Daniel Libeskind’s 17 words of architectural inspiration



http://www.ted.com Daniel Libeskind builds on very big ideas. Here, he shares 17 words that underlie his vision for architecture — raw, risky, emotional, radical — and that offer inspiration for any bold creative pursuit.

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the “Sixth Sense” wearable tech, and “Lost” producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at http://www.ted.com/translate. Watch a highlight reel of the Top 10 TEDTalks at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/top10

source

Fahad Hameed

Fahad Hashmi is one of the known Software Engineer and blogger likes to blog about design resources. He is passionate about collecting the awe-inspiring design tools, to help designers.He blogs only for Designers & Photographers.

37 thoughts on “Daniel Libeskind’s 17 words of architectural inspiration

  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    Selten so viel hässliche, unästhetische Scheisse gesehen als diese Dinger, welcher dieser "Ar(s)chitekt" da ausgekotzt hat….

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    It is called concept!!! people have to move on! pretty buildings are not enough! people need the architect to challenge their emotions!

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    Corruption exists everywhere, regardless of who's saving the money or wasting it.
    Architecture is not a waste of money. It means something to the people who fund it, design it, work towards it and build it, the same way that it means something to the people who appreciate it everyday.

    According to your ideas, the eiffel tower is a useless cantilevered bridge to the sky, a complete waste of money. Which it is, but you can't imagine Paris without it.

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    both wrong.
    architectural marvels mentioned by Libeskind made in the worst of times were only possible due to corruption. Corrupt banks and corrupt funders backing construction of elaborate edifices. We are living above are means, and times are tough call for efficiency .. not wasting money.

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    you people who criticize Dan knows nothing about architecture, many years ago when Mies designed the first tall glass building in the world, he was ridiculed by people like you… look how he changed the world now.. you are all cattle and ass!

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    like his building or not, he does always make the most inspiring speech in architecture

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    This guy loves what he does, he gets everyone excited about architecture, great for the industry, great for the future of humanity – keep up the energy – keep talking – and sharing ideas!

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    and whoever says Frank Ghery is shit as well..i think you have serious mental problems…. do some building like theirs..and then speak..

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    why is everyone so mean???????even some of the stuff he said may not all be true..he is an amazing archtiect..who has definitely his own distinctive style???What is wrong with you people??? Of course he has to be a salesman..in order to make clients like his work…

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    If all the buildings that were out there were pointed and warped it would be a terrible burden on my eyes! It's nice and interesting when it's done once in awhile though

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    passionate man but i don't agree with everything he says. some designs are interesting but, in general, incredibly jarring just for the sake of it it seems and aren't wholly reflective of his verbalised opinion. as already said, he's a great salesman.

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    im not sure what to say about Dan. I believe he is an artist but his logic is very one dimensional and not easily related to the "human reality" he claims to relate to

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    Wow – Most comments on Youtube are positive – take a look at the TED website: He got terrible reviews there

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    Sorry, what?

    I may as well say you don't know anything about art or architecture.
    Is this getting us anywhere? No.

    Grow up.

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    Architecture is habitable sculpture. You don't know anything about art or architecture.

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    @dimeloloco
    Perhaps I phrased it better originally… I have a comment somehwere explaining my point of view.

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    @dimeloloco
    I think you misinterperated – I was saying that a building is not a piece of art, it is a building. The aesthetics of that building are far more important than any expression you put into them, for the general public.

    It is not an art gallery. You cannot choose to go and see it, or not if you don't like it.

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    i understand that there is more to architecture than simple aesthetics, but the normal person cannot recognize sequence of programs or space like architects. Libeskind's work has many layers of understanding the exterior elements let's people know this is something different.

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    you're the only one thus far that made a positive comment.

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    what completely meaningless bullshit… he contradicts himself every other minute.

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    If you observe Daniel's work you'll realize that Daniel basically created a formula for creating architecture, which basically in a way disregarded everything he just said. I respect his input but i think he is a bit focused on one side. Architecture should fill whatever purpose it has to serve emotionally, aesthetically, economically, ect. Too much radicalism isn't good. Too much safety on the other hand is horrible too. There should be no formulas in architecture.

    Reply
  • August 31, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    imagine if each building was its own unique space, each space was a wonder a new place to explore!

    think of when you are buying a new house or moving for the first time as a child, each room was new exciting deserving of exploring

    now days buildings do not provide us with the same kind of mental stimulation as kids because over time we have realized all buildings are simmular….

    that is why we love to travel and see other places, it is because we thirst for that mental stimulation

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *