It is now the beginning of September; the most important week of a designer's life has arrived. Of course, I'm talking about Fashion Week.
Image Credit: http://www.sheknows.com/beauty-and-style/articles/949593/on-the-runway-vera-wang
This is a designer's Holy Week - a week to "celebrate" their contributions to society and to "high art". A time to display the fruits of their labor in their never-ending chase for the new, modern, and hip. Last season is over they tell us, get with the program or die tryin' (by which I mean get out of the business).
It should be no surprise as to why this week is so important. But it's not just important for fashion designers, it's also important for architects.
The historical and cultural intersection of fashion and architecture is undeniable and I will not attempt to revisit this in detail. What I would like to show is how the image of the runway models above serves as a visual metaphor for the current state of contemporary architecture: Tall, thin, fair-skinned women walking in a straight line into a dead end ( since they have to turn back once they get there) wearing very similar clothing without much differentiation. All of them expressionless, stoic, trying to ignore the piercing light and each one serving their purpose like tools in a garage. They are moving forward with no real place to go. Time is moving against them. Money, power, and fame are all on the line.
Consider this situation: Below is the image of the new addition to the Glasgow School of Art by Steven Holl. They are going to force the public to build it no matter what.
Image Credit: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/holls-glasgow-school-of-art-wins-go-ahead/8612175.article
As a piece of clothing, there is no question that this rendering of the proposed new building is totally "in season". It embodies all the things those young women embody in the runway picture - youth, hipness, boldness, and perhaps a hint of narcissism.
But as a building, as something which is lived in - daily - and cannot be as easily disposed of, it is dreadfully conformist. Notwithstanding the broader issue of wholeness with the Earth, this new building is actually, somehow, making the Glasgow School (a favorite modern building of mine) uglier. It is doing this in the same way a pair of new shoes make your pair of old shoes seem ugly and worn out. Simply putting a new building next to an old building is not good enough. Fashion may get away with this old-new switcheroo every fall, but architecture cannot.
In keeping with the runway image, take a look at another pair of "models" (i.e. buildings).
Image Credit: http://designcrave.com/2011-03-30/contemporary-architecture-architect-documentaries/
These models are part of the same collection. The designers: Herzog & De Meuron. They've each had their moment in the runway spotlight. They've each strutted their stuff. But without knowing the names of the architects or the buildings, there is no way to distinguish them from each other. They look the same despite very different formal qualities. They have the same kind of face. How is this possible in the age of such advanced rendering and parametric programs? It just seems like more, more, and more of the same kind of building, rendered a million different ways, contributing nothing truly new to society or "high art". How is it that these buildings stand out while, at the same time, conforming to a particular aesthetic?
Undifferentiated, new, hip, clean, sleek, trying to stand out - these are the revered qualities of the present architecture. It has become so woven into our culture that one cannot tell where architecture ends and fashion begins. Their respective products, buildings and clothes, are both equally forgettable once they are made and equally disposable once they have been worn into. Clearly, this is an unsustainable perspective. It indirectly encourages waste because so long as the next new thing is just around the corner, there is no point in getting too attached to what you have now. Hence the denial of history, culture, and identity. Hence the branding of human feelings as "nostalgic" and wholeness as "nonsense". When we make buildings like this, we become tools. Tools making tools.
I, and a majority of students, architects, and academics, reject this revolving-door architecture.
To end, I will show a modern building that can be a guiding vision for buildings in our time. An architecture of wholeness.
Image Credit: http://avntravel.com/home/introduce-travel-in-glasgow-united-kingdom.html
Surprise! Mackintosh was on to something here. There are big windows, a similar materiel palette and color, a playful, yet differentiated facade. There is a humanity about this building that the Holl design simply does not convey. Its not trying to state, in some grand techno-savvy fashion, an esoteric metaphor or intellectual construct. It is simply trying to be a good place. Its just about making good architecture and making it well. That may seem childish to some, but it's really the most common sense thing a person could do. This is what wholeness is all about.
( I chose this building because I sometimes wonder what Mr. Holl and company think about when they look across the street and see this building. Clearly, they wanted to do something new and bold. But for that, they should have hit the runway and not the drafting board.)
This document is a collection of thoughts, ideas, sketches, and observations of a young architecture student living in the 21st century. It is intended to serve as a resource and vehicle for personal connections that extend beyond virtual domains. The main subject of this blog is an inquiry into the elusive nature of wholeness. The purpose is to identify wholeness-making building methodologies and examples of 'whole architecture' throughout history.
