Gehry is 80 some yrs old. He went to school right after WWII. Modernism was not a part of west coast architectural higher education system by then, not yet. If he went to Harvard instead of USC he might have become more modernist like the rest. There is a BIG difference in culture and everything between SoCal and the Northeast.
Gehry has a degree in Urban Planning from Harvard. Also, I think you're a bit off when you pontificate about "theory." It's there whether you want it to be or not. Whether or not it is on the surface is another story.
Have you finished Architecture school?
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.
more thoughts...honestly i think gehry's architecture - in hindsight- is more anti-controversial than controversial. there is little to indicate in it a care to delve into the -maybe intractable-modernist intellectualization over surface and structure and whatnot. i'm not saying that it doesn't offer its own position on the subject, but its not an intellectual and distanced/tentative one. i don't understand how, beyond breaking out as a paradigm of his own, Gehry could be seen as being controversial - he is one of the most american (in the non protestant non quaker-ish non irish catholic manner) of architects - a gershwin of architecture. yes, i feel it has to do with his being jewish as well (particularly in being a second generation american jewish person). like gershwin, he is both accessible yet paradigmatic, very conscious of what it means to be american as well as having a subliminal but not pedantic resonance with the contemporary larger-than-america culture.
Gehry went to Harvard for Urban Planning for a year then dropped out.
Architecture theories exist, only inside the field of architecture itself. It has little connection to the everyday people.
That is exactly why Gehry is so loved by the populations around the world. He has no theories to blow around. Just interesting shining toyish buildings. Now who does not like toys?
Could Ferrari be Ferrari without its curves?
Would anyone buy a Ferrari without its shell? Just a functional skeleton? Or maybe with a shell from Ford?
Theories are fine in school, like philosophies, that help you to learn logics and physiology, but the future belongs to technologies and social designs. It's better to teach your students how to design green and use latest technologies in the world.
Architecture theories are way too subjective that if you learn to think like your instructor you will get a better grade than think independently. That's also true in art and to some extend most of non-science subjects. But at least you have more freedom with art to make art happen than to make architecture happen.
Architecture theorists need to re-think about their limited success in creating like-able architecture. Because un-likable architecture die rather quickly---torn down.
So if FG has no theories to blow around and is technically incompetent (my consulting fee thanks him for that)- why is he even in this business if he is only making shiny objects?
How he continues to be deified is beyond me.
I'm one of the most technically oriented people on this board, and I still think that theory is a critical component of being an architect that should not be ignored. I think that focusing on it exclusively in academia can be catastrophic, however. As someone upthread mentioned (miles perhaps? The man usually speaks truth) the key is in the balance between the theoretical and the technical. They are not mutually exclusive skill sets.
Gehry is in this business only because we say he is. Maybe he is in an entirely different business---Giant Sculptures used as buildings business? Archisculpture?
I like most of his work as art. He should be given credit for making artistic buildings.
He is also prolific at age 80+.
I don't know him but I think he gets offended easily. He hated Glen Howard Small because Small joked around him in a conference.
I think he is heavily influenced by Richard Serra.
Does he have a biography? How did he become so successful anyway?
At least he has raised awareness of architecture in the public.
Theory has its place in architecture. But it certainly does not, for Gehry's extremely form-driven work. He is extremely clear that his work is a response to the clients' needs, budget and how it looks.
Tammuz, ever been to a construction site? If you do, you will have the " subliminal but not pedantic resonance with the contemporary larger-than-america culture." beaten out of you in a day.
gehry has practiced longer than most folks and technically is pretty ahead of the curve. whatever the failures they hardly define him anymore than the stuff above defines him.
gehry was without doubt a modernist in the 1950's and 1960's in california. He was also pretty pragmatic about what he built and never a theory junky. It took him about 20 years to move away from the commercial work but when he did it was out of some personal interest not because of a theory he read in a book. I don't think he was out on a limb by himself as lots of other architects were pursuing similar things, but he certainly went off in a unique direction in the end. Perhaps that is why he is so revered and disliked. but still no theory to speak of. my own feeling is that he started pragmatic and never left that practice so there was no need to justify his work any more than when he was doing generic commercial work. doesn't mean he ain't an amazing architect.
