How do you explain an Frank Gehry who is the most famous architect in the world yet he writes no theory and doesn't teach. Is there any writing on this phenomenon?
how scary is it that someone who expresses himself IN THE MEDIUM OF HIS OWN FIELD is such an anomaly among architects?
among my many gripes with this profession is the expectation that you are supposed to be 10 or so different people--theorist, publicist, educator/academic, critic, technical expert, cultural visionary, businessperson/manager, politician, and oh yes, designer of the built environment--to be successful on a world-class level.
I just thought it was strange that not one of my studio teachers has ever told "oh go take a look at some Frank Gehry work." even though he's the most celebrated architect. Oh and i hate coming up with B.S. explanations for every move i make. FREEDOM!!!!!!!
I am guessing if you were in the West Coast, you would be told to take a look at his work. You probably are not or maybe your teachers are just biased.
and FRaC--although what you say would seem to make perfect sense, it's not actually true. there are many architects who use teaching, writing, publication, etc. to establish a platform and a name for themselves as 'practicing' architects. some do a good job integrating the two, but we've all seen a few who don't give a whit about whether their students are actually learning anything. and it gets even more convoluted--like when architects feel pressured to make their actual projects 'worthy' of the publication industry, when a simple, modest solution might work better for a client...
i''ve always loved that gehry is a 'primary source' architect...
Actually im fully West Coast, my teachers advise me not to look at his work because we are forced to explain all the moves that we make and he just has an idea and executes it without having a complex theory to explain himself. I guess what im getting at is why dont architects have as much creative freedom as other design professions.
your teachers are probably trying to teach you to be disciplined about how you make decisions and judgments in your creative process...how to identify problems, consult precedent solutions, and build up a set of tools/skills of your own. if done as a pedagogical exercise, this will be very useful to you later, when you have all the freedom you can handle, and more. telling you not to look at an architect's actual work, though, sounds completely counterproductive...
hmm sounds like you just proved yourself wrong there. "Gehry's manifests a greater and more mature repertoire" but look at Eisenman cause your paying money. I would rather learn how Frank Gehry ended up with this "more mature repertoire" than Eisenman, maybe i should check out your work
1. Gehry actually builds buildings people love, theory, generally speaking, comes before an architect actually gets to build things
2. Gehry doesn't "pretend" and "overintellectualize" his designs or process. They are true to their intention.
3. Learn - what is great about Gehry is how he solves problems. Others blab on and on about how cnc'ing is so revolutionary, and never can do anythign with it. Gehry designs something, then figures out how to make it worth, without writing a book on the process to get there (like cnc'ing). He's not the only one that has skipped to the actual building, much "theory" was actually being built long before someone wrote about it (thinking things like program juxtaposition, etc.).
That's all about business - got a vision, create a process to get there, execute that vision and process.
[in that regard, "theory" is a business approach, as well. It is marketing, making a name without building anything. Not unlike how some have catapulted themselves to fame via blogging or websites, such as photographers like Chase Jarvis]
4. Gehry is a "like him or not" architect. I recall in grad school this being pointed out while discussing process. If you have a clear process, people can critique that and help you evolve, discover flaws, etc. If you are creating something that is pure form and space, then you don't have that process to dissect.
This is neither right nor wrong, but about sculptural intuition. Some people are great, intuitively, and can skip to the form and create something magical, other's are better at creating a methodology and working through it to the end result. Again, neither right nor wrong, but one lends itself to academic discussions, while the other doesn't.
Attended a lecture by Gehry once. He is 82. He says he loves designing and after a certain point in his life, he could afford to stop worrying about what people thought and just do what he loves. He doesn't like talking about theory though - not an anomaly. If you take the number of architects out there in the world who bother justifying what they build or what the impact of architecture is on social/political/economic scene is, I'm sure it would be a small number. When I did research about Gehry Technologies, I was amazed - Think about it, there aren't too many 80 year olds who can say they embrace digital architectural technology that much to found a company like that!
Not gonna lie, I find the contempt for architectural intellectualism pretty disturbing. Our designs have consequences, and if we don't acknowledge that, then of what value are we as professionals?
The "I don't have to rationalize my moves, I'm an architect!" sentiment really bothers me. It reduces our expertise down to "masters of style" or "taste."
Matias - you, my friend, seem like a bitter man! (and I know bitter men ;-) )
It is all subjective. Personally, I think density and Libeskind buildings improve my city, really transforming it into something progressive and exciting. Others hate density, and you'll get a billion opinions on his museum (though most love it).
The same goes for many Gehry buildings. I love how a single building can have the power to transform a city. That is a lot of talent and a ton of luck.
"Rationalize" is also subjective. If Derrida said to do it, is that rational? If the alley way becomes a corridor through the new building, is that rational? "Intellectualism" is also subjective. I care more about "talent" than I do about "rational" work. Show me something that moves me, show me something that inspires me. That's why I came to this profession. I left because of many reasons, including too much ass kissing (at the top), too little pay and too "rational" for the majority of the work (that word = boring to me, mostly).
Architecture is a fashion statement on a grand scale. Some bad taste, some good, just like anything designed. You can talk about it or not, but on the larger scale it really doesn't matter what you say.
But, with this one phrase: It is all subjective. You have just completely de-legitimized the entire profession. And with this phrase: Architecture is a fashion statement on a grand scale. You completely re-inforced our uselessness.
Take that line of thinking to its logical conclusion. You're one step away from declaring all architectural solutions equal. You are one step away from giving architects carte-blanche and complete immunity from having to defend their work.
Why even bother with the design process if it is all subjective? Why even bother refining our solutions if it's all just a fashion statement? Why even bother creating new solutions if it's all relative? Why even bother coming up with schemes and ideas if its just a fashion statement? Why even bother having design reviews and critiques if all solutions are relative?
