History tells us that once the trick works let's use it forever!
I first was afascinated by architectures of Ghery and others but then I noticed the dulliness of those styles; the Ghery's aluminium waves, Liebskind flaws, Calatrava ribs, Zaha's perspective and so on and and see how this 'Big Name Arhcitects' continou to build the same 'buildings' and this thing makes me sad... (example: Even new xefirotarch are aware that the eyelid thing 'works' and consume every bit of inovation it's in it).
I think that real architects like real musicians don't have to repeat themself and put their signature at those buildings in such a redundant way. Like in every style, they will succumb to their own style. (I think if Skunk Anansie in their albums made always the same songs, well there would be no reason for me to buy those new albums.)
Seems to me that for those architects there is no more power or love to invent or try new experimental stuff, and when you think of budgets Ghery gets, it really really makes me sad. Sad for those young genious architects who aint have the same opportunities to show what they can do. I think architecture could really evolve quickly like this.
I love Moss, Eisenman and Koolhas (even thou I don't know him well) and think they are some examples of another order of architects (and guess many of you will have much to say ...) Personally I like when this kind of architects come across with a diffrent building without the need of putting a Big Huge Mark of their Name at the front door.
But as everything gets commercial, I think, then, everybody does what masses want and like, only few of them react in a Subversive way, those are the real ones.
P.S Rita please don't bash me :)
Aug 20, 05 8:32 am
I suppose you're referring to Gehry, who was originally Frank O. Goldberg. Maybe architects should change their name every time they design a new and different-than-the-last building. Maybe my next architecture will be by Dick Hertz.
I'd be interested in hearing your views on "real" architects after you've actually been one for a while. School is precisely the time to be thinking about all of this stuff and talking about it with colleagues. But I predict that if you re-read your pronouncement in ten years, you will be embarrassed... not that you were wrong, necessarily (maybe you're right) ...but how sure you were that you knew enough to pontificate on a profession that you hadn't completely entered yet.
if you look back over gehry's career, you know that he's no one-trick-pony. yes, he's been on a roll for a while now with the shiny, wavy things, but there are potentially several reasons for that. among them:
1) it's become a sort of 'brand' that people expect from him when they come to him as clients
2) he's working through variations on a theme and with each project comes refinement and technical advance (compare to artists that work through a series of work) and he simply hasn't finished working all the angles yet
3) he's shifted from a quest for architectural expression to a quest to redesign the construction industry and delivery system; thus the spinoff softward company, etc
libeskind, from what i've heard about some of his projects lately, HAS become more of a brand-name. he's selling his name and initial thoughts about a project and then letting developer/architects handle the follow-through. not all projects, but some.
zaha appears to me to still be pushing. she's definitely got a language and formal style, but the projects are definitely not the same. i respect that she can bring her fairly unique approach to a project and it can both be recognizable as hers and a completely new thing. this was true of the greats, right?: wright, corb, mies, etc.
i think a reason you aren't seeing the same repetition in oma/koolhaas is that their approach is not based on formal language but process. thus every project, because the process will be different and specific, will be formally different.
I have to concur about Gehry, he has definitely evolve his work over time.
I believe there's a bit too much Gehry-bashing going on.
I'll take a Frank Goldberg 'blob' over work by architects that bore us to death w/ oversized boxes that really = fear of creativity.
If you're tired of seeing wavy stuff & car wrecks of ldgs, then try designing nothing but car dealerships & retail spaces for a few years - you'll appreciate faaked-up architecture.
build a project of the complexity you're referring to and you'll have three years of your life invested.
write a song of the complexity you're referring to and you'll have a few months of your life invested. a whole album, maybe a year. maybe some touring dates thrown in to spice it up to perfection...
what makes you think a building's conceptual basis is fully resolved in one realized iteration?
while the brevity of media allows us to drink the whole building in quickly, the process of defining that space is drawn out. Then, you still have to translate that clear idea into a bunch of sticks lying around the site by a bunch of construction workers lying around the site.
the starchitects are able to make buildings like that happen which makes them worthy of respect whatever you think of their style/concept.
any great poet, writer, musician, artist, etc. has a 'voice' that is singularly theirs, and carries through all their work, and this 'voice' resonates with different people.
i hate zaha and oma's work, but could instantly recognize any of their work as theirs, just as i could recognize a picasso/ matisse/ mozart/ Dostoevsky/ joyce/ eisenmann/ moss etc...
you're offered a lense by gehry to see architecture through his eyes, if you don't like it, choose different glasses, because his vision won't and shouldn't change.
not per corell Yeah you got it. Me too think the same that those architectures of Oma etc seem different becouse of the process leading the whole projecting and designing, and not headed always by the formal stlyle of achitect.
--------1) it's become a sort of 'brand' that people expect from him when they come to him as clients
Seems like Gehry (sorry bout writhing it wrong) and others of the same brand, have a lack of imagination or are really just lazy to think and just repeat the same crap over and over telling themselvs they have a great position in innovative architectures.
About Zaha, yeah I must admitt that she's not that dull and she knows how to get herself reinvented conserving her own formal lines, well, believe she's pretty intelligent on doing it. (the latest interiors she did about that hotel were simply adorable)
Proto maybe you've poted in the wrong thread cos that was not the point of discussion...
Citizen what I'm pretending here is a formula of life to me (personally), applied everywhere. There have to be reinvention and life and changes in every activity otherwise everthing decays in pathetic seriality. And for understanding this I don't have to be at an architecture studio.Yeah I'm still a student but this doesn't discourage me to have my thoughts about how certain things should go. Maybe that's why I love Living_Everchanging_Architecture.
P.S. Gehry, LiebskinG, Calatrava etc...it's finally time for you to retire, can't you people see, you're already dun a thousands of times...there's no need to repeat something already done before. I don't see the point of it!
There's a story about a Westerner who went to a renowned Japanese calligraphy master to make a purchase. The master took the person's money and said “Come back in a yearâ€.
A year later man came back, and the master said “It's not ready yet, come back in another year.â€
This went on for a decade. The man eventually lost patience. He went to the calligraphist and demanded a drawing or his money back.
The master pulled out a piece of paper, dipped his brush in ink, and in one perfect motion drew the figure and handed the piece of paper to the man. The man saw the beauty and skill evident in the piece and said “That took five seconds to do, why did I have to wait so long, what on earth have you been doing for the last ten years?!â€
The master walked to the door behind him and opened it, revealing thousands upon thousands of papers piled and stacked and scattered about, all with the man's figure on them, and replied “Practicing.â€
Precisely, Kristi. This is for YOU. Telling others "...it's finally time for you to retire, can't you people see" is imposing YOUR dogma onto others. You're entitled to this view, I'm not arguing against that. Just take your path and let others take theirs.
Well Gehry's ideas are all the same (it's not too difficult to repeat something already done) and he earns a hell of money.
Then idea-to-built form doesn't excuse the repetition of those works.
If you mean that for young architects, well that only problem is called Budget.
this thread sounds like originated from a student member with a short attention span. architecture is not like a juke box that you can change the tune with a drop of a coin. these people (lets stay with your samples) didn't arrive where they are overnight.
kristi, with all due respect, work on it. 'make it happen'.
it (architecture) is not a pop album chart, but even if it is, sooner you start to pick the strings, better chance you have building something. and the music goes on and on. if you are asking people to retire, you must get into the workforce and see it yourself and find where you are. good luck nevertheless, and i hope you get to design something and see it built someday.
kristi, i think you have a lot to learn about architecture.
a famous architect doesn't tack his signature on his buildings. its an extremely naive way to perceive the work of someone who is putting decades of his life into developing.
why do you think greek temples or gothic cathedrals all tend to look alike? why do you think mies' work in america all tends to look alike?
if you start to understand why, you'll realize it goes a lot deeper than an architect 'succumbing to his own style'
'libeskind, from what i've heard about some of his projects lately, HAS become more of a brand-name. he's selling his name and initial thoughts about a project and then letting developer/architects handle the follow-through. not all projects, but some.' - is quite resonant.
his fame is based, almost single handedly, on an architecture of tragedy. even if not wittingly, there is a crude irony of how the repetition of features associated to tragedy and violence (the void, angluarity, 'functionless sparsity') in his architecture has turned into
self promotion (again, even if not wittingly on his part), bankability denominated by tragedy. it is really irrelevant whether the architect is at fault or the media savy capitalist (insert cliche) system, but perhaps there is an element of naivety on his and others parts...and that taught the architects of the ilk of Stan Allen, Rem Koolhaas, FOA...a lesson in inverse subersiveness , a witty ingestion on the part of architecture of the workings of capitalism .the word being 'opportunistic'
I think that the capacity of an architect of reinventing himself is a way to Evolve in the real sense of the word. I think it is very easy to continou to give approximately the same final result to a building wich clients want and pay alot, so there is no need for furthermore work of research involved in it, cause the receipt is already known.
