E-Mailadressen weekgroep

First we shape our buildings and then they shape us'

Marie.Demeulenaere@UGent.be

Lies.Cuvelier@UGent.be

Seppe.DeVooght@UGent.be

Raven.Heirman@UGent.be

‘It is as a star that architecture has once again entered public consciousness—architecture as advertisement, architecture as lobbyist, architecture as witness, memorial, guide to the future, and sponsor of the public will; in all these roles and more architecture is being seen as a palliative, if not a solution.’

Alexander.Schotte@UGent.be

Tristan.Acke@UGent.be

‘Architecture has the potential to do more than resolve a given set of problems: it can establish what requires attention today.’

Dieter.Janssens@UGent.be

Vandemeulebroucke

In 2014, Ban was awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize, typically described as the highest honor an architect can receive. In the announcement of Ban’s award, the Pritzker jury made much of Ban’s humanitarian work, declaring that Ban “uses the same inventive and resourceful design approach for his extensive humanitarian efforts” as he does in his “elegant, innovative work for private clients.” But this claim should be understood differently with the recognition that, at Gihembe, the architect’s invention and resourcefulness replaced the invention and resourcefulness of refugees. The architecture that Ban provided at Gihembe may have been minimal, just as in his “elegant, innovative work for private clients,” but it was precisely this minimal architecture that limited the capacity of refugees to build their own spaces and their own lives. That precisely this act of limitation is nevertheless read as humanitarian is more than irony; this reading points to a politics of inequity embedded in humanitarian architecture—if not humanitarianism more generally—that mystifies the notion of a common humanity.’

Maud.Vandeputte@UGent.be

Suzanne.Vandeportaele@UGent.be

Margot.Bultynck@UGent.be

Arno.Huylebroeck@UGent.be

In 2014, Ban was awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize, typically described as the highest honor an architect can receive. In the announcement of Ban’s award, the Pritzker jury made much of Ban’s humanitarian work, declaring that Ban “uses the same inventive and resourceful design approach for his extensive humanitarian efforts” as he does in his “elegant, innovative work for private clients.” But this claim should be understood differently with the recognition that, at Gihembe, the architect’s invention and resourcefulness replaced the invention and resourcefulness of refugees. The architecture that Ban provided at Gihembe may have been minimal, just as in his “elegant, innovative work for private clients,” but it was precisely this minimal architecture that limited the capacity of refugees to build their own spaces and their own lives. That precisely this act of limitation is nevertheless read as humanitarian is more than irony; this reading points to a politics of inequity embedded in humanitarian architecture—if not humanitarianism more generally—that mystifies the notion of a common humanity.’

Rune.Tratsaert@UGent.be

Emiel.Feys@UGent.be

Jolien.Verlinden@UGent.be

Emma.Nuyts@UGent.be

‘The architect is committed in life, and he may take part in a political discourse, but architecture itself is not concerned with ideology. Globalism, durability, and market economy neither help us nor prevent us from making better architecture.’

Whoopi.Samyn@UGent.be

Eline.DeBondt@UGent.be

v.dewilde@ugent.be

trdvissc.DeVisscher@UGent.be

‘The architect is committed in life, and he may take part in a political discourse, but architecture itself is not concerned with ideology. Globalism, durability, and market economy neither help us nor prevent us from making better architecture.’

Pibbe.Willems@UGent.be

Frances.VanWesemael@UGent.be

Maud.Haverbeke@UGent.be

Sarah.Uyttenhove@UGent.be

‘The problem that arises today is to see whether we can imagine a public space founded in plurality, that is to say, a public space that is not conceived as a single space, a single place, but is part of a multiplicity, as a kind of dérive, drifting or fanning out. Perhaps what should be surveyed are the unprecedented boundaries between the public and the private. In other words, a chiasm is still to be unveiled…that of the exteriority of interiority.’

Liam.Deuvaert@UGent.be

Robbe.Solie@UGent.be

‘Can the architects project alternatives that deal with the urgent questions and issues of our civilisation?’

Annelien.Claesen@UGent.be

Floor.Rymenants@UGent.be

Melissa.Blommaert@UGent.be

Julie.VanRaemdonck@UGent.be

‘If what we have to say doesn’t sell, will we still say it? ‘

Victor.Vanbeselaere@UGent.be

Nicolas.DeClercq@UGent.be

Manfred.Maertens@UGent.be

Laure.Bouckenooghe@UGent.be

‘To come to terms with the unspeakable (in architecture) is to learn to understand that writing also comes before and between and not merely after as the “image” of a built or an unbuilt reality.’’