Why even bother hiring an architect? If it's all subjective, then any schmuck off the streets should be able to come in and design something worthwhile, because it's all relative, right? It's just a fashion statement, right? So as long as someone out there finds it interesting, it's accomplished its goal and is therefore a success, right?
saying architecture is subjective and a fashion statement is not one step from ' ... declaring all architectural solutions equal.'. quite the opposite, actually.
why do you hire an architect? if you're looking for good design that you (subjectively) like you hire an architect based on previous work. you could randomly hire '.. schmuck(s) off the streets' but that would take too long and too much money before you hit the random design genius aimlessly walking around out there.
Haha. Whoa! I think we need to sit down and drink some very, very strong liquor
" If it's all subjective, then any schmuck off the streets should be able to come in and design something worthwhile, because it's all relative, right?"
Yeah, that's completely true. Talent is more important, imho, than learned skills. There are intangibles that can be brought to the surface with a good education, but without a seed in there somewhere to start, there won't be a flower.
And yeah, I think fashion is incredibly important in our world. Considering a fashion designer, even a model, will make a thousand fold what an architect will, as well as command respect from everyone, everywhere (generally speaking), I'd say that's a pretty good compliment to architecture.
[I said fashion statement, you added the "just"]
Furthermore, I think this is the complete opposite of equality. Some can create superb pieces of architecture with no formal education, others can go to Harvard for a decade and still design crap.
If there was no fashion component, no pure/raw talent, it would be God awful(ly) boring! And, indeed, most of the time it is. Yes, subjective. I like blue, maybe you like red. Toast to diversity in our lovely world! Cheers!
The creative field has always been, is, and will always be subjective. Subjective to each humans individual perception.
In fact, sometimes, we as architects think we know best - Architecture without architects has some of the most meaningful, most creative design solutions to problems we dont even know exist.
Like trace said, Some can create superb pieces of architecture with no formal education, others can go to Harvard for a decade and still design crap!
matias--i am all for architectural intellectualism. i just think the toolkit that comes with our discipline is rich and more than sufficient for addressing consequences, problems, ideas, etc....through architecture. if you are a painter, you paint, and you take on the problems you take on through painting. same goes for writers, who are not expected to justify their ideas using, say, visuals. i don't think expressions of style and taste are enough by any means, but i also don't think an architect should have to prove his/her intentions by writing long theoretical treatises when his or her position should be readily evident in his/her WORK.
I actually agree with a lot of what you say. I just don't care for the subjective arguments, because it allows for designers to escape their responsibility to critically examine their design choices. Personally, I don't have a problem with an architect choosing material A over material B as a cladding or whatever, because the end result is often of little consequence (for the most part, anyway). But when it comes to bigger moves, such as the allotment of public space, or how the building meets the street,etc, the designer shouldn't be let off the hook just because he or she feels that their choices are subjective.
Does Gehry have to defend his work through written work or lectures? No, of course not. I'm not suggesting that he should have to. But he shouldn't be able to evade criticism, either. It just seems like so many moves (big moves) are arbitrary, so I find them hard to defend because I don't really see the added value other than making a cool object. I get that he uses state-of-the-art technologies and all that jazz, but what is compelling him to make the moves he makes? I know that his projects are are complicated and detailed, I would just like to see that same rigor front-loaded in his process when he's coming up with his schemes.
trace, I wasn't trying to come off as rash, but to your point about talent being more important than learned skills, well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You argue that talent comes first, which is pretty chicken vs. egg, so I won't really argue with that.
But you also make the argument that someone without architectural experience may be able to make a significant contribution to the field. That may be true. But I'd still place my bet 9 times out of 10 on the person with the work ethic and experience over the person without the training to produce something worthwhile. That education has gotta be worth something. At least, I hope so.
that "escape from responsibility" is exactly what im looking for. I agree that a building has certain requirements that must be met, but after that is where the real creativity begins. And i dont understand why during this creative process i must have a reason for all of my decisions
I recall when Mayne was showing us Diamond Ranch and the school board was asking about what this huge, cantilevered piece of metal, 20+ feet of the ground, serving no "real" function.
His answer to them "that's architecture".
Sure, you could write a book about how it continues the formal expressions, brings pedestrian movement through the space, defined areas without creating physical limitations, I could go on and on.
Yeah, I think talent is the important one. Anyone can acquire learned skills, but so few have real, raw talent. Like music, a billion people can learn some chords, play a guitar, but so few can really make a song. Same for painting, or anything creative.
I look at architecture as #1 a creative endeavor and #2 serving a purely rational function. And this is partly why I left the traditional career path. People need warehouses, but I don't feel compelled to create them.
And of course education is crucial for 99% of the people. Myself, and countless others I've known, would never have discovered any talent if it wasn't coerced out of us and brought to the surface by exceptional professors and great teaching. I would never diminish the significance or contributions of talented professors (yes, you can be a superb professor and still not be a great architect or designer, at least imho).
While the profession is not for me, in a traditional sense, I do cherish my education and love architecture. I just prefer the creative side of it (and, to keep blabbing, intuition and talent doesn't necessarily mean arbitrary, one person can simply get a better feel for something while the other creates some book, but fails to understand the simple experience of space).
"Yeah, I think talent is the important one. Anyone can acquire learned skills, but so few have real, raw talent. Like music, a billion people can learn some chords, play a guitar, but so few can really make a song. Same for painting, or anything creative." trace™
totally disagree. the greeks were better at formulating opinions. this capitalist-romantic blahblah is a soul-poverty of excess
i admire Lauf's concept of plaibility in the work of Gehry's architecture (this was raised in the peter's canon thread i think). I don't know whether its a truthful concept, but its a pleasant concept, an open non claustrophobic one that is an easy-even nonchalant- subject to ambiguity, not one that intractably -but fultilely- subjects ambiguity to discursion (eisenman) or one that seeks to subvert it and use it as its own means (minimalism). very californian laid back (and i don't mean the hollywood apocalyptic artifice thingie in cohoots with the hearltss machines of americapitalism ) and i liked california.
ohnokono, i don't wish to prove anything to anyone here. and if you really think its my intention to prove my intelligence here this way then i tell you its your unintended stupidity that leads you to think so.
ohnokono, you seem to be looking at him as the architect he is now.