80 Comments
Woke up on the right side of the bed. What's up with this Prince song inside my head? Hands up if you're down to get down tonight! Cuz it's always a good time.
You've nailed it again. Calling out these preening buildings for what they are, pure fashion. In all these images what's so obvious it easily goes un-noticed, the context is completely disregarded becasue it dosen't matter. "Look mom, my building is exploding! or my building is twisting!" The reason these buildings will all dissolve into irrelevance once their candy coating has worn off is they don't help make a greater whole of the cities they are intended to inhabit. The Glasgow School of Art was once thought of as startling and innovative, but once it's newnes wore off, the building became an integral part of the Glasgow fabric. Scotland has a wonderful heritage of stone buildings from the middle ages onward that has made it's presence through out the parade of 19th and early 20th century styles, becasue creating a greater whole was always prized as an essential component of good social manners. In the early 20th century, the modernists took the romantic idea of the isolated genius to the extreme whereby only things which completely broke from the past where deemed modern and therefore worthy. But something happened on the way to paradise, humans reverted to type and began to copy eachother again. The result is what theperennialwhole aptly illustrates in this blog. All these buildings are similar...in their arrogance and complete lack of sensitivity to the humans they are supposed to house.
The Holl building is probably the dumbest. At least the two others are straight forward in their purely sculptural stance and one liner concept, context be dammed. Holl's building is only about mystifying the viewer. I'm sure I could read why it's a great building, but honestly I'd rather read a Richard Scary book to my two year old another 100 times. At least someone will benefit from that endevor. Like my fellow architecture students used to knowingly say, "baffle them with bullsh*t!"
What? You offer no basis for your criticism of the Holl building. You simply personally dislike the way it looks, from the outside, in one rendering. Why do you feel it is bad? Have you even looked into the interior? Do you know how it works? You seem to dislike it solely because it is new. You seem to suggest this is disposable architecture, somehow - what does that even mean? Do you think this building will be dismantled in a few years? - and compare it to fashion. But fashion is no more ephemeral than building is. The clothes you wear perform function as well as telegraph aesthetics. They are made to last a certain amount of time which is dependent on material selection and method of construction. Buildings, regardless of their style, are built the same way. A wood-framed building has a different lifespan than a brick building (depending on the environment, of course) and a pair of cotton pants will not last as long as silk or wool.
You are dismissing this building using the same reductive shorthand you condemn in contemporary designers: you are grasping only the image of the building and blithely dismissing it without deeper thought. (And you're not even criticising the image of the building... you're merely stating that it is bad, with no explanation of why.) By choosing to paint all new buildings with the same brush, you are proving yourself to be
I suggest you pick up a volume of architectural criticism and learn how to analyze buildings. There are some new buildings that are excellent, and some that are crappy, and some that are in-between with parts that are good and parts that are not so good. Some of the criticism comes from a place of pure objectivism (the building functions or it doesn't), and some is subjective (the building's aesthetics are appropriate or they are not), but made with researched arguments to back it up so that the reader can make his own evaluation and engage in discussion based in reason. Some old buildings are excellent, and some are crappy, and if you learn how to reasonably analyze the difference, backing your arguments with extensive research knowledge, you will be able to present much more persuasive arguments for your personal viewpoint.
By choosing to paint all new buildings with the same brush, you are proving yourself to be
empty of argument. (sorry didn't finish that sentence)
mantaray,
Yes, there's many ways to analize the quality of a building besides how it looks, such as how well it functions and how well do the spacial sequences work etc. But unless everybody goes through every building thoroughly, we are still left with analyzing what the building looks like. This is especially true when the building exists only on paper, but does that mean we can't criticize unless the building is built?
As for Holl's design. I'll assume Holl works out the circulation and get's the loading dock properly situated etc., but we can't see those, so we are left with the aesthetics. I think it looks like hell, but someone else dosen't. Neither one of us is RIGHT becasue it's subjective. As for having to pick up a volume of architectural criticism to learn how to analyze a building, that's the whole problem with the state of architectural discorse. It shouldn't be up to a self selected portion of the population to decide which buildings are good and which aren't. As much as it bothers the cogniscienti who have invested heavily in an education designed toset themselves apart from the general population, peoples' opinions do matter.