Desire.Schoutsen@UGent.be

Boris.VanBelle@UGent.be

Ferre.Lust@UGent.be

Julien.DeLeyn@UGent.be

‘The social role of architecture, its engagement, involves returning to society what the “world of technique” has stolen: the experience of space, something that can remain in the eyes, in the head, in history and memory.’

Kimberly.Denys@UGent.be

LucaRay.Rogiers@UGent.be

Mirte.Moulaert@UGent.be

Thibault.Desmet@UGent.be

‘The social role of architecture, its engagement, involves returning to society what the “world of technique” has stolen: the experience of space, something that can remain in the eyes, in the head, in history and memory.’

Merel.Mertens@UGent.be

Hanne.denBiesen@UGent.be

Louis.Roos@UGent.be

Gaelle.Detrooz@UGent.be

‘To find another way of building architecture, we have to be willing to broaden our understanding of what architecture is and what architects can do. ‘

hanndgro.DeGroote@UGent.be

Philippe.Soubrier@UGent.be

Frederic.DeKeyzer@UGent.be

Saskia.Swimberghe@UGent.be

‘If anyone can be an architect, then architecture can be anything, which in turn means, of course, that it is ultimately nothing.‘

Julie.Mistiaen@UGent.be

Hannah.Wastyn@UGent.be

Laura.DeJonge@UGent.be

Nele.Callewaert@UGent.be

‘If anyone can be an architect, then architecture can be anything, which in turn means, of course, that it is ultimately nothing.‘

Lennert.Lammens@UGent.be

Rafael.Deman@UGent.be

Jens.Verduyckt@UGent.be

Arne.Scherps@UGent.be

‘Reading the traces of different creative processes, is more relevant than studying the final products.’

Manon.Geldof@UGent.be

Lieselotte.Wiels@UGent.be

elisvdrl.VanderLinden@UGent.be

Ulrike.Roose@UGent.be

‘Should architects take responsibility for creating a public sphere that reaches further than the principles of economic warfare? For making city centers into more than amusement parks for tourists? For uncovering landscapes that counter the culture of sprawl? For enhancing “real life” outside of the middle-class ghettos and gated communities of suburbia? Is it the job of architects not only to reassure, but also to provoke conflict as a social function? To encourage activities other than shopping as the primary ritual of urban life? To define where the city ends and the countryside begins? To preserve local qualities under the pressure of globalization? Can we influence the spatial organization of a truly multicultural society? Make the formal—the syntax of matter—relate to the social again? Move beyond the increasingly vulgarized world we inhabit, and become operative? What should architecture do today and what shouldn’t it do? In other words: What is an architect in today’s society?’

Emma.Duymelinck@UGent.be

Enrique.Ramael@UGent.be

Kyuni.Stoffels@UGent.be

Charlotte.Nachtergaele@UGent.be

‘Can the architects project alternatives that deal with the urgent questions and issues of our civilisation?’

Yannique.Marien@UGent.be

Justine.DeBrabandere@UGent.be

Gregor.DeJaeger@UGent.be

Brent.Paelinck@UGent.be

‘I reckon that man has reached a crisis point, and that it’s because he’s enclosed by rectangular walls and tied to horizontal planes that make him feel stable and comfortable. If he wants to make something of his third millennium he needs to be destabilized, to start feeling uncomfortable. The very survival of the species is at stake here.’

Zoyan.Vangenechten@UGent.be

MarieJulie.Willaert@UGent.be

Annelies.VanMaele@UGent.be

Jade.Claes@UGent.be

Value is mostly considered as economic, not social, cultural or environmental value'

Robin.Geluykens@UGent.be

f.soens@UGent.be

Zena.Maes@UGent.be

Hannelore.Scheipers@UGent.be

‘Early modernist visions were thought for nation states; today nation states are in a process of dissolving. The solutions of the modernists were thought as solutions for the masses; today we have to deal with the process of individualization.’

Lotte.Carron@UGent.be

Floriane.Kersters@UGent.be

Ruben.DeVuyst@UGent.be

Wannes.Cools@UGent.be

‘The sole responsibility of the avant-garde architect is to innovate. His or her work is a manifesto; its value transcends the immediate task of the building at hand. The responsibility of the mainstream architect is to adopt what can be adopted according to circumstance.’