Frank Gehry started off just like anyone else: an angry young practitioner hungry for work.
He then befriended artists, as that was his trip, and avoided (or was marginalized by) his architect peers like the Rangers and the 5. His association with artists* Pablo and Salvador most likely proved a very effective conduit in making architecture (ie his own house) that was non-disciplinary, and wholly unique.
Finding welcome in the '89 Deconstructivist Architecture exhibition gave him a role in the contemporary arch milieu and sets up a kind of east coast west coast discourse* (Eisenman tells him wise-guy-style he needs to 'lose a finger').
Now a middle-aged guy with some critical success, he's feted by Disney, then Vitra, and has several opportunities to build ideas that have already come to foment in his early experiments (the piscine forms).
CATIA, and the Guggenheim in Bilbao.
He rules the capitalist market as a consumer brand. I don't think he meant for this to happen - he just wants to build.
*This is a timeline that is heavily skewed and most likely incorrect. Lately I've been trying to not rely so heavily on google searches. I worked for the man pre-boom, and really liked it. I should also mention he was smart in his hiring - excellent support crew.
I think what ohnokono was alluding to was tammuz wordy explanation (which, sorry to say, I stopped reading at "...concept of pliability...". Sorry, I just want to appreciate the architecture for the experience, Gehry for his success and creating a true image for architecture.
jj - I agree he just wanted to build, I think most passionate architects want that. The fact that he has been a pioneer and successful business man on top of it is just icing on the cake.
Thanks for the beautiful pliancy of Palace of Ottopia - what I previously thought quite crystalline in its first iteration (it references Terragni, correct?)
Sorry for dumbing down the conversation(3rd semester in architecture) and i will try to keep up with language being thrown around on this thread so here it goes.
I can totally agree with most of what has been said previously about Gehry's Architectonic pliancy as being his claim to fame. However, does anyone have an opinion on whether or not his lack of theoretical explanations has led to his "more mature repertoire" as emergency exit wound put it. And does anyone have an opinion on whether strict theoretical explorations promotes or discourages what ever it is that Frank Gehry seems to capture in his work.
Stephen; I did not understand your concept of pliability/pliancy only in literal surface-curving manner but rather as an unfettered and "easy" coalescence/continuum of heterogenous (or at least heterogensly formed/directed) spaces and the laissez-faire imagination behind it. somehow, there is an anti-stringent openness in the method. and this fluidity of creation you posit against the hyper punctuated (even hyphenated ..in the sense that architecture is the pedantic figurative or analogical expose' of something other than architecture) thought process and compulsive-semiotics of eisenman's architecture and method. please correct me if i'm wrong.
trace™, no need to apologize. there is no burden on you to read or to comprehend.
You're right tammuz, silly of me to focus on the architecture itself. Carry on.
Now, back to architecture...FOG doesn't burden his designs with some lengthy discourse. It is about experience, it is about materials and space. So to your question, yes, I think that it is possible miss one objective while pursuing another (as in missing the architecture while pursuing the theory). He prioritizes the design, experience and space and let's the end result stand on its own.
Has anyone here seen the Gehry documentary? It shows him in his design studio randomly crumpling and stacking paper until he has a form that he is pleased with. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446784/
IMO, He is a large scale sculptor who also fits building programs inside his creations.
I am compelled to point out that Tammuz's architecture is bound to reach a limited audience (if any) if it reflects his writing styles' lack of ability to hold our attention. I didn't finish reading any of the posts, but do agree with one point, and I quote, "Blahblah" .
@Matias, Gehry has a different process, his success is that his design gets built and the building (structurally and programmatically) works, most of the time. If people want Gehry they get Gehry, what does he have to explain?
onkn - Eisenman has some great books. While I admit to a big *yawn* at rambling "theory", I did, at one point (in school) find his books inspirational. My personal favorite, I think, was Diagram Diaries (and he was a master at the diagram, both models and drawings, an art form istelf).
You could probably make a convincing argument that if he was a little less "over-the-top" (to keep this all in reality-speak) and spent more time/energy on architecture, he would have more built. Perhaps not, but could be an interesting paper (and probably get you kicked out of school, as the hard core theorists need schools to have a job).
For Gehry, you really need to visit his buildings, #1, walk through his office, talk to his engineer. It is quite fascinating from each of those perspectives and so far different from Eisenman (though the "reality" is far different from the "theory", imho).
If you can't do those, study the photos, watch the videos. It is about space and experience and his raw talent as a sculptor and business man. He's created a team that can execute his unique visions, which, unto itself, is quite a success.
"Actually im fully West Coast, my teachers advise me not to look at his work because we are forced to explain all the moves that we make and he just has an idea and executes it without having a complex theory to explain himself."
@ohnokono, As mentioned above I would recommend visiting his buildings. I find it strange that none of you studio instructors directed you towards his earlier works. When I was at USC, our profs. made studio trips to many of Gehry's pre-Bilbao/WDCH projects. If you are in L.A. I would highly recommend visiting them:
Frances Howard Goldwyn Hollywood Regional Library
Loyola Law School
Edgemar Center
Danziger studio ( private studio, but you can still see it from the outside)
Personally, everyone should be jealous or insecure because he is so much ahead of EVERYONE in adopting 3D construction document. He is not the same school of intellectual architecture. Do not compare apples to oranges.
ok so after listening to all the different opinions on this thread, im getting the overall feeling that architects(atleast on this forum and some of my teachers) think of Gehry as somewhat undeserving in his fame. Also the way that he portrays himself is fake. is this way off or is there some truth to it?
and my second question as a student is what is the purpose of theory? other than to establish yourself amongst other architects?
