I'm not bashing anyone for expressing an opinion---student or seasoned professional. I'm questioning the tone: the absolute CERTAINTY with which Kristi asserts an opinion as virtual fact, while picking and choosing her examples without 1) looking at the FULL historical record, and 2) ever actually done this for a living.
citizen, my reference to "bashing" wasn't that you were bashing anyone, but to an earlier thread about "Gehry-bashing." Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part there. and I agree with what you just said.
Citizen I am a boy, Male!!! And yes mine is a personal opinion.
Larslarson once again you're wrong cause we're not argueing about the process or materials that would make a 'Gehry' biulding look a bit different from others. The fact is that he digs only in his 'evergreen' style for making them, not involving new creativity other architecture directions (as to me).
I think that fossilizing in a style weakens this profession (men I'm working on a studio of architects) and more imortant is that like this, Cloning kills Gehrians buildings. I mean when first time I saw great Gugg I was astonished by such beauty (who hasn't been!) but then I saw all the other copies (and I mean all what he built and planned to but didn't) I saw that astonishing fade away. The same building (with some retouches here and there and given another name likely to the place) lose their Value of a Unique Epic building of that kind. Once Marvel is repeted to eterninty it barely touches banality. And I'm not talking about how long do I have to travell (from Blilbao to LA) to meet another Gehry's and feel the change in them
Well Rita couldn't you really understand what I meant?? I was saying that with your replies you contribute to make the thing go round and round, means it won't stop til you continou to write, til you add another reply to the thread. I never said I will continou writing cause you do, please don't feel so imortant miss. God your musical tastes are stuck to early 60's, yakky yak Oh talking about sex, this is a little argument I didn't want to touch but as you did... this is what I thought from first time I read your replies : GOD, RITA!!! That poor woman needs to have some sex!!! :) (about the sex-changing) Actually I do. My dad is a surgeon and he changes my sex everytime i desire and me and my girl/boy have some extremely joyfully time in bed, lucky us. God, This new Generation, huhhhhhhhhhhh
Perhaps you should broaden your horizons and look at other architects out there who design worthy buildings. This fixation you have with starchitects, while a characteristic of the young student, is not doing anything for your education. It is your duty to expand your knowledge of the profession and its proponents, and not just consume whatever El Croquis dishes up to you.
DiaBase, are you kidding. Do you think I spend my time reding CasaBella on Good old Calatrava, Gehry, Liebsknid and all the rest. I have no fixation with starchitects with none of them (Gehry came to became just symbol of it talking in this thread) I'm just discussing the way architecture formal language that makes money is used in such an opportunistic way by 'clever' architects.
Please you just do not know nothing about my horizons, how can you judge just by a thread and the fact I'm a student. It's just superficial to you. I'm not about to make a list of my favourite superyoung architects but just some stuff I was interested of some time ago. http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=P19049_0_42_0_C http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=P19281_0_42_0_C http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=P19286_0_42_0_C
diabase, that's an excellent point. I've found that often my professors talk about both star architects and much lesser known ones, but the virtually anonymous ones remain virtually anonymous compared to star architects, because you rarely if ever hear their names again. I'm not by any means suggesting this is the fault of the professor or that it makes the architects' work less valuable. I'm wondering, however, if you know of a good way to broaden my horizons as an architecture student. I try to keep up with some of the local architecture, but it can be tough and there's just so much out there. Thanks.
Also, I think kristi makes a good point about something beautiful and astonishing becoming banal and ordinary because of being reproduced or imitated. Kristi said this of Gehry's buildings, but I think it's true in general. I'm trying to remember from my "architecture & lit" course something that explained this. I think it was a German philosopher by the name of Benjamin, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the argument is that mass production or reproduction of something cheapens the original. I think it would be great if we could convince the larger public that brick facades, six-pane windows and "colonial" architecture do nothing but make a joke out of the new building and cheapen the true buildings done in the style. (again an over simplification, I know)
I never thought Id be defending Frank Gehry, but I guess I was wrong. (Although personally I dont find his aesthetics beautiful..yet)
In a Archrechord not so long ago, I saw a proposal for something by Frank Gehry that was not a Bilbao or disney, in which he was trying to experiment with a simple box-fusing with the curvy stuff, but overall it looked like a glass box. I still disagree in the image on the magazine, but I respected his will to get search further-
In the same repitition of style, I find it interesting that Tadao Ando- who with very few exceptions always uses concrete and glass for a box, is only mentioned once, then dissapears.
