+++
5.3.2012
Dick van Berkum
I think this is about a more complicated question.
Quote from the archdaily.com article:
What if Le Corbusier patented his designs? Mies van der Rohe? Frank Lloyd Wright? Their work and strategies have been copied and implemented all over the world to varying degrees. So, where is the line between protecting an original idea and creating a barrier against progress? Or does this commercialization of architecture fuel competition to design better or design around strategies already patented?
+++
5.3.2012
Dick van Berkum
Is this the beginning of a takeover by commerce (= we are only in it for the money)? It would restrict the "free" playfield of architects. I am not an architect, just an artist, but i would be very concerned when this happened to the arts. So......architects, wake up!!!
+++
5.3.2012
Marietta Helen Andreas
No. No. No. No! But for example the influence on architecture as to "ERCO" is there and it is very interesting that the architect thought about the barcodes.... why not?
+++
7.3.2012
Sokratis Georgiadis
Lieber Florian,
wenn Frage und Widmung zusammenhängen, so ließe sich erstere dahingehend
beantworten, dass selbst Hersteller von Markenprodukten inzwischen Wind
davon bekommen haben, dass es heute, in Zeiten "fluktuierender Normen", wie
Deleuze sagt, nicht so sehr auf die Reproduktion identischer Kopien ankommt
als um die Produktion einer Vielfalt von Varianten, die eine
Mannigfaltigkeit von Konsumentenwünschen bedienen oder diese auch erst
erzeugen. Man könnte sich aber auch vorstellen, dass diese v.a. durch die
Anwendung von CAD und CAM Werkzeugen erschlossenen Möglichkeiten von der
Konsumlogik abgekoppelt werden könnten, um stattdessen das Feld der
Architekturproduktion der Partizipation der Nutzer zu eröffnen. Die
Beteiligung am Prozess, die Mobilisierung der Ressourcen kollektiver
Intelligenz lässt nämlich hoffen, dass allmählich neue Fluchtlinien der
Wunschartikulation jenseits des Konsumdiktats entstehen könnten.
Marken-Architekten tun sich aber damit schwer.
Schöne Grüße
Sokratis Georgiadis
+++
7.3.2012
Trent Bromley
‚Äé~ . . . John Chase writes "Commercial vernacular's most perplexing quality is that it goes to great lengths to appear to be what it is not." "Just as soap opera has supplanted folklore and storytelling, commercialized architecture has taken the place of the traditional vernacular in the building of present-day America. A large part of this building is, nonetheless, a new kind of vernacular."
+++
7.3.2012
Aldo Nolli
Produkt, kommt von Pro-Ducere, Vor-Führen? Voran-Führen? Aus-Führen?
+++
7.3.2012
Aldo Nolli
Wobei Architektur ist immer noch ein Manufakt, das macht sie ja gerade interessant.
+++
7.3.2012
Aldo Nolli
Aber vielleicht rede ich am Thema vorbei. Wie ist das mit dem Begriffspaar Marke/Produkt bezogen auf die Architektur gemeint, Florian?
+++
7.3.2012
Florian Stocker
@Aldo Nolli Deine Verführung legt den Finger in die Wunde... Produkt - Handwerk, Sokratis Georgiadis hat das Wort "Konsumdiktat" weiter oben verwendet. Der Architekt verführt ja gerne...
+++
7.3.2012
Florian Stocker
Authorship might be a topic too?
+++
7.3.2012
John DeFazio
I am with Aldo on this one. What is the question?
+++
7.3.2012
Florian Stocker
I have to reformulate?...I am thinking about the tendency of architects to generate a trademark, without forgetting Frank Llyod Wright, Corbu....even Arlbrecht Dürer, so is it a marketing tool, does a "product" allow participation...in the machinery of desire, lust an fulfillment? As a midwife I should keep silent (Maieutics in progress)... since the motto is "May be you have an answer and you need the question?"
+++
7.3.2012
John DeFazio
Thanks Florian. Now time to think.
+++
7.3.2012
Peter Klick
Hi Florian
In the US it's called Branded Environment
Brand means to me actually to set something on fire… Brand, that’s the German word for fire and blaze.
Start the fire and there will be heat! You are a maverick without a brand‚¶
Gruesse aus Chicago,
p
+++
7.3.2012
Maru Martinez
@Florian Stocker, you have posed a crucial question addressing the practice of participation and the ambivalent notions of innovation, consensus and common ground: "does a "product" allow participation... in the machinery of desire, lust an fulfillment?". i am reading markus miessen "the violence of participation and just saw harun farocki's film "In Comparison". So, following your question i wondered what sort of frictions and differences supplement such micro political forces?
