I want to know who you think that are the greatest architects, including contemporary architects. I also want to know what it is your opinion about this interview with Paul Goldberger. Do you think that Frank Gehry is the best architect of this time? http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10787
I just wanted to know what your opinion is. But if people want to joke. Good luck. Thank you anyway.
Jul 20, 11 11:56 am ·
·
piero,
What do you really think architects would think is the best. Architects are like chefs. They would often think of themselves as the best Architects. It is a race to being the best, didn't you know? Seriously, people in this profession, as with alot of creative professions like fashion design, art, automobile design, etc. - ego is part of the whole thing. People are often in it to be STARS ! ! ! !
The glamor, the fame, the hot chicks (if you're a guy) (if you're a woman, the studs), etc.
Seriously, reevaluate your question. You never will have the same answer. Other than themselves, the best architect is always the ones that inspires or influences them the greatest. You are asking a silly question that has no real contributing meaning. It is just there to throw alot of discussion but no substance because in the end of the day, it really doesn't matter who the BEST architect is. Be yourself and be the best architect you can be.
Jul 20, 11 4:00 pm ·
·
In my opinion, the best architect is the one who serves their client in the best manner. In my opinion, this is a creative profession of serving. If a client comes to you and wants you to design a house that meets project program that is determined, the best architect does the best job possible of meeting the project's program - that is the client's needs, desires, budget and all other considerations that surrounds the project that includes HSW matters, codes, regulations, laws, context, etc. The list goes on. Since it isn't about you. You are not living in the building. The client is.
imhotep, danny libeskind, palladio, aalto/saarinen/koolhaas/loos and anyone else with extra vowels in their name, iktinos and kallikrates, herzog-n-demeuron, stonehenge's druids, tadao ando, bill morris and phil webb, borromini (not bernini), pete zumthor, ustad ahmad lahauri, toyo ito, the greene bros, zaha, frank 'leaky' wright, le corbusier, ed lutyens, mies 'mini' van der rohe, danny burnham, pete eisenman, lou sullivan, john pAwesome, isidore of miletus and (mathematician) anthemius of tralles, neutra, maurice de sully, and last but of course best, frank gehry.
hey Piero (or anybody who thinks Frank Gehry is the greatest architect): please explain the main (entry) staircase of the Bilbao Guggenheim to me?
Not because I don't know what's going on there, but because I can't make my mind up if it's just bad architecture or genius, but extremely insidious stuff.
I don't know that. I am just asking if you think that Frank Gehry is most influential and greatest right now because I saw some interviews with Paul Goldberger, and he said that Frank Gehry is best. I am not saying that Frank Gehry because I like other architects' works too. Such as Norman Foster or Santiago Calatrava.
he is so good everyone hates him, his only failure is all the success he has had. From the decon days in the 80s, in museums, books, technology, the simpsons, practice. He is not much of an intellectual, but he gets things done. And thats why no one like him.
you might as well ask a stadium full of musicians if they like the beatles
Jul 20, 11 9:02 pm ·
·
piero,
Why does the question what architect is the best ? It is just an opinion. There are opinions on this so much that it really doesn't matter. So why do you insist on this question ?
Like popularity contests. It changes by the day. Is this some kind of class assignment. If so, I would like to talk to the instructor or professor and give him/her an ear full. However, since you mentions some TV show. The big question is "Who gives a sh*t".
I respect Gehry and what he's accomplished, though I do think his accomplishments are often exaggerated if not outright misrepresented. Case in point - most people I talk to seem to think architecture didn't involve tiled doubly-curved surfaces prior to Gehry, to which all I have to say is: onion domes.
Back to the Guggenheim entrance:
Monumental staircases, as an important element of a ceremonial, processional experience of architecture serve to remove the subject from the world of the profane, and to bring him/her into the world of the sacred. ( This goes back to the religious role of architecture.) Even without being incorporated into the symbolic program of a temple-front, a monumental staircase has the effect of making someone exert effort to get from point A to point B, thereby increasing importance of point B. One of the effects of this architectural device is to reinforce the power of institutions, setting their status above their subjects or audience.