I became closely familiar with Gehry's architecture while doing some minor replacement and repair work in this house below and doing a detached building on the property. The bridge design is by yours truly (ahem), after successfully arguing with others and more mannerly designs on the table, that it should be utterly utilitarian and simple as to not fight with the house but be a part of it as if it was always there. The new bridge was necessitated ten years after the original and not very good one fell apart. I was very fortunate to get to know his work from this period when he was working with common materials palette and letting space, light, ease and plan to do the rest. The house is one of his best and absolutely beautiful and livable. Gehry knows his stuff intuitively. Spatially, he speaks volumes. I have worked on couple more residential projects of his after they were built. Those and other commercial projects I have been to around California, I don't recall feeling any less than great and un-claustrophobically spacious and free in any of them. He also always manages to make them unpretentiously experiential. I think he is someone who would walk away from the design if it doesn't feel right to him and start over.
Photos by OA
The problem is that many people like to think all he does is jazzy projects some clients ask him to do for their "put us on the wow map" request. I have criticized him for few things myself, but never shied away from recognizing his talent and legacy. And yes, when I was a student, his career was just taking off with small projects and he was a hugely humble person with a truck driver double persona and fun to talk to. I rather hear Gehry say few words than reading page after page of some others' deeply self important quasi theoretical bullshit.
nice work orhan, and nice post! i agree with your take on his approach too. i've only seen a few of his projects in person, including the project he did in kobe that he says he hates but i still like. very jealous you got to work on the work directly.
From John Silber's book, Architecture of the Absurd (2007) (recommended):
"The problem with architecture, Gehry complains, is that 'there are sort of rules about architectural expression, they have to fit into a certain channel. Screw that. Doesn't mean anything. I'm going to do what I do best, and if it's no good, the marketplace will deny it.' "
Implicitly by his own admission, his work is not architecture. Of course it is, which only illustrates the state of anarchy architecture is currently in.
He's making sculptures at the scale of buildings...then applying an 'architectural' layer to them.
We can at least all say that he is a designer, who happens to be known for his building designs.
Talking about anarchism in architecture, I am involved with Occupy Wall Street. Modernism has so far failed to do what its founding fathers intended to do, which was to transform the society to better serve the people. However as soon the modernists immigrated to the U.S., they sold their souls to the rich and corporations.
Philips Johnson had called architects prostitutes---anything for a buck.
Some people have called for professionalization of architects, requiring licensing upon completing a PhD in architecture with at least 1 year of professional residency.
The current IDP, Intern Development Program is ridiculous, because firms are not obligated to train anyone who may or may not stay with them in the long run. What is the incentive for IDP for employers?
It is time to Occupy Architecture. The system is not working when half of the architects are unemployed, and the rest under-employed.
The low standard of living of architects, low wage, long hours, job insecurity, is just one of the reflections of the failure of modern architecture profession---and the failure of Modernism movement as a whole.
Why should Gehry respect Modernism, when I don't even respect it myself?
samelolddoctor, I have been working almost exclusively on site for three to four years now. on tower buildings (three so far), alongside very hardcore contractors. i suggest you stuff your xmas stockings down your cyber throat prior to launching your inane missiles. kindly direct your insipid vitriol elsewhere. but, i can also appease you were you working on site bevause i hae a very good gift of knowing how to tailor my words to suit the idiot i'm talking to (no, many on site - including the great labour force for whom i have endless respect for- are not idiots)
dear Orhan. while i understand the gist of your post i fail to appreciate the overtones of this:
"I rather hear Gehry say few words than reading page after page of some others' deeply self important quasi theoretical bullshit."