How would we have historic preservation if not for people like Jane Jacobs who marshalled the puclic's opinions and saved Historic Greenwich Village and Soho from demolition? Have you ever spoken to a client or friend that intuitivley understood architecture and how is functions? While I love reading about architecture, you shouln't have to learn a different language to have the right to comment on archtiecture, built or otherwise. And this isn't an either-or argument as many would like it to be. Mr. Holl's buildings have every right to be built and loved as much as a neo-tudor cottage, becasue it's subjective. His aesthetics aren't appropriate in this context, becasue it's as if the context didn't exist, ie, no relation what so ever. Sometimes a context should be shunned or negated, it all depends on the example. If one thinks there's no place for context in shaping a buildings design, so be it, but some people do, and they don't need to read a book to explain how they feel.
I think this is one good, one of the better pieces by Perennial.
When I lectured on this connection 25+ years ago at SCI-Arc my models for ridicule were Moss and Morphosis. The fashion metaphor is right-on and fits in the way architectural imagery is disseminated. When I did my critique I compared fashion advertising photo layouts to our then hip 80s LA architecture. I also really like the play of words: fashion models / architecture models.
.
But for that, they should have hit the runway and not the drafting board
You really are an old lady, perennial. drafting board?
more dissemination of backwardness.
blast from the past is all we ever get.
Thayer-D due to living under a rock, your comments are so ancient, disgraceful, and misinformed we should set up a booth here so people can get their brain cells back.
Can any sympathizer of this blog make a prediction of the future that doesn't prescribe neotudor 2050? Doubt it, what could anyone expect from an architectural hoarders club.
Out comes the snarky bouncer.
I agree that this is one of the better ones by Perrenial. Whether or not I agree, I think it puts forth a vaild discussion. Is architecture as trendy as fashion and should it be? It gets people thinking, which I think is the goal.
However, Thayer-D, your comments are as overbearing and narrow-minded as ever and I think you are single-handedly hurting Perrennial's cause. Editorial asked you to predict an aesthetic in of the future that isn't a replica of the past (preservation obviously doesn't count). You replied with name calling. Fail.
For the record, I don't think formal architecture such as Herzog&deMeuron's is a trend that will soon be disposed of. I think it is another good level in the diversity of architecture. And I disagree with the fact that Holl's building makes Makintosh's uglier. If you mirrored the existing Glasglow school as the addition, that image would look and feel incredibly dull, no matter how "whole" the original building is. Holl's version of the addition acts as a counterblanance and accents the texture and detail of the existing buidling.
The pitfall in denouncing all of modern architecture is that the beauty of the buildings you applaud suddenly seem common and unimportant.
I, and a majority of students, architects, and academics, reject this revolving-door architecture.
where are you?
notre dame,some studio at Yale,maybe Miami? some company that does high-end traditional?
petitcomments,
It's not that modernist styled architecture is bad, it's the philosophical underpinings that are nuts. I've designed jobs in a variety of styles, including modernist ones, some even won awards. It's the ugliness of the reaction to Perrenial's original posts that most offended me. If you look back at the comments, I was defending his right to have his say, as well as defending diversity. I don't remember you "failing" any of those vitriolic attacks, especially from Editorial, so spare me the fake outrage.
Can any sympathizer of this blog make a prediction of the future that doesn't prescribe neotudor 2050?
well - we're in the period of biomorphic neo-baroque competing with hyper-digital-rationalism (which claims to be apolitical - but we all know that's a bunch of BS), so my prediction is either the second hobbit house revival or singularity.
(although I'd seriously argue we're still in the late-postmodern aesthetic period - early pomo was classicism, mid pomo was decon, and late pomo is giant space suppositories/vulvae).
I'm also going to have to disagree about the "wholeness" of the mackintosh building, the images i've seen and plans and drawings i've studied are quite amazing, but look at that entrance photo, and other eccentricities, it does that represent "wholeness" in my opine, which is symmetry, balance, ect. There is something off, but it makes it more compelling to me and not whole but rather SEXY.
In any case, this whole "wholeness" thing is silly and in the mind of the beholder. "Wholeness" sheesh, so subjective, you're kidding right! but you keep posting like it is logic! Everyone perceives this differently, so why do you continue to even bother?
I can't agree with you more, though, that when dealing with our precious old cities, and great works of architecture from the past, we need a very sensitive, and not avant-garde and personal buildings. There needs to be a reference, and referential, attitude, but one that enhances the original building as well as the new one. There are countless successful cases, Foster's brilliant Caree' D'art in Nimes comes to mind.