+++
7.3.2012
Maru Martinez
so, i tried to reread the posts, so your question aims addressing experience economy/experience society linked to how an organization structures and names the brands within its portfolio?
+++
10.3.2012
Jürgen Mick
Hallo Herr Stocker,
es scheint mir ein reizvoller Ansatz, Architektur aus dem Spannungsfeld Produkt – Marke heraus zu beobachten, weil auch Architektur sich nicht länger einem Anspruch entziehen kann, der mittlerweile an ...nahezu alle Dienstleitungen und Produkte heran getragen wird: Erwartbarkeit.
Meine Vermutung ist, dass die Einlösung dieser Erwartung über einen standardisierten Produktionsablauf versucht wird. Erst die Standardisierung von Produktion erlaubt es Marken zu etablieren, die als Garanten auftreten können. Ein architektonisches Bauwerk kann mittlerweile genau deswegen als ein Produkt bezeichnet werden, weil sein Herstellungsprozess vorrangig den Bemühungen Rechnung trägt Herstellung und Gebrauch voraussehbar zu machen und alle Erwartungen gerecht zu werden. Das Schema „Erwartung und Einlösung“, das vom „Konsumenten“ in alle Lebensbereiche und so auch in die Architektur hinein getragen wird, hat ein hochkomplexes Zusammenspiel von Regeln und Normen, Gesetzen, Strafen und Versicherungen etabliert, welches als Systematisierung von Herstellungsbedingungen beschrieben werden kann. Wobei der Architekt stellvertretend als Marke fungiert und das „Produkt“ (das ja Unikat bleibt) sich über bewährte Abläufe einer gefestigten Entstehungsstruktur rechtfertigt.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Jürgen Mick
+++
13.3.2012
Masumi Mizoguchi
Architecture became part of entertainment experience where something is constantly happening. sort of RPG. The purpose of such structure is to consume. And since I don't know when God replaced by an entertainment, and consumption became part of entertaining experience, the architecture itself became part of such experiences (a new church with billions of believer and they are really obedient sheeps! ) Where, I think the original purpose of container is let us pursue our purpose : for us to focus, think or contemplate on something..but today, the container provides already the purpose. Not long time ago, some buildings or museums allow you to just be yourself and let your flow of thinking go... but today, either I go to monastery or church (even there, so many things are sold for souvenir!) or libraries (which is now a simple free wifi-spot), I have no choice going in the nature where no architecture is available.. I don't say it is bad and I'm not nostalgic but you need to be solid today to pursue "your" thinking. Each time, I open my Moleskin with a pen at cafe (and I choose the most discreet corner not to shock anyone.) and physically write or draw something, amazed that people has not denounced yet that I'm dangerous
+++
13.3.2012
Robert Thomsen
Lieber Herr Stocker,
das ist eine humorvolle Frage auf die es zwei Antworten gibt, Erstens : Architektur wird zur Briefmarke und damit wird der Architekt vom Raumkünstler zum Oberflächendesigner und das geschieht zum Teil ja auch. Die Raumstruktur liefert der Bauingenieur, preiswert und langweilig und dann kommt der Architekt und macht die Mode, fehlen nur noch die Reißverschlußdesigner. Das wäre die kapitulierende Antwort.Die zweite Antwort lautet anders und ist viel optimistischer.Es wäre zeckmäßig im Sinne Benjamins Spuren zu hinterlassen die bleiben, so eine Art wachsende Erinnerung, ohne selbst zur Marke zu werden. Wenn Architektur zur Marke wird hat Sie die Qualität des originalen Produkts verloren. Ein Beispiel: Ausstellungsdesign, wollen wir mehr HG Merz oder Atelier Brückner, was ist das Marke oder Produkt? Beide liefern einen Stil und werden zur Ikone, dann sind wir beim Zeichen und beim Superzeichen, wann gibt es Coca-Cola Architektur? brauchen wir dann noch Architekten oder lieber ein Designhandbuch für gute Coca-Cola Architektur. Architekten bauen Coca-Cola wenn Sie als Marke wiedererkennbar sind, aber ist das wünschenswert? Zwischen Produkt und Marke wird Architektur inhaltsleere Hülle, befremdlich könnte daran sein, das es eigentlich niemanden interessiert, wo wir Architekten mit unsere Architektur uns so daran gewöhnt haben ein kleines bißchen wichtig zu sein. Die Essenz ist dann weinger Produkt, weniger Marke und mehr Mut zur Originalität, abgeleitet von der Aufgabenstellung.
