[Visit, comment, download this talk at TED.com HERE]
I watched this talk live at TED 2009 in Long Beach in February. And I talked with Daniel Libeskind after his presentation during a coffee break. I told him the same thing I wrote in the comment to this talk:
“There is no greatness in making things 'deliberately complex'! Architecture is not a matter of one’s self ego. An architect can’t afford to say something like.. "I love to do complex things. So I made it complex!” When one can deal with complex overlapping issues with simple solutions then why to make it complex?
The intention of architecture can never be creating complex spaces. Complexity should evolve from the idea, visions and purpose of the spaces. The spaces should tell their stories from 'inside out' of the building how they are participating with activities, culture, people and the climate. I read no stories looking at a building from outside as a spectator of a sculpture. Architecture is not a thing to "see" and read the story of it. Architecture is to be experienced. "Deliberate complexity of forms" has nothing to do with phenomena, purpose and context of a space.”
He replied something like this:
Architecture is also an exercise of radical geometry and technology. Why do architects cannot work with new technologies and new radical approaches towards design? One can question the way we see architecture today. Our life is complex; it deals with beauty and ugliness, calmness and disturbance… architecture can go beyond the typically simple aesthetically cool way of doing things.
(I wrote it from memory. I had no voice recorder, so please don’t take it as an absolute ‘reference’ anyway).