He is sued by MIT for some design flaws his firm made.
This is a massive, massive understatement and it is utterly sickening how he plays it off like someone specified the wrong door pulls. The design and detailing errors that were made on the stata center are in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars range to fix.
Whether or not it was Gehry that ignored consultants is up for debate. I wasn't in the room at the time. However, if I end up over my head technically, I hire a (competent) consultant ASAP. If an owner is cost-cutting my design to pieces, it is surely my responsibility to step in at some point and say, "What you are suggesting undermines the safety of the occupants and I can no longer participate in this project."
Gehry did no such thing. He continued with the project and collected his $15 million. As a licensed professional, he is spineless- he is nothing more than the personal embodiment of a brand. Our designs have consequences, as someone upthread mentioned- sometimes they are social, sometimes they are environmental, and sometimes they are technical.
My apologies for derailing the thread- I've tried to avoid this thread as I have a particular distaste for this sculptor, his managing architects, and his horrific CATIA plug ins.
If someone gets Hollywood level adulation, they should also get Hollywood level scrutiny. Gehry's failures have not been widely enough broadcast or discussed.
Some of the affection is personal, admittedly. All the Christmas shopping done there, for years. (An amazing Santa's village in the central atrium, too). Muchos margaritas overlooking the Pacific at Tampico Tilly's. (Shurrrr, I'll have another one... where are my keys?) And then there was some AIA or other architectural event there, attended by none other than former Catwoman Julie Newmar... when people still knew who she was.
But I digress, big-time.
It's also the only building of his which I knew with familiarity. I went there a lot. The stepped section worked very well. (Very Galeria, in the Milan sense as well as Encino.) The askew cruciform plan made good sense on that block amid the 4 big dumb corner footprints (parking structures and dep't stores). The west-facing terraces overlooking the ocean were successful and attractive dining spots (at least for a while). And --as an architect coming up in the early 80s-- the basic (but I think elegant) language of simple white piers and walls, stainless steel railings, white steel gable shed and skylights, and acres of that brick red quarry tile... just came together for me. It worked in the urban fabric as well, the cross-plan connecting major mid-block points on all sides.
Oh, and lest I be accused of sycophancy, I detest a lot of his later stuff. Many of his models remind me of six-packs of diet coke left in the microwave for several minutes.
great wal-mart level architects also make leaky buildings but they don't make great architecture.
buildings shouldn't leak no arguments there but if that's all you got then lets stop talking about it. like it don't like it, what else is there to say with gehry?
Gehry came to Architecture from the Art World, not the theoretical world. Both have theoretical components as well as components from the Art World. They are both valid. The theorists, I think, are a varied bunch in terms of what they offer. Overall, I think the profession is disappearing and having it as a focus at Arch school without a serious technical literacy is a grave mistake. You can have both. They are not mutually exclusive. Understanding what the sculptor Richard Serra says about Architecture is just as important as understanding how the "perfect" building section performs in terms of moisture and temperature control.
We educators need to encourage that.
Zaha Hadid is similar to Gehry. So are Herzog and de Meuron. They come from the Art World.
What's on the surface? Gehry's accomplishment in terms of project delivery is AWESOME and dwarfs that of most of his peers.
Have you seen the doug fir fence on the rear of his house in Santa Monica?
If you can design a building that looks like crumbled papers or microwaved diet coke, and have someone pay for the cost and pay your commission, then I say you go ahead, but you will probably say, nah that's not my style.
I will say even if it is your style, you still can't do it. Only a few people in the world can do what Gehry, Hadid, Herzog and Meuron do.
Architecture cannot be taught directly unless it is technical, so why not focus on technical solutions and softwares. Architectural theories are good mind games on paper but useless in real life--we all know it is bullsh*t but no one will admit it publicly. Too much bullsh*t destroys students' creativity.
Sure, architectural languages are useful in debates. If someone tries to fuc* with your design with bullshi*s you can fight back with fancy sentences. But in the end few clients can fail to see it is bullsh*t.
You got to be honest. I think Gehry is honest, because he doesn't talk about bullsh*t. Maybe he cannot, he was taught at a time when Modernism wasn't fully developed on the West Coast.
I don't know. I have a feeling Gehry will always be controversial because he is so, so, so different from the extremely conservative convention called architecture catering for the rich, almost exclusively.
So it is what the rich people want, and they want Gehry. Vote with your money.
it is interesting so many think gehry came to archtiecture through art. he was a commercial architect for years, trained by victor gruen (invented the american shopping mall, etc), and more or less a traditional california modernist for about 20 years. He was quite successful as far as I can tell in that phase of his career too. His work slowly changed into what we know him for today but it ain't nothing like what he used to do. Quite amazing transformation truth be told. don't think anyone else could have done it.
Frank Gehry
How do you explain an Frank Gehry who is the most famous architect in the world yet he writes no theory and doesn't teach. Is there any writing on this phenomenon?
here it is written: he's an architect
really the only people who care about theory and teaching are other architectural professors/architects/architectural students.
how scary is it that someone who expresses himself IN THE MEDIUM OF HIS OWN FIELD is such an anomaly among architects?
among my many gripes with this profession is the expectation that you are supposed to be 10 or so different people--theorist, publicist, educator/academic, critic, technical expert, cultural visionary, businessperson/manager, politician, and oh yes, designer of the built environment--to be successful on a world-class level.
I just thought it was strange that not one of my studio teachers has ever told "oh go take a look at some Frank Gehry work." even though he's the most celebrated architect. Oh and i hate coming up with B.S. explanations for every move i make. FREEDOM!!!!!!!