of course, i would enjoy hearing gehry's few words as well if i had a chance to. but you single out gehry and you pit him against a generic negative example of "theory". why this polarity of a singular instance of greatness in one field being pitted against a generalization of banality in another (architecture/writing on-about architecture)? one might ask: would you not prefer to read an intelligent and intruiging "theoretical" paper on some aspect of architecture rather than being in a really miserabley designed house or cafe' or..prison? the fact that you have chosen to solely highlight the negative generic within "theory" (i will come back to that in a sec) and opposed it to good architecture is evidence of you having fallen prey to the really quite tired and silly and ever so booooring cliche being touted by zitty architecture students and architectural vultures and just the regular bunch of haters alike. theory vs architecture. no, i dont admire that - no it doesn't make you cool even if you still have enough hair to wear it emo-style :o) yes, i know your defense - that this is simply a ..what do they call it in philosophy..contingent...or casual..whatever...a casual statement you made (you dont like banal literature vs you like good architecture) that does not deny its flipped over reverse. nonetheless, you know very well that your voice is being heard here -w amongst these many many vultural and stupid voices which - on this thing- resonate with yours (i am nto calling your voice stupid- i respect your sense of style, the west calls it "old world", whatever.. i get it - just your nodding mouth frothing audience)
in my useless, non academically qualified non-professionally significant opinion, "theory" is open to attack - but not on the basis of this schizophrenic switch theory on and switch it off polarity. in this same opinion, "theory" -as applied to architecture- is a useless word that does not have a semantic unity. it encompasses so many approaches and sensibilities, historically based analysis..creative associations...extra-architectural...intra-architectural...etc. there is theory that is after-the-fact..analytical, a conceptual postmortem of architectural culture. there is prescriptive theory that tends towards the utopic agendas. therefore, there is little use to -and little sense in- attacking this hybrid monster. identify exactly what it is that you are against and be astute about it - not this wishywashy nonsense.
orhan, i wonder what you welcomed me back to - there were slightly more intelligent people when i was around. are these people really paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to sound this arrogant about their unsuspected idiocy?
akh, maybe not. maybe they were this way to start with but i was younger and more excitable. playing musical scales is more fruitful than this. elect sameolddoctor as the king fool and carry him on your shoulders for all i care.
this is how i step ; unlike many of you, idiomatic english is not natural to me. its as artificial as the language i'm using. if you don't understand it, just ask me to try and explain. there is no reason for making irrelevant and rude commentary.
by subliminal, i mean that ithe connection with a cosmopolitan cuture is present in the depth and yet it is also non overt, not flamboyant. yes, very american figure but no, jews are not truck drivers (re:orhan on gehry). they understand that america-central is a nation of truck drivers so to please them they play the part. we should not be confused about this; these are largely, in america, very educated people - academically and socially. no, im not bringing in any conspiracy theory or anti-jewriness here, so spare me. i can make conjectures concerning my own peoples as well.
by non-pedantic: this is not underlined and underunderlined. again, against overtness.
you know, again mainly to Orhan..."good/respected" architects create a lot of written bullshit as well. i do not understand how anyone can go through zumthor's writings. they are derivative and unimaginative -and i hear his book goes for thousands of dollars? anyway, i prefer gehry over zumthor even as an architect; conceptually i imagine it smugly slutty in its elementally tentative self-importance (orhan's term) zumthor's architecturing is. to explain - by elementally - where it concerns an architectural element - be it light or material etc. its sort of like someone who is so sensual that whenever anyone or anything touches him or her, s/he moans with pleasure. thats rather yuky. anyway, i digress, naturally.
tammuz, there is a difference between 'quasi' theory than the stuff you are talking about. I had a specific 'local' figure who prints a lot of books out of a school press. I was really referring to him, he was the background noise while writing that particular sentence. But never mind. in fact, I agree with what you say. maybe I should not specifically use 'theory'. and left at "page after page of some others' deeply self important bullshit." I am not stupid enough to trash theory. But I do have an eye for separating bullshit from highly valuable fresh steer manure.
I really didn't want to write about Gehry's fuck ups above except blamed his clients...! Call it biased.. unedited.;.) keep on. i am one of your old fans..
orhan, thats worse than being chastised; i don't know how to deal with this come back but thank you for being a gentleman nonetheless. its not worth all that though, you know...i can only write trash like this because i have nothing to say to people. anyway, gehry on.
gehry was a truck driver for awhile, with his da. that may be as real an episode in his life as ando's times as a professional boxer , but sheesh what's this idea that jews can't work for a living? that ain't about idiosyncratic language, hope you have better excuse.
some years back gehry was part of a conference called the end of architecture that also became a book. it is quite cool to see it now cuz zaha hadid, steven holl, thom mayne, and others of similar stature are all complaining that architecture is dead becasue they can't build anything and no on likes them. gehry makes a comment that they will all feel differently when they get old enough to start building - i had the feeling he was also dismissing their theory laden (non) practices as the outlet of frustration rather than real addition to architecture.