Ruben.VandenBossche@UGent.be

Tristan.VanHoof@UGent.be

“The ideology underlying architectural works is always, after all, a vision of the world that tends to pose as a construction of the human environment.”

Marlies.Timmerman@UGent.be

Marth.VanMierlo@UGent.be

Chiara.Kuijpers@UGent.be

‘I'm not going to sit here and wait until someone else tells me what to build.’

Nienke.Degraeve@UGent.be

annesdcl.DeClercq@UGent.be

Jana.Gryp@UGent.be

Robbe.Michiels@UGent.be

‘I'm not going to sit here and wait until someone else tells me what to build.’

Charlotte.Robbrecht@UGent.be

Luca.Maton@UGent.be

Louis.DeVos@UGent.be

smarvdve.VandeVelde@UGent.be

‘The sole responsibility of the avant-garde architect is to innovate. His or her work is a manifesto; its value transcends the immediate task of the building at hand. The responsibility of the mainstream architect is to adopt what can be adopted according to circumstance.’

Lisa.Corneillie@UGent.be

Eva.Beyen@UGent.be

Januwe.Lorent@UGent.be

Jeffa.Vandecasteele@UGent.be

Architecture has no meaning, until people use it.'

Jolien.DeKeyzer@UGent.be

handbave.Debaveye@UGent.be

Aksel.Ayri@UGent.be

Wannes.Sucaet@UGent.be

‘The sole responsibility of the avant-garde architect is to innovate. His or her work is a manifesto; its value transcends the immediate task of the building at hand. The responsibility of the mainstream architect is to adopt what can be adopted according to circumstance.’

Martyna.Paliga@UGent.be

Eline.Tielliu@UGent.be

Rena.Bartholomeus@UGent.be

Lauren.Bontridder@UGent.be

In fine, by means of our hands we essay to create as if it were a second world within the world of nature’

Angela.DeRoover@UGent.be

Axelle.Demonie@UGent.be

Janne.Gheyle@UGent.be

rani.Bruynoghe@ugent.be

‘Should architects take responsibility for creating a public sphere that reaches further than the principles of economic warfare? For making city centers into more than amusement parks for tourists? For uncovering landscapes that counter the culture of sprawl? For enhancing “real life” outside of the middle-class ghettos and gated communities of suburbia? Is it the job of architects not only to reassure, but also to provoke conflict as a social function? To encourage activities other than shopping as the primary ritual of urban life? To define where the city ends and the countryside begins? To preserve local qualities under the pressure of globalization? Can we influence the spatial organization of a truly multicultural society? Make the formal—the syntax of matter—relate to the social again? Move beyond the increasingly vulgarized world we inhabit, and become operative? What should architecture do today and what shouldn’t it do? In other words: What is an architect in today’s society?’

Elise.Buysrogge@UGent.be

Caro.Esprit@UGent.be

Jolien.Vervoort@UGent.be

Evelien.Dignef@UGent.be

Unlike the previous avant-garde, we want to change the world, not invent a new one.’

Staf.Vandamme@UGent.be

Rocco.Vandewalle@UGent.be

Emma.Heyneman@UGent.be

Merel.Decleyre@UGent.be

‘The most disappointing aspect of contemporary architecture is the general acceptance that it must follow society's tendencies. This is part of the ideological malaise that accepts capitalism as inevitable and natural. An innovative architect, in my opinion, is one who can, through built work, suggest, provoke, and inspire a better view of the world.’

Eva.Rosseau@UGent.be

samhaene.DHaene@UGent.be

Amber.Maes@UGent.be

Febe.Rimbert@UGent.be

We need to look at housing rather as a utility model that everyone is entitled to.' (This community economy seeks a business model that pays off for society and not just for a big investor. It is about keeping profits local.)

Lobke.Dehouck@UGent.be

Gloria.RoomandErtbuer@UGent.be

Luka.Cockx@UGent.be

Lisa.Damman@UGent.be

‘Architects combine arrogance with impotence; we are beggars and braggarts. If we aspire to make a difference, if we want to be innovative, if we truly want people to benefit from our speculations, then we should become our own clients.’

Laura.Deceuninck@UGent.be

una.Buseyne@UGent.be

Inigo.Custers@UGent.be

Mo.VanDijck@UGent.be

‘Architects combine arrogance with impotence; we are beggars and braggarts. If we aspire to make a difference, if we want to be innovative, if we truly want people to benefit from our speculations, then we should become our own clients.’