I am guessing if you were in the West Coast, you would be told to take a look at his work. You probably are not or maybe your teachers are just biased.
and FRaC--although what you say would seem to make perfect sense, it's not actually true. there are many architects who use teaching, writing, publication, etc. to establish a platform and a name for themselves as 'practicing' architects. some do a good job integrating the two, but we've all seen a few who don't give a whit about whether their students are actually learning anything. and it gets even more convoluted--like when architects feel pressured to make their actual projects 'worthy' of the publication industry, when a simple, modest solution might work better for a client...
i''ve always loved that gehry is a 'primary source' architect...
Actually im fully West Coast, my teachers advise me not to look at his work because we are forced to explain all the moves that we make and he just has an idea and executes it without having a complex theory to explain himself. I guess what im getting at is why dont architects have as much creative freedom as other design professions.
your teachers are probably trying to teach you to be disciplined about how you make decisions and judgments in your creative process...how to identify problems, consult precedent solutions, and build up a set of tools/skills of your own. if done as a pedagogical exercise, this will be very useful to you later, when you have all the freedom you can handle, and more. telling you not to look at an architect's actual work, though, sounds completely counterproductive...
hmm sounds like you just proved yourself wrong there. "Gehry's manifests a greater and more mature repertoire" but look at Eisenman cause your paying money. I would rather learn how Frank Gehry ended up with this "more mature repertoire" than Eisenman, maybe i should check out your work
Gehry actually teaches a studio at Yale every other year.
ohno - a few things...
1. Gehry actually builds buildings people love, theory, generally speaking, comes before an architect actually gets to build things
2. Gehry doesn't "pretend" and "overintellectualize" his designs or process. They are true to their intention.
3. Learn - what is great about Gehry is how he solves problems. Others blab on and on about how cnc'ing is so revolutionary, and never can do anythign with it. Gehry designs something, then figures out how to make it worth, without writing a book on the process to get there (like cnc'ing). He's not the only one that has skipped to the actual building, much "theory" was actually being built long before someone wrote about it (thinking things like program juxtaposition, etc.).
That's all about business - got a vision, create a process to get there, execute that vision and process.
[in that regard, "theory" is a business approach, as well. It is marketing, making a name without building anything. Not unlike how some have catapulted themselves to fame via blogging or websites, such as photographers like Chase Jarvis]
4. Gehry is a "like him or not" architect. I recall in grad school this being pointed out while discussing process. If you have a clear process, people can critique that and help you evolve, discover flaws, etc. If you are creating something that is pure form and space, then you don't have that process to dissect.
This is neither right nor wrong, but about sculptural intuition. Some people are great, intuitively, and can skip to the form and create something magical, other's are better at creating a methodology and working through it to the end result. Again, neither right nor wrong, but one lends itself to academic discussions, while the other doesn't.
Attended a lecture by Gehry once. He is 82. He says he loves designing and after a certain point in his life, he could afford to stop worrying about what people thought and just do what he loves. He doesn't like talking about theory though - not an anomaly. If you take the number of architects out there in the world who bother justifying what they build or what the impact of architecture is on social/political/economic scene is, I'm sure it would be a small number. When I did research about Gehry Technologies, I was amazed - Think about it, there aren't too many 80 year olds who can say they embrace digital architectural technology that much to found a company like that!
Not gonna lie, I find the contempt for architectural intellectualism pretty disturbing. Our designs have consequences, and if we don't acknowledge that, then of what value are we as professionals?
The "I don't have to rationalize my moves, I'm an architect!" sentiment really bothers me. It reduces our expertise down to "masters of style" or "taste."
I hate that. Sincerely, I do.
Matias - you, my friend, seem like a bitter man! (and I know bitter men ;-) )
It is all subjective. Personally, I think density and Libeskind buildings improve my city, really transforming it into something progressive and exciting. Others hate density, and you'll get a billion opinions on his museum (though most love it).
The same goes for many Gehry buildings. I love how a single building can have the power to transform a city. That is a lot of talent and a ton of luck.
"Rationalize" is also subjective. If Derrida said to do it, is that rational? If the alley way becomes a corridor through the new building, is that rational? "Intellectualism" is also subjective. I care more about "talent" than I do about "rational" work. Show me something that moves me, show me something that inspires me. That's why I came to this profession. I left because of many reasons, including too much ass kissing (at the top), too little pay and too "rational" for the majority of the work (that word = boring to me, mostly).
Architecture is a fashion statement on a grand scale. Some bad taste, some good, just like anything designed. You can talk about it or not, but on the larger scale it really doesn't matter what you say.
Bitter man? Likely. Most probable, actually.
But, with this one phrase: It is all subjective. You have just completely de-legitimized the entire profession. And with this phrase: Architecture is a fashion statement on a grand scale. You completely re-inforced our uselessness.
Take that line of thinking to its logical conclusion. You're one step away from declaring all architectural solutions equal. You are one step away from giving architects carte-blanche and complete immunity from having to defend their work.
Why even bother with the design process if it is all subjective? Why even bother refining our solutions if it's all just a fashion statement? Why even bother creating new solutions if it's all relative? Why even bother coming up with schemes and ideas if its just a fashion statement? Why even bother having design reviews and critiques if all solutions are relative?
Why even bother hiring an architect? If it's all subjective, then any schmuck off the streets should be able to come in and design something worthwhile, because it's all relative, right? It's just a fashion statement, right? So as long as someone out there finds it interesting, it's accomplished its goal and is therefore a success, right?
oh come on, . Matías ., pump the brakes, brotha!
saying architecture is subjective and a fashion statement is not one step from ' ... declaring all architectural solutions equal.'. quite the opposite, actually.
why do you hire an architect? if you're looking for good design that you (subjectively) like you hire an architect based on previous work. you could randomly hire '.. schmuck(s) off the streets' but that would take too long and too much money before you hit the random design genius aimlessly walking around out there.
you started those a.r.e. exams yet?