Now, at the Bilbao Guggenheim, Gehry flips the monumental stair upside down - you descend from the street level into the museum. So, as is appropriate for a democratic society (in which cultural institutions do not have hegemony over public opinions, tastes, desires, etc.) the downward entrance stair suggests ease of access and openness to the public. It retains monumentality by virtue of it's scale. If the architecture of a museum is going to define a contemporary situation (which the Guggenheim did), this is a very intelligent design decision which is consistent with the conceptual ambitions of the project (theoretically the institution is important, but it is tied to the city, and not dominant over the society).
BUT, the step of the staircase in question is rather odd - unless you are a child, or are going down on stilts, you always land on the same foot. For all 50 or so steps! Contrary to what is expected this staircase does not feel effortless, or even easy for that matter.
So, is Frank Gehry making the institution of an art museum seem friendly and accessible, while in reality re-affirming it's power over society? (an insiduous project carried out by a genius) Or is it just poorly executed architecture? (nobody ever bothered to work out a good rise and run)
anyone want to weigh in on this? It's been over a year since I started thinking about this and as originally stated, I still can't make up my mind.
p.s. hey Piero, I'm just asking if you actually think about architecture, or just ask about it.
Because how you enter a building is one of the most important things about it. Any architect knows this. The good ones use this knowledge to produce very specific effects.
as far as i know, gehry's surfaces are not doubly curved. they are all paper surfaces, since metal sheets can only be bent in one direction without kinking. but, beyond onion domes, the baroque, the russian rationalists, and gaudi all experiemented with these kinds of surfaces, and then some. its more in how gehry used his forms than what forms he used that made him original.
funny, i was at the pritzker pavillion the other day for a concert, looking at gehry's beautiful contraption. i was remarking to my girlfriend how something like that would never possibly happen today, even if there was money for it. architecture definitely changes with the times.
Without question, Frank Lloyd Wright. How many Architects produced as much work, (and great work at that), worked as long, and has been written about than Wright.
Most great architects have a few really good buildings and others that range from decent to downright bad. Le Corbusier is an extreme example: his awful Villa Savoye and urban planning designs had wide influence on architecture for decades, yet Ronchamp is without doubt one of the architectural wonders of the world.
There are exceptions of course. But it seems to me that a more meaningful question is what are the best buildings.
Gehry's work is an embarrassment to the profession. Deconstructivism is an empty pseudo-philosophy, pure archibabble. The vast majority of the work is at best corporate branding. The buildings are failures in that they are invariably substantially over-budget, dysfunctional and problematic to maintain. Architectural pop art, and even that is an overstatement.
If Gehry belongs on a list, it would have to be the worst architects of all time, right up there with Michael Graves.
Sorry but Frank Gehry does one thing over and over again, where is the adaptiveness to site, context, and client?? His buildings are most beautiful when in construction, when the pins are built, but the skin is not on. Why not be construction honest?
I suspect the best architect in the world is Charles Luther Polish.
No, you've never heard of him, because why would you?
He was born in Pittsburgh on 4th March 1956. At the age of 19, he built a garden shed, which collapsed and crushed his right foot. The experience put him off the notion of architecture entirely, as he realized he had no desire to accidentally kill anyone.
He spent the rest of his life building matchstick buildings and pop-up books. He got married and divorced in 1976, and in 1987, contracted Malaria in Indonesia. During this time, he sketched an impressive looking, and impossible, New Temple of Solomon, to house the US treasury. It was never published, was hilarious, and by now is almost forgotten.
Upon his death, it was discovered that he had made well over 2,000 sketches, in a massive collection of notebooks and files. Because Polish's buildings were entirely conceptual and utterly ridiculous, he fulfilled a secret ambition that, I suspect, lurks in the heart of every architect. To make the real seem unreal, and to make an Atlantis out of a mundane neighborhood.
Criteria: what architects have influenced the world the most, in the last 100 years
FLW - a given
Mies - I suppose, after reading some of the above posts, but only from a single copied aesthetic influence
Gehry - of the last century, the only architect an average person can name (besides FLW), transcended architecture to make a "name" that is worth something (see Tiffany's jewelry, his furniture, sculptures, etc.). Built a business on his dream and made it work. Pushed avant garde architecture into the "must have" world of desire. Friends with Brad Pitt.