And think also that those who get their architecture payed well but nevertheless have the courage to experiment with new ways of desgining and approach to new technologies got the essensial meaning of making architecture.(like Fuksas is doing now and I like it)
Where's the character of those big rich architects in this circle? (Oh I know that this sounds too poetic). Being opportunistic ? Personally I think that repeating the same 'my-style' leads me nowhere than myself and closes me in a bunker. (I'm claustrophobic !)
Silverlake well talking about history...among all of the other reasons Art Nouveau was gone and out of fashion in 20 years, was that it was considered a style. And so Gehry's style and all of his redundant friends, will be soon out of fashion and sell no more (hopefully) because for natural reasons people get tired of repetitivity.
Then if growing up and learning more and becoming a 'great' architect (like you people are, with all due respect) means ; -If you find the working formula then son use it and suck it til death' - if then I guess I'll leave University and go working at MCdonalds, at least I'll be in peace with myself and not a Prostitute (like a prof of mine says)!
Its one thing to not have courage to experiment with different ways, but it is another to be curious in one system, and see what it can do. "suck it to death", in that case, maybe isnt so bad. Architecture has site and context, therefore allows different applications of the same style to be interesting.
"...will soon be out of fashion and sell no more (hopefully) because for natural reasons people get tired of repetitivity."
Are you kidding? What city / town / neighborhood do you live in that every building looks different? They seem pretty freaking repetitive to me. But there's only one or two Gehry buildings even in a big city (usually), and none in smaller cities ... I for one would love it if it Gehry buildings were repeated in more places, so not just those lucky enough to live in big cities can experience one.
i just wish Skunk Anansie's songs didn't all sound the same, i mean skin has used the same voice in every song? what's up with that, i mean, if you can't change your voice to make every song sound completely different, you should, like, hang it up....
I agree with what most of you are saying... I, myself, am often pretty hard on Gehry without having much in depth knowledge of him and his work. I understand aspects of where he's coming from and what he's trying to do, but I have some criticisms of him that I won't get into here. I think being the object of "bashing" is part of what must and always does come with being the most well-known person in a field. You're going to be held to a higher standard and have more asked of you by more people than anyone else.
That having been said, I have to disgaree with something citizen said, or at least how I interpreted it. I am a student now and will admit to being a bit naive and idealistic still, which I think is fine as a student. I have plenty of criticisms about the aesthetics (which I'm sure I am mispelling right now) of most things being built now, but moreso the way we're building. The small office where I'm interning this summer is 25 years old and I've had plenty of time organizing old files to see all sorts of projects built in all the periods between 1980 and the present. Not only have I found that I appreciate the aesthetics of many of the older projects, but moreso even the way they were planned. They were designed not just as pretty buildings, but as liveable spaces that changed the built environment for the better. Many of the recent and current projects still do this, but often less so or in a less profound way. Some don't do it at all.
I guess I feel like my minimal experience within this office and my understanding of much of the architectural profession is that we're settling for less; just doing the same things over and over and putting less effort into it. The bold architectural expression and experimentation of early decades by both big name and unknown architects seems to been diminishing, and this cannot be good. I know that I have not built anything yet and that I have very little experience outside of architecture school, but the problem as I see it is that we are being expressive and philosophical about architecture in school and then forgetting it and becoming merely a necessary step for developers and the like once we get out into the workplace. I realize this is an over-simplification, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss students merely because they are students. There is a lot of promise in architecture schools now and I think it would be a real shame to see it squandered on the types of buildings being designed on a large scale in the world today.
Don't tell anybody but secretly I contacted F.O'Gehry and he confessed me that before he reached fame, he completed all 32 volumes of this invaluable e-learning course, and now he's 'planning for retirement' ! Hey but don't tell nobody, it's a secret....
I think we're missing one of the most important perspectives here, the client. Lemme put it this way:
You're a billionaire, and you want to open up a hotel. Your billionaire best friend just opened up a museum, and its big and swoopy and silver and you say to yourself "I want my hotel to look just like this!" So you ask your friend who designed it for him, and he says "Why, Frank Gehry, of course! I'll give you his card!" So, before you even set foot in Gehry's office to say "money is no option!" you already know exactly what you're looking for.
It's not Gehry's fault that his clients want a "Gerhy building." He could pitch exciting new designs to clients all day long, but when you get right down to it, they're spending a LOT of money, and they want to make sure that they are getting the end product exactly how they envisioned it (remember, people: we should design for our CLIENTS, not just for eachother. Its nice to make pretty buildings for our friends to look at, but at the end of the day, architects don't pay eachothers' bills).
Oh c'mon you really think that ALL those clients go to him and ask the 'nearly' same building his last one?!!! Every client (Except those Gehrians) want to take their new buildings a step further to what architect did last time!
---It's not Gehry's fault that his clients want a "Gerhy building". But damn I agree with it , when client pretends, client is always right. But I repeat that there are other architects that instead of following the 'goodworking-moneymaking' own formal language have possibilities to examine new studies on volumetries and forms. Architecture would be so booooring otherwise.
P.S. (But point of this discussion is) Damn if you have so muuuuuuch money like Gehry's has, you can permit yourself to do a change or try something else new!!!
I would accept the "client wanting the same buinding as client best friend" theory for young architects who want to make some money and fame (like Xefirotarch for example; with all due respect, I love their renderings)...
"The advocacy of branding is a sell-out in architecture, reducing its meanings to mere advertising, a fine obliviousness to the larger social implications of architectural practice."
"In light of breakthrough ideas like these (Diller & Scofidio's Blur building), Gehry's tilted army of polished soldiers seem all the more like parodies of themselves"
hohoho Rita Look what I did found. Rem talking personally about Gehry's attack of Clones. It's really sad that here in this thread I could found support only by another student like me, while all the other suposed 'teachers' (or architecture amateurs) acted against. This is the Seal of it all. (Hey I'm not the only, What? I'm not the only one. I'm not the only one :)
Let us all say Farewell to Gehry's Sad Franchise
Frank Gehry's Attack of the Clones
By Amos Klausner
A recent interview with architect Frank Gehry about new visions for Ground Zero (published in the New York Times Magazine) has lifted the veil that had eloquently shielded us from a new paradigm in the relationship between architecture and culture. In Deborah Solomon's interview she asks the revered master of form and space if he considered a proposal for the site. He replied, honestly, that he was invited to participate but found it demeaning that they could only offer $40,000 in return for his creativity and architectural plans. He said, "When you're only paid $40,000, you're treated as if that is your worth." Could Gehry have such a severe case of low self-esteem that he can only measure his talent by the size of architectural fees and construction budgets? The veil that Frank Gehry lifted, if just for one interview, opens our eyes to a recent shift in the role buildings play in an increasingly shared cultural experience. Size does matter. Not size quantified by building envelopes and square footage and but as global purveyor of image, identity and brand.
