, not only in architecture, but in all areas which they work, which include fashion, graphic design, publishing, and others not typically associated with the practice of architecture. Highlighted here are four primary elements that contribute to OMA’s success as a critical practice. Beginning as one man’s thoughts on the state of architecture and the city, OMA has proliferated philosophies and theories that have influenced many architects of past, current and future generations. First, the founder and principle of OMA, Rem Koolhaas approaches everything in life with a critical eye. For him, every project, every client relationship is an opportunity to explore, experiment and examine the role of architecture in all aspects of life. The architectural practice of Koolhaas carries through the same philosophy, ceasing upon all competitions and commissions as a platform to evolve, re-think and question architecture’s place in society and the city. Restrained by the parameters of a traditional architecture practice, OMA developed a counterpart to itself, AMO, to operate as a think-tank and company to work on everything that is traditionally seen as outside of architecture. Among the notable clients of AMO is the fashion design company Prada. The relationship between Prada and AMO has been ongoing for more than ten years and re-
sulted in countless fashion show exhibitions, in-store technologies, a website, publications, temporary installations, art exhibits, to name a few of the things that have grown out of this collaboration. All of this has helped to evolve the role of architect from master designer to master collaborator and move beyond the building and even the built. Finally, the role of the firm is not only a place to work, but a place to grow and learn. Dozens of firms have been developed by former employees of OMA, many of which have grown into well known and critical practices themselves. While architecture of the 21st century is very much being defined by its use of digital technologies, and so too are critical practices in architecture, OMA has remained critical in its approach to architecture well before architecture’s digitalization. OMA’s fame is as much a result of critical practice as it is critical thinking, and it’s criticality is amplified by its ability to express architectural critical thinking in other ways the built form. The future of OMA will most likely begin to feature more and more work produced by its mirror, AMO, simply because architecture is such a long and expensive process and fashion shows and publications are much quicker and less expensive. Yet it will continue its prominent influence in architecture around the world, both in academics and professional practice. As architecture adapts and changes with society and technology, Rem Koolhaas and OMA will already be one step ahead.
Rem. In what started as one man’s thoughts on architecture has now become a global practice, working on everything from buildings to fashion shows to art exhibitions and everything in between, Rem Koolhaas has been leaving his mark on the history of architecture since he was studying at the Architectural Association in London. Born Remment L. Koolhaas in the Netherlands on November 17, 1944. Koolhaas is the most influential architect alive today. A career that began making an impact before he even graduate from the Architectural Association, London in 1972, Rem has contributed more to architecture as a critical practice than many of his colleagues. Like many architects, Koolhaas’ architecture took time to develop into the global multidisciplinary practice that it is today. The curriculum vitae that he has established includes all the elements of a critical practitioner in architecture, widely published, professorship at a leading architecture school, founded a think tank and awards that distinguish him among the best of the best. However, Koolhaas’ architecture practice is only a part of what makes his practice critical. Koolhaas does not limit architectural thought to building, rather he understands ways to apply the thinking of architects to everything non-architecture. From publisher to fashion show designer to politician, there are many fields Koolhaas has affected over his life. In fact, his work is has had such an impact on
O AM O
REM S, M, L, XL, 1995 OMA 1975 -
Born November 17, 1944, Netherlands
Architectural Association, 1968-72
Delirious New York, 1978
Content, 2004 AMO, 1998 -
Harvard Design Guide to Shopping, 2002 Great Leap Forward, 2002 Mutations, 2001
Professor in Practice of Architecture and Urban Design, GSD
Priztker Prize, 2000 RIBA Gold Medal, 2004 Gold Lion of Venice Biennale, 2010
Office
XL Tower
AMO
XL Tower Sport Retail
Residential
Research
Preservation
Office
Museum
Mixed use
Masterplan
Retail
Residential
Hotel
Research
Preservation
Mixed use
Masterplan
Infrastructure
Exhibition
Library
Education
(17)
(46)
(9)
(25)
(27)
(29)
(52)
(31)
(26)
Library Infrastructure Hotel Exhibition
Museum
Culture
1975
(7)
(20)
(32)
(38)
Education
Culture
(21)
OMA
(40)
(21) (17) (3) (46)
(25)
(27)
(40)
(32)
(29)
(52)
(7)
(31)
(9)
(26)
(20)
(38)
2001 (16)
2002 (13)
1995 (11)
1996 (10)
1988
1989
1994
1998
2000
(8)
(8)
(8)
(8)
(8)
1986
1991 (6) 1992
(7)
1985 1980 (4) 1978
(2)
(2)
19811983
(1) (1)
(1)
(6)
(6)
1987 (3)
1982
1999
(5)
(5) 1984
1979
1997
(1)
society that in 2008, Time magazine placed Koolhaas on their list of 100 most influential people.
