The author claims Pei's Louvre addition is a deliberate act of cultural vandalism. Mr. Pei "is responsible for creating a constant disturbing tension between the pyramid and the courtyard that compromises the beauty of each. Pei might say that he intended to create this tension. But by what right did he spoil the view of that magnificent space?"
Wall Street Journal
7 Comments
I love Simmons Hall and think it's so absurdly geeky that it's brilliant.
That Gehry at Bard, on the other hand, looks ridiculous.
I just hope the publication of this book - and the current popularity of architect-bashing - doesn't make people stop taking risks.
or the gehry around the corner from simmons hall (the stata center) is equally ridiculous.
but gehry himself acknowledges he's not really an architect (so is he making architecture?)
kurokawa said he was a philosopher, not an architect. but he still made buildings. who cares what he, or gehry says, they are both architects in deed and by evidence of their production...
the premise of the book pretends to be logical but the arguments ultimately come down to style, not actual functional absurdity. i wonder what is NOT absurd by his lites? the louvre was not absurd until Pei's addition? is baroque ok if its "old" baroque? or is all baroque bad? like michelangelo and his absurd super big columns at at. peters...man those things fucking shout absurdity. and they aren't even fuctional!
The reviewer is parroting all the views of this book without any reflection or criticism of his own - a second rate publicity piece for a book that sounds a bitter attack on architects.
There is a case to be made against salesmen-architects (like Danny) when their product is not what they describe, but here the author has lumped together a colourful bunch of complaints and made the architect the villain in all cases. Le Corbusier responsible for the destruction of old cities and the raising of concrete ghettos? More likely, the pragmatic, sensible builders (respected by the author) who used modern means to build as cheaply as possible as much as possible.
Just blaming architects ("theory-speakers") and progressive-minded institutions sounds like an attack on the nerd-squad; very unlike a critical (and always needed) survey of the ways we destroy and build architecture and cities - and yes, sometimes end up with absurdities.
yeah, helsinki. should we even consider that article a review? it almost feels like a press release.
despite the positive point-of-view of the article, it's now made me less interested in reading this book than i was before.
The pyramid is a nice freemasonic symbol. They are just letting the plebs know whos really in control, by ruining a nice courtyard.
this guy must have a personal vendetta against architects or something. this reminds me of what thom mayne said, everyone is obsessed with the cutting edge...cars, electronics, computers...etc. but why not architecture?
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.