There is some truth to Ryan's comment, but the level of hoarding in cities is starting to swell, even for "evil modernist" buildings.
Thayer-D. Why don't we bring back more teepees in the US, since you're all about coexistence? If you are now designing modernist projects, you've capitalized off the risk of others, despite it being "nuts."
Do you have any idea what we are facing in this century? Does regurgitating Sir Mackintosh seem relevant when we are having robot wars in the middle east, when we are at the cusp of integrating driverless cars in cities? We can go on and on with piles of issues to address with design.
Know your time and stop juxtaposing images from yesterday's starchitects (HdM&Mackintosh). Perennial isn't saying anything new, he is copying paragraphs from pattern language, instead making intelligent observations.
I care more about perenial, because it would be damming to
see architects again fall for the same traditionalist trap many like you fell for in the 80s.
Is Whole Foods wholesome?
theperennialwhole, I would like to know if you have any opinions on what role race, wealth and privilege plays in architecture? I guess I am curious about the base of your political critique.
Nice post, double o zero.
I think comparisons between fashion and architecture are silly, or at least no less silly than comparisons between fashion and filmmaking, or fashion and literature, or fashion and music, or fashion and artisanal jam. Every discipline has trends and classics. But in every discipline new classics are being created every day, we just don't always recognize their importance until much later.
…walking in a straight line into a dead end ( since they have to turn back once they get there).
So melodramatic. I'll consider this pathos while watching Project Runway this week.
I fail to see how anyone could claim that a Holl building is nothing more substantial than image. Perhaps some other contemporary architects, maybe, but Holl?! How can anyone say this is a well-written piece? You are all putting substance in the blogger's mouth. S/he did not say any of this - s/he made no statements of any substance whatsoever. This is a content-free zone. All s/he did was point a finger to a picture and say "we reject your revolving-door architecture." What is revolving-door architecture? What do you mean by that, and how is this Holl building an example of that? What would you prefer to see in its place? I criticized this "critique" because there is no critique, not because I necessarily disagree with the sentiment. Thayer-D, you don't have to walk through a building to criticize it - you can criticize the image solely, if you like. But this blogger isn't even doing that. This is a lazy and useless "piece".
I think it looks like hell, but someone else dosen't. Neither one of us is RIGHT becasue it's subjective.
That's correct, Thayer-D... and that's a statement of opinion, not a critical argument. You need to back that up with substance in order for it to be meaningful criticism. As it stands, you've simply stated your opinion. Fine. I happen to like both the Mackintosh and the Holl buildings, and one of the H and de M & not the other. Who cares? I'm not contributing anything to anyone's discourse or learning by making such statements. I do not matter one iota, and nor does my opinion (or, if you like, we all matter! yay!). But if I can craft a cogent and substantiated argument for why one building works and the other doesn't, or why parts of one work and parts of it don't, or advance a vision of how the entire thing could work better: now I am contributing to the development of architectural design.
I think at a cursory glance you may have a point, but Holl defined exactly what you call 'wholeness'. If you just understand Holl and how he approaches architecture, there is no merit in your argument. Holl is all about the experience, light, material, context, space, etc... with that being said I don't think you fully understand the project.
Holl is Whole? When is a hole whole? Are we digging holes into perianal's 'whole'?
The blog and topic is a whole ness monster.
we have always been modern and urban; we have always lacked a center, a hearth, a heart. always we have treaded the earth with a detached luminescent virtuality. our geometries have always been open ended, interrupted and perforated, fragmented. never have we been soulful, whole or wise. we were always looking past stone with stone, past concrete with concrete, past glass with glass. our heads have been always hung high, focused our being on the horizon, on our future, its end, our resurrection. and only because of that are we compelled by the solipsistic powers of symmetry and completion, of tautology. only because of that do we see ourselves as wholeness turned outside in waiting in turn to turn inside out and endow the world with its own true birth. you are being stupid for not seeing the pathos in the fragmentary, the cursory and, above all, the liquid. you extol the solid and , in your blindness, you don't see that, in its time, it was a liquid and that it made people feel threatened by their contemporaneity, by this sign of their mortality and by this sign of their lack in animalness. unanimal-like, our generations do not repeat and repeat and repeat the same habitat, the same rituals...we are the saddest of animals, we are interrupted intercepted interjected animals . we are inter-animals, animal flesh formed around a curious and vulnerable bubble, around a liquid question mark - flesh that knows itself. how dare you chastise humanity for being what it is? for wanting to head into the horizon and dissipate back into the virtually infinite gas that resides as a virtual centre within itself?
you had me at "solipsistic powers of symmetry and completion"
Spoiler alert: The following commentary will not contribute to wholeness.