OMA*AMO. The Office for Metropolitan Architecture began officially as a collective in 1975, although early work by founders Koolhaas and Elia Zenghelis can be seen as a precursor. Unique in the formative years of a firm, OMA sought international competitions rather than local projects that could earn quick money. Early competitions for OMA
1990 (2)
1993 (1)
constisted of the Dutch Parliment Extension (1978, although not built by OMA) and Parc de la Villette (1982, second place). These helped establish OMA’s critical approach to architecture and urban design even though they were unbuilt. As OMA became more prominent in the field of architecture and more projects began to be realized, Koolhaas was restained by the medium through which architecture thought was expressed. Developed to explore everything beyond architecture in 1998, AMO became the mirror through which architecture and urban theory could
be applied to other aspects of human existence. While they may work on different projects, OMA*AMO are able to have an impact on everything that may be assisted by the application of critical architecture. An early example of critical practice by OMA is their understanding and reconceptualization of program and typology. The above three graphics break down OMA*AMO’s body of work as understrood through their critical framwork of type and program. Figure 1 takes OMA*AMO’s classification
2008 (25)
2006 (21)
2004 (19)
2009 (15)
2010 (14)
2 2003 (12)
2005 (11)
2007 (10)
2011 (1)
of each type present in all projects. From this sixteen colors are assigned to represent each of the different types of work. While some projects may only have one type of program or requirement, others can have several different types involved in a single project. Therefore the width of each color is proportional to the total number of types for all projects. The second graphic begins to reassemble the different types based on whether OMA or AMO was in charge of the project. The majority of work has been done by OMA, yet the marjority of certain types are predominent for AMO. Revealed in compar-
ing figure 1 and figure 2 is the amount that exhibtions and research plays for AMO in proportion to the rest of their work. Furthermore, what can be extrapolated from the graphics is that even architecture types such as masterplan and infrastructure are present in AMO’s body of work; like wise, ‘non-architectural’ types like exhibitions and research are appearant in OMA. Finally the third graphic is inspired by AMO’s design for the European Union flag, EU barcode. Further rearranging the sixteen types/colors, each strip is placed chronologically by project. While at first glance it may seem over complex, but closer ex-
amination reveals repetative sequencing of corresponding types. Each horizontal band spans the width of the work for each year and is placed vertically to correspond with the number of projects for that year. Finally the shortened strips are to represent work by AMO. Conceptually the graphic is to be understood very genericlly as the OMA*AMO barcode. It can be abstractly applied to any discipline or field of study. Any object, idea, or event can be processed through the OMA*AMO barcode and result in a completely new way of using, thinking or behaving.