Meier - one of the most copied, if not most copied. Everyone likes him, including my parents, your average Joe, etc. Also created a super successful business from a personal vision.
Calatrava - he's questionable. I love much of his work and his influence on bridge/structural design is unquestionable, but architecture-wise I don't think he's made that big of a difference (not yet anyway).
@Rusty02: You attack Gehry for not being honest as far as construction goes. Yet you opt for Calatrava. As much as I like the sculptural aspects of his work: definitely almost none of it is structurally sound and logic, but a huge exaggeration and distraction of the actual forces at play.
Not that I mind, though. If logic and structural honesty was all there was to architecture, we'd end up with simple stupid boxes everywhere...
Influential is one thing. Great is another. Best is another.
These sorts of conversations really need to be weighed down by some 'practical applicability.'
I'd probably shortlist this to Palladio, Deschamps or Gropius.
Their work is not only pervasive in most cultures worldwide but they created a sort of architecture that's been enjoy by millions, if not billions, of people because it was either made affordable or its durable lifetime is so high that its they've become inexpensive due to depreciation.
I'd also throw in James Gibbs. Georgian architecture is relatively significant due to its spread during the imperial age of England. Aside from being decorative, it's also practical and durable with many examples of Georgian architecture (and its variations like Federalist) still in existence. The considerations placed on construction and fire-proofing lead to a significant increase in quality-of-life.
Just for expanding purely formal architectural issues, I'd put Hadid and Herzog & DeMeuron on the list. Also, no list of modern/contemporary influence should be without Archigram and Superstudio.
The best is a subjective matter. You have to keep the conversation to influence to have anything tangible in the discussion. I'd throw in Aalto and Scarpa among the best (but not most influential). Otherwise, I think sectionalhealing has a pretty respectable list.
I'd buy the argument that Wright may have been a better architect than Mies but to say he is more influential is hard to believe. You can go to any major city and spot Mies's influence without having to walk around the block, which can't be said about Wright or most other great architects of the past hundred years.
Gehry influence reminds me of a lot of Graves when he first made it big then became semi-irrelevant overnight. It remains to be seen but I think Gehry will go down in history like Graves.
Maybe burningman, but if you go out on the streets and ask someone to name an architect, they'd say Frank Lloyd Wright. The man has a certain mystique about him. Above all, he was quintessentially American, and say what you like, American architects have pretty much defined this century.
"Only an architect well-grounded in both theory and practice is properly equipped: able not only to prove the propriety of a design but also able to implement it effectively. For as in other arts, architecture must constantly keep in view the intention and the material used to express that intention. Successful implementation is founded on the imperative that the materials chosen can be worked to completely fulfill their purpose.
This is impossible without mastery of both theory and practice. Consequently, a person not familiar with both of these branches of the art has no pretension to the title of architect."
To me, the art and theory of architecture has always been equally important to how to build it well.
* Incas///Mayans///Sumerians
* Iktinos and Kallikrates
* Palladio
* FLW//Loos///Gropius///Mies///Corb (If I had to pick one, it would probably be Loos)
* Nicholas Negroponte///Archigram
Who are the greatest architects of all time?
I want to know who you think that are the greatest architects, including contemporary architects. I also want to know what it is your opinion about this interview with Paul Goldberger. Do you think that Frank Gehry is the best architect of this time? http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10787
i would put myself amongh them for sure
me too, hello piero
Not sure, but obviously they'd have to be both an architect and a developer.
LOL intotheloop.
I just wanted to know what your opinion is. But if people want to joke. Good luck. Thank you anyway.
piero,
What do you really think architects would think is the best. Architects are like chefs. They would often think of themselves as the best Architects. It is a race to being the best, didn't you know? Seriously, people in this profession, as with alot of creative professions like fashion design, art, automobile design, etc. - ego is part of the whole thing. People are often in it to be STARS ! ! ! !
The glamor, the fame, the hot chicks (if you're a guy) (if you're a woman, the studs), etc.
Seriously, reevaluate your question. You never will have the same answer. Other than themselves, the best architect is always the ones that inspires or influences them the greatest. You are asking a silly question that has no real contributing meaning. It is just there to throw alot of discussion but no substance because in the end of the day, it really doesn't matter who the BEST architect is. Be yourself and be the best architect you can be.