Today Frank Gehry has the power to forge a forgotten city, wake a tired institution or cleanse a moldy corporate identity. The right building can bring recognition for museums with lackluster collections, can increase tourism and bring needed revenue into a slumping economy. And it was Gehry's Guggenheim in Bilbao that was the catalyst for this shift. Since then, the architect has created a perceived corporate brand (the value of which we must assume is greater than $40,000) and he has franchised a host of Gehry-isms that are beginning to populate sites including Los Angeles, Biloxi, Chicago, Washington D.C., Toronto, and Jerusalem. Get ready for billowing waves of titanium skin blowing across the continents. Michael Sorkin, Director of the Graduate Program in Urban Design at the City College of New York wrote in an article entitled, Brand Aid published in the Harvard Design Magazine that "The advocacy of branding is a sell-out in architecture, reducing its meanings to mere advertising, a fine obliviousness to the larger social implications of architectural practice." Gehry's refusal to offer a proposal for Ground Zero, based on his awkward sense of value, firmly places the architect in this oblivion.
The real danger to architecture's inherent responsibility to support wider social goals like affordable housing lies in the beauty of Gehry's buildings. Everyone wants one. They want Bilbao along with the positive civic effects that elevated the depressed Catalan region of Spain. As the franchise keeps expanding the buildings take on the role of status symbol, losing the cultural value that community leaders want. Will people still flock to Bilbao or make that side trip to Biloxi, Mississippi if they have their own look-alike Gehry? Architect Rem Koolhaas, no stranger to building brand identity, writes in the introduction to Projects for Prada Part 1, "Indefinite expansion represents a crisis: in the typical case it spells the end of the brand as a creative enterprise and the beginning of the brand as a purely financial enterprise." He continues, "The danger of the large number is repetition: each additional store reduces aura and contributes to a sense of familiarity." That's the trouble with franchises. Even the ubiquitous restaurateur MacDonald's, which recently posted their first quarterly loss, announced that they would close unprofitable operations. They are losing market share to upstarts like California's In-N-Out Burger, a restaurant that prides itself on "hand-leafed" lettuce (where an employee manually pulls apart a head of iceberg lettuce as opposed to shredding it in a machine) and a single floor plan across all sites. It makes finding the bathroom a snap. Perhaps Gehry will include time saving ideas like this into his fleet of silver clad clones.
The revised First Things First Manifesto asked communication designers to come to terms with the notion that their talent is being directed toward the advertising, marketing and promotion of consumer products and services, not toward charitable causes, education and social programs. The manifesto states, "Designers who devote their efforts primarily to advertising, marketing and brand development are supporting, and implicitly endorsing, a mental environment so saturated with commercial messages that it is changing the very way citizen-consumers speak, think, feel, respond and interact. To some extent we (designers) are all helping draft a reductive and immeasurably harmful code of public discourse." Gehry's attitude about money may not be indicative of his overall sense of social responsibility yet he continues to promote a product that is based on performance, replication and the bottom line. In doing so he has marketed his work as faux tourist attractions where consumers can whittle away a few hours of their vacation in pursuit of culturally approved activities.
Gehry, however, isn't the first to employ brand development as an architectural tool. Some might argue that Frank Lloyd Wright was an expert in creating a mystique about his work but it was in the early 1950's that two developers, William Levitt and Joseph Eichler, created housing developments that would have a powerful impact on the way American families inhabit space. They showed that architecture as brand can be a positive social force. In New York Levitt developed affordable single-family housing communities, clustering neighborhoods around "village centers". On the west coast Joseph Eichler re-interpreted California living in much the same way. He built inexpensive, modern starter homes incorporating his own ideas on community planning and shared green space.
More recently Samuel Mockbee started the Rural Studio at Auburn University and began a new type of franchise, but again one that centered on architecture as champion of the underclass. Working with university architecture students, Mockbee designed and built a variety of houses and community buildings for the impoverished residents of Hale County, Alabama. Using recycled and low cost materials, the Rural Studio has been able to provide adequate structures for a community that has yet to visit Bilbao (and probably never will). Mockbee's own philosophy on building is inspiring in the face of Gehry's new corporate architecture. He said, "For me, these small (Rural Studio) projects have in them the architectural essence to enchant us, to inspire us, and ultimately, to elevate our profession. But more importantly, they remind us of what it means to have an American architecture without pretense. They remind us that we can be as awed by the simple as by the complex and that if we pay attention, this will offer us a glimpse into what is essential to the future of American Architecture: its honesty."
Gehry's perpetuation of a good idea is reminiscent of painter Roy Lichtenstein's success with the Benday dot screen the artist used to paint his first comic strip scenes. Lichtenstein's work was continuously popular until his death in 1997 yet he never moved completely away from the use of dots. While his is a cautionary tale for the likes of Frank Gehry there are designers who are already trying to bust through the big money archetype that has held sway for the past two decades. Elizabeth Diller and Rick Scofidio's recent Blur building constructed for the Swiss Expo 02 on Lake Neuchatel in Switzerland is a wonderful example of the anti-franchise. Built on top of the lake the Blur building, with over 30,000 nozzels spraying a fine mist of water, creates its own unique environment. The Blur building revels in its unpredictability. In the anthology Anything, Elizabeth Diller notes that Blur, "takes on the uncertainty of the future epitomized in the weather." In light of breakthrough ideas like these, Gehry's tilted army of polished soldiers seem all the more like parodies of themselves. Each one debases the next in much the same way that America's newest favorite family, The Osbournes, have been able to become caricatures of themselves in such a short period of time.
When does a building merely become a tool to sell an idea, a product, or a company? The genesis of this may have started for Gehry in 1991 when he completed the Chiat/Day building in Venice, California. Working with artists Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen, the architect branded the project with an oversized pair of architectural binoculars that reflected both the nature of Chiat/Day's daily business and its long-range outlook. The ad agency has since abandoned the building. Frank Gehry is busier than ever (regardless of what he says in the Deborah Solomon interview about not getting a lot of work) perpetuating his unique brand, keeping up with a growing franchise and meeting his consumers' current predilections. With all that on his plate we must assume that there isn't any time left for a more philanthropic approach to his craft. Sadly, Samuel Mockbee passed away last year, and although the Rural Studio lives on, there is one less proponent of honesty in American architecture.
kristi, i appreciate your enthusiasm and sort of agree that it would be interesting to see gehry's 'next chapter'. but...
the comments you quote are not made by rem but by (1) michael sorkin and (2) amos klausner, author of the article.
the article merely points out that gehry's approach has been in a different spirit than the approach of those like diller-scofidio. good!
you can criticize gehry all you want - we all have opinions - but i don't see that your argument has "sealed" anything.
while i'm drawn to novelty as well, i appreciate that gehry might be concentrating more on making sure his projects are good, valuable additions to an urban environment than he is concerning himself with reinventing architecture every morning.
...and gehry remains one of our professions best ambassadors to the general public.
i think the point you both are missing is that you're concentrating
on the end of gehry's career. if you look at the entirety of
his career you will see that he has been extremely innovative.
his most recent iterration sp? may have been done to death,
but his early buildings, residences, and even his work today
are extremely creative.
one point i'd like to disagree on as well..gehry is extremely
interested in the plan, (well modelling sizes of rooms in
block forms) as a beginning..he organizes all the
spaces in the building and then wraps it in it's final shell. he's
always been extremely pragmattic and organizing spaces
due to his beginnings in designing shopping malls and the like
for a developer (i believe) as well as in other buildings for
the army...(canadian i believe). his early buildings as well as
his own house were done on limited budgets and were very
innovative.
he may be living off his fame at this point, but he is also
extremely busy...i doubt he's ever in the office or is very
rarely there due to the fact that he has to visit clients, sites,
potential clients, lecture etc. due to his fame he has far
more on his plate than the normal practice.
samuel mockbee, r.i.p, is just as guilty, in a different way
of living off one idea...the rural studio, projects designed
by students, allowed him to self promote ad nauseum.
i had friends that were at auburn before his death who
respected him, but also saw the projects these people
were getting firsthand and how they aged over time...
also kristi..one column by a one writer does not an argument
make...i don't think everyone was disagreeing with all
of your arguments, just some. having been in the profession
for ten years one thing i've learned is that innovation does
not solely happen in built form..adding clients, budgets,
time constraints, schedules etc to a project makes things
far harder to conceive and build than anything you've ever
done in school.
the main point i'm disagreeing with you on is your reduction
of gehry to a simple one-liner which i don't believe he is.
his buildings at this point are huge commisions and similar,
but i feel as though you're not looking at the entirety of
his career...saying he's no longer innovating would be like
saying that tadao ando hasn't moved past concrete...and
therefore has no new ideas.