20 years later he seems really prescient. theory has receded from practice and architects are judged on what they build instead. in which case theory is perhaps no longer important. the world is where gehry always was.....
It would be a contribution to the architecture field if Gehry writes a autobiography. Why he has not done so, perhaps because of his own suspicion of the modernists dominated profession.
Modernism after betrayed its own ideal of social reform, became a monster of culture genocide, wiping out hundreds years old monuments, epitomized lost of the Penn Station in the 60's. It is modernism that forced the historical preservation movement.
Gehry, as many other people, should have realized that around the 60's. Modernism simply could not go on, morally.
Robert Venturi rebelled against modernism. Tom Mayne and Howard Small started SciArc around that time too.
Gehry's solution was to use modernism's own idioms against itself. He avoided all decorations and historical references, instead used functional materials but used in strange ways that could not be described with modernism languages.
Gehry bypassed modernism and its languages. He leaped into modern art.
Modern art freed this man.
It is precisely why architecture schools are putting more and more focus on artistic outputs, on fancy-smancy porfolios, on computer graphics, etc, hoping that one of their students will one day become artist-architect like Gehry.
Older institutional schools are quickly falling behind at producing needed architecture graduates because they are too stuck on modernist languages that do not address real life issues such as affordable housing, urban renewal, human scale designs, and even for the high society---truly artistic designs that people want to check out.
Gehry when he moved from Toronto to LA, before going to architecture school, worked for a furniture company, driving to customers' homes to deliver furnitures, presumably in a big truck.
He was not a spoiled rich Jew by any means. He worked his way up, and OUT of the norm.
Gehry's solution was to use modernism's own idioms against itself. He avoided all decorations and historical references, instead used functional materials but used in strange ways that could not be described with modernism languages.
gehry has used decoration and referenced history consistently throughout his career ..
i didn't say he was spoilt; but admittedly i was rash there. regardless, i do believe his being jewish goes beyond gefilte fish metaphors.
galloway, i wasn't the one making a point of a usage of language - in fact, my point is quite the opposite. and i don't see the relevance of your snide "excuse" comment.
re:gehry using modernism against itself - well, not if you figure in the modernist and quite idiosynchratic work of hans scharoun. i don't know if there is a rooted connection between them - but there is a lot of sympathy - in my opinion- between the expressivity and quite convivial eccentricity (in the spatial and volumetric sense - not necessarily as an agenda) of gehry's architecture and that of scharoun's. so no - i wouldn't agree that gehry used modernism (as a design approach) against itself. i don't sense an against-ness in gehry's work. minimalists (a pure strain of modernism one can argue) are far more concerned with against-ness - for instance.
this track of thought brings up the wonderful and late enric miralles to mind. a genius of working with rather than working against.
I don't see any decoration and historical reference in his designs, certainly not postmodern.
I see what I see. It is my personal take. I am not asking anyone to agree with me necessarily.
The fact that modernists dislike him so much, and that given Gehry is very strong-headed albeit soft-spoken, he would fight back with actions of design against those who dislike him.
To think he does not feel the disdain other have put on him, would be impossible, but no figures prominent would make any rude comments publicly toward each other---that would be seen as classless. So the way to fight each other is through their own designs.
I am speculating, just my theories, if you will, I know it is bullsh*t, but at least it is an honest type.
tammuz as far as i can tell you were claiming gehry couldn't drive a truck because he was jewish, etc, wtf? even if english isn't your native language don't think that is good excuse.
Frank Gehry
Gehry is 80 some yrs old. He went to school right after WWII. Modernism was not a part of west coast architectural higher education system by then, not yet. If he went to Harvard instead of USC he might have become more modernist like the rest. There is a BIG difference in culture and everything between SoCal and the Northeast.
Archtak-
Gehry has a degree in Urban Planning from Harvard. Also, I think you're a bit off when you pontificate about "theory." It's there whether you want it to be or not. Whether or not it is on the surface is another story.
Have you finished Architecture school?
