Citado por: 1
"The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies is an indipendent [sic] research, design and educational corporation in the interrelated fields of architecture, urban design and planning. It was chartered in 1967 by the Board of Regents of the State University of New York. The Institute was started as an outcome of The New City: Architecture and Urban Renewal Exhibition held at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, early in 1967. It was initiated by a number of architects and planners who participated in this exhibition and who were as dissatisfied with the state of architectural and planning education as they were with the state of the art in general and with the usual form of professional practice. They felt that graduate education, with its emphasis on the individual studio exercise, had become an invalid approach both as a vehicle for design activity and as a method of education. At the same time they were aware that current professional practice did not provide a sufficiently open context in which new concepts and methods could be adequately developed. Their contention was that graduate students would learn far more through participating in 'faculty' led research, design and development teams; particularly when these teams addressed themselves to comprehensive urban design tasks, such as would be commissioned by public agencies. [...]" [p. 100]
THE INSTITUTE FOR ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN STUDIES. The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies. Casabella, Milão, ano XXXV, n. 359-360, dez. 1971, p. 100-102.
"AB [...] It has been some ten years since you began with this notion of an institute, a school distinct from all other bodies or schools, which could be freewheeling and independent. This permits not only you but many other people to operate as you wish. The staff and students at the school are able to project themselves, as you do, into a New York milieu. With your publications and other activities you also operate at a more international level. It would be very interesting for those of us in London who don't know very much about the history and objectives of the Institute to hear from you about this
PE The Institute is about seven or eight years old. I think I have to give a little personal history here, if I may. It was certainly designed as a vehicle for my own requirements. It didn't have any kind of polemical or overriding institutional notion, but rather was created to help me try and overcome the contradictions I found in my own life and working experience. These started when I first carne to England in 1960 and where I spent three years - in Cambridge, and often at AA juries.
I realised that architecture was a way of life in England in those days, not only for architects but for the public at large, which was generally very interested in architecture. There were columns in newspapers and there was a level of criticism and discussion in both Cambridge and in London that was about architecture. It was informed discussion, yet at a general level. And I think that was partly due to the fact that the architects saw architecture as a way of life. It wasn't just about the design of a building, it wasn't just a profession, something to be taught or codified. It was a way of existence.
This was something very different to what we had (or I thought we had) in the United States, where architecture was conceived of as a profession, something useful. In the States architecture is considered a useful activity toward something Colin Rowe has always called the 'good life'. America is a place where buildings are merely artefacts of the good life, as opposed to having anything to do with the larger notion of a good society." [p. 83-84]
EISENMAN, Peter; BOYARSKY, Alvin. The Institute in theory and practice: Peter Eisenman in conversation with Alvin Boyarsky. 20 January 1975, AA Television Studio. In: STEELE, Brett (Ed.). Supercritical: Peter Eisenman & Rem Koolhaas. Londres: Architectural Association, 2010. p. 83-87. (Coleção Architecture Words, 1).
"It was founded originally as a research organization affiliated with the Museum of Modern Art, and in spite of a number of planning contracts it received from government agencies, it gained the reputation as an organization far removed from the day‐to‐day concerns of architectural practice." [p. 41]
"Most importantly, the institute has become the closest thing New York has to an ongoing architectural forum. It is where most overseas visitors, both scholars and practicing architects, seem to congregate when they arrive in New York, and it the only center of architectural education anywhere where the student body ranges from the ninth grade through postdoctoral scholars." [p. 41]
"All of this success at the institute has come at a price, however, at least according to some critics. The institute was originally conceived to combine research, design and teaching functions as a means of creating a new kind of educational environment for the teaching of architecture, typing studio exercises with practical experience in urban research.
[B]ut while a number of the institute programs are work‐study combinations, the organization has become chiefly a teaching center, and the idea of a place in which students would do their own learning in the midst of research institution seems never to have worked out." [p. 77]
GOLDBERGER, Paul. Midtown architecture institute flowering as a student Mecca. The New York Times, Nova York, p. 41; 77, 30 out. 1975. Disponível em: <www.nytimes.com>. Acesso em: 2 dez. 2016.
"Although it would be erroneous to imply that the IAUS was destined to assume more radical positions vis a vis the established modes of production than the positions that prevailed in the architectural faculties from which they drew their first students, the group of 'Fellows' assembled by Eisenman included a number of foreign intellectuals (Frampton, Ambasz, later to be joined by Gandelsonas and Agrest) with distinctly different critical points of view. In point of fact, the IAUS's principal attribute has been its capacity to bring together for limited periods the representatives of a non-American intelligentsia and to offer them an open forum for ideological debate. This is something that neither the MOMA nor a university faculty was able to provide." [p. XXXIX]
"The genealogy of recent institutions, political (the U.D.C. [Urban Development Corporation], the U.D.G. [Urban Design Group]) or more specifically cultural (IAUS, Oppositions), that we have traced down from the MOMA or its family patrons is intended to point up the hermetic - one could almost say incestuous - social milieu architects have frequented. (The tradition goes back many generations.) The activities of those younger architects who figure prominently within this system of closed relationships have done little or nothing to transform the essential forms of production in a way that might create new cultural values, or might re-define an architect's role in relation to the masses of society. [...]