I beg your pardon but I didn't even realize what we are facing in this century! "robot wars in the middle east, when we are at the cusp of integrating driverless cars in cities?" At the very cusp, really??? Man, forget that old "Firmness, Commodity, and Delight BS, wait till the kids get a load of my new matrix built around those driverless cars. I'll be the coolest kid in the blogosphere. t a m m u z, can you teach me archispeak?
This is fun. I think I'm going to become a conceptual artist too.
Save me Editorial!!! I think I'm falling "for the same traditionalist trap many like you fell for in the 80s."
still struggling to find an indication of perennial's definition of wholeness. i love the glasgow school of art, and i think holl is very much in the mackintosh tradition. or, if the mackintosh school is an example of 'wholeness' and holl isn't, then 'wholeness' must just mean 'old'. don't forget that, in its time - the gsa was radical!
it was not balanced, but intentionally off-balance. it twisted and reconfigured traditional forms into something new which celebrated open industrial-inspired spaces, opening up to daylight, and unconventional spatial relationships. it was a scottish/regional interpretation of the architectural styles (i'm gonna say it!) in fashion at the time: art nouveau/jugendstil. it was not a throwback to an imagined idyllic past, but among the most forward-thinking work of its time.
so all i can come up with is that you respect it because it's old.
Steven speak the truth.
Thayer-D....
The first thing backwardness does, is it kills your imagination.
it's about synthesizing our time, but your too busy romanticizing the past (its not timeless), what else would anyone expect but neo-this and neo-that.
You need help bro, compulsive hoarding and physically debilitating nostalgia is unhealthy.
Go to Whole Foods.
Hypothetical question for you. Let's say you asked a Native American from the Hopi reservation if the Mackintosh building feels whole. Let's say that person said "no it is a symbol of western imperialism and I find it oppressive....It feels cold to me" (it is safe to assume that at least one person would have that opinion) what would you say? Would you be willing to tell them that it is whole, and that their feelings are wrong? In their mind that building may feel as imposing and cold as the Holl building feels to you.
Heres the problem with both possible reply's.....
1. If you say that they are wrong, then the legitimacy of ones feelings (which is the backbone of your argument, and the very metric you use to measure wholeness) is destroyed.
2. If you say that you disagree but that they are entitled to their opinion, then you admit that wholeness is subjective, and then, the idea that there is an objective wholeness, is destroyed.
One destroys the metric that you use to measure wholeness, and the other destroys the very existence of this objective absolute wholeness that you keep preaching.
Either way you lose the argument before the Hopi man even has a chance to make his counter argument.
Your entire argument is ethnocentric/eurocentric.
There is no truth in the art of architecture, however there is truth in the science, but thats another argument. As much as I know with every fiber of my existence that The Beatles are better than Justin Beiber I will never be able to prove it. It is a worthless argument, so to each is own.
well.. jla-x. I'd imagine in the case of the Beatles vs Beiber...let's see how many album sales Beiber has in 40-50 years...one metric. That and the number of no. 1 songs, longevity, etc.
I feel like the argument that thayer and perrenial are making is one that has been made for centuries. They'd be railing on the Mannerists for not sticking to the orders if they'd been around then.
And I agree that perennial's post is weak... it's all opinion..and there's even little of that. What makes the building he posits as 'whole'...whole? I agree that the basic overarching theme is 'old'.
"I feel like the argument that thayer and perrenial are making is one that has been made for centuries."
I dont' think so. Like I said before, it's not about modernist styles versus traditional styles, as was pointed out earlier, it's about modernism's ethos. MacKintosh was considered "modern" in his day, as was Alberti, and there are several beautiful modernist buildings (understanding that's a purely subjective statement). While MacKintosh and Alberti (etc.) where cutting edge in their time, and surely shocked some people, it would be a stretch to say it's the equivalent of Mies's glass tower coming after Neo-Classicism and Art Noveau. There's still a continuity between MacKintosh and the Edwardian work or Alberti and late Medeaval Florence. It wasn't a full break with all the salient components that went into the previous work. Early modernists said as much in their ponderous manifestos. That dosen't disqualify early modernists work, some of which is truly beautiful, but it's obvious that their revolutionary stance was a bit more extreme than MacKintosh's or Alberti's.
