rem-research-vs02

Revised version is as per the requested edits from CLOG on #remresearch. Editorial (Julia van den Hout) required to identify the formation of the style of research by Rem from works published. This created almost a thesis to the Work of Rem Koolhaas and due to constraints shelved. The updated piece in process of listing the requests, refreshed the work by establishing the act of research by Rem as an entity to have persistently looked at the production of architecture via its various cultural contexts. Delirious New York, S M L XL, Mutations, OMA/AMO, Project Japan and oma.eu have been the references in establishing this view submitted.

At the culmination of this process we have asked Rem Koolhaas to engage himself in an original research project … _ President of La Biennale Paolo Baratta expands after introduction of the guiding principles of the 2014 Venice Architecture Biennale

1) define what “rem-research” is/

Research is a convoluted and emphatic process. It has to have a method. Before one achieves method there requires a position of locating the investigation within a broader identified body of knowledge. By trial or error the case towards an objective question is argued and thus a suggestion is made for the investigation of having contributed to a system a smidgeon of material. When ascribing attributes of research to rem-research measuring a relation at its onset is problematic. It’s always defined by being as very original stylised entity/ product. It’s glorifies the delirious. Pictures and miscellaneous nicknacks makes it a fun house with a brain.

2) what makes “rem-research” unique/

One is formal while the other is practically informal as there isn’t a measure for it than for its opulence. It good to keep on the book shelf. Looks nice. There is a feeling of inspiration right from its forewords to endnotes. A meticulously refined exercise. Fans wait in eager anticipation for the next blockbuster research. The colors, fonts, charts, everything about it and of the document. What makes it even better is that it, rem-research, is never positioned alone but as of a collaborative work of a collective.

3) why it is worth examining/

Uniqueness of the genre has been phenomenal enough that no longer does one wants to be a part of stylistic schema or for that matter spatial reason but position a pursuit in domain contribution by ascribing to a research tab. Spatial manipulations, material inquiry, regional biases and mystic orientations has waned. Research is the new style and rem-research is its most visible voice. Dedicated to the virtual, research adds a new meaning to what style as entity has contributed in conversation about building. Permanence is now made possible. Architectural history as we understand has reached its paradigm shift.

4) when did this happen?/ 5) how has it evolved?/

If there can be the discovery of a technique of manufacture that is or classified as rem-research it is of continued methodical production of an entity. Manhattan to Japan and every pit stop in-between is a happening in itself. The only evolution of it can be traced to the advances in print production technology. A systemic progression with recognising the times via a monotonous repetition on a conversation about architecture. It has always been about architecture. It has never evolved and it never will. It shouldn’t.

6) what are your criticisms?

Can it? Beyond a certain critical mass a building becomes a big building. You can’t react to it. You can only look with either amusement or amazement. Expounding on it’s ideals, sound bites wherein the credibility of being good research is a designed entity rather than a structured argument. It contributes to architectural knowledge its sheer existence instead of participating in a strand of discussion. Copy - as visual prescription/ promoting the opulence - is its only future. To decay or to rise to new strata is thus left to those that seek stylistic association with rem-research.