My post above, about the calligrapher, is not meant to say that innovation is bad or that trying new ideas isn't valuable - that's how culture develops, after all. But architecture is both a slow-moving art and one that needs clients in order to be realized. It is unique in the art world. One of many equally valid ways to approach architectural design is to confine one's study to a set of ideas and slowly explore those ideas over and over, developing them incrementally through time.
I once worked for a summer in a well-known firm that is recognized for producing incredibly elegant and rigorously detailed environments - that also happen to be very expensive - for willing and wealthy "patron" clients. Despite the budgets and active patronage, these projects lost money for the firm, because it was in those projects that they worked out the refinement of their ideas - building several full scale mockups, drawing every detail from every possible angle, etc. - truly "study" of an idea. Rather than try something new each time, this firm approaches architecture as an intellectual art. So many of their best-known projects look very similar, both because that's what they are interested in exploring, and because that's what their clients want.
The bread and butter of the firm (and what I spent my whole summer drawing) was tenant space fit-out for a huge insurance company. The profit made in these simple jobs was what made the exploration of "real design" possible.
basically the criticism comes down to worrying that an architect is turning into a franchise...
so in defense of gehry and others suffering so nobly like his wobbly self i offer the following:
Gehry is an artist who bases his buildings on a personal view of beauty and of architecture. when he retires or passes away the office will be gone. mcdonalds?...um, not so dependent on the founder...
actually, a franchise is by definition not dependent on the founder to maintain identity at all. So how can an architecture firm become a franchise? maybe like SOM and their lot, where the process of building is streamlined and creative input is limited to a few key places. Is Gehry's office so streamlined? Maybe he is simply pursuing an artistic path, which happens to be defined by some degree of continuity...?
Ironically the easiest way to make architecture into a real franchise is to focus on PROCESS;say, taken to an extreme by, um, Koolhaas and all of the Kool-clones that populate the world, like PLOT, MVRDV, ONE-ARCHITECTURE, Xaveer De Geyter Architecten, etc, etc...sometimes those folks do some tired work as well, tending to make the story more important than the building and so witter. But, still, not exactly tired and worn out either...
and they don't meet the other essential for the making of a franchise any better than Gehry does. this essential bit being ease of repition / standardisation. Gehry doesn't fit that slot very well, and i should say that critiqueing his continuity is more a revelation of naivete than intelligence.
and btw while Diller and Scofidio have made some nice bits of architecture i wouldn't include the misty Blur among them. It's just another example of the building as performance art, i suppose something shared by a few of gehry's projects (maybe all of them come to think about it). The quote suggesting Gehry is dull in comparison is more or less just a fancy way of saying "That jacket is SO last fall. I mean come on it's February already." Give me a break. If real architects think architecture is about fashion the profession is in some serious trouble.
173. If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style.
Aug 22, 05 12:22 pm ·
·
I think the biggest irony of kristi's "argument" is that she is stuck here and hasn't gone on yet to design a new argument. Before anything else, kristi should retire this stupid argument.
As far a what this student argument is worth, I'd give it a D-.
hey teecha teecha I'm a guy not a girl. Should the D- change in this case?
Aug 22, 05 2:31 pm ·
·
The grade stays the same, but you should change your sex into a new sex every time you want to have sex. Otherwise you will be seen as rich, fat and lazy, and you should then retire.
Jump your philosophy is able to turn Confucius upsidedown in his grave, I'm simply astonished by how you can 'philosophily' protect every nonsense you say, but man, that's your way of thinkin...Any cabaret frequenting!
Larslarson well you're wrong. I know about Gehry's begining works and his way to design before he became a brand lastly.and we're just argueing about this last one.
Rita it won't end til you won't stop replyin.
P.S. have to go now 'cause F.Gehry read this and contacted me and I'm going to a dinner with him to decide the changes of his style from now on...
Aug 22, 05 2:49 pm ·
·
kristi, ever hear of double negatives? "Rita it won't end til you won't stop replyin." is a double negative where what you actually wrote means you will stop as long as I do reply! Just tell Frank about your double-negative style and I'm sure that won't change everything as long as time doesn't go on.
well then i guess i see your argument as an extremely
flawed one...omitting history from the argument and
looking solely at the current work omits seeing how
the current style has come to be and the possibility
that this current style will lead possible other styles.
also your inclusion of moss and eisenmann in your
original post confuse me...both of those architects
have basically put out the same buildings or style
over time...moss' buildings for one haven't really
evolved as far as i can tell. eisenmann has evolved
in a similar vein to gehry..but i see him 'stuck' in the
same was as you would describe gehry's work to be..
i guess i see your argument more of one of personal
preference and opinion rather than on what you claim
your argument to be...which i think is arguing for new
ideas and innovation...one thing which gehry excels
in..ie. the technological driven process that his buildings
have required him to take..and the idea that a building
can go directly from computer to production..an idea
that firms like SHOP are incorporating...
I don't think that it's a problem when architects create many buildings driven by the same process or line of study, as long as they don't get too close to each other. I think part of the value of architecture is in simply fighting same-ness on our streets. Several blocks worth of Gehry's current style would only be slightly more interesting to me than several blocks worth of stucco boxes, but I have no problem with the fact that the Guggenheim and the Disney concert hall look very similar- the distance helps keep them fresh. So I can definitely see how you might get bored by the similarities, because developers don't seem to see this and sometimes oversaturate an area with one designer's work, which is quite boring. But think of how artists will often explore one line of thought for many works on end, but you might still think they're great because you've only seen a sample of them. Unfortunately, architect's in-the-middle-of-the-process buildings still get built, instead of being hidden in a storage closet like a painter's.
I'm definitely hoping that Gehry starts exploring a new line of thought for the rest of the buildings he's doing on Grand Ave, but I'm not holding my breath.
just as a thought..the disney and bilbao..
i've been to both..and i see them as being very
different...and i think they both respond to their
site and context...maybe the main reason we
see them as being 'the same' is that the material
is the same. Maybe once we're detached from
Gehry for a while we'll see how each project relates
to each specific client/site/whatever and is really
not a duplication of the next. I think one could say
that every meier building is the same because most
of them are all white...but, the argument is flawed
gehry's formal language of
all his late buildings are sculptural, but i think there
are significant differences between each sculptural
form. i think the main reason gehry uses metal
is because it's weatherproof and malleable to his
forms and can be sealed easily. possibly he could use
plastic or the like, but that would make things more
expensive than they already are (maybe)...and probably less
resistant to the weather and with a more difficult fastening
system (most likely)...in fact using any other type of
material would require a bigger budget than he already
requires...possibly what gehry requires to evolve is for
building systems to evolve so that he can use other
materials for cheaper than he can right now.
I almost disagree; I think that it would be possible for an architect to redesign similar buildings in different locations and still make an arguement that the separate structures are part of a larger concept (not that I've seen that necessarily work, but I like to think that if someone down the line wanted to, and did a good job at it, I can say that in the year 2005, I was completely open minded ;-)
Tiring architects VS Real Architects
History tells us that once the trick works let's use it forever!
I first was afascinated by architectures of Ghery and others but then I noticed the dulliness of those styles; the Ghery's aluminium waves, Liebskind flaws, Calatrava ribs, Zaha's perspective and so on and and see how this 'Big Name Arhcitects' continou to build the same 'buildings' and this thing makes me sad... (example: Even new xefirotarch are aware that the eyelid thing 'works' and consume every bit of inovation it's in it).