I can't exactly defend the idea of wholeness as much as defend someones desire for wholeness though. This whole meme of having to reflect the "fragmentary, the cursory and, above all, the liquid" nature of our society is childish. Every human is familiar with those sentiments at some level, the issue is why should our buildings need to reflect that, to be "real"? Give me a break. Talk about romantic mishmash. Life has always had those aspects and possibly more than today, but people tend to want succour from thier stressed lives, that's why it's called shelter.
Take Steven Ward's statement "it was not balanced, but intentionally off-balance. it twisted and reconfigured traditional forms into something new which celebrated open industrial-inspired spaces, opening up to daylight, and unconventional spatial relationships. it was a scottish/regional interpretation of the architectural styles (i'm gonna say it!) in fashion at the time: art nouveau/jugendstil" At first I thought he was refering to some of the "un-whole" examples in this post, but "twisted" isn't the same as "scottish/regional interpretation" of fashionable current styles. This dosen't negate the validity of anyone's personal expression, be it Holl, Stern, or anyone in between, but to conflate MacKintosh with Holl is inacurate at best. Build your temple to fragmentation or whatever your inspiration might be, and if you find those clients, good for you! But don't pretend that the majority of people around the world are longing to be housed in the same tense and fractured world they inhabit. There are moments of serenity and wholeness in this world also, and it's those that most of us prefer. I'd venture to guess most of the pro-fractured world view posters here live in old and traditional neighborhoods versus an Eiseman house or Corbusian tower. Why? That's the whole point.
You don't know anything about modern times or even history, so your "whole" opinions are irrelevant.
"I feel like the argument that thayer and perrenial are making is one that has been made for centuries."
I think so. Like I said before, conservative make it about modernist styles versus traditional styles, as was pointed out earlier, it's about the conservative ethos. MacKintosh was considered "modern" in his day, as was Alberti, and there are several beautiful modernist buildings (understanding that's a purely subjective statement). While MacKintosh and Alberti (etc.) where cutting edge in their time, and surely shocked some people, it is relevant to say it's the equivalent of Mies's glass tower coming after the Arts and Crafts period, which was about honesty of structure, which is what happens when you look actually know history. There's still a continuity between MacKintosh and Holl or Gaudi and Reiser Umemmoto. It wasn't a full break with all the salient components that went into the previous work. Early modernists said as much in their ponderous manifestos. That doesn't disqualify early modernists work, some of which is truly beautiful, but it's obvious that their revolutionary stance was no more extreme than MacKintosh's or Alberti's.
I won't bother defending the idea of wholeness as much as defending someone's desire for old junk though. This whole meme of having to reflect the "Holsum bakery, nostalgia,picturesque-good ole days" nature of our society is childish. Why not be a realist, a provacateur, a "wholesome" new? Every human is familiar with those sentiments at some level, the issue is why should our buildings need to reflect the "faux-old"? Give me a break. Talk about romantic mishmash. Life has always had those aspects and possibly more of today thanks to architectural conservatives.
Take Steven Ward's statement "it was not balanced, but intentionally off-balance. it twisted and reconfigured traditional forms into something new which celebrated open industrial-inspired spaces, opening up to daylight, and unconventional spatial relationships. it was a scottish/regional interpretation of the architectural styles (i'm gonna say it!) in fashion at the time: art nouveau/jugendstil"(italicized for visual clarity,use your eyes)
At first I thought he was referring to some of the "un-whole" examples in this post, but "twisted" isn't the same as "scottish/regional interpretation" of fashionable current styles. This dosen't negate the validity of anyone's personal expression, be it Holl, Stern, or anyone in between, but to conflate MacKintosh with Holl is accurate at best. Build of your time or whatever your inspiration might be, and if you find those clients, good for you! But realize that the majority of people around the world are deceived into thinking that Martha Stewart is the answer, and neoclassicists capitalize from that. There are moments of serenity and wholeness in this world also, and it's those that most of us prefer, not the "faux-old". I'd venture to guess most of contemporary thinkers here live in anonymous, maybe even faux-old neighborhoods versus an Eiseman house or Albertian tower. Why? That's the point.
some of us like ideological shells that will tell us a good bedtime story and give us a sweet kiss good night (you know, with their kind recognizable faces)
and some of us like to experience form space and light.
and tammuz, i believe its "perineal hole" - but i could be wrong.
ahh, the curse of a little free time . . .