Instead, this minority of minorities that New York architects constitute has by and large acquiesced, or continued to actively widen the economic and social gulf separating the ruling sell-interested classes from the newly urbanized poor." [p. XXXIX]
TAYLOR, Brian Brace. Self-service skyline. L'Architecture d'Aujourd'Hui, Paris, n. 186, p. XXXVIII-XXXIX; 42-46, ago./set. 1976, grifos do autor.
"In the mid-1970s the vanguards of American and Italian architecture, more specifically New York and Venice, experienced a consequential attraction for each other. Two seminal publications had appeared in 1966 - Robert Venturi's Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture and Aldo Rossi's L'architettura della città. At the time these were unrelated events; that postmodernism had its major heralds in America and Italy was largely a function of different historical conditions. More anticipatory of the transatlantic relationship to occur were Peter Eisenman's pilgrimages to Terragni's buildings in Como in the early 1960s, accompanied by Colin Rowe in the role of Virgil. The most ambiguous of the Italian rationalists thus entered into the genealogy of the New York Five, formed around Eisenman in 1969. Still, in 1973, when Rossi, in charge of the international architecture section at the XV Milan Triennale, included the mannered late modernism of the Five in an exhibition entitled Architettura razionale, the case for a worldwide tendenza seemed superficial, if not contradictory." [p. 57]
OCKMAN, Joan. Venezia e New York = Venice and New York. Casabella, Milão, ano LIX, n. 619-620, p. 56-71, jan./fev. 1995, grifos da autora.
"The institutionalization of architectural theory is evident in the founding of two independent think tanks in New York (1967-85) and Venice (1968-), both of which undertook prodigious publication. Similar in its mission to London's Architectural Association (AA, founded 1847), the cosmopolitan Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies (IAUS) in Manhattan offered a program of lectures, conferences, symposia, panels, and exhibitions. Like the AA and the Venice Institute, the IAUS was established by a board of architects (led by Peter Eisenman) in opposition to the existing architectural education system, which in England and Italy is state-run. The IAUS published a newsletter, Skyline; two journals, Oppositions and October; and a series of books under the Oppositions imprint. The short-lived book series included the influential English translation of The Architecture of the City by Aldo Rossi (1982; Italian, 1966). The Institute's heavy emphasis on discourse and dissemination of theory was characteristic of the postmodern period. (A Chicago Institute for Architecture and Urbanism, the CIAU, revived the IAUS model from 1987 to 1994, when funding dried up.) One of the IAUS's major contributions was to introduce European theorists and architects, many of whom were influenced by linguistic paradigms, to an American audience. While there was no official connection between the IAUS and the Venice Institute, it would be fair to say that the two had major issues in common." [p. 22-23]
NESBITT, Kate. Introduction. In: NESBITT, Kate (Ed.). Theorizing a new agenda for architecture: an anthology of architectural theory, 1965-1995. Nova York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996, p. 16-70, grifos da autora.
"Foster: So some parts of the modernist project seemed completely appropriated, while other parts were newly rediscovered; there was the enormous problem of a rampant consumer culture, which repositioned architecture dramatically; and you also undergo a powerful politicization. How did you mediate these different forces as you moved from Princeton to Columbia and the Institute of Architecture and Urban Studies? What positions began to be articulated at that point?
Frampton: That moment is difficult for me to characterize. It was centered on the strange displaced family that Eisenman, through his charisma, gathered around himself: Mario Gandelsonas, Diana Agrest, myself, Tony Vidler, and, somewhat later, Kurt Forster. While we're not all Europeans, we're certainly not Americans. Eisenman made this kind of international coterie, which in a sense had always been his intention. When I first went to Princeton, he organized a group called CASE, Committee of Architects for the Study of the Environment. It was a rather inclusive group that held a number of hot, fairly confused weekend seminars. Eisenman was disappointed in me because I wouldn't become, as he put it, ‘the Siegfried Giedion of the group' - one naiveté laid on top of another there. Later we repaired our split, and in 1972 I became involved with the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies in New York. We started the journal Oppositions out of this strange amalgam of Agrest and Gandelsonas's Francophile semiotics, Vidler's emerging Tafurianism, Eisenman's formalist predilections, and my own born-again socialism. In the first issue I published the essay ‘Industrialization and the Crisis of Architecture' (1973), which was a somewhat naive attempt to adopt a Benjaminian approach to historical phenomena, which I then pursued in Modern Architecture." [p. 42]
FRAMPTON, Kenneth; ALLEN, Stan; FOSTER, Hal. A Conversation with Kenneth Frampton. October, Cambridge, v. 106, p. 35-58, set./dez. 2003, grifos do autor.