I think that real architects like real musicians don't have to repeat themself and put their signature at those buildings in such a redundant way. Like in every style, they will succumb to their own style. (I think if Skunk Anansie in their albums made always the same songs, well there would be no reason for me to buy those new albums.)
Seems to me that for those architects there is no more power or love to invent or try new experimental stuff, and when you think of budgets Ghery gets, it really really makes me sad. Sad for those young genious architects who aint have the same opportunities to show what they can do. I think architecture could really evolve quickly like this.
I love Moss, Eisenman and Koolhas (even thou I don't know him well) and think they are some examples of another order of architects (and guess many of you will have much to say ...) Personally I like when this kind of architects come across with a diffrent building without the need of putting a Big Huge Mark of their Name at the front door.
But as everything gets commercial, I think, then, everybody does what masses want and like, only few of them react in a Subversive way, those are the real ones.
P.S Rita please don't bash me :)
I suppose you're referring to Gehry, who was originally Frank O. Goldberg. Maybe architects should change their name every time they design a new and different-than-the-last building. Maybe my next architecture will be by Dick Hertz.
Kristi,
I'd be interested in hearing your views on "real" architects after you've actually been one for a while. School is precisely the time to be thinking about all of this stuff and talking about it with colleagues. But I predict that if you re-read your pronouncement in ten years, you will be embarrassed... not that you were wrong, necessarily (maybe you're right) ...but how sure you were that you knew enough to pontificate on a profession that you hadn't completely entered yet.
if you look back over gehry's career, you know that he's no one-trick-pony. yes, he's been on a roll for a while now with the shiny, wavy things, but there are potentially several reasons for that. among them:
1) it's become a sort of 'brand' that people expect from him when they come to him as clients
2) he's working through variations on a theme and with each project comes refinement and technical advance (compare to artists that work through a series of work) and he simply hasn't finished working all the angles yet
3) he's shifted from a quest for architectural expression to a quest to redesign the construction industry and delivery system; thus the spinoff softward company, etc
libeskind, from what i've heard about some of his projects lately, HAS become more of a brand-name. he's selling his name and initial thoughts about a project and then letting developer/architects handle the follow-through. not all projects, but some.
zaha appears to me to still be pushing. she's definitely got a language and formal style, but the projects are definitely not the same. i respect that she can bring her fairly unique approach to a project and it can both be recognizable as hers and a completely new thing. this was true of the greats, right?: wright, corb, mies, etc.
i think a reason you aren't seeing the same repetition in oma/koolhaas is that their approach is not based on formal language but process. thus every project, because the process will be different and specific, will be formally different.
I have to concur about Gehry, he has definitely evolve his work over time.
I believe there's a bit too much Gehry-bashing going on.
I'll take a Frank Goldberg 'blob' over work by architects that bore us to death w/ oversized boxes that really = fear of creativity.
If you're tired of seeing wavy stuff & car wrecks of ldgs, then try designing nothing but car dealerships & retail spaces for a few years - you'll appreciate faaked-up architecture.
build a project of the complexity you're referring to and you'll have three years of your life invested.
write a song of the complexity you're referring to and you'll have a few months of your life invested. a whole album, maybe a year. maybe some touring dates thrown in to spice it up to perfection...
what makes you think a building's conceptual basis is fully resolved in one realized iteration?
while the brevity of media allows us to drink the whole building in quickly, the process of defining that space is drawn out. Then, you still have to translate that clear idea into a bunch of sticks lying around the site by a bunch of construction workers lying around the site.
the starchitects are able to make buildings like that happen which makes them worthy of respect whatever you think of their style/concept.
any great poet, writer, musician, artist, etc. has a 'voice' that is singularly theirs, and carries through all their work, and this 'voice' resonates with different people.
i hate zaha and oma's work, but could instantly recognize any of their work as theirs, just as i could recognize a picasso/ matisse/ mozart/ Dostoevsky/ joyce/ eisenmann/ moss etc...
you're offered a lense by gehry to see architecture through his eyes, if you don't like it, choose different glasses, because his vision won't and shouldn't change.
RitaN I appreciated your comment,thanks!
not per corell Yeah you got it. Me too think the same that those architectures of Oma etc seem different becouse of the process leading the whole projecting and designing, and not headed always by the formal stlyle of achitect.
--------1) it's become a sort of 'brand' that people expect from him when they come to him as clients
Seems like Gehry (sorry bout writhing it wrong) and others of the same brand, have a lack of imagination or are really just lazy to think and just repeat the same crap over and over telling themselvs they have a great position in innovative architectures.
About Zaha, yeah I must admitt that she's not that dull and she knows how to get herself reinvented conserving her own formal lines, well, believe she's pretty intelligent on doing it. (the latest interiors she did about that hotel were simply adorable)
Proto maybe you've poted in the wrong thread cos that was not the point of discussion...
Citizen what I'm pretending here is a formula of life to me (personally), applied everywhere. There have to be reinvention and life and changes in every activity otherwise everthing decays in pathetic seriality. And for understanding this I don't have to be at an architecture studio.Yeah I'm still a student but this doesn't discourage me to have my thoughts about how certain things should go. Maybe that's why I love Living_Everchanging_Architecture.
P.S. Gehry, LiebskinG, Calatrava etc...it's finally time for you to retire, can't you people see, you're already dun a thousands of times...there's no need to repeat something already done before. I don't see the point of it!
There's a story about a Westerner who went to a renowned Japanese calligraphy master to make a purchase. The master took the person's money and said “Come back in a yearâ€.
A year later man came back, and the master said “It's not ready yet, come back in another year.â€
This went on for a decade. The man eventually lost patience. He went to the calligraphist and demanded a drawing or his money back.
The master pulled out a piece of paper, dipped his brush in ink, and in one perfect motion drew the figure and handed the piece of paper to the man. The man saw the beauty and skill evident in the piece and said “That took five seconds to do, why did I have to wait so long, what on earth have you been doing for the last ten years?!â€
The master walked to the door behind him and opened it, revealing thousands upon thousands of papers piled and stacked and scattered about, all with the man's figure on them, and replied “Practicing.â€
Precisely, Kristi. This is for YOU. Telling others "...it's finally time for you to retire, can't you people see" is imposing YOUR dogma onto others. You're entitled to this view, I'm not arguing against that. Just take your path and let others take theirs.
citizen this is quiet protest
kristi - i understand the thread. my point is that it takes time to vet an idea in built form. so repetition is not solely style or selling out.
Well Gehry's ideas are all the same (it's not too difficult to repeat something already done) and he earns a hell of money.
Then idea-to-built form doesn't excuse the repetition of those works.
If you mean that for young architects, well that only problem is called Budget.
this thread sounds like originated from a student member with a short attention span. architecture is not like a juke box that you can change the tune with a drop of a coin. these people (lets stay with your samples) didn't arrive where they are overnight.
kristi, with all due respect, work on it. 'make it happen'.
it (architecture) is not a pop album chart, but even if it is, sooner you start to pick the strings, better chance you have building something. and the music goes on and on. if you are asking people to retire, you must get into the workforce and see it yourself and find where you are. good luck nevertheless, and i hope you get to design something and see it built someday.
kristi, i think you have a lot to learn about architecture.
a famous architect doesn't tack his signature on his buildings. its an extremely naive way to perceive the work of someone who is putting decades of his life into developing.
why do you think greek temples or gothic cathedrals all tend to look alike? why do you think mies' work in america all tends to look alike?
if you start to understand why, you'll realize it goes a lot deeper than an architect 'succumbing to his own style'
its easy to dismiss a lot but
'libeskind, from what i've heard about some of his projects lately, HAS become more of a brand-name. he's selling his name and initial thoughts about a project and then letting developer/architects handle the follow-through. not all projects, but some.' - is quite resonant.
his fame is based, almost single handedly, on an architecture of tragedy. even if not wittingly, there is a crude irony of how the repetition of features associated to tragedy and violence (the void, angluarity, 'functionless sparsity') in his architecture has turned into
self promotion (again, even if not wittingly on his part), bankability denominated by tragedy. it is really irrelevant whether the architect is at fault or the media savy capitalist (insert cliche) system, but perhaps there is an element of naivety on his and others parts...and that taught the architects of the ilk of Stan Allen, Rem Koolhaas, FOA...a lesson in inverse subersiveness , a witty ingestion on the part of architecture of the workings of capitalism .the word being 'opportunistic'
I think that the capacity of an architect of reinventing himself is a way to Evolve in the real sense of the word. I think it is very easy to continou to give approximately the same final result to a building wich clients want and pay alot, so there is no need for furthermore work of research involved in it, cause the receipt is already known.