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.
more thoughts...honestly i think gehry's architecture - in hindsight- is more anti-controversial than controversial. there is little to indicate in it a care to delve into the -maybe intractable-modernist intellectualization over surface and structure and whatnot. i'm not saying that it doesn't offer its own position on the subject, but its not an intellectual and distanced/tentative one. i don't understand how, beyond breaking out as a paradigm of his own, Gehry could be seen as being controversial - he is one of the most american (in the non protestant non quaker-ish non irish catholic manner) of architects - a gershwin of architecture. yes, i feel it has to do with his being jewish as well (particularly in being a second generation american jewish person). like gershwin, he is both accessible yet paradigmatic, very conscious of what it means to be american as well as having a subliminal but not pedantic resonance with the contemporary larger-than-america culture.
Gehry went to Harvard for Urban Planning for a year then dropped out.
Architecture theories exist, only inside the field of architecture itself. It has little connection to the everyday people.
That is exactly why Gehry is so loved by the populations around the world. He has no theories to blow around. Just interesting shining toyish buildings. Now who does not like toys?
Could Ferrari be Ferrari without its curves?
Would anyone buy a Ferrari without its shell? Just a functional skeleton? Or maybe with a shell from Ford?
Theories are fine in school, like philosophies, that help you to learn logics and physiology, but the future belongs to technologies and social designs. It's better to teach your students how to design green and use latest technologies in the world.
Architecture theories are way too subjective that if you learn to think like your instructor you will get a better grade than think independently. That's also true in art and to some extend most of non-science subjects. But at least you have more freedom with art to make art happen than to make architecture happen.
Architecture theorists need to re-think about their limited success in creating like-able architecture. Because un-likable architecture die rather quickly---torn down.
Archtrak-
So if FG has no theories to blow around and is technically incompetent (my consulting fee thanks him for that)- why is he even in this business if he is only making shiny objects?
How he continues to be deified is beyond me.
I'm one of the most technically oriented people on this board, and I still think that theory is a critical component of being an architect that should not be ignored. I think that focusing on it exclusively in academia can be catastrophic, however. As someone upthread mentioned (miles perhaps? The man usually speaks truth) the key is in the balance between the theoretical and the technical. They are not mutually exclusive skill sets.
Gehry is in this business only because we say he is. Maybe he is in an entirely different business---Giant Sculptures used as buildings business? Archisculpture?
I like most of his work as art. He should be given credit for making artistic buildings.
He is also prolific at age 80+.
I don't know him but I think he gets offended easily. He hated Glen Howard Small because Small joked around him in a conference.
I think he is heavily influenced by Richard Serra.
Does he have a biography? How did he become so successful anyway?
At least he has raised awareness of architecture in the public.
"Theory" is such a subjective word. There are "ideas", and there is "theory".
Creativity is all about "ideas", "theory", not so much (beyond an end unto itself).
Most importantly, I, like the majority of the world, like shiny objects ;-)
Theory has its place in architecture. But it certainly does not, for Gehry's extremely form-driven work. He is extremely clear that his work is a response to the clients' needs, budget and how it looks.
Tammuz, ever been to a construction site? If you do, you will have the " subliminal but not pedantic resonance with the contemporary larger-than-america culture." beaten out of you in a day.
gehry 1961
gehry 1959
gehry has practiced longer than most folks and technically is pretty ahead of the curve. whatever the failures they hardly define him anymore than the stuff above defines him.
gehry was without doubt a modernist in the 1950's and 1960's in california. He was also pretty pragmatic about what he built and never a theory junky. It took him about 20 years to move away from the commercial work but when he did it was out of some personal interest not because of a theory he read in a book. I don't think he was out on a limb by himself as lots of other architects were pursuing similar things, but he certainly went off in a unique direction in the end. Perhaps that is why he is so revered and disliked. but still no theory to speak of. my own feeling is that he started pragmatic and never left that practice so there was no need to justify his work any more than when he was doing generic commercial work. doesn't mean he ain't an amazing architect.
why is this thread so long?