Britt.DeSchoenmakere@UGent.be

Britt.Fransen@UGent.be

Glenn.Schillemans@UGent.be

Tina.Schevernels@UGent.be

In fine, by means of our hands we essay to create as if it were a second world within the world of nature’

Ugo.deVooght@UGent.be

Mathijs.Caenepeel@UGent.be

Nicolas.DeWispelaere@UGent.be

Sander.Decoussemaecker@UGent.be

‘How does one put into words that the main task of the architect is to give up architecture? ‘

Julie.Vanhoecke@UGent.be

Alison.Notebaert@UGent.be

Elin.Vermandere@UGent.be

‘At the core of this profession is an engagement with the physical world. Anyone who loses sight of this fact probably shouldn't be called an architect.’

Arthur.Monbaliu@UGent.be

Aster.Mulier@UGent.be

Fauve.Boone@UGent.be

Leander.Decloedt@UGent.be

Value is mostly considered as economic, not social, cultural or environmental value'

Luna.DeSmet@UGent.be

Lore.Delaet@UGent.be

Mano.Huyghebaert@UGent.be

‘Today, the most interesting practitioners no longer ask what architecture is, or what it means, but rather what it can do.’

Laura.VanIsacker@UGent.be

MarieAmaryllis.Knockaert@UGent.be

Luna.Rosseel@UGent.be

Suzanne.Kelem@UGent.be

Don't try to give the right answer to the wrong question'

Jelle.Vandewalle@UGent.be

Jolein.Audenaert@UGent.be

Kasper.Habtie@UGent.be

‘The architect is committed in life, and he may take part in a political discourse, but architecture itself is not concerned with ideology. Globalism, durability, and market economy neither help us nor prevent us from making better architecture.’

Thomas.Eeraerts@UGent.be

Miguel.Vanwetter@UGent.be

Olaf.Bossaer@UGent.be

‘The most disappointing aspect of contemporary architecture is the general acceptance that it must follow society's tendencies. This is part of the ideological malaise that accepts capitalism as inevitable and natural. An innovative architect, in my opinion, is one who can, through built work, suggest, provoke, and inspire a better view of the world.’

Luna.Luyten@UGent.be

Jarne.VanHouts@UGent.be

Madeline.Declerck@UGent.be

‘The problem that arises today is to see whether we can imagine a public space founded in plurality, that is to say, a public space that is not conceived as a single space, a single place, but is part of a multiplicity, as a kind of dérive, drifting or fanning out. Perhaps what should be surveyed are the unprecedented boundaries between the public and the private. In other words, a chiasm is still to be unveiled…that of the exteriority of interiority.’

Arthur.Larsen@UGent.be

Silke.Vergauwen@UGent.be

Celine.DeKeukeleire@UGent.be

Lisabeth.Huysentruyt@UGent.be

‘Here architecture is no longer understood as a practice that inevitably brings about the construction of an artifact, but as a way of thinking, observing, and analyzing the present and the society in which we operate.’

hannah.DeClercq@UGent.be

Jona.Dobbelaere@UGent.be

Marjon.DeVlieger@UGent.be

Genevieve.Gilbert@UGent.be

‘Architecture is in a state of crisis, in which context it displays two extreme tendencies. One is an impulse to divert one’s eyes towards sociology, economics, engineering, political science – and consequently to cease addressing architectural issues. The other is a refusal to confront crisis head-on or to rethink architecture.’

Emmely.Vandenbussche@UGent.be

Louise.Dedulle@UGent.be

Klara.Vanstraelen@UGent.be

‘To find another way of building architecture, we have to be willing to broaden our understanding of what architecture is and what architects can do. ‘

Aslinur.Cakal@UGent.be

Lauranne.Vandenbussche@UGent.be

Paulien.Zwaenepoel@UGent.be

Alexander.Decaluwe@UGent.be

Local support for the education of a larger audience has also allowed many architectural events to emerge.'

Michiel.Claeys@UGent.be

Khasan.Magomadov@UGent.be

Lukas.Degraeuwe@UGent.be

‘Here architecture is no longer understood as a practice that inevitably brings about the construction of an artifact, but as a way of thinking, observing, and analyzing the present and the society in which we operate.’

Arno.Vanderroost@UGent.be

Saar.DeSmet@UGent.be

Ophelie.Molhant@UGent.be

Renee.Vermeulen@UGent.be

First we shape our buildings and then they shape us'

Jens.VandenHeede@UGent.be

Gentiel.Acar@UGent.be

Jesse.Ghyssaert@UGent.be

Janne.Cauwels@UGent.be

We need an architectural practice that drives change rather than one that adapts to change.' + 'We looked at what we can learn from these 'practices of change' and how we can support them as designers.'