Haha. Whoa! I think we need to sit down and drink some very, very strong liquor
" If it's all subjective, then any schmuck off the streets should be able to come in and design something worthwhile, because it's all relative, right?"
Yeah, that's completely true. Talent is more important, imho, than learned skills. There are intangibles that can be brought to the surface with a good education, but without a seed in there somewhere to start, there won't be a flower.
And yeah, I think fashion is incredibly important in our world. Considering a fashion designer, even a model, will make a thousand fold what an architect will, as well as command respect from everyone, everywhere (generally speaking), I'd say that's a pretty good compliment to architecture.
[I said fashion statement, you added the "just"]
Furthermore, I think this is the complete opposite of equality. Some can create superb pieces of architecture with no formal education, others can go to Harvard for a decade and still design crap.
If there was no fashion component, no pure/raw talent, it would be God awful(ly) boring! And, indeed, most of the time it is. Yes, subjective. I like blue, maybe you like red. Toast to diversity in our lovely world! Cheers!
The creative field has always been, is, and will always be subjective. Subjective to each humans individual perception.
In fact, sometimes, we as architects think we know best - Architecture without architects has some of the most meaningful, most creative design solutions to problems we dont even know exist.
Like trace said, Some can create superb pieces of architecture with no formal education, others can go to Harvard for a decade and still design crap!
matias--i am all for architectural intellectualism. i just think the toolkit that comes with our discipline is rich and more than sufficient for addressing consequences, problems, ideas, etc....through architecture. if you are a painter, you paint, and you take on the problems you take on through painting. same goes for writers, who are not expected to justify their ideas using, say, visuals. i don't think expressions of style and taste are enough by any means, but i also don't think an architect should have to prove his/her intentions by writing long theoretical treatises when his or her position should be readily evident in his/her WORK.
elinor,
I actually agree with a lot of what you say. I just don't care for the subjective arguments, because it allows for designers to escape their responsibility to critically examine their design choices. Personally, I don't have a problem with an architect choosing material A over material B as a cladding or whatever, because the end result is often of little consequence (for the most part, anyway). But when it comes to bigger moves, such as the allotment of public space, or how the building meets the street,etc, the designer shouldn't be let off the hook just because he or she feels that their choices are subjective.
Does Gehry have to defend his work through written work or lectures? No, of course not. I'm not suggesting that he should have to. But he shouldn't be able to evade criticism, either. It just seems like so many moves (big moves) are arbitrary, so I find them hard to defend because I don't really see the added value other than making a cool object. I get that he uses state-of-the-art technologies and all that jazz, but what is compelling him to make the moves he makes? I know that his projects are are complicated and detailed, I would just like to see that same rigor front-loaded in his process when he's coming up with his schemes.
trace, I wasn't trying to come off as rash, but to your point about talent being more important than learned skills, well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You argue that talent comes first, which is pretty chicken vs. egg, so I won't really argue with that.
But you also make the argument that someone without architectural experience may be able to make a significant contribution to the field. That may be true. But I'd still place my bet 9 times out of 10 on the person with the work ethic and experience over the person without the training to produce something worthwhile. That education has gotta be worth something. At least, I hope so.
that "escape from responsibility" is exactly what im looking for. I agree that a building has certain requirements that must be met, but after that is where the real creativity begins. And i dont understand why during this creative process i must have a reason for all of my decisions
I recall when Mayne was showing us Diamond Ranch and the school board was asking about what this huge, cantilevered piece of metal, 20+ feet of the ground, serving no "real" function.
His answer to them "that's architecture".
Sure, you could write a book about how it continues the formal expressions, brings pedestrian movement through the space, defined areas without creating physical limitations, I could go on and on.
Yeah, I think talent is the important one. Anyone can acquire learned skills, but so few have real, raw talent. Like music, a billion people can learn some chords, play a guitar, but so few can really make a song. Same for painting, or anything creative.
I look at architecture as #1 a creative endeavor and #2 serving a purely rational function. And this is partly why I left the traditional career path. People need warehouses, but I don't feel compelled to create them.
And of course education is crucial for 99% of the people. Myself, and countless others I've known, would never have discovered any talent if it wasn't coerced out of us and brought to the surface by exceptional professors and great teaching. I would never diminish the significance or contributions of talented professors (yes, you can be a superb professor and still not be a great architect or designer, at least imho).
While the profession is not for me, in a traditional sense, I do cherish my education and love architecture. I just prefer the creative side of it (and, to keep blabbing, intuition and talent doesn't necessarily mean arbitrary, one person can simply get a better feel for something while the other creates some book, but fails to understand the simple experience of space).
"Yeah, I think talent is the important one. Anyone can acquire learned skills, but so few have real, raw talent. Like music, a billion people can learn some chords, play a guitar, but so few can really make a song. Same for painting, or anything creative." trace™
totally disagree. the greeks were better at formulating opinions. this capitalist-romantic blahblah is a soul-poverty of excess
i admire Lauf's concept of plaibility in the work of Gehry's architecture (this was raised in the peter's canon thread i think). I don't know whether its a truthful concept, but its a pleasant concept, an open non claustrophobic one that is an easy-even nonchalant- subject to ambiguity, not one that intractably -but fultilely- subjects ambiguity to discursion (eisenman) or one that seeks to subvert it and use it as its own means (minimalism). very californian laid back (and i don't mean the hollywood apocalyptic artifice thingie in cohoots with the hearltss machines of americapitalism ) and i liked california.
what ^^ hate when people feel the need to prove their intelligence by their choice of words (sorry for formulating an opinion)
what ^^ hate when people feel the need to prove their intelligence by their choice of words (sorry for formulating an opinion)
ohnokono, i don't wish to prove anything to anyone here. and if you really think its my intention to prove my intelligence here this way then i tell you its your unintended stupidity that leads you to think so.
ohnokono, you seem to be looking at him as the architect he is now.