I became closely familiar with Gehry's architecture while doing some minor replacement and repair work in this house below and doing a detached building on the property. The bridge design is by yours truly (ahem), after successfully arguing with others and more mannerly designs on the table, that it should be utterly utilitarian and simple as to not fight with the house but be a part of it as if it was always there. The new bridge was necessitated ten years after the original and not very good one fell apart. I was very fortunate to get to know his work from this period when he was working with common materials palette and letting space, light, ease and plan to do the rest. The house is one of his best and absolutely beautiful and livable. Gehry knows his stuff intuitively. Spatially, he speaks volumes. I have worked on couple more residential projects of his after they were built. Those and other commercial projects I have been to around California, I don't recall feeling any less than great and un-claustrophobically spacious and free in any of them. He also always manages to make them unpretentiously experiential. I think he is someone who would walk away from the design if it doesn't feel right to him and start over.
Photos by OA
The problem is that many people like to think all he does is jazzy projects some clients ask him to do for their "put us on the wow map" request. I have criticized him for few things myself, but never shied away from recognizing his talent and legacy. And yes, when I was a student, his career was just taking off with small projects and he was a hugely humble person with a truck driver double persona and fun to talk to. I rather hear Gehry say few words than reading page after page of some others' deeply self important quasi theoretical bullshit.
nice work orhan, and nice post! i agree with your take on his approach too. i've only seen a few of his projects in person, including the project he did in kobe that he says he hates but i still like. very jealous you got to work on the work directly.
From John Silber's book, Architecture of the Absurd (2007) (recommended):
"The problem with architecture, Gehry complains, is that 'there are sort of rules about architectural expression, they have to fit into a certain channel. Screw that. Doesn't mean anything. I'm going to do what I do best, and if it's no good, the marketplace will deny it.' "
Implicitly by his own admission, his work is not architecture. Of course it is, which only illustrates the state of anarchy architecture is currently in.
He's making sculptures at the scale of buildings...then applying an 'architectural' layer to them.
Gehry designed watch, not bad, kind of fun, like his buildings.
http://uncrate.com/stuff/frank-gehry-positivenegative-watch/
We can at least all say that he is a designer, who happens to be known for his building designs.
Talking about anarchism in architecture, I am involved with Occupy Wall Street. Modernism has so far failed to do what its founding fathers intended to do, which was to transform the society to better serve the people. However as soon the modernists immigrated to the U.S., they sold their souls to the rich and corporations.
Philips Johnson had called architects prostitutes---anything for a buck.
Some people have called for professionalization of architects, requiring licensing upon completing a PhD in architecture with at least 1 year of professional residency.
The current IDP, Intern Development Program is ridiculous, because firms are not obligated to train anyone who may or may not stay with them in the long run. What is the incentive for IDP for employers?
It is time to Occupy Architecture. The system is not working when half of the architects are unemployed, and the rest under-employed.
The low standard of living of architects, low wage, long hours, job insecurity, is just one of the reflections of the failure of modern architecture profession---and the failure of Modernism movement as a whole.
Why should Gehry respect Modernism, when I don't even respect it myself?
http://www.archiquotes.info/architect/78-architects-a-prostitutes
"He also always manages to make them unpretentiously experiential. "
"I rather hear Gehry say few words than reading page after page of some others' deeply self important quasi theoretical bullshit."
- OA
Quotes to end the thread with
samelolddoctor, I have been working almost exclusively on site for three to four years now. on tower buildings (three so far), alongside very hardcore contractors. i suggest you stuff your xmas stockings down your cyber throat prior to launching your inane missiles. kindly direct your insipid vitriol elsewhere. but, i can also appease you were you working on site bevause i hae a very good gift of knowing how to tailor my words to suit the idiot i'm talking to (no, many on site - including the great labour force for whom i have endless respect for- are not idiots)
dear Orhan. while i understand the gist of your post i fail to appreciate the overtones of this:
"I rather hear Gehry say few words than reading page after page of some others' deeply self important quasi theoretical bullshit."