Dennis.Cool@UGent.be

Arne.DeRidder@UGent.be

AbdulMalik.Dalsaev@UGent.be

Xander.Deweert@UGent.be

“Architecten koesteren vaak de idee dat ze als ware verzetshelden hun visioenen verwerkelijken door tirannieke wetten en administraties te verschalken en bevechten. Dat beeld van de architect werd zelfs een cliché. In ‘The Fountainhead’, Ayn Rands filippica tegen elke overheidsbemoeienis, blaast architect Howard Roark zijn eigen project op als hij doorheeft dat zijn visie niet gevolgd werd. Dat zelfbeeld lijkt toch iets te overspannen. Of verhult het de diepe onrust dat architecten niet langer kapitein op het schip zijn? Dat hun traditionele arsenaal van middelen niet langer als vanzelfsprekend antwoord biedt op vragen rond bouwen en wonen die zich nu stellen? Wie nuchter kijkt naar onze leefwereld, merkt inderdaad dat het bouwen in het oog van vele stormen tegelijk beland is. Bijna elke maatschappelijke urgente kwestie raakt wel ergens aan architectuur en stedenbouw.”

Jens.VanDeVelde@UGent.be

Yoren.Grimonprez@UGent.be

Jeroen.Verliefde@UGent.be

“Architecten koesteren vaak de idee dat ze als ware verzetshelden hun visioenen verwerkelijken door tirannieke wetten en administraties te verschalken en bevechten. Dat beeld van de architect werd zelfs een cliché. In ‘The Fountainhead’, Ayn Rands filippica tegen elke overheidsbemoeienis, blaast architect Howard Roark zijn eigen project op als hij doorheeft dat zijn visie niet gevolgd werd. Dat zelfbeeld lijkt toch iets te overspannen. Of verhult het de diepe onrust dat architecten niet langer kapitein op het schip zijn? Dat hun traditionele arsenaal van middelen niet langer als vanzelfsprekend antwoord biedt op vragen rond bouwen en wonen die zich nu stellen? Wie nuchter kijkt naar onze leefwereld, merkt inderdaad dat het bouwen in het oog van vele stormen tegelijk beland is. Bijna elke maatschappelijke urgente kwestie raakt wel ergens aan architectuur en stedenbouw.”

Laura.vanLoo@UGent.be

Mirte.Wambacq@UGent.be

Laures.Bauwens@UGent.be

Hannah.DeRouck@UGent.be

‘At the core of this profession is an engagement with the physical world. Anyone who loses sight of this fact probably shouldn't be called an architect.’

amysmet.Desmet@UGent.be

Elise.Masschelein@UGent.be

Dorine.Wullaert@UGent.be

hdvdnhau.Vandenhaute@UGent.be

‘It is as a star that architecture has once again entered public consciousness—architecture as advertisement, architecture as lobbyist, architecture as witness, memorial, guide to the future, and sponsor of the public will; in all these roles and more architecture is being seen as a palliative, if not a solution.’

Bieke.Holemans@UGent.be

Lune.Boret@UGent.be

Karen.Steukers@UGent.be

Ineke.Rosseneu@UGent.be

‘If anyone can be an architect, then architecture can be anything, which in turn means, of course, that it is ultimately nothing.‘

Mira.BatOchir@UGent.be

Mila.Letombe@UGent.be

Casper.Vervenne@UGent.be

Victor.Vandenbossche@UGent.be

Local support for the education of a larger audience has also allowed many architectural events to emerge.'

Manon.Wybo@UGent.be

Julie.Vandermersch@UGent.be

Jens.Vervaeke@UGent.be

Amelie.Harteel@UGent.be

‘A building is always a ‘thing’ that is, etymologically, a contested gathering of many conflicting demands. […] And yet we either see the uncontested static object standing ‘out there,’ ready to be reinterpreted, or we hear about the conflicting human purposes, but are never able to picture the two together!’

Tomas.DeLandsheer@UGent.be

Anke.Frulleux@UGent.be

Esther.Vandenbulcke@UGent.be

juliroel.Roelandt@UGent.be

‘Providing individuality and freedom of choice, variety and heterogeneity of space for the end user is the most important social task for the architect.’

Toon.VandeVoorde@UGent.be

Tibo.Vandenbroucke@UGent.be

Tristan.Depuydt@UGent.be

Yonah.Couwels@UGent.be

“The author is […] the ideological figure by which one marks the manner in which we fear the proliferation of meaning.”