And think also that those who get their architecture payed well but nevertheless have the courage to experiment with new ways of desgining and approach to new technologies got the essensial meaning of making architecture.(like Fuksas is doing now and I like it)
Where's the character of those big rich architects in this circle? (Oh I know that this sounds too poetic). Being opportunistic ? Personally I think that repeating the same 'my-style' leads me nowhere than myself and closes me in a bunker. (I'm claustrophobic !)
Silverlake well talking about history...among all of the other reasons Art Nouveau was gone and out of fashion in 20 years, was that it was considered a style. And so Gehry's style and all of his redundant friends, will be soon out of fashion and sell no more (hopefully) because for natural reasons people get tired of repetitivity.
Then if growing up and learning more and becoming a 'great' architect (like you people are, with all due respect) means ; -If you find the working formula then son use it and suck it til death' - if then I guess I'll leave University and go working at MCdonalds, at least I'll be in peace with myself and not a Prostitute (like a prof of mine says)!
'at least I'll be in peace with myself and not a Prostitute (like a prof of mine says)!'
huh?
scram, child.
Its one thing to not have courage to experiment with different ways, but it is another to be curious in one system, and see what it can do. "suck it to death", in that case, maybe isnt so bad. Architecture has site and context, therefore allows different applications of the same style to be interesting.
"...will soon be out of fashion and sell no more (hopefully) because for natural reasons people get tired of repetitivity."
Are you kidding? What city / town / neighborhood do you live in that every building looks different? They seem pretty freaking repetitive to me. But there's only one or two Gehry buildings even in a big city (usually), and none in smaller cities ... I for one would love it if it Gehry buildings were repeated in more places, so not just those lucky enough to live in big cities can experience one.
It takes blood and guts to be this cool but I'm just still a clichè -Skunk Anansie
i just wish Skunk Anansie's songs didn't all sound the same, i mean skin has used the same voice in every song? what's up with that, i mean, if you can't change your voice to make every song sound completely different, you should, like, hang it up....
i want the hide (keep the blood and the guts) of this kid
Is the preprandial a-pair-of-teeth swimming in a glass half full or half empty? I can't tell. yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk
I agree with what most of you are saying... I, myself, am often pretty hard on Gehry without having much in depth knowledge of him and his work. I understand aspects of where he's coming from and what he's trying to do, but I have some criticisms of him that I won't get into here. I think being the object of "bashing" is part of what must and always does come with being the most well-known person in a field. You're going to be held to a higher standard and have more asked of you by more people than anyone else.
That having been said, I have to disgaree with something citizen said, or at least how I interpreted it. I am a student now and will admit to being a bit naive and idealistic still, which I think is fine as a student. I have plenty of criticisms about the aesthetics (which I'm sure I am mispelling right now) of most things being built now, but moreso the way we're building. The small office where I'm interning this summer is 25 years old and I've had plenty of time organizing old files to see all sorts of projects built in all the periods between 1980 and the present. Not only have I found that I appreciate the aesthetics of many of the older projects, but moreso even the way they were planned. They were designed not just as pretty buildings, but as liveable spaces that changed the built environment for the better. Many of the recent and current projects still do this, but often less so or in a less profound way. Some don't do it at all.
I guess I feel like my minimal experience within this office and my understanding of much of the architectural profession is that we're settling for less; just doing the same things over and over and putting less effort into it. The bold architectural expression and experimentation of early decades by both big name and unknown architects seems to been diminishing, and this cannot be good. I know that I have not built anything yet and that I have very little experience outside of architecture school, but the problem as I see it is that we are being expressive and philosophical about architecture in school and then forgetting it and becoming merely a necessary step for developers and the like once we get out into the workplace. I realize this is an over-simplification, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss students merely because they are students. There is a lot of promise in architecture schools now and I think it would be a real shame to see it squandered on the types of buildings being designed on a large scale in the world today.
FranLloyd I'd like to shake your hand. That was what I'm fighting here to protect about young students.
Don't tell anybody but secretly I contacted F.O'Gehry and he confessed me that before he reached fame, he completed all 32 volumes of this invaluable e-learning course, and now he's 'planning for retirement' ! Hey but don't tell nobody, it's a secret....
I think we're missing one of the most important perspectives here, the client. Lemme put it this way:
You're a billionaire, and you want to open up a hotel. Your billionaire best friend just opened up a museum, and its big and swoopy and silver and you say to yourself "I want my hotel to look just like this!" So you ask your friend who designed it for him, and he says "Why, Frank Gehry, of course! I'll give you his card!" So, before you even set foot in Gehry's office to say "money is no option!" you already know exactly what you're looking for.
It's not Gehry's fault that his clients want a "Gerhy building." He could pitch exciting new designs to clients all day long, but when you get right down to it, they're spending a LOT of money, and they want to make sure that they are getting the end product exactly how they envisioned it (remember, people: we should design for our CLIENTS, not just for eachother. Its nice to make pretty buildings for our friends to look at, but at the end of the day, architects don't pay eachothers' bills).
Oh c'mon you really think that ALL those clients go to him and ask the 'nearly' same building his last one?!!! Every client (Except those Gehrians) want to take their new buildings a step further to what architect did last time!
---It's not Gehry's fault that his clients want a "Gerhy building". But damn I agree with it , when client pretends, client is always right. But I repeat that there are other architects that instead of following the 'goodworking-moneymaking' own formal language have possibilities to examine new studies on volumetries and forms. Architecture would be so booooring otherwise.
P.S. (But point of this discussion is) Damn if you have so muuuuuuch money like Gehry's has, you can permit yourself to do a change or try something else new!!!
I would accept the "client wanting the same buinding as client best friend" theory for young architects who want to make some money and fame (like Xefirotarch for example; with all due respect, I love their renderings)...
Frank Gehry's Attack of the Clones
"The advocacy of branding is a sell-out in architecture, reducing its meanings to mere advertising, a fine obliviousness to the larger social implications of architectural practice."
"In light of breakthrough ideas like these (Diller & Scofidio's Blur building), Gehry's tilted army of polished soldiers seem all the more like parodies of themselves"
hohoho Rita Look what I did found. Rem talking personally about Gehry's attack of Clones. It's really sad that here in this thread I could found support only by another student like me, while all the other suposed 'teachers' (or architecture amateurs) acted against. This is the Seal of it all. (Hey I'm not the only, What? I'm not the only one. I'm not the only one :)
Let us all say Farewell to Gehry's Sad Franchise
www.core77.com/reactor/clones/clones.asp
Frank Gehry's Attack of the Clones
By Amos Klausner
A recent interview with architect Frank Gehry about new visions for Ground Zero (published in the New York Times Magazine) has lifted the veil that had eloquently shielded us from a new paradigm in the relationship between architecture and culture. In Deborah Solomon's interview she asks the revered master of form and space if he considered a proposal for the site. He replied, honestly, that he was invited to participate but found it demeaning that they could only offer $40,000 in return for his creativity and architectural plans. He said, "When you're only paid $40,000, you're treated as if that is your worth." Could Gehry have such a severe case of low self-esteem that he can only measure his talent by the size of architectural fees and construction budgets? The veil that Frank Gehry lifted, if just for one interview, opens our eyes to a recent shift in the role buildings play in an increasingly shared cultural experience. Size does matter. Not size quantified by building envelopes and square footage and but as global purveyor of image, identity and brand.
