Comments for LEBBEUS WOODS

Comment on GOODBYE [sort of] by dkzo

dkzo — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:22:58 +0000

i miss you lebbeus

Comment on GOODBYE [sort of] by Oliver

Oliver — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:50:40 +0000

I walked down Hyde Park Corner this day, thinking of something Lebbeus had said to me a few months ago: shouldn’t we think of what comes ahead of us rather than what has been? Those words stuck with me, because they teach me what it means to imagine. Lebbeus was like that, he could inspire people with a single thought, regardless of whether that thought was written, said, drawn or built.

See you at the crossroads, Leb.

Comment on GOODBYE [sort of] by Nico

Nico — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:15:25 +0000

Go in peace mr. woods. You’ve been an inspiration and a great challenge, I will continue to delight in struggling with your work and thoughts.

I hope some kind friend is able to keep this great archive of your thoughts and drawings online in perpetuity. It will be a great resource to us all.

I am also saddened that you did not live long enough to see your retrospective at SFMOMA completed. I do hope it will bring greater attention to your work.

Comment on GOODBYE [sort of] by FJ

FJ — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 22:42:59 +0000

Too Soon. Ciao Bello.

Flavin

Comment on GOODBYE [sort of] by WM

WM — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 03:44:54 +0000

Goodbye Sir. You are truly an inspiration that shatters our limitation of Architecture itself.
RIP.

Comment on GOODBYE [sort of] by AAscapes

AAscapes — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:17:46 +0000

We lost Prof. Woods, but his work will stay with us for ever!!!

Comment on GOODBYE [sort of] by kkoense

kkoense — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:40:57 +0000

I am at a loss. Your work and words have left an indelible mark upon my soul. You sir, will be missed beyond my capacity to express them here. Thank you for being a voice for those under siege.

Comment on BOULEZ IN SPACE by Mclng

Mclng — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:11:28 +0000

I find the comments of Svjeltana Bukvich incredibly self-serving. I suppose she would consider any composer not using a Synthesizer, like she does, to be out of touch and dated. I find her words to be more of a promotional announcement for the superiority of her own work (which I will refrain from commenting on here) than anything else. Let’s see who is remembered in fifty years, and then we’ll have a better discussion.

Comment on GOODBYE [sort of] by Oscar Reyes

Oscar Reyes — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:16:00 +0000

hi Prof. Lebbeus, I am a profound admirer of your work and experimental thinking. Look forward to read the next book.

Comment on THIS CANNOT PASS (updated June 22, 2011) by Siddid Srivastava

Siddid Srivastava — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:37:45 +0000

Wonderful blog! I found it while browsing on Yahoo News.
Do you have any suggestions on how to get listed in
Yahoo News? I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Thanks

Comment on GOODBYE [sort of] by Lior Galili

Lior Galili — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 03:43:04 +0000

Dear Lebbeus,
Thank you so much for your generosity. Your work is a precious encompass for me.

Comment on KIESLER’S DOUBLE VISION by Vision Machine | XHIBITOR

Vision Machine | XHIBITOR — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:38:58 +0000

[...] via Lebbeus Woods. Previous postFundamentals of Exhibition [...]

Comment on GOODBYE [sort of] by scott

scott — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 03:56:54 +0000

I find it ironic that I discover this blog, only to have it recede……Anyway – I look forward to your new book.

Comment on DELIRIOUS DUBAI by eco3

eco3 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:26:22 +0000

As a former architecture student disillusioned with the designer architectural practice today, I do agree with you in criticizing Rem’s “embrace of the inevitable”. Rem Koolhaus is actually coming to speak at my former school, Rice University SOA, this semester. While in school there, I often found myself questioning why I was building this art center or an exhibit for a nature preserve, when clearly it was more of a monument or sculpture than something that was actually environmentally conscious or sensitive to the inhabiting people. We did studies and this and that to “prove” that we were considering the environment and inhabitants, but they were more theoretical and not actually realistic.

In reality my school upholds architects, like Rem Koolhaus, for “embracing” artificiality in architecture and egotistically viewing architecture as an environment which renders the natural environment unnecessary. Think about Rem’s proposal for Delirious New York, where people would not have to leave the skyscraper in order to find everything they needed to live. I suppose they will find a way for the buildings to create oxygen when all the trees are cut down to make way for our cities, or find a way for the buildings to inject us with vitamin D when we no longer have to go out to soak up the sunlight?

Humans need the natural environment. We need ecosystems to ensure the environmental balance of our world. See what happens when we are immersed in unnatural environments. Stress in urban areas is higher than rural areas. Crime is more prevalent in urban areas. We are not supposed to exist in artificial environments. Unconsciously, we need to feel connected. Artificial environments do not connect us to anything- they are closed systems which do not rely on symbiotic relationships to function.

Comment on GOODBYE [sort of] by allan areano

allan areano — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:26:57 +0000

Thank you professor Woods -no words can describe how grateful i am to you.
Greetings from Honduras