Vanity Fair present this list of the most important architecture since 1980, and the most important works of the 21st century so far, as shortlisted by 52 architects and critics. Steven Holl’s list is good, I think; although he, along with Tadao Ando, had no compunction about listing their own works.

Question, though: what is important? Obviously it’s not best, because it might be possible for a work of architecture to be shockingly awful, and yet still important. Perhaps influential? Gehry’s Bilbao is certainly important for its influence on form-making, technical practice, and public perception of architecture as an urban and economic attractor; even though its not what I would call particularly good, myself. Important is a historically-conscious judgement that attempts to predict what will be seen as canonical looking back. And of course, the concept of a canon is dubious, reinforcing the closure and autonomy of a discipline that is neither. Who are these buildings important to?

Really busy right now and can’t scrape together much time for posting. In the meantime, here is an image from a Photoshop exercise I taught my first-year computing class; a drawing by Lauren Nassef; and a recommendation for Graham Harman’s extremely lucid Prince of Networks. Bruno Latour and Metaphysics.

Untitled Implosion, by Jim Kazanjian

If you just linked here from BLDGBLOG (thanks, Geoff, I’ve had quite a traffic spike!), you might want to check out some of these older posts. I’d appreciate any thoughts you might have, so don’t hesitate to comment. I’m also on Twitter and delicious.

The Traction of Drawing

Operative Drawing I: Miralles

Hydriotaphia: The Failed Case

The Diffused Fortress I

The Diffused Fortress II: Diagram

Invisible Liquid Topographies

Black Maria I: Likeness

Black Maria II: Mobility

Black Maria III: Failure

Sloterdijk on Apartments

Loops

Sleeping Over

From now until the end of January posting might be intermittent here, because I’ll be deliberately AFK as much as possible – but I’m just getting the hang of this blogging thing, and have no intention of letting it slide yet!

This paper in the Cartographic Journal describes Myriahedral projections. The problem of how to unfold a more-or-less-spherical earth onto a two-dimensional surface has been approached in many ways. The author, van Wijk, works from the principle of Buckminster-Fuller’s Dymaxion map: the more pieces you cut the globe into, the less distortion occurs. His Myriahedral projections are based on polygonal spheres with a huge number of facets. They are unfolded by an algorithm that can be set to maintain certain relationships: keeping all the land together, for instance; or dividing only along graticule lines, or grouping the sea at the centre.

Feel queasy with me at Kerry Skarbakka’s hilarious-horrific falling photographs [Guardian slideshow]. The body is suspended in space by a combination of camera trickery and plain old-fashioned stuntwork. Skarbakka exposes the potential hostility of the built environment: every corner, slippery surface, step, bridge, or window is an opportunity for the body to be launched dramatically into the void. I like these better than Yves Klein’s famous Le Saut dans le Vide (1960). Eep, the one with the bathtub…