Today Frank Gehry has the power to forge a forgotten city, wake a tired institution or cleanse a moldy corporate identity. The right building can bring recognition for museums with lackluster collections, can increase tourism and bring needed revenue into a slumping economy. And it was Gehry's Guggenheim in Bilbao that was the catalyst for this shift. Since then, the architect has created a perceived corporate brand (the value of which we must assume is greater than $40,000) and he has franchised a host of Gehry-isms that are beginning to populate sites including Los Angeles, Biloxi, Chicago, Washington D.C., Toronto, and Jerusalem. Get ready for billowing waves of titanium skin blowing across the continents. Michael Sorkin, Director of the Graduate Program in Urban Design at the City College of New York wrote in an article entitled, Brand Aid published in the Harvard Design Magazine that "The advocacy of branding is a sell-out in architecture, reducing its meanings to mere advertising, a fine obliviousness to the larger social implications of architectural practice." Gehry's refusal to offer a proposal for Ground Zero, based on his awkward sense of value, firmly places the architect in this oblivion.
The real danger to architecture's inherent responsibility to support wider social goals like affordable housing lies in the beauty of Gehry's buildings. Everyone wants one. They want Bilbao along with the positive civic effects that elevated the depressed Catalan region of Spain. As the franchise keeps expanding the buildings take on the role of status symbol, losing the cultural value that community leaders want. Will people still flock to Bilbao or make that side trip to Biloxi, Mississippi if they have their own look-alike Gehry? Architect Rem Koolhaas, no stranger to building brand identity, writes in the introduction to Projects for Prada Part 1, "Indefinite expansion represents a crisis: in the typical case it spells the end of the brand as a creative enterprise and the beginning of the brand as a purely financial enterprise." He continues, "The danger of the large number is repetition: each additional store reduces aura and contributes to a sense of familiarity." That's the trouble with franchises. Even the ubiquitous restaurateur MacDonald's, which recently posted their first quarterly loss, announced that they would close unprofitable operations. They are losing market share to upstarts like California's In-N-Out Burger, a restaurant that prides itself on "hand-leafed" lettuce (where an employee manually pulls apart a head of iceberg lettuce as opposed to shredding it in a machine) and a single floor plan across all sites. It makes finding the bathroom a snap. Perhaps Gehry will include time saving ideas like this into his fleet of silver clad clones.
The revised First Things First Manifesto asked communication designers to come to terms with the notion that their talent is being directed toward the advertising, marketing and promotion of consumer products and services, not toward charitable causes, education and social programs. The manifesto states, "Designers who devote their efforts primarily to advertising, marketing and brand development are supporting, and implicitly endorsing, a mental environment so saturated with commercial messages that it is changing the very way citizen-consumers speak, think, feel, respond and interact. To some extent we (designers) are all helping draft a reductive and immeasurably harmful code of public discourse." Gehry's attitude about money may not be indicative of his overall sense of social responsibility yet he continues to promote a product that is based on performance, replication and the bottom line. In doing so he has marketed his work as faux tourist attractions where consumers can whittle away a few hours of their vacation in pursuit of culturally approved activities.
Gehry, however, isn't the first to employ brand development as an architectural tool. Some might argue that Frank Lloyd Wright was an expert in creating a mystique about his work but it was in the early 1950's that two developers, William Levitt and Joseph Eichler, created housing developments that would have a powerful impact on the way American families inhabit space. They showed that architecture as brand can be a positive social force. In New York Levitt developed affordable single-family housing communities, clustering neighborhoods around "village centers". On the west coast Joseph Eichler re-interpreted California living in much the same way. He built inexpensive, modern starter homes incorporating his own ideas on community planning and shared green space.
More recently Samuel Mockbee started the Rural Studio at Auburn University and began a new type of franchise, but again one that centered on architecture as champion of the underclass. Working with university architecture students, Mockbee designed and built a variety of houses and community buildings for the impoverished residents of Hale County, Alabama. Using recycled and low cost materials, the Rural Studio has been able to provide adequate structures for a community that has yet to visit Bilbao (and probably never will). Mockbee's own philosophy on building is inspiring in the face of Gehry's new corporate architecture. He said, "For me, these small (Rural Studio) projects have in them the architectural essence to enchant us, to inspire us, and ultimately, to elevate our profession. But more importantly, they remind us of what it means to have an American architecture without pretense. They remind us that we can be as awed by the simple as by the complex and that if we pay attention, this will offer us a glimpse into what is essential to the future of American Architecture: its honesty."
Gehry's perpetuation of a good idea is reminiscent of painter Roy Lichtenstein's success with the Benday dot screen the artist used to paint his first comic strip scenes. Lichtenstein's work was continuously popular until his death in 1997 yet he never moved completely away from the use of dots. While his is a cautionary tale for the likes of Frank Gehry there are designers who are already trying to bust through the big money archetype that has held sway for the past two decades. Elizabeth Diller and Rick Scofidio's recent Blur building constructed for the Swiss Expo 02 on Lake Neuchatel in Switzerland is a wonderful example of the anti-franchise. Built on top of the lake the Blur building, with over 30,000 nozzels spraying a fine mist of water, creates its own unique environment. The Blur building revels in its unpredictability. In the anthology Anything, Elizabeth Diller notes that Blur, "takes on the uncertainty of the future epitomized in the weather." In light of breakthrough ideas like these, Gehry's tilted army of polished soldiers seem all the more like parodies of themselves. Each one debases the next in much the same way that America's newest favorite family, The Osbournes, have been able to become caricatures of themselves in such a short period of time.
When does a building merely become a tool to sell an idea, a product, or a company? The genesis of this may have started for Gehry in 1991 when he completed the Chiat/Day building in Venice, California. Working with artists Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen, the architect branded the project with an oversized pair of architectural binoculars that reflected both the nature of Chiat/Day's daily business and its long-range outlook. The ad agency has since abandoned the building. Frank Gehry is busier than ever (regardless of what he says in the Deborah Solomon interview about not getting a lot of work) perpetuating his unique brand, keeping up with a growing franchise and meeting his consumers' current predilections. With all that on his plate we must assume that there isn't any time left for a more philanthropic approach to his craft. Sadly, Samuel Mockbee passed away last year, and although the Rural Studio lives on, there is one less proponent of honesty in American architecture.
poor cellardoorWhore :((( Scream B**** Scream
kristi, i appreciate your enthusiasm and sort of agree that it would be interesting to see gehry's 'next chapter'. but...
the comments you quote are not made by rem but by (1) michael sorkin and (2) amos klausner, author of the article.
the article merely points out that gehry's approach has been in a different spirit than the approach of those like diller-scofidio. good!
you can criticize gehry all you want - we all have opinions - but i don't see that your argument has "sealed" anything.
while i'm drawn to novelty as well, i appreciate that gehry might be concentrating more on making sure his projects are good, valuable additions to an urban environment than he is concerning himself with reinventing architecture every morning.
...and gehry remains one of our professions best ambassadors to the general public.
frank lloyd mike and kristi...
i think the point you both are missing is that you're concentrating
on the end of gehry's career. if you look at the entirety of
his career you will see that he has been extremely innovative.
his most recent iterration sp? may have been done to death,
but his early buildings, residences, and even his work today
are extremely creative.
one point i'd like to disagree on as well..gehry is extremely
interested in the plan, (well modelling sizes of rooms in
block forms) as a beginning..he organizes all the
spaces in the building and then wraps it in it's final shell. he's
always been extremely pragmattic and organizing spaces
due to his beginnings in designing shopping malls and the like
for a developer (i believe) as well as in other buildings for
the army...(canadian i believe). his early buildings as well as
his own house were done on limited budgets and were very
innovative.
he may be living off his fame at this point, but he is also
extremely busy...i doubt he's ever in the office or is very
rarely there due to the fact that he has to visit clients, sites,
potential clients, lecture etc. due to his fame he has far
more on his plate than the normal practice.
samuel mockbee, r.i.p, is just as guilty, in a different way
of living off one idea...the rural studio, projects designed
by students, allowed him to self promote ad nauseum.
i had friends that were at auburn before his death who
respected him, but also saw the projects these people
were getting firsthand and how they aged over time...
also kristi..one column by a one writer does not an argument
make...i don't think everyone was disagreeing with all
of your arguments, just some. having been in the profession
for ten years one thing i've learned is that innovation does
not solely happen in built form..adding clients, budgets,
time constraints, schedules etc to a project makes things
far harder to conceive and build than anything you've ever
done in school.
the main point i'm disagreeing with you on is your reduction
of gehry to a simple one-liner which i don't believe he is.
his buildings at this point are huge commisions and similar,
but i feel as though you're not looking at the entirety of
his career...saying he's no longer innovating would be like
saying that tadao ando hasn't moved past concrete...and
therefore has no new ideas.