of course, i would enjoy hearing gehry's few words as well if i had a chance to. but you single out gehry and you pit him against a generic negative example of "theory". why this polarity of a singular instance of greatness in one field being pitted against a generalization of banality in another (architecture/writing on-about architecture)? one might ask: would you not prefer to read an intelligent and intruiging "theoretical" paper on some aspect of architecture rather than being in a really miserabley designed house or cafe' or..prison? the fact that you have chosen to solely highlight the negative generic within "theory" (i will come back to that in a sec) and opposed it to good architecture is evidence of you having fallen prey to the really quite tired and silly and ever so booooring cliche being touted by zitty architecture students and architectural vultures and just the regular bunch of haters alike. theory vs architecture. no, i dont admire that - no it doesn't make you cool even if you still have enough hair to wear it emo-style :o) yes, i know your defense - that this is simply a ..what do they call it in philosophy..contingent...or casual..whatever...a casual statement you made (you dont like banal literature vs you like good architecture) that does not deny its flipped over reverse. nonetheless, you know very well that your voice is being heard here -w amongst these many many vultural and stupid voices which - on this thing- resonate with yours (i am nto calling your voice stupid- i respect your sense of style, the west calls it "old world", whatever.. i get it - just your nodding mouth frothing audience)
in my useless, non academically qualified non-professionally significant opinion, "theory" is open to attack - but not on the basis of this schizophrenic switch theory on and switch it off polarity. in this same opinion, "theory" -as applied to architecture- is a useless word that does not have a semantic unity. it encompasses so many approaches and sensibilities, historically based analysis..creative associations...extra-architectural...intra-architectural...etc. there is theory that is after-the-fact..analytical, a conceptual postmortem of architectural culture. there is prescriptive theory that tends towards the utopic agendas. therefore, there is little use to -and little sense in- attacking this hybrid monster. identify exactly what it is that you are against and be astute about it - not this wishywashy nonsense.
orhan, i wonder what you welcomed me back to - there were slightly more intelligent people when i was around. are these people really paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to sound this arrogant about their unsuspected idiocy?
akh, maybe not. maybe they were this way to start with but i was younger and more excitable. playing musical scales is more fruitful than this. elect sameolddoctor as the king fool and carry him on your shoulders for all i care.
must say, having read many a tammuz comment, they can be insightful, stimulating, but at the same time I'm also bewildered at certain moments:
" subliminal but not pedantic resonance with the contemporary larger-than-america culture."
???? do we have to open the dictionary again??
loving the essays tammuz, one does not need an overcooked cryptic vocabulary to establish thought-provoking conversation. get to the point
this is how i step ; unlike many of you, idiomatic english is not natural to me. its as artificial as the language i'm using. if you don't understand it, just ask me to try and explain. there is no reason for making irrelevant and rude commentary.
by subliminal, i mean that ithe connection with a cosmopolitan cuture is present in the depth and yet it is also non overt, not flamboyant. yes, very american figure but no, jews are not truck drivers (re:orhan on gehry). they understand that america-central is a nation of truck drivers so to please them they play the part. we should not be confused about this; these are largely, in america, very educated people - academically and socially. no, im not bringing in any conspiracy theory or anti-jewriness here, so spare me. i can make conjectures concerning my own peoples as well.
by non-pedantic: this is not underlined and underunderlined. again, against overtness.
you know, again mainly to Orhan..."good/respected" architects create a lot of written bullshit as well. i do not understand how anyone can go through zumthor's writings. they are derivative and unimaginative -and i hear his book goes for thousands of dollars? anyway, i prefer gehry over zumthor even as an architect; conceptually i imagine it smugly slutty in its elementally tentative self-importance (orhan's term) zumthor's architecturing is. to explain - by elementally - where it concerns an architectural element - be it light or material etc. its sort of like someone who is so sensual that whenever anyone or anything touches him or her, s/he moans with pleasure. thats rather yuky. anyway, i digress, naturally.
tammuz, there is a difference between 'quasi' theory than the stuff you are talking about. I had a specific 'local' figure who prints a lot of books out of a school press. I was really referring to him, he was the background noise while writing that particular sentence. But never mind. in fact, I agree with what you say. maybe I should not specifically use 'theory'. and left at "page after page of some others' deeply self important bullshit." I am not stupid enough to trash theory. But I do have an eye for separating bullshit from highly valuable fresh steer manure.
