I speak not as a writer but as the kind of architect I am. I'm deeply aware of the misfit between my profession and the current moment. There is an enormous amount of technology that undermines the legitimacy of building or physical space, and so I'm deeply aware of the vulnerability of architecture as a plausible activity or discipline. And for that reason -- I became aware of this in the 90s -- what I think architecture can still do, or ought to focus on, is to represent moments where collectivity is an attractive experience rather than an imposition. For me libraries have that incredible quality. Each of us can be motivated by our own motivations, but nevertheless sit together in a room like that, that is an exceptional experience of sharing even though you are completely alone. That is for me what the most interesting part of architecture can be.

For me a manifesto is compelling speculative vision that is articulated with such selective sharpness that it becomes attractive. With my generation the whole idea of a manifesto has become almost unthinkable. I think that it has to do with the violence of the 20th century. ... When I came to New York, or when I found myself in this situation, I had the genius idea where I saw that in Europe there are many manifestos but no realization. New York was realization without manifesto; that why as an expedient strategy I wrote a retroactive manifesto (Delirious New York) where I could claim New York as evidence.

PHOTO: [Rem Koolhaas pointing to the spot where he sat every day writing Delirious New York in the Rose Reading Room | Photograph by Jori Klein]

PH: Before coming here tonight in this room we went to visit the Reading Room, and we went to visit some of the special collections. When we entered into the room both of you were incredibly struck, somehow enraptured, in awe. And libraries, since we're in one here, have mattered to you greatly. I'd like to ask you to talk a little bit about libraries; Rem, you might also want to talk about the library you built in Seattle. But the Reading Room in particular, you were there, we went upstairs, you saw it, somehow for a brief moment you were speechless.

RK: I speak not as a writer but as the kind of architect I am. I'm deeply aware of the misfit between my profession and the current moment. There is an enormous amount of technology that undermines the legitimacy of building or physical space, and so I'm deeply aware of the vulnerability of architecture as a plausible activity or discipline. And for that reason -- I became aware of this in the 90s -- what I think architecture can still do, or ought to focus on, is to represent moments where collectivity is an attractive experience rather than an imposition. For me libraries have that incredible quality. Each of us can be motivated by our own motivations, but nevertheless sit together in a room like that, that is an exceptional experience of sharing even though you are completely alone. That is for me what the most interesting part of architecture can be.

The Slow Media Manifesto [ http://en.slow-media.net/manifesto ]

“1. Slow media are a contribution to sustainability. …
2. Slow media promote monotasking. …
3. Slow media aim at perfection. …
4. Slow media make quality palpable. …
5. Slow media advance prosumers. …
6. Slow media are discursive and dialogic. …
7. Slow media are social media. …
8. Slow media respect their users. …
9. Slow media are distributed via recommendations, not advertising. …
10. Slow media are timeless. …
11. Slow media are auratic. …
12. Slow media are progressive, not reactionary. …
13. Slow media focus on quality. …
14. Slow media ask for confidence and take their time to be credible. …”

Good branding manifesto examples

list of manifestos to be researched

With the possible exception of Felicity Scott, the pervading positions were that the manifesto was dead or its status diluted, primarily through the argument that it is no longer necessary in a profession driven not by the "lone genius", but instead by an agglomeration of anti-heroic gestures... leaving books full off "stuff about the city for architects by architects" as opposed to decisively analyzing the city's relationship with its architecture. The manifesto has become "domesticated", lacking invention, investigation or interpretation... Throughout the event there seemed a sense of covert conservativism from the panelists' approach to the built formations that emanate as manifesto.

After a long period of often frivolous form making and unprincipled egoism in architecture, which have played into the hands of the most venal interests of real-estate developers and marketers, some architects are looking for more substantial ideas to serve, more meaningful goals to strive for, and the manifesto has come back. It is probably a temporary aberration, owing to an unsustainable idealism that lurks within statements of principle, but even their brief resurgence can help to regenerate—at least for a while—our beloved, beleaguered field.

Of half a dozen new manifesto compendia, the one that seems to have attracted the most critical attention is one titled “Urban Future Manifestos,” collected and edited by—guess who?—Peter Noever, in collaboration with Kimberli Meyer. Persistence, it seems, sometimes pays off.

brands

Inspired, a month and a half on, by other posts by my co-conspirators on language usage, I’ve been thinking about how we in the movement(s) so often talk past each other, without always immediately realizing it. We use the same words to mean different things. To help clarify this issue, I present a list—not exhaustive—of phrases and concepts that, contrary to occasional usage if not popular opinion, are not, in fact, identical:

Masculism ≠ misogyny
Feminism ≠ misandry
Masculism ≠ antifeminism

“Male privilege” ≠ conspiracy by men
“Patriarchy” ≠ conspiracy by men
“Female privilege” ≠ conspiracy by women
Male privilege exists (in some areas) ≠ female privilege doesn’t exist
Female privilege exists (in some areas) ≠ male privilege doesn’t exist
Greater equality ≠ sexism against men
Sexism against men ≠ greater equality
Gradual recession of male privilege ≠ matriarchy
Reduction or elimination of an aspect of male privilege ≠ sexism against men
Women have sexual autonomy ≠ women are in charge

Rape ≠ false rape accusations
Some men are raped ≠ no women are raped
Some accusations are erroneous ≠ most (or even many) accusations are false
Some accusations are false ≠ many accusations are false
Some accusations are true ≠ all accusations are true
Due process of law ≠ personally defaulting to doubting the accuser
Most victims are female ≠ no victims are male
Most victims are female ≠ no perpetrators are female
Many perpetrators are men ≠ all (or even most) men are rapists

I’ve mingled “people say p when they mean q” and “when some people say p, other people hear q” and “people attack (defend) p in order to attack (defend) q” but they all somewhat overlap anyway. I welcome contributions in comments. I think.

RT @Slate: Almost everyone should be drinking cheaper wine: #manifestos

"A book or a startup is best created by 1 or 2 people, who are the authors or founders.

You can create a book with 3 or 4 authors, but essentially all the great books have been written by one author. In fact, if you have more than 4 authors, you're not even really producing a book–you're really producing an anthology of individual essays."