My post above, about the calligrapher, is not meant to say that innovation is bad or that trying new ideas isn't valuable - that's how culture develops, after all. But architecture is both a slow-moving art and one that needs clients in order to be realized. It is unique in the art world. One of many equally valid ways to approach architectural design is to confine one's study to a set of ideas and slowly explore those ideas over and over, developing them incrementally through time.
I once worked for a summer in a well-known firm that is recognized for producing incredibly elegant and rigorously detailed environments - that also happen to be very expensive - for willing and wealthy "patron" clients. Despite the budgets and active patronage, these projects lost money for the firm, because it was in those projects that they worked out the refinement of their ideas - building several full scale mockups, drawing every detail from every possible angle, etc. - truly "study" of an idea. Rather than try something new each time, this firm approaches architecture as an intellectual art. So many of their best-known projects look very similar, both because that's what they are interested in exploring, and because that's what their clients want.
The bread and butter of the firm (and what I spent my whole summer drawing) was tenant space fit-out for a huge insurance company. The profit made in these simple jobs was what made the exploration of "real design" possible.
basically the criticism comes down to worrying that an architect is turning into a franchise...
so in defense of gehry and others suffering so nobly like his wobbly self i offer the following:
Gehry is an artist who bases his buildings on a personal view of beauty and of architecture. when he retires or passes away the office will be gone. mcdonalds?...um, not so dependent on the founder...
actually, a franchise is by definition not dependent on the founder to maintain identity at all. So how can an architecture firm become a franchise? maybe like SOM and their lot, where the process of building is streamlined and creative input is limited to a few key places. Is Gehry's office so streamlined? Maybe he is simply pursuing an artistic path, which happens to be defined by some degree of continuity...?
Ironically the easiest way to make architecture into a real franchise is to focus on PROCESS;say, taken to an extreme by, um, Koolhaas and all of the Kool-clones that populate the world, like PLOT, MVRDV, ONE-ARCHITECTURE, Xaveer De Geyter Architecten, etc, etc...sometimes those folks do some tired work as well, tending to make the story more important than the building and so witter. But, still, not exactly tired and worn out either...
and they don't meet the other essential for the making of a franchise any better than Gehry does. this essential bit being ease of repition / standardisation. Gehry doesn't fit that slot very well, and i should say that critiqueing his continuity is more a revelation of naivete than intelligence.
and btw while Diller and Scofidio have made some nice bits of architecture i wouldn't include the misty Blur among them. It's just another example of the building as performance art, i suppose something shared by a few of gehry's projects (maybe all of them come to think about it). The quote suggesting Gehry is dull in comparison is more or less just a fancy way of saying "That jacket is SO last fall. I mean come on it's February already." Give me a break. If real architects think architecture is about fashion the profession is in some serious trouble.
173. If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style.
I think the biggest irony of kristi's "argument" is that she is stuck here and hasn't gone on yet to design a new argument. Before anything else, kristi should retire this stupid argument.
As far a what this student argument is worth, I'd give it a D-.
damn - i misread the post.
in a fight between tiring architects and real architects, real ones would probably win. there's so many of 'em
sorta like ditka, given at his prime, VS the entire bears line
now THAT would be a thread with at least a D+_grade, or maybe C- if you footnote ron hextall VS godzilla.
hey teecha teecha I'm a guy not a girl. Should the D- change in this case?
The grade stays the same, but you should change your sex into a new sex every time you want to have sex. Otherwise you will be seen as rich, fat and lazy, and you should then retire.
Jump your philosophy is able to turn Confucius upsidedown in his grave, I'm simply astonished by how you can 'philosophily' protect every nonsense you say, but man, that's your way of thinkin...Any cabaret frequenting!
Larslarson well you're wrong. I know about Gehry's begining works and his way to design before he became a brand lastly.and we're just argueing about this last one.
Rita it won't end til you won't stop replyin.
P.S. have to go now 'cause F.Gehry read this and contacted me and I'm going to a dinner with him to decide the changes of his style from now on...
kristi, ever hear of double negatives? "Rita it won't end til you won't stop replyin." is a double negative where what you actually wrote means you will stop as long as I do reply! Just tell Frank about your double-negative style and I'm sure that won't change everything as long as time doesn't go on.
kristi
well then i guess i see your argument as an extremely
flawed one...omitting history from the argument and
looking solely at the current work omits seeing how
the current style has come to be and the possibility
that this current style will lead possible other styles.
also your inclusion of moss and eisenmann in your
original post confuse me...both of those architects
have basically put out the same buildings or style
over time...moss' buildings for one haven't really
evolved as far as i can tell. eisenmann has evolved
in a similar vein to gehry..but i see him 'stuck' in the
same was as you would describe gehry's work to be..
i guess i see your argument more of one of personal
preference and opinion rather than on what you claim
your argument to be...which i think is arguing for new
ideas and innovation...one thing which gehry excels
in..ie. the technological driven process that his buildings
have required him to take..and the idea that a building
can go directly from computer to production..an idea
that firms like SHOP are incorporating...
I don't think that it's a problem when architects create many buildings driven by the same process or line of study, as long as they don't get too close to each other. I think part of the value of architecture is in simply fighting same-ness on our streets. Several blocks worth of Gehry's current style would only be slightly more interesting to me than several blocks worth of stucco boxes, but I have no problem with the fact that the Guggenheim and the Disney concert hall look very similar- the distance helps keep them fresh. So I can definitely see how you might get bored by the similarities, because developers don't seem to see this and sometimes oversaturate an area with one designer's work, which is quite boring. But think of how artists will often explore one line of thought for many works on end, but you might still think they're great because you've only seen a sample of them. Unfortunately, architect's in-the-middle-of-the-process buildings still get built, instead of being hidden in a storage closet like a painter's.
I'm definitely hoping that Gehry starts exploring a new line of thought for the rest of the buildings he's doing on Grand Ave, but I'm not holding my breath.
just as a thought..the disney and bilbao..
i've been to both..and i see them as being very
different...and i think they both respond to their
site and context...maybe the main reason we
see them as being 'the same' is that the material
is the same. Maybe once we're detached from
Gehry for a while we'll see how each project relates
to each specific client/site/whatever and is really
not a duplication of the next. I think one could say
that every meier building is the same because most
of them are all white...but, the argument is flawed
gehry's formal language of
all his late buildings are sculptural, but i think there
are significant differences between each sculptural
form. i think the main reason gehry uses metal
is because it's weatherproof and malleable to his
forms and can be sealed easily. possibly he could use
plastic or the like, but that would make things more
expensive than they already are (maybe)...and probably less
resistant to the weather and with a more difficult fastening
system (most likely)...in fact using any other type of
material would require a bigger budget than he already
requires...possibly what gehry requires to evolve is for
building systems to evolve so that he can use other
materials for cheaper than he can right now.
I almost disagree; I think that it would be possible for an architect to redesign similar buildings in different locations and still make an arguement that the separate structures are part of a larger concept (not that I've seen that necessarily work, but I like to think that if someone down the line wanted to, and did a good job at it, I can say that in the year 2005, I was completely open minded ;-)
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.