In my opinion, the best architect is the one who serves their client in the best manner. In my opinion, this is a creative profession of serving. If a client comes to you and wants you to design a house that meets project program that is determined, the best architect does the best job possible of meeting the project's program - that is the client's needs, desires, budget and all other considerations that surrounds the project that includes HSW matters, codes, regulations, laws, context, etc. The list goes on. Since it isn't about you. You are not living in the building. The client is.
" the best architect is the one who serves their client in the best manner"
Zee best architect ever!
imhotep, danny libeskind, palladio, aalto/saarinen/koolhaas/loos and anyone else with extra vowels in their name, iktinos and kallikrates, herzog-n-demeuron, stonehenge's druids, tadao ando, bill morris and phil webb, borromini (not bernini), pete zumthor, ustad ahmad lahauri, toyo ito, the greene bros, zaha, frank 'leaky' wright, le corbusier, ed lutyens, mies 'mini' van der rohe, danny burnham, pete eisenman, lou sullivan, john pAwesome, isidore of miletus and (mathematician) anthemius of tralles, neutra, maurice de sully, and last but of course best, frank gehry.
This thread has been around for three days and no one has said "Mike Brady"? Man, the economy really has us all down, huh?
Nice one, rusty.
But do you think that currently Frank is the greatest architect?
hey Piero (or anybody who thinks Frank Gehry is the greatest architect): please explain the main (entry) staircase of the Bilbao Guggenheim to me?
Not because I don't know what's going on there, but because I can't make my mind up if it's just bad architecture or genius, but extremely insidious stuff.
I don't know that. I am just asking if you think that Frank Gehry is most influential and greatest right now because I saw some interviews with Paul Goldberger, and he said that Frank Gehry is best. I am not saying that Frank Gehry because I like other architects' works too. Such as Norman Foster or Santiago Calatrava.
he is so good everyone hates him, his only failure is all the success he has had. From the decon days in the 80s, in museums, books, technology, the simpsons, practice. He is not much of an intellectual, but he gets things done. And thats why no one like him.
you might as well ask a stadium full of musicians if they like the beatles
piero,
Why does the question what architect is the best ? It is just an opinion. There are opinions on this so much that it really doesn't matter. So why do you insist on this question ?
Like popularity contests. It changes by the day. Is this some kind of class assignment. If so, I would like to talk to the instructor or professor and give him/her an ear full. However, since you mentions some TV show. The big question is "Who gives a sh*t".
Why are you so concern about it ?
i like the beatles
abbey road ftw!
wtf abbey road?!?
white album is the BEST!
I respect Gehry and what he's accomplished, though I do think his accomplishments are often exaggerated if not outright misrepresented. Case in point - most people I talk to seem to think architecture didn't involve tiled doubly-curved surfaces prior to Gehry, to which all I have to say is: onion domes.
Back to the Guggenheim entrance:
Monumental staircases, as an important element of a ceremonial, processional experience of architecture serve to remove the subject from the world of the profane, and to bring him/her into the world of the sacred. ( This goes back to the religious role of architecture.) Even without being incorporated into the symbolic program of a temple-front, a monumental staircase has the effect of making someone exert effort to get from point A to point B, thereby increasing importance of point B. One of the effects of this architectural device is to reinforce the power of institutions, setting their status above their subjects or audience.
Now, at the Bilbao Guggenheim, Gehry flips the monumental stair upside down - you descend from the street level into the museum. So, as is appropriate for a democratic society (in which cultural institutions do not have hegemony over public opinions, tastes, desires, etc.) the downward entrance stair suggests ease of access and openness to the public. It retains monumentality by virtue of it's scale. If the architecture of a museum is going to define a contemporary situation (which the Guggenheim did), this is a very intelligent design decision which is consistent with the conceptual ambitions of the project (theoretically the institution is important, but it is tied to the city, and not dominant over the society).
BUT, the step of the staircase in question is rather odd - unless you are a child, or are going down on stilts, you always land on the same foot. For all 50 or so steps! Contrary to what is expected this staircase does not feel effortless, or even easy for that matter.