Here’s the background track
These models are part of the same collection. What does that mean?
The designers: Herzog & De Meuron. They've each had their moment in the runway spotlight. What does that mean?
They've each strutted their stuff. What does that mean?
But without knowing the names of the architects or the buildings, there is no way to distinguish them from each other.
Is that because they’re two versions of the same scheme?
They look the same despite very different formal qualities.
Because they are the same, with some different formal qualties.
They have the same kind of face.
What does that mean?
Do they have faces? I thought they were buildings?
How is this possible in the age of such advanced rendering and parametric programs?
Uh because they’re two versions of the same building.
It just seems like more, more, and more of the same kind of building, rendered a million different ways, contributing nothing truly new to society or "high art".
So “high art” is art that contributes to society? And what are your terms for an acceptable contribution? Since that seems to be where your argument lies . . .
How is it that these buildings stand out while, at the same time, conforming to a particular aesthetic?
That’s just not intelligible.
Mamma don't allow no architects in this house.
@ Editorial,
Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but just a few Editorial noted if you don't mind...
"Mies's glass tower coming after the Arts and Crafts period, which was about honesty of structure" - If you think a glass curtain wall hidding the structure beyond is honesty in construction, I've got a "faux-old" neo-Gothic Brooklyn Bridge to sell you, which at least is much more honest than Mies's work, if you're capable of looking beyond the historic style.
"Why not be a provacateur?" - Because not all of us are stuck in adolescence.
"Build of your time or whatever your inspiration might be" " Build of your time, and I the provocateur is the one who dictates what "your time" constitutes.
"But realize that the majority of people around the world are deceived into thinking that Martha Stewart is the answer" - Becasue no one fools Editorial the Provocateur. He is so much more intelligent than the majority of people around the world, who don't give a rat's ass about these issues we're talking about, to say nothing about Martha 'who'?
"Won't some one PLEASE pay attention to me!!!" As an example of what kills honest debate, sure. Keep it up Provocateur, you are a perfect illustration of what ails the contemporary architectural debate.
I read this blog to get my blood going in the morning. Perennial you gotta get out and experience more actual architecture and step away from the glossies. And in defense of Herzog & de Meuron (from a non-believer) look at the Casa de Piedra.
What a horrible modern world, oh mother earth, oh immoral Corb. I can't take it, let's make some neo-gothic faux-old architecture to deal with it, let's hoard every dumb brick, let's order fypon parts from catalogs and call it honest architecture. Pay attention to me, Nikos, Chrissie, and perennial, we are "whole" they are "broken" we are "good" they are "bad"
-Thayer-D (aka George W. Bush)
"Keep it up Provocateur, you are a perfect illustration of what ails the contemporary architectural debate."
I haven't even provoked anything yet, just enjoy seeing this blog fail like Leon Krier's career.
don't mean to break up the conversation, but i think i need a little help here. theperennialwhole is a person right? and thayer-d is a different person? or the same person? and who is editorial? Is editorial the same person as thayer-d and he's just arguing with himself/herself? if theperennialwhole is a person different from the other two, why hasn't that person posted a single comment outside of the original blogpost?
fragile egos are amusing.
curtram, how do I know that you are not all of the above? Is this all some diabolical scheme to distract us while you plot to take over the internets?
diabolical probably fits my personality
maybe i am everyone except jla-x, theperennialwhole, editorial, thayer-d, and whoever you are that's reading this right now. kind of blows the mind. the internets will be mine!
@ theperennialwhole,
I was reading this new book called Sullivanesque, by Ronald Schmitt, on the spread of Sullivan's style and came upon this interesting paragraph that reminded me of your arguments. Although the point could be made for other styles, It seems pertinent to the examples you chose.
"The Sullivanesque, althought inspired by nature, was an urban architecture. It was intrinsically part of the street. It defined space, whereas buildings of the International Modernism, especially in America, became objects in space. The setback, plaza, or sub-urban setting separated the mid-twentieth-century modern building from it's context., symbolically as well as physically, and when combined with the stark abstractness of scaleless Modernism, further alienated people and nature from architecture. The buildings of modern architecture, as freestanding objects, became shaped like sculpture, and form became decoration. ...perhaps, what is needed today is a return to the philosophy of the Sullivanesque and the arts and crafts movements, wherein the building was part of the greater whole, societal interests where greater than those of the individual, and craft was primary."