Beth.Lason@UGent.be

Cis.Woestenborghs@UGent.be

Jarne.Geenens@UGent.be

inevdamm.Vandamme@UGent.be

‘I cannot understand the total neglect of the fundamentally architectonic within academia. I am not interested in taking operations and mechanisms from other disciplines such as art, mathematics, sociology, and adapting complex transfigurations of those extra-architectural operations to somehow relate them back to architecture. Frankly, this is illogical. It is not that architecture cannot be innovative and expand its boundaries, but I doubt that such an expansion of architecture will ever come by means of extra-architectural content or operations. I am convinced that the only legitimate growth lies in architecture that grows out of itself. I wonder why so many architects have to step outside of architecture to find something that they consider worthwhile in order to allow them to conceive of architecture. (…) The entire phenomenological approach to architecture is based outside the discipline itself and this approach is a short-lived trend that will fail to renew or enrich the discipline.’

Dania.AlSknini@UGent.be

Emilie.Buys@UGent.be

Febe.Raes@UGent.be

Warre.Onnockx@UGent.be

We need to look at housing rather as a utility model that everyone is entitled to.' (This community economy seeks a business model that pays off for society and not just for a big investor. It is about keeping profits local.)

Clement.Ghekiere@UGent.be

Maarit.Vandenberghe@UGent.be

Tom.Leyssen@UGent.be

Van Den Bossche

‘The essence of architecture is this eternal nonconformity, this constant break. That is why it persists. That is how it identifies itself.’

pinket.emma@UGent.be

emieldpo.Depoortere@UGent.be

Stephanie.Heyrman@UGent.be

Vic.Verhenne@UGent.be

‘Reading the traces of different creative processes, is more relevant than studying the final products.’

Laura.PauwelsDuretz@UGent.be

AmetAllah.Chafai@UGent.be

Dorsa.Kavoosi@UGent.be

Janneke.Ghijsels@UGent.be

‘Urbanists should be critical pessimists in theory, and voluntarist optimists in practice.’

Liza.VanOngeval@UGent.be

Louis.Carlier@UGent.be

Warre.Delaplace@UGent.be

Emma.Bekaert@UGent.be

‘It is not the architect expressing himself in his work, but the work expressing itself. The creator should obey the work, as Nietzsche said.’

Rik.Claeys@UGent.be

Astrid.Berlenge@UGent.be

Nicolas.Ottoy@UGent.be

Elie.Musilikare@UGent.be

‘De werkelijkheid van een architect is immers een zeer complexe werkelijkheid, omdat zij de totaliteit van de mens in zich opneemt. Eigenlijk kan men niet over architectuur spreken zonder te denken aan openbare besturen, opdrachtgevers, aannemers, leveranciers en producenten. Het is een vergissing van vele architecten deze nevenaspecten van hun beroep als minderwaardig aan te zien om zich zogezegd op de vorm alleen te concentreren. Deze duizend aspecten behoren alle tot de vorm van de architectuur. En het behoort tot de taak van de architect deze aspecten in zijn werk te verrekenen, ze zo nodig te wijzigen of eventueel te weigeren in mensonwaardige omstandigheden te werken.

jensvhov.VanHove@UGent.be

Elias.VandenBorre@UGent.be

Phebe.Versluys@UGent.be

Theo.Sauer@UGent.be

In 2014, Ban was awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize, typically described as the highest honor an architect can receive. In the announcement of Ban’s award, the Pritzker jury made much of Ban’s humanitarian work, declaring that Ban “uses the same inventive and resourceful design approach for his extensive humanitarian efforts” as he does in his “elegant, innovative work for private clients.” But this claim should be understood differently with the recognition that, at Gihembe, the architect’s invention and resourcefulness replaced the invention and resourcefulness of refugees. The architecture that Ban provided at Gihembe may have been minimal, just as in his “elegant, innovative work for private clients,” but it was precisely this minimal architecture that limited the capacity of refugees to build their own spaces and their own lives. That precisely this act of limitation is nevertheless read as humanitarian is more than irony; this reading points to a politics of inequity embedded in humanitarian architecture—if not humanitarianism more generally—that mystifies the notion of a common humanity.’