If it looks the same, it dosent necessarily mean the same. If it looks different, it does not necessary mean different. Perhaps you are looking at architecture too much as an end product-
Progression can take many different forms, and occasionally they are not as clear.
My point is that it is only your perception which is giving you this opinion that Gehry (and others) are commercial architects. I'm happy for Gehry to keep doing his thing - he is only one architect out there, albeit with a lot more public and media attention.
This opinion of yours is personal and subjective. Gehry's design process is his own, as is Novak, Murcutt, Lautner, Scarpa and Oosterhuis. I'm not sure that you can accuse Gehry of being a populist or an opprtunist - in my opinion Libeskind may qualify. Whereas Meier is repetitive in his work in the same way that Pollock was.
Would you be willing to wake Pollock from the dead and suggest he take up video installaion?
FrankLloydMike,
At the end of my degree it dawned on me why it takes so long. The architectural education is intended, or should be intended to instill and engender a sense of responsibility on the architect for the huge task that awaits.
To design a building, and have it built is a mammoth responsibility. It affects people on a daily basis, it exerts both intimate and subtle experiences. As an act of translation from idea to form, it should not be underestimated in its seriousness.
It is because of this that you should prepare yourself as much as possible, because the bettter you know your profession, the more you can contribute to it.
Diabase Don't touch Pollock! Got nothing to add to what you said.
The sad fact is that here I am finding this inappropriate racism towards students treated with indifference and arrogance by the intellectually advanced archi-types. It just makes me sad (for having this treatment by professors as you pretend to be).
Frogpiss architecture can be seen in different aspects and one of them, for sure, is that (important) of an end product (that's what clients want)!
We have all been there before, no patronisation was intended. I am just challenging students to take the profession seriously and learn as much as you can.
Architecture is a profession where you must have your own opinions, but opinions dont matter if they are based on shallow foundations. I'm not neccesarily syaing this of you personally.
I remember being in my final year and being astounded at the lack of knowledge that my fellow students had. I know of a 4th year student not knowing who Mies van der Rohe was! Chances are that they were blinded by the light reflected from titanium panels.
Thats not my point, Kiristi. I may have been unclear in my "end product"
Sure, the "built building" is very important yes, but it is never a end product. for a built building may inspire a new way to make it, or a new tangent of a concept. The "end", becomes a beggining.
Do you see my meaning of "end product"?
Oftentimes, its hard to expand beyond a style, because you cannot explore everything in one building. This can be said for musicians too! Out of curiousity, one may suck certain things till death, and I feel thats ok.(wow, that didnt sound right) Sometimes you need to in order to fully explore a style until you move on to the next....
hm, yeah, funny that ando isn't slammed as often as gehry in this forum. he is far more self-referential (though the new H+H building is very fine indeed).
anyway, when it comes right down to it style is not as important as you might think, and critiqueing any building based on such is nearly impossible to support. Beauty is nice to talk about, but who can seriously offer to judge such things?
Case in point, I positively dislike POMO, but last year on a trip to genoa I saw a building by Aldo Rossi that was fantastic top to bottom. At first blush it was just another pomo thing, and I still don't like POMO at all, but that building was a fine piece of architecture. The materials and details were beautiful and the whole thing was a serious masterpiece. Actually in retrospect I still don't like the way the building looks at all, but remain very impressed by the project. cuz when it comes down to it style just isn't important.