"Studying the social, intellectual and cultural history of the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies [...] you can't overlook the contribution of Massimo Vignelli. From 1973 on, until the Institute's closing in 1985, Vignelli was responsible for the graphic design not only of its journal Oppositions but also of its other publications and various printed matter, including posters, stationery and catalogues. Certainly the graphic identity that Vignelli created influenced how the Institute presented itself and how it was perceived. Still, it is somewhat surprising that in retrospect Vignelli characterizes the Institute as a communicative invention.
From its earliest days - when it was affiliated with the Museum of Modern Art and supported by Cornell University - the Institute was aware of the need for a coherent and recognizable graphic identity and for a public relations strategy. In the very early years, the graphic look was created in-house; the Vitruvian homo ad quadratum was used for the logo and featured on leaflets, posters, t-shirts and even doors. Before Vignelli, Institute fellows and friends designed posters (Emilio Ambasz), covers for research reports (Robert Slutzky) and exhibition catalogues (Kenneth Frampton). On pamphlets, stationery and posters, Helvetica was the typeface of choice (it had earlier been introduced in the United States by Unimark, the graphic firm Vignelli had worked for)."
FÖRSTER, Kim. Massimo Vignelli: Oppositions, Skyline and the Institute. Places Journal, San Francisco, set. 2010, grifos do autor. Disponível em: <placesjournal.org>. Acesso em: 2 dez. 2016.
"The penultimate episode of The Making of an Avant-Garde meditates on the demise of the IAUS, which happened swiftly after Peter Eisenman's exit in 1982. Eisenman himself says that 15 years of running the Institute was too much, and that he simply had to move on to other pursuits, like tending to his practice. Frampton took over as director in 1982, Vidler in 1983, and Stephen Patterson in 1984 until the Institute's closure in 1985. Clearly Eisenman had not expended much effort on sustainable institution building, nor had he nurtured a next generation to take over the place. Ken Frampton is more direct in stating that Eisenman did not want the Institute to survive; that he tried to ‘kill the baby' when he left. Others in the film suggest that the conservative turn of the country and the surge of deregulated capitalism (and real estate prices) in the Reagan years somehow rendered New York City less hospitable to the avant-garde. It falls to Barbara Jakobson to point out the obvious; that, at the end of the day, architects ‘like to make things,' and while the economic slump of the 1970s had restricted their creativity to theoretical projects on paper, the lucre that infused New York City in the '80s produced opportunities to build that these guys grabbed."
FREEMAN, Belmont. 'The moment for something to happen'. Places Journal, San Francisco, jan. 2014, grifo do autor. Disponível em: <placesjournal.org>. Acesso em: 2 dez. 2016.
"It has become clear, especially after September 11, 2001 that there is a renewal of awareness as to the critical impact of built form, how it is experienced, mediated, remembered and imagined on the quality of our daily lives. There is a need for an independent multidisciplinary think tank to question, provoke, debate, experiment, explore, and rethink the future of the metropolis."
"There are those who argue that we live in a 'Post-Theoretical' Era. This is not to say theory is dead, but rather that there is a growing sentiment that theory cannot be divorced from practice. A group of young architects Stan Allen, Liz Diller, Jesse Reiser, Greg Lynn, Julie Bargmann and Kevin Kennon have come together because of a shared belief in the essential value of the inter-relationship between theory and practice. With diverse backgrounds in urban design, landscape design, environmental land reclamation, commercial and institutional architecture, art, and new media, these six architects believe the current moribund architecture culture necessitates a new Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies."
"Our goal is to keep alive the improvisational spirit that made the Institute at its apogee a mecca for then young architects and critics like Peter Eisenman, Rem Koolhaas, Aldo Rossi, Charles Gwathmey, Frank Gehry, Diana Agrest, Mario Gandelsonas, Rafael Moneo, Robert Stern, Bernard Tschumi, Michael Graves, Richard Meier, Kenneth Frampton, Manfredo Tafuri and Anthony Vidler, among others. Yet this is a new Institute for a new generation and a new time. While the original Institute helped shape much of the autonomous theoretical discourse that dominated architectural culture in the last 30 years of the 20th century, the new Institute will be more engaged with the pragmatic issues of today. The new Institute will concentrate on applied theory and research by utilizing new technology, and a cross-disciplinary approach. Investigations into methods and materials, will guide new discoveries and illuminate the conditions of the built environment, mediated events and social networks that influence the way we live, work and play in the city of yesterday, today and tomorrow."
THE INSTITUTE FOR ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN STUDIES. The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies. [Panfleto]. Nova York: Institute-NY, [2009]. Disponível em: <institute-ny.org>. Acesso em: 9 mar. 2014.