So, is Frank Gehry making the institution of an art museum seem friendly and accessible, while in reality re-affirming it's power over society? (an insiduous project carried out by a genius) Or is it just poorly executed architecture? (nobody ever bothered to work out a good rise and run)
anyone want to weigh in on this? It's been over a year since I started thinking about this and as originally stated, I still can't make up my mind.
p.s. hey Piero, I'm just asking if you actually think about architecture, or just ask about it.
Because how you enter a building is one of the most important things about it. Any architect knows this. The good ones use this knowledge to produce very specific effects.
as far as i know, gehry's surfaces are not doubly curved. they are all paper surfaces, since metal sheets can only be bent in one direction without kinking. but, beyond onion domes, the baroque, the russian rationalists, and gaudi all experiemented with these kinds of surfaces, and then some. its more in how gehry used his forms than what forms he used that made him original.
funny, i was at the pritzker pavillion the other day for a concert, looking at gehry's beautiful contraption. i was remarking to my girlfriend how something like that would never possibly happen today, even if there was money for it. architecture definitely changes with the times.
Without question, Frank Lloyd Wright. How many Architects produced as much work, (and great work at that), worked as long, and has been written about than Wright.
Palladio... Borromini
"How many Architects produced as much work, (and great work at that), worked as long, and has been written about than Wright."
Toll Brothers.
In terms of influence on buildings throughout history, it has to be:
1) Iktinos and Kallikrates, architects of the Parthenon
2) Palladio
3) The Corb/Mies/Gropius trifecta
Toll Brothers.....LOL! You crack me up!
Most great architects have a few really good buildings and others that range from decent to downright bad. Le Corbusier is an extreme example: his awful Villa Savoye and urban planning designs had wide influence on architecture for decades, yet Ronchamp is without doubt one of the architectural wonders of the world.
There are exceptions of course. But it seems to me that a more meaningful question is what are the best buildings.
Gehry's work is an embarrassment to the profession. Deconstructivism is an empty pseudo-philosophy, pure archibabble. The vast majority of the work is at best corporate branding. The buildings are failures in that they are invariably substantially over-budget, dysfunctional and problematic to maintain. Architectural pop art, and even that is an overstatement.
If Gehry belongs on a list, it would have to be the worst architects of all time, right up there with Michael Graves.
i dig graves (at least the early stuff where he was copying the wonderful villa savoye)
i dig graves. Capitalization fail ;-)
Renzo Piano
Santiago Calatrava
Steven Holl
Sorry but Frank Gehry does one thing over and over again, where is the adaptiveness to site, context, and client?? His buildings are most beautiful when in construction, when the pins are built, but the skin is not on. Why not be construction honest?
gehry's all about site/context/client
and why does construction have to be (structurally?) honest?
If you never been sued, then you're one hell of a rockstar.
Mies. The most influential of the modern era has to be Mies.
FLW was great but his work wasn't anywhere near as imitated as Mies.
Gehry was great for one building. To say he is is the greatest or is about context/site is laughable.
gehry ain't the greatest but is definitely top 10 of the modern era
not getting his response to context/site is laughable
I suspect the best architect in the world is Charles Luther Polish.
No, you've never heard of him, because why would you?
He was born in Pittsburgh on 4th March 1956. At the age of 19, he built a garden shed, which collapsed and crushed his right foot. The experience put him off the notion of architecture entirely, as he realized he had no desire to accidentally kill anyone.
He spent the rest of his life building matchstick buildings and pop-up books. He got married and divorced in 1976, and in 1987, contracted Malaria in Indonesia. During this time, he sketched an impressive looking, and impossible, New Temple of Solomon, to house the US treasury. It was never published, was hilarious, and by now is almost forgotten.
Upon his death, it was discovered that he had made well over 2,000 sketches, in a massive collection of notebooks and files. Because Polish's buildings were entirely conceptual and utterly ridiculous, he fulfilled a secret ambition that, I suspect, lurks in the heart of every architect. To make the real seem unreal, and to make an Atlantis out of a mundane neighborhood.
Then I must be a rockstar ! ! ! !
Frank Gehry and site/context?
I guess Bilbao and downtown LA are contextually identical, then.