Frank Gehry started off just like anyone else: an angry young practitioner hungry for work.
He then befriended artists, as that was his trip, and avoided (or was marginalized by) his architect peers like the Rangers and the 5. His association with artists* Pablo and Salvador most likely proved a very effective conduit in making architecture (ie his own house) that was non-disciplinary, and wholly unique.
Finding welcome in the '89 Deconstructivist Architecture exhibition gave him a role in the contemporary arch milieu and sets up a kind of east coast west coast discourse* (Eisenman tells him wise-guy-style he needs to 'lose a finger').
Now a middle-aged guy with some critical success, he's feted by Disney, then Vitra, and has several opportunities to build ideas that have already come to foment in his early experiments (the piscine forms).
CATIA, and the Guggenheim in Bilbao.
He rules the capitalist market as a consumer brand. I don't think he meant for this to happen - he just wants to build.
*This is a timeline that is heavily skewed and most likely incorrect. Lately I've been trying to not rely so heavily on google searches. I worked for the man pre-boom, and really liked it. I should also mention he was smart in his hiring - excellent support crew.
I think what ohnokono was alluding to was tammuz wordy explanation (which, sorry to say, I stopped reading at "...concept of pliability...". Sorry, I just want to appreciate the architecture for the experience, Gehry for his success and creating a true image for architecture.
jj - I agree he just wanted to build, I think most passionate architects want that. The fact that he has been a pioneer and successful business man on top of it is just icing on the cake.
Thanks for the beautiful pliancy of Palace of Ottopia - what I previously thought quite crystalline in its first iteration (it references Terragni, correct?)
Sorry for dumbing down the conversation(3rd semester in architecture) and i will try to keep up with language being thrown around on this thread so here it goes.
I can totally agree with most of what has been said previously about Gehry's Architectonic pliancy as being his claim to fame. However, does anyone have an opinion on whether or not his lack of theoretical explanations has led to his "more mature repertoire" as emergency exit wound put it. And does anyone have an opinion on whether strict theoretical explorations promotes or discourages what ever it is that Frank Gehry seems to capture in his work.
(straight answers are encouraged)
Stephen; I did not understand your concept of pliability/pliancy only in literal surface-curving manner but rather as an unfettered and "easy" coalescence/continuum of heterogenous (or at least heterogensly formed/directed) spaces and the laissez-faire imagination behind it. somehow, there is an anti-stringent openness in the method. and this fluidity of creation you posit against the hyper punctuated (even hyphenated ..in the sense that architecture is the pedantic figurative or analogical expose' of something other than architecture) thought process and compulsive-semiotics of eisenman's architecture and method. please correct me if i'm wrong.
trace™, no need to apologize. there is no burden on you to read or to comprehend.
You're right tammuz, silly of me to focus on the architecture itself. Carry on.
Now, back to architecture...FOG doesn't burden his designs with some lengthy discourse. It is about experience, it is about materials and space. So to your question, yes, I think that it is possible miss one objective while pursuing another (as in missing the architecture while pursuing the theory). He prioritizes the design, experience and space and let's the end result stand on its own.
im sorry but i do not completely follow, i would love to read your paper @emergency exit wounds
Has anyone here seen the Gehry documentary? It shows him in his design studio randomly crumpling and stacking paper until he has a form that he is pleased with.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446784/
IMO, He is a large scale sculptor who also fits building programs inside his creations.
I am compelled to point out that Tammuz's architecture is bound to reach a limited audience (if any) if it reflects his writing styles' lack of ability to hold our attention. I didn't finish reading any of the posts, but do agree with one point, and I quote, "Blahblah" .
@Matias, Gehry has a different process, his success is that his design gets built and the building (structurally and programmatically) works, most of the time. If people want Gehry they get Gehry, what does he have to explain?
i would still be interested to learn more about eisenmans and gehrys work and how you compared the two
onkn - Eisenman has some great books. While I admit to a big *yawn* at rambling "theory", I did, at one point (in school) find his books inspirational. My personal favorite, I think, was Diagram Diaries (and he was a master at the diagram, both models and drawings, an art form istelf).
You could probably make a convincing argument that if he was a little less "over-the-top" (to keep this all in reality-speak) and spent more time/energy on architecture, he would have more built. Perhaps not, but could be an interesting paper (and probably get you kicked out of school, as the hard core theorists need schools to have a job).
For Gehry, you really need to visit his buildings, #1, walk through his office, talk to his engineer. It is quite fascinating from each of those perspectives and so far different from Eisenman (though the "reality" is far different from the "theory", imho).
If you can't do those, study the photos, watch the videos. It is about space and experience and his raw talent as a sculptor and business man. He's created a team that can execute his unique visions, which, unto itself, is quite a success.
some have talent (naturally)
some have to learn about re-creating talent (intellectually)
some have both - usually genius
you can't teach talent, you can only teach talent to be better.
you can teach faking talent.
the overwhelmy dislike for eisenman is - he's really fake
"Actually im fully West Coast, my teachers advise me not to look at his work because we are forced to explain all the moves that we make and he just has an idea and executes it without having a complex theory to explain himself."
@ohnokono, As mentioned above I would recommend visiting his buildings. I find it strange that none of you studio instructors directed you towards his earlier works. When I was at USC, our profs. made studio trips to many of Gehry's pre-Bilbao/WDCH projects. If you are in L.A. I would highly recommend visiting them:
Frances Howard Goldwyn Hollywood Regional Library
Loyola Law School
Edgemar Center
Danziger studio ( private studio, but you can still see it from the outside)
The Geffen Contemporary
Team Disneyland Adminstration Building
Let's end this moot debate right here and now:
http://perspectives.3ds.com/design/frank-gehry-shares-catia-secret/
Gehry has been accepted as a popular/celebrity starchitect since Bilbo was brought back to life by him single-handly.