1975-1980
5 0 % 33%
36%
30%
10%
9%
21%
33%
1991-2000
15%
25%
13%
0%
13%
1981-1990
AMO
01020304050607080910
1975 BUILT AS A RESULT OF COMPETITION COMPETITION BUILT + COMPLETED WORK
1980 Checkpoint Charlie Apartments Parc de la Villette
1990 Educatorium
CCTV
2000
Casa da Musica
2010 2011
O M
A
Prada Transformer 2009 Seuol, South Korea Fondazione Prada 2008 Milan, Italy
Prada Longon 2005 Prada Shanghai 2005 Prada Los Angeles 2004
Prada New York 2001 Prada San Francisco 2000
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
M O
Catwalk Fall/Winter 2011 Catwalk Spring/Summer 2011 Lookbook Fall/Winter 2010 MIU MIU Catwalk Fall/Winter 2010 Catwalk Fall/Winter 2010 Catwalk Spring/Summer 2010 Lookbook Spring Sumer 2009 MIU MIU Catwalk Spring/Summer2009 Catwalk Fall/Winter 2009 Catwalk Spring/Summer 2009 MIU MIU Catwalk Fall/Winter 2008 Catwalk Fall/Winter 2008 Catwalk Spring/Summer 2008 Catwalk Fall/Winter 2007
Prada Waist Down 2004 Prada Sponge 2004 Prada Sport 2003
Prada In-Store Technology
Prada Catwalk FW 2011
Prada Catwalk SS 2011
Prada Catwalk FW 2010
Prada Catwalk SS 2010
Prada Catwalk FW 2009
Prada Catwalk SS 2009
Working with Prada, OMA*AMO have exposed the similarities between fashion and architecture. After watching the past four years of Prada Fashion shows designed by AMO, the connection between architecture and fashion have been fused. AMO catwalks are much more than a straight elevated walkway. Parallels can be drawn between the way OMA approaches a fashion show and the way Diller + Scofidio worked in theater. Each event is an expedited experiment in architecture and space. The slowness of architectural production is juxtaposed against brevity of a fashion show. While these graphics attempt
As the relationship between OMA*AMO and Prada continues to unfold, the results of the collaboration will continue to impress their audiences. While the fashion shows have exhibited the ability for architecture to change fashion, larger projects such as the Fondazione Prada, may begin to express the ways fashion has changed architecture. The ability to establish geniune collaborations with non-architectural fields is fundamental in the success of the new critical practice.
Prada.
In 2000, an unlikely collaboration was being developed between OMA*AMO and Prada, a luxury fashion designer. Feeling confused by the negative attention Prada as a brand was getting, Miuccia Prada sought the help of OMA in re-imagining her stores. Rather than simply design the interior spaces of Prada stores, Koolhaas seized the opportunity to expand upon OMA’s working relationship with Prada. Since then AMO has assisted Prada with everything from integrating technology into the stores to designing their biannual fashion shows.
to capture the sophistication of the work, any architect will have a new found respect for fashion.
OMAlumni 1975
1990
1980
2010
2000
AMO
OMA Zaha Hadid Kees Christiaanse
KCAP Maas van Rijs
MVRDV Moussavi Zaera-Polo
FOA Ole Scheeren
Büro-OS
REX
Joshua Prince-Ramus Bjarke Ingels (c) Hadid
(c) MVRDV
(c) KCAP
de smedt
(c) FOA
OMAlumni. It is said that working one year at OMA is equivilent to working three years at a traditional firm. In this light, employees come out of OMA with a knowledge of how a critical practice operates. To be an employee at OMA already represents the potential and talent of each person. It is no suprise then that many of the architects that leace OMA to begin their own firms are extremely successful. The graphic appove illustrates only a
(c) BIG
sampling of the over 80 former employees that have left to start their own practice. In black is the individual’s time spent at OMA and the color following it represents the firm that they began. An interesting comparison emerges as the work of OMA and its alumni are juxtaposed. There are many aesthetic, not to mention the numerous theoretical, aspects of these projects that are familar to those of their teacher and alma mater. As OMA grew and Kool-
BIG
PLOT
JDS
(c) BIG
(c) JDS