Annelien.Nevens@UGent.be

Mira.Nietvelt@UGent.be

Emile.Marlein@UGent.be

I feel that people don't realize the importance of design and how fundamentally it is linked to economic quality or sustainability'

evelivdv.VandeVelde@UGent.be

Hanne.Gabriel@UGent.be

Adele.Deleuse@UGent.be

Jana.Deknudt@UGent.be

‘Urbanists should be critical pessimists in theory, and voluntarist optimists in practice.’

Eleni.VanGinderachter@UGent.be

Silas.VanLooveren@UGent.be

Ruben.Leroy@UGent.be

Nicolas.Guilbert@UGent.be

‘A building is always a ‘thing’ that is, etymologically, a contested gathering of many conflicting demands. […] And yet we either see the uncontested static object standing ‘out there,’ ready to be reinterpreted, or we hear about the conflicting human purposes, but are never able to picture the two together!’

Phara.Pype@UGent.be

‘If what we have to say doesn’t sell, will we still say it? ‘

Philip.VanHeghe@UGent.be

Symeon.Beyer@UGent.be

Damien.Gilliard@UGent.be

‘Reading the traces of different creative processes, is more relevant than studying the final products.’

Len.DeSmijtere@UGent.be

Charles.Casier@UGent.be

Robin.Gillet@UGent.be

Ward.Anseeuw@UGent.be

if it is good enough for MoMa it is good enough for you'

Fay.DeMaesschalck@UGent.be

Ona.Milliau@UGent.be

arnevdve.VandeVelde@UGent.be

arndbloc.DeBlock@UGent.be

‘I think we have been limited to definitions of architecture as something that embodies ideals in built form, or intentions in built form. By giving up these conventions, architecture expands into developing ideas for organizations, coexistences and communities, so that its claim to be everywhere is reinforced rather than weakened.’

Beau.Debruyne@UGent.be

Cederik.Mulkers@UGent.be

Brent.Deckx@UGent.be

Alexander.Vandaele@UGent.be

‘How does one put into words that the main task of the architect is to give up architecture? ‘

Zita.Sabbe@UGent.be

Dylan.DeClippeleer@UGent.be

Pauline.Luyckx@UGent.be

Elise.Erard@UGent.be

‘It is important for students to express some more fundamental questions about the existence of architecture in the 21st century and to get out of this sleep in which the world of architecture seems to have fallen in the 18th century. (…) It is time that students remembered that schools were set up to challenge the wisdom of the world and its corruption rather than to reinforce it.’

Cas.Neels@UGent.be

Kobe.Gielen@UGent.be

‘The essence of architecture is this eternal nonconformity, this constant break. That is why it persists. That is how it identifies itself.’

Khusein.Magomadov@UGent.be

Sharon.Galle@UGent.be

Bregt.Logghe@UGent.be

Arne.Lietaert@UGent.be

‘The downside of Howard Roark’s reputation is that he dynamited his own perfectly serviceable social housing project because he didn’t like the aesthetic." - "“Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone" - "Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self’

Maarten.Maes@UGent.be

Michiel.Bulcke@UGent.be

‘Wanneer we constateren dat de architect die zichzelf beschouwt als drager van een levensnoodzakelijke creatieve functie in de gemeenschap, die creatieve functie helemaal niet meer uitoefent, of correcter nog, door die gemeenschap zo werd geïntegreerd dat hij geen effectieve rol meer kan vervullen, dan moet een verklaring gevonden worden voor dit dubbele feit:
1. Dat de gemeenschap de architect in zijn creatieve functie tot een te verwaarlozen element herleidt;
2. Dat diezelfde gemeenschap de architect toch niet wil negeren, maar hem gebruikt voor wat ik al genoemd heb, een decoratieve rol. Deze ambivalente houding van de gemeenschap t.o.v.de architect weerspiegelt zich ook in de samenstelling van het architectenberoep. Er zijn van de ene kant architecten die geen andere ambitie hebben dan een uitvoerende functie te vervullen - met Claude Schnaidt: de architechnocraten - en zich restloos in de bestaande structuren laten opnemen. Ze hebben afstand gedaan van elke kritische instelling, van elke verantwoording van hun beroep, van elk persoonlijk engagement, om gewoon andermans ideeën ten uitvoer te brengen, d.w.z. de ideeën van diegenen die de machtsposities bekleden. Ze laten zich manoeuvreren en kunnen best getypeerd worden in de rol van een Speer in het nazi-regime. Het loont de moeite om de memoires van Speer in dit perspectief te lezen. Zonder het te willen, zonder zich er bewust van te zijn, werken ze hard mee aan het ten uitvoer leggen een bepaalde strategie in dienst van een bepaalde ideologie. En van de andere kant zijn er de architecten die wel een creatief-kritische functie in de actuele evolutie van de maatschappij zouden willen vervullen, maar er de kans niet toe krijgen, grotendeels omdat ze zich geen rekenschap geven van de plaats die ze zich als architect in het systeem innemen, of, anders uitgedrukt, omdat ze zich als a-politieke wezens beschouwen en zich naïef verschuilen achter een ongekreukt geloof in hun zending.’