I really didn't want to write about Gehry's fuck ups above except blamed his clients...! Call it biased.. unedited.;.) keep on. i am one of your old fans..
orhan, thats worse than being chastised; i don't know how to deal with this come back but thank you for being a gentleman nonetheless. its not worth all that though, you know...i can only write trash like this because i have nothing to say to people. anyway, gehry on.
gehry was a truck driver for awhile, with his da. that may be as real an episode in his life as ando's times as a professional boxer , but sheesh what's this idea that jews can't work for a living? that ain't about idiosyncratic language, hope you have better excuse.
some years back gehry was part of a conference called the end of architecture that also became a book. it is quite cool to see it now cuz zaha hadid, steven holl, thom mayne, and others of similar stature are all complaining that architecture is dead becasue they can't build anything and no on likes them. gehry makes a comment that they will all feel differently when they get old enough to start building - i had the feeling he was also dismissing their theory laden (non) practices as the outlet of frustration rather than real addition to architecture.
20 years later he seems really prescient. theory has receded from practice and architects are judged on what they build instead. in which case theory is perhaps no longer important. the world is where gehry always was.....
maybe
It would be a contribution to the architecture field if Gehry writes a autobiography. Why he has not done so, perhaps because of his own suspicion of the modernists dominated profession.
Modernism after betrayed its own ideal of social reform, became a monster of culture genocide, wiping out hundreds years old monuments, epitomized lost of the Penn Station in the 60's. It is modernism that forced the historical preservation movement.
Gehry, as many other people, should have realized that around the 60's. Modernism simply could not go on, morally.
Robert Venturi rebelled against modernism. Tom Mayne and Howard Small started SciArc around that time too.
Gehry's solution was to use modernism's own idioms against itself. He avoided all decorations and historical references, instead used functional materials but used in strange ways that could not be described with modernism languages.
Gehry bypassed modernism and its languages. He leaped into modern art.
Modern art freed this man.
It is precisely why architecture schools are putting more and more focus on artistic outputs, on fancy-smancy porfolios, on computer graphics, etc, hoping that one of their students will one day become artist-architect like Gehry.
Older institutional schools are quickly falling behind at producing needed architecture graduates because they are too stuck on modernist languages that do not address real life issues such as affordable housing, urban renewal, human scale designs, and even for the high society---truly artistic designs that people want to check out.
Gehry when he moved from Toronto to LA, before going to architecture school, worked for a furniture company, driving to customers' homes to deliver furnitures, presumably in a big truck.
He was not a spoiled rich Jew by any means. He worked his way up, and OUT of the norm.
http://www.archdaily.com/97117/frank-gehry-interview-on-playboy/
Why not lay back and enjoy life, make money while having fun?
Gehry's solution was to use modernism's own idioms against itself. He avoided all decorations and historical references, instead used functional materials but used in strange ways that could not be described with modernism languages.
gehry has used decoration and referenced history consistently throughout his career ..
i didn't say he was spoilt; but admittedly i was rash there. regardless, i do believe his being jewish goes beyond gefilte fish metaphors.
galloway, i wasn't the one making a point of a usage of language - in fact, my point is quite the opposite. and i don't see the relevance of your snide "excuse" comment.
re:gehry using modernism against itself - well, not if you figure in the modernist and quite idiosynchratic work of hans scharoun. i don't know if there is a rooted connection between them - but there is a lot of sympathy - in my opinion- between the expressivity and quite convivial eccentricity (in the spatial and volumetric sense - not necessarily as an agenda) of gehry's architecture and that of scharoun's. so no - i wouldn't agree that gehry used modernism (as a design approach) against itself. i don't sense an against-ness in gehry's work. minimalists (a pure strain of modernism one can argue) are far more concerned with against-ness - for instance.
this track of thought brings up the wonderful and late enric miralles to mind. a genius of working with rather than working against.
I don't see any decoration and historical reference in his designs, certainly not postmodern.
I see what I see. It is my personal take. I am not asking anyone to agree with me necessarily.
The fact that modernists dislike him so much, and that given Gehry is very strong-headed albeit soft-spoken, he would fight back with actions of design against those who dislike him.
To think he does not feel the disdain other have put on him, would be impossible, but no figures prominent would make any rude comments publicly toward each other---that would be seen as classless. So the way to fight each other is through their own designs.
I am speculating, just my theories, if you will, I know it is bullsh*t, but at least it is an honest type.
tammuz as far as i can tell you were claiming gehry couldn't drive a truck because he was jewish, etc, wtf? even if english isn't your native language don't think that is good excuse.
apart from that do carry on.
the influence of Aalto on Gehry, made for some historical references
about as pure postmodern as it gets ..
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.