How is this pertinent to the examples? And to which ones?
This quote is like reading 50 Shades of Mediocrity or 50 Shades of Norman Rockwell.
Is the street the only possible space that an architect can define? Anything else is "form as decoration"? What does "intrinsically" mean? Have you ever seen who hangs out in front of Mies' Park Avenue 'set back' on a hot summer day? Sure, a tree might be nice, but its still a good place to rest and its nice not to have to pay for a latte to do it.
And Sullivan - talk about decoration! Sure am glad his malls and banks reveal those larger societal interests! If you want to look into how details and the care of their construction help make something better, maybe you should look into fashion and clothing design.
Oh wait - you've obviously done your homework.
I'd be happy to answer your torrent of questions, but experience has taught me that the way you posed many questions in a row belies a lack of willlingless to seriously engage. If you're so much better than us, why not let the idiots blather on by themselves? Becasue you've invested too much in your facade of phony intellectualism, and there's something about these kinds of discussions that you find threatening. If you where more secure in your ideas, you wouldn't turn to angry hectoring.
I'm not saying all this to persuade you (and your type) to my way of thinking, that would be futile, rather to encourage others who are tired of playing this nihlistic game. When you leave archtecture school, you'll find most laypeople don't care for archispeak, or the computer generated sculptures that pass for buildings. Like the glossies that support this alternate universe, there's another set of publications that speak of architecture as a craft. You'll be attacked (like theperennialwhole) for daring to question the rules of academia, but as time goes on and you distance yourself from that world, you'll come into the world that created the beauty and livability of places like San Francisco, Boston, and many beautiful towns in between. When you start speaking honestly and intelligibly to friends and clients about architecture, you will see what wonderfull things you can create together, and how you might leave this world a better place than you found it.
ive been working for almost 20 years and I still think you're full of hot air.
"If you're so much better than us, why not let the idiots blather on by themselves?"
Actually my experience has shown me that you say this all the time..since YOU actually have no willingness to engage..instead spouting your pseudo intellectual prose because YOU think you're better than all of us and don't realize that your words read the same as people that were saying the same thing 20 years ago.
WHY are Sullivan's facades better? WHY is it bad that Modernist buildings (why we're talking about buildings that are 40-50 years old and still worried that they're too 'modern' is beyond me) have a plaza around them instead of defining the street edge? Are you saying public space is bad?
"Becasue you've invested too much in your facade of phony intellectualism"
It's ironic how you define yourself with your own words.
Lars,
If you want to ask something, just go ahead. You haven't yet shown the level of childish behavior as others have demonstrated with your comments, but your last opening sentence "your full of hot air" shows signs of promise. My guess is you're idea of engagine though would be to raise a straw man like, "WHY are Sullivan's facades better?" I never said such nonsence and to say as much betrays your lack of depth. Then you day this gem "...and still worried that they're too 'modern' is beyond me" Who's worried? Where do you get this stuff from? No one's saying you shouldn't build what you want, it's just that some people think these examples on this post suck. Can you live with that? Does that blow your mind? If you want to have a serious exchange, I'm all ears, but if that's what you call engaging, don't waste your time. By the way, when you capitalize all the letters in a word, does that mean you're yelling those words at me?
You must be referring to the cat who inverts and reposts your writing when you talk about not responding to the torrent of questions...
The reason for all the questions is simple: I read your post.
And I found the majority of it to be without content or substance. So I asked for some clarifications. Unfortunately, all of it needed clarifying.
Im all for different opinions, but I'd like to see you and yours meander your way to putting words together well, instead of just tickling each other with phrases that indicate you don't like something. You didn't get a straw man from me. Just some banging guitar licks.
"...(like theperennialwhole) for daring to question the rules of academia..."
So "daring to question the rules of academia" is what this blog is about?
I suppose that's a fair enough mission for a blog, but I can't say that such a mission has been obvious from what has been written via this blog thus far. Mind you, it hasn't been all that obvious what the majority of the comment posts have been defensive about either.
What makes the majority of the posts and comments strange is that so much is taken for granted on both sides, plus, I even assume most here wouldn't even know how to express what it is that is being taken for granted.
If you're going to question (or defend) the "rules" of academia, then thoroughness and specificity are called for.