scallen.Callens@UGent.be

Laure.Berghman@UGent.be

Katharina.Ickx@UGent.be

Margo.Romanus@UGent.be

Value is mostly considered as economic, not social, cultural or environmental value'

Emma.Alliet@UGent.be

Charlotte.Corveleyn@UGent.be

Elke.Meiresonne@UGent.be

Astrid.Vrebos@UGent.be

‘ … architecture cannot legitimately aspire to any kind of cultural autonomy since it is too intimately involved with the processes of everyday life.’

Marlies.DeGroof@UGent.be

Imara.DeGeldere@UGent.be

‘Revolution is nothing if we do not change ourselves. The question “what is radical and innovative in architecture?” must be answered through its inverse, and through a supplement; the most radical practice of architecture is that which dares to ask, “what is architecture?” and “who are we?” in the same breath.’

Senne.DeRidder@UGent.be

Ural.Ozhan@UGent.be

‘The downside of Howard Roark’s reputation is that he dynamited his own perfectly serviceable social housing project because he didn’t like the aesthetic." - "“Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone" - "Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self’

Robbe.Geladi@UGent.be

Laure.Peeters@UGent.be

Maarten.Lauwereys@UGent.be

Flor.Staelens@UGent.be

‘At the core of this profession is an engagement with the physical world. Anyone who loses sight of this fact probably shouldn't be called an architect.’

Junesse.Heyndrickx@UGent.be

Atilia.Ahmed@UGent.be

“The ideology underlying architectural works is always, after all, a vision of the world that tends to pose as a construction of the human environment.”

Zita.VanHecke@UGent.be

Sander.Reyniers@UGent.be

Everything is architecture’ - This statement that ‘everything is architecture’ makes me nervous, because at a certain point one has to compete with the megalomaniacal ambition of the architect to approach or to appropriate every single possibility of our own intervention.’

kobe.Claes@UGent.be

Thijs.Bruynooghe@UGent.be

Hannah.Keirsse@UGent.be

Gust.Mannaerts@UGent.be

‘The problem that arises today is to see whether we can imagine a public space founded in plurality, that is to say, a public space that is not conceived as a single space, a single place, but is part of a multiplicity, as a kind of dérive, drifting or fanning out. Perhaps what should be surveyed are the unprecedented boundaries between the public and the private. In other words, a chiasm is still to be unveiled…that of the exteriority of interiority.’

Luka.Vereecke@UGent.be

jordi.buseyne@UGent.be

‘Architects neither can nor must contribute in any way to social change.’

Timo.Buseyne@UGent.be

Miguel.Ingelbeen@UGent.be

‘De enige goede architect is een dode architect’

Sander.Gryp@UGent.be

Simon.Rabaut@UGent.be

Henri.DeJonghe@UGent.be

Unlike the previous avant-garde, we want to change the world, not invent a new one.’

Arseda.Hamza@UGent.be

Manon.DeKooning@UGent.be

Marte.Pauwels@UGent.be

‘Why is it that the natural complement to Creation—Destruction—is not represented in architectural theory? Why is it that architects must always build but never un-build?’

Volodymyr.LysDamen@UGent.be

‘Imagine if nothing were to change in the coming century: neither the world, nor the architect.’

Thomas.Lanneau@UGent.be

Tuur.Vandromme@UGent.be

Ilan.Keymeulen@UGent.be

‘Early modernist visions were thought for nation states; today nation states are in a process of dissolving. The solutions of the modernists were thought as solutions for the masses; today we have to deal with the process of individualization.’

Jana.Rooms@UGent.be

AnnaFleur.Dewulf@UGent.be

Wito.Comeyne@UGent.be

Clovis.Bruynoghe@UGent.be

I feel that people don't realize the importance of design and how fundamentally it is linked to economic quality or sustainability'

Maxime.VanderBurght@UGent.be

Tim.Vanysacker@UGent.be

‘The next big thing is a lot of small things’

Sylvia.Eemans@UGent.be

Sare.Logghe@UGent.be