haas required more people to lead design teams, the authorship of many projects has recently become an interesting situation. This is represented in the graphic by the black boxes around projects that are creditted to both OMA and the alumni’s firm. As OMA settles into a framework that does not center around Rem, more alumni will rise through the ranks of OMA till they are ready to move on to their own firm, at which point their firm is in many ways the offspring of OMA
Conclusion. OMA will continue to set the standard for exemplary critical practice in not only architecture, but art exhibition, publishing, branding, government economic structure and all of the other many discplines in which OMA*AMO does work. While Mies, Corb, and Wright all had critical contributions to architecture, Rem Koolhaas and OMA have not let buildings stand in their way of exploring architectural thought. For them, architecture is not just building design, structure and the other traditional aspects of architecture, it is a way of thinking. When pushed beyond the limits of a ‘building’, the practice is able to collaborate with all professions to approach any problem in human existence and come out with a new way of thinking about the project and each of the contributing discplines. The graphics presented have attempted to represent the varying aspects that make up OMA*AMO as a critical practice. The relationship between OMA and AMO and the different types of works that are involved with are central to differentiating their practice from other critical practices The realtionship gives them the ability to adapt to changing economic and working conditions, as was seen in 2010, when half of the projects were done by AMO. While buildings will always be a significant source of financial income for the practice, AMO will be able to experiment more
easily with architectural ideas that can then be applied to the way OMA practices ‘traditional’ architecture. Regardless of your opinion on the aesthetics of their work, Rem and OMA*AMO have significantly impacted the practice of architecture more than any other practice in history, and will continue long after Rem is gone. Even though it may not have the OMA*AMO label on it, the influence will come through many of the projects that are produced by the OMAlumni. The practice/think tank/academic combination, when complimented with a written discourse that is widely published. establishes a perfect formula for practicing architecture critically.
References.
Adams, Tim. “Tim Adams meets Architect Rem Koolhaas” The Observer. Gaurdian News: 25 June 2006. <http://www. guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2006/jun/25/ architecture1> D, Ben. “How an Architect Does Runway”. The Mod One. 27 March 2010. <http://themodone.com/2010/03/how-anarchitect-does-runway/>
Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. -----, Rem, Bruce Mau and Office for Metropolitan Architecture. S, M, L, XL. New York: Monacelli Press, 1995. -----, Rem and AMO eds. Wired, Issue 11.06 June 2003, <http://www.wired. com/wired/archive/11.06/>. -----, Rem and Office for Metropolitan Architecture. Content. Köln : Taschen, 2004. -----, Rem. “Rem Koolhaas.” Perspecta. 2005 no. 37, : 98–105. Layco, Richard. “The 2008 Time 100: Rem Koolhaas”. Time. 30 April 2009: <http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/ article/0,28804,1733748_1733752_1735981 ,00.html> Office for Metropolitan Architecture. OMA. Rotterdam: 2011 <oma.eu>. Osborne, Catherine. “Joshua PrinceRamus: Q&A”. Azure. <http://www. azuremagazine.com/magazine/ff_feature. php?id=707&type=item>
Hawthorne, Christopher.. “On Credit.” Harvard Design Magazine. 2010: no. 32: 68–73.
Shigematsu, Shohei and OMA-AMO. “OMAterial”. Manufacturing Material Effects : Rethinking Design and Making in Achitecture. Ed. Kevin Klinger and Branko Kolarevic. New York: Routledge, 2008. 245-260.
Klingmann, Anna. “The meaningless popularity of Rem Koolhaas.” Thresholds. 2005: no. 29: 74–80.
Swanson, Carl. “The Prada Armada”.
Stadler, Matthew. “The Story of K”. Perspecta. 2010: no. 42: 191–198.
New York Magazine. New York: 16 April 2006. <http://nymag.com/fashion/ features/16725/>
Images.
All Images are copyrighted by OMA unless otherwised noted. All graphics were created by the author using information available through February 2011.