He is sued by MIT for some design flaws his firm made.
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2010/04/three-years-after-suing-gehry-mit-settles-with-architect-in-stata-center-dispute-.html
No one is perfect, nor anyone should be.
Personally, everyone should be jealous or insecure because he is so much ahead of EVERYONE in adopting 3D construction document. He is not the same school of intellectual architecture. Do not compare apples to oranges.
comparing apples to oranges:
ok so after listening to all the different opinions on this thread, im getting the overall feeling that architects(atleast on this forum and some of my teachers) think of Gehry as somewhat undeserving in his fame. Also the way that he portrays himself is fake. is this way off or is there some truth to it?
and my second question as a student is what is the purpose of theory? other than to establish yourself amongst other architects?
I second Ovalle's recommendation to visit early projects, and that's a good list, to which I would add the Spiller Duplex.
Unfortunately, my very favorite of his --the fantastic Santa Monica Place shopping center-- is no more.
santa monica place is your very favorite? why (serious question)?
sure, it was better than 99% of shopping malls out there .. but out of all his work it's your favorite?
He is sued by MIT for some design flaws his firm made.
This is a massive, massive understatement and it is utterly sickening how he plays it off like someone specified the wrong door pulls. The design and detailing errors that were made on the stata center are in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars range to fix.
Whether or not it was Gehry that ignored consultants is up for debate. I wasn't in the room at the time. However, if I end up over my head technically, I hire a (competent) consultant ASAP. If an owner is cost-cutting my design to pieces, it is surely my responsibility to step in at some point and say, "What you are suggesting undermines the safety of the occupants and I can no longer participate in this project."
Gehry did no such thing. He continued with the project and collected his $15 million. As a licensed professional, he is spineless- he is nothing more than the personal embodiment of a brand. Our designs have consequences, as someone upthread mentioned- sometimes they are social, sometimes they are environmental, and sometimes they are technical.
My apologies for derailing the thread- I've tried to avoid this thread as I have a particular distaste for this sculptor, his managing architects, and his horrific CATIA plug ins.
If someone gets Hollywood level adulation, they should also get Hollywood level scrutiny. Gehry's failures have not been widely enough broadcast or discussed.
Frac,
Some of the affection is personal, admittedly. All the Christmas shopping done there, for years. (An amazing Santa's village in the central atrium, too). Muchos margaritas overlooking the Pacific at Tampico Tilly's. (Shurrrr, I'll have another one... where are my keys?) And then there was some AIA or other architectural event there, attended by none other than former Catwoman Julie Newmar... when people still knew who she was.
But I digress, big-time.
It's also the only building of his which I knew with familiarity. I went there a lot. The stepped section worked very well. (Very Galeria, in the Milan sense as well as Encino.) The askew cruciform plan made good sense on that block amid the 4 big dumb corner footprints (parking structures and dep't stores). The west-facing terraces overlooking the ocean were successful and attractive dining spots (at least for a while). And --as an architect coming up in the early 80s-- the basic (but I think elegant) language of simple white piers and walls, stainless steel railings, white steel gable shed and skylights, and acres of that brick red quarry tile... just came together for me. It worked in the urban fabric as well, the cross-plan connecting major mid-block points on all sides.
Ya got me goin' there!
Oh, and lest I be accused of sycophancy, I detest a lot of his later stuff. Many of his models remind me of six-packs of diet coke left in the microwave for several minutes.
But that's just me.
great wal-mart level architects also make leaky buildings but they don't make great architecture.
buildings shouldn't leak no arguments there but if that's all you got then lets stop talking about it. like it don't like it, what else is there to say with gehry?
Gehry came to Architecture from the Art World, not the theoretical world. Both have theoretical components as well as components from the Art World. They are both valid. The theorists, I think, are a varied bunch in terms of what they offer. Overall, I think the profession is disappearing and having it as a focus at Arch school without a serious technical literacy is a grave mistake. You can have both. They are not mutually exclusive. Understanding what the sculptor Richard Serra says about Architecture is just as important as understanding how the "perfect" building section performs in terms of moisture and temperature control.
We educators need to encourage that.
Zaha Hadid is similar to Gehry. So are Herzog and de Meuron. They come from the Art World.
What's on the surface? Gehry's accomplishment in terms of project delivery is AWESOME and dwarfs that of most of his peers.
Have you seen the doug fir fence on the rear of his house in Santa Monica?
If you can design a building that looks like crumbled papers or microwaved diet coke, and have someone pay for the cost and pay your commission, then I say you go ahead, but you will probably say, nah that's not my style.
I will say even if it is your style, you still can't do it. Only a few people in the world can do what Gehry, Hadid, Herzog and Meuron do.
Architecture cannot be taught directly unless it is technical, so why not focus on technical solutions and softwares. Architectural theories are good mind games on paper but useless in real life--we all know it is bullsh*t but no one will admit it publicly. Too much bullsh*t destroys students' creativity.
Sure, architectural languages are useful in debates. If someone tries to fuc* with your design with bullshi*s you can fight back with fancy sentences. But in the end few clients can fail to see it is bullsh*t.
You got to be honest. I think Gehry is honest, because he doesn't talk about bullsh*t. Maybe he cannot, he was taught at a time when Modernism wasn't fully developed on the West Coast.
I don't know. I have a feeling Gehry will always be controversial because he is so, so, so different from the extremely conservative convention called architecture catering for the rich, almost exclusively.
So it is what the rich people want, and they want Gehry. Vote with your money.
it is interesting so many think gehry came to archtiecture through art. he was a commercial architect for years, trained by victor gruen (invented the american shopping mall, etc), and more or less a traditional california modernist for about 20 years. He was quite successful as far as I can tell in that phase of his career too. His work slowly changed into what we know him for today but it ain't nothing like what he used to do. Quite amazing transformation truth be told. don't think anyone else could have done it.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.