The transformation of the museum into an a sort of economic stimulus engine, has more frightening consequences than Nicolai Ouroussoff suggests in his recent New York Times Magazine article--If You Build It, Will They Come?
"Still, however fashionable it is to attack the wave of new architectural monuments as part of a shallow effort to attract tourist dollars, many of these designs involve some sort of sincere effort to repair a torn urban fabric. " (Ouroussoff, the NYT article)
one thing, among others, is that architecture is becoming a panacea for urban spectacle much the way it was for social housing during the pre and post war periods. what will happen if that history repeats itself with cultural institutions? the role of the architect will be deminished further! so go forward lemmings and jump with the rest.
John, I was just asking you to explain your word choice. I think the economic dimension of starchitecture (which plays itself out more often than not nowadays in the architecture of cultural institutions) is interesting because I wonder what it means for the rest of us.
Museums and cultural institutions in the US are largely private and run on donations/grants/admissions fees. These places rightly want ways to solidify their (usually shaky) economic foundations. Meanwhile, cities by and large each want their own "Bilbao effects", where they try their best to ratchet up their uniquenesses (which is hard to do if you're somewhere like Toledo, which is largely unknown to a global audience)...this all begets the hiring and the work of starchitect offices from Libeskind to Gehry to Pelli and Calatrava and now Sejima.
Architecture as a consumer product is not at all new. Neither is the commodification of art.
You should read this book. My sense is that this is just playing out now at an urban scale with household-name architects.
I see, I think that the implications of this trend shouldn't be imbraced so willingly.
looks like a good book...but after reading debord, delueze, and zizek I'm not sure I need more engagement in why capitalism functions...but how we can prepare for a future beyond it.
I'm not embracing anything. I simply think getting upset/afraid about the existence of starchitecture is unproductive. It exists, and it affects the playing field for the rest of us. There was no magic moment when most of the institutions in question existed outside of the mainstream.
I totally agree (so would debord et al, I'd like to think) what comes next would be more interesting.
no one is putting you on trial (yet). And no one is doubting the facts or for that matter imagining a distant past or future when these relationships were in a perfect state. today, however, architects generally are imagining that the status of the starchitect today is as close to that magical position as possible and that's frightening.
“They have an ambition to not just be a cow town in the Rockies,†Libeskind said. “And so people began to see the museum not just as a building but as part of a whole city. The synergy of these buildings is more important than any one by itself.â€Â
what a fuckin' prick.
i hate the new 'ready made culture' trend.
new museums=starbucks
14 Comments
The transformation of the museum into an a sort of economic stimulus engine, has more frightening consequences than Nicolai Ouroussoff suggests in his recent New York Times Magazine article--If You Build It, Will They Come?
frightening?
"Still, however fashionable it is to attack the wave of new architectural monuments as part of a shallow effort to attract tourist dollars, many of these designs involve some sort of sincere effort to repair a torn urban fabric. " (Ouroussoff, the NYT article)
yes frightening
not frightened
one thing, among others, is that architecture is becoming a panacea for urban spectacle much the way it was for social housing during the pre and post war periods. what will happen if that history repeats itself with cultural institutions? the role of the architect will be deminished further! so go forward lemmings and jump with the rest.
well thats because your name is brand avenue. so go shopping will you and leave the fighting to those of us who can write more than two words!
John, I was just asking you to explain your word choice. I think the economic dimension of starchitecture (which plays itself out more often than not nowadays in the architecture of cultural institutions) is interesting because I wonder what it means for the rest of us.
Museums and cultural institutions in the US are largely private and run on donations/grants/admissions fees. These places rightly want ways to solidify their (usually shaky) economic foundations. Meanwhile, cities by and large each want their own "Bilbao effects", where they try their best to ratchet up their uniquenesses (which is hard to do if you're somewhere like Toledo, which is largely unknown to a global audience)...this all begets the hiring and the work of starchitect offices from Libeskind to Gehry to Pelli and Calatrava and now Sejima.
Architecture as a consumer product is not at all new. Neither is the commodification of art.
You should read this book. My sense is that this is just playing out now at an urban scale with household-name architects.
I see, I think that the implications of this trend shouldn't be imbraced so willingly.
looks like a good book...but after reading debord, delueze, and zizek I'm not sure I need more engagement in why capitalism functions...but how we can prepare for a future beyond it.
I'm not embracing anything. I simply think getting upset/afraid about the existence of starchitecture is unproductive. It exists, and it affects the playing field for the rest of us. There was no magic moment when most of the institutions in question existed outside of the mainstream.
I totally agree (so would debord et al, I'd like to think) what comes next would be more interesting.
no one is putting you on trial (yet). And no one is doubting the facts or for that matter imagining a distant past or future when these relationships were in a perfect state. today, however, architects generally are imagining that the status of the starchitect today is as close to that magical position as possible and that's frightening.
Gee, speaking ofstarchitects
is this an indictment of my veracity?
“They have an ambition to not just be a cow town in the Rockies,†Libeskind said. “And so people began to see the museum not just as a building but as part of a whole city. The synergy of these buildings is more important than any one by itself.â€Â
what a fuckin' prick.
i hate the new 'ready made culture' trend.
new museums=starbucks
updated link to piece
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/travel/tmagazine/24ouroussoff.html
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.