LOL.... Oh I get it. The trash on the roads. The bundled up pile of paper. I get it. LOL ! ! ! !
When has ever in the history of Earth ever seen natural landscapes and forms in nature resembling Frank Gehry's work?
The context must be human trash but at a larger scale for many of his works.
I think FLW schooled Mies and a lot of those Europeans thanks to his Wasmuth Portfolio.
Criteria: what architects have influenced the world the most, in the last 100 years
FLW - a given
Mies - I suppose, after reading some of the above posts, but only from a single copied aesthetic influence
Gehry - of the last century, the only architect an average person can name (besides FLW), transcended architecture to make a "name" that is worth something (see Tiffany's jewelry, his furniture, sculptures, etc.). Built a business on his dream and made it work. Pushed avant garde architecture into the "must have" world of desire. Friends with Brad Pitt.
Meier - one of the most copied, if not most copied. Everyone likes him, including my parents, your average Joe, etc. Also created a super successful business from a personal vision.
Calatrava - he's questionable. I love much of his work and his influence on bridge/structural design is unquestionable, but architecture-wise I don't think he's made that big of a difference (not yet anyway).
miles:
u r on the monee! but, how bout a little note on vitruvius........?
@Rusty02: You attack Gehry for not being honest as far as construction goes. Yet you opt for Calatrava. As much as I like the sculptural aspects of his work: definitely almost none of it is structurally sound and logic, but a huge exaggeration and distraction of the actual forces at play.
Not that I mind, though. If logic and structural honesty was all there was to architecture, we'd end up with simple stupid boxes everywhere...
if we're limiting the discussion to the last 100 years, the most influential architects are:
other strong candidates:
weaker candidates:
Influential is one thing. Great is another. Best is another.
These sorts of conversations really need to be weighed down by some 'practical applicability.'
I'd probably shortlist this to Palladio, Deschamps or Gropius.
Their work is not only pervasive in most cultures worldwide but they created a sort of architecture that's been enjoy by millions, if not billions, of people because it was either made affordable or its durable lifetime is so high that its they've become inexpensive due to depreciation.
I'd also throw in James Gibbs. Georgian architecture is relatively significant due to its spread during the imperial age of England. Aside from being decorative, it's also practical and durable with many examples of Georgian architecture (and its variations like Federalist) still in existence. The considerations placed on construction and fire-proofing lead to a significant increase in quality-of-life.
What about Saarinen?
There is Eliel and Eero Saarinen.
Just for expanding purely formal architectural issues, I'd put Hadid and Herzog & DeMeuron on the list. Also, no list of modern/contemporary influence should be without Archigram and Superstudio.
The best is a subjective matter. You have to keep the conversation to influence to have anything tangible in the discussion. I'd throw in Aalto and Scarpa among the best (but not most influential). Otherwise, I think sectionalhealing has a pretty respectable list.
I'd buy the argument that Wright may have been a better architect than Mies but to say he is more influential is hard to believe. You can go to any major city and spot Mies's influence without having to walk around the block, which can't be said about Wright or most other great architects of the past hundred years.
Gehry influence reminds me of a lot of Graves when he first made it big then became semi-irrelevant overnight. It remains to be seen but I think Gehry will go down in history like Graves.
Maybe burningman, but if you go out on the streets and ask someone to name an architect, they'd say Frank Lloyd Wright. The man has a certain mystique about him. Above all, he was quintessentially American, and say what you like, American architects have pretty much defined this century.
Vitruvius.
"Only an architect well-grounded in both theory and practice is properly equipped: able not only to prove the propriety of a design but also able to implement it effectively. For as in other arts, architecture must constantly keep in view the intention and the material used to express that intention. Successful implementation is founded on the imperative that the materials chosen can be worked to completely fulfill their purpose.
This is impossible without mastery of both theory and practice. Consequently, a person not familiar with both of these branches of the art has no pretension to the title of architect."
To me, the art and theory of architecture has always been equally important to how to build it well.
in chronological order:
* Incas///Mayans///Sumerians
* Iktinos and Kallikrates
* Palladio
* FLW//Loos///Gropius///Mies///Corb (If I had to pick one, it would probably be Loos)
* Nicholas Negroponte///Archigram
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.