SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Rem Koolhaas, Elia Zenghelis and Zaha Hadid, Competition Project for the Dutch Parliament, The Hague,1978;
  • ‘Strada Novissima’;
  • ‘The Present and the Past’;
  • Stefano de Martino;
  • Prince Charles;
  • ‘new sobriety’;
  • OMA;
  • Surrealism;
  • Wallace Harrison;
  • UN building;
  • Casa da Musica, Porto, 2002-5;
  • Le Corbusier;
  • Léger;
  • Delirious New York;
  • ‘a diamond that fell from the sky’;
  • The Iconic Building: The Power of Enigma;
  • Ronchamp;
  • TWA Terminal;
  • National Gallery in Berlin;
  • communication;
  • Hans Ulrich Obrist;
  • Serpentine Gallery;
  • Second World War architecture;
  • Russian architecture;
  • ‘dangerous optical illusion’;
  • Bridget Riley;
  • pacman;
  • Norman Foster;
  • CCTV building;
  • Alvaro Siza;
  • Paula Rego;
  • ‘anti-skyscraper’, Content;
  • Ole Scheren and Cecil Balmond;
  • ‘Voluntary Prisoners of Architecture’;
  • Seattle Public Library;
  • Big Mac sandwich diagram;
  • AMO, Eneropa Project, April 2010;
  • E-Conology;
  • Lech Walesa;
  • Kishore Mahbubani;
  • European Bar Code for the EU;
  • New EU Flag Design;
  • Robert Cooper;
  • Breaking of Nations;
  • ASEAN;
  • Mark Leonard;
  • Rompuy;
  • Court of Human Rights;
  • Richard Rogers;
  • Mark Leonard;
  • Ruskin

Abstract

The following debate took place on 28 December 2009 between Charles Jencks and Rem Koolhaas, and was transcribed and edited by Eva Branscome. Jencks and Koolhaas have exchanged ideas since the late 1960s. Jencks was the one to insist that Koolhaas come to the 1980 Venice Biennale, originally entitled ‘Post-Modernism’. (Paolo Portoghesi invited Jencks to collaborate with him on this first Biennale before it expanded into historicism.) In January 2002, Jencks was also a judge of the competition for the CCTV Building, the headquarters for China Central Television in Beijing, discussed below. Jencks and Koolhaas continue to thrive on their discussions and disagreements. Although they have very different commitments to the issue of ‘content’, their varying positions help to clarify what is meant here by ‘radical’. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.