Jetzt ist die Antwort fertig
Grüße Robert Thomsen
+++
13.3.2012
John DeFazio
Logo? Brand? Product?... (Think. Think. Think.)... http://mydesignstories.net/profiles/blogs/luis-vuitton-icon-bag-zaha-hadid-architects
+++
13.3.2012
Michael Pracht
Hallo Herr Stocker!
Erreichen wir über einen Auswahlprozess zwischen angebotenen Produkten tatsächlich den gewünschten Grad an Angemessenheit, den das Entwerfen mit dem Architekten ermöglicht? Oder landen wir in einer "Schöne [n] neuen Kuhstallwelt"?
Was bieten wir Architekten eigentlich an: Produkt oder Prozess? Und sind wir tatsächlich "zuerst und zuletzt Vermittler" wie Julia Gill schreibt? Das könnten wir in beiden Fälle sein.
Viele Grüße!
Michael Pracht
+++
13.3.2012
John DeFazio
logo |?lōgō| noun ( pl. logos )
a symbol or other design adopted by an organization to identify its products, uniform, vehicles, etc.: the Olympic logo was emblazoned across their jackets.
Vs
product |?präd?kt|noun
1 an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale: marketing products and services | dairy products.
• a substance produced during a natural, chemical, or manufacturing process: waste products.
• a thing or person that is the result of an action or process: his daughter, the product of his first marriage.
• a person whose character and identity have been formed by a particular period or situation: an aging academic who is a product of the 1960s.
• commercially manufactured articles, esp. recordings, viewed collectively: too much product of too little quality.
+++
13.3.2012
John DeFazio
Architecture? Logo? Brand? Product? Art
Architecture has split in two. It happened almost exactly 100 years ago (with Peter Behrens I think). Architecture divided into a form of industrial design, away from its origin, as an”art form.” Architecture had been something different yet related to “building as craft.” Practical, craft buildings had always been the foundation from which architecture-- “building as a work of art”-- sprang, but art has always had a different purpose and use in culture and society than just necessity. Architecture carries art content-- what it means to be of a culture (or doesn’t mean), and what is like to be a human being in the universe and what we aspire to be. With “architecture as art,” where necessity stops, art and architecture begins.

This single way looking at architecture as an art ended with the second phase of Modernism-- when the modern mode of doing things (introducing modern engineering into traditional modes of making things) of the 19th Century became Modernism of the 20th C. (letting go of tradition and allowing form to be shaped by abstract and engineering principals). With Behrens, architects started to see themselves as designers rather than artists, and designers, design products. Products are not art objects-- though they can be extremely elegant and beautiful (something that used to be synonymous with art). The functionality and means of production of architecture became the cornerstones of 20th C Modernism. Yet I would argue that architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe (and many, many others) carried on with the “architecture as art” tradition-- though now informed by new technologies and functions. Though they evolved their own “signature style,” (what we now call “brand”), I would argue that it evolved for them organically as they worked through their careers. For the most part, each work they did, though they learned from their previous work, was the next step in the evolution of their ideas as much as each project would allow. Though they all flirted with the idea of mass productions of “product lines-- that wasn’t their primary mission-- which was to advance the art of architecture (for humankind). Each of their masterworks were like prototypes for what architecture could be. (But more often then not, once they started to become imitated by others, these new model types lost all the life of the originals and fall into becoming first a style and then cliché.)

Now a century after Behrens we often no longer see a distinct line between design and art. Today great industrial design is seen as ‘nearly” art-- ie: iPhones, iPad and the like. And now, especially after Warhol, Koons and Murakami have intentionally blurred the line between art, commerce, high and low art-- to the point where art itself has become a product, so why not architecture?

But I would argue no, that architecture should not be embraced as just a product or branding. It needs to be much much more than that. I love good design. But good design, by its nature, can not be challenging -- and great art can be and often must. Great design provides answers. Great architecture, and art, asks questions.
+++
13.3.2012
Josef BischofsŸ
Florian can you please think next time of a question that i can answer with one sentence . To answer that one i have to define first what for me the substantial qualities of architecture are and how i define branding and product. Leaving that out ... my answer for now would be that good architecture can never be a trademark or a product because it would discarding the context and or the genius loci...
+++
Visit our facebook page, since a lot of very interesting video linked there:
www.facebook.com/groups/QuestionoftheMonth/
+ + + + + +