Who cares if gehry is fascinated by sculptural forms lately. that's his muse, same as NOX does twisty wormy things all the time, and Koolhaas uses program. it's just a way of getting from A to B, making good buildings, et cetera et cetera. Now if you want to talk about the dissapointing disconnect between gehry's interiors and exteriors, maybe then we have something in common. I love his stuff but it is always a let down that the interiors are not nearly as dramatic...
Yeah Jump I heard even about that about Gehry's interior-exterior non corresponding to. Nox may be yeah a bit wormy (and me too some time ago went through those) But I find OOsterhuis a nice example of architecture not based in a strict 'could say from a thousands miles it's theirs' style, eventhough they have their own way of designing and that's pretty fine.
Aug 23, 05 6:16 am ·
·
The late period of artists is often under-rated. Picasso's Late Period was mostly disliked while he was alive--seen as repetitious and unimportant. Yet with Picasso dead, the late works were not so unimportant anymore, in fact they manifest one of Picasso's most creative periods.
Frank Gehry may be in a wonderful position if he continues to do architecture for another decade or so, because, when he isn't around anymore, his late works might just manifest his most creative period.
I like to look at and study the late periods of artists because of all the facile-ness and confidence and even (if you're lucky) the "I don't give a fuck" found there.
Philip Johnson produced an interesting late period, and he did change 'styles' with every new project, yet his overall style has always been reenactionary architecturism.
Intersting thread. Of course in order to change a design style you would first have to establish the style from which to change. I think that what we don't want is a Madonna of the Architecture world who would reinvent their building style several times every decade. Buildings are not as fickle as fasion due to time and cost considerations'.
Part of the style perception is to do with the increased speed change in our evolving society. I don't think that questions of sytle would have been so prevalent in the past where the pace of change was considered to be slower and therefore less reactionary.
Remember fashion is fickle, you may want a Ghery inspired design today. Tomorrows is for someone else (or every eight years as e states).
Hadid, Gehry, and Calatrava making the same things and yet Moss and Eisenman and Koolhaas aren't? I am still confused.
All of them have changed substantially from where they started to now. They are just building tons now, so it's inevitable a lot will look similar, especially when clients demand it.
But then McDonald (I still see those hideous renderings of blobitecture done ages ago being published!!). Same thing with PS1, which I didn't have a huge problem with, but it's certainly regurgitated work from several years ago (again, fine, but it's not 'new').
The Picasso analogy was good. It's too easy to look at things in a small frame, especially when there are lots of examples to look at.
Trace Discussion was not about whole career of those, nut just a part, part about cloning buildings of an moneymaking style...
About the Picasso's analogy- Let's hope Gehry doesn't die tomorrow!!!
"...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."
HA!
thanks Rita, that quote made reading all of kristi's nonsense worthwhile...
we're talking about a completely reductive argument...
there is no history, we're solely speaking of right now
at this moment...the argument involves the idea of
'cloning' buildings...any attempt to say that this is 'process'
or a possible series is 'wrong'...
anyone attempting to
create analogies to similar art-related field icons is
irrelevant since it is somehow not germaine sp? to
the topic since no analogies or rhetoric can be applied
to this particular argument...
and any attempts to inform, educate, or speak from
relevant experience is deemed as being 'rascist' towards
students and/or patronizing...
dudes, I think that what kristi's saying is really typical of people at a certain point in their education. Come on- in school you see slides and slides of people's work, and yeah, after a few it does all look the same. And that is frustrating, when somebody is telling you that 'here is a GREAT architect- a master of his craft" and you're sitting there going, "but all his buildings look the same!" That's what happens when you experience architecture as a slide show. As you grow and you travel, and you experience architecture in a more personal way, you feel this less, or at least understand it more, because you're getting a more real experience out of it that helps you understand it more completely.
So anyways, I think people are being a bit harsh on kristi, but kristi, damnit, wake up and realize you're in the middle of a process yourself, and you're talking to people further along in that process than you, and you're being exceptionally pig-headed about this.
Quite honestly, I don't see what is so wrong about her posting. why does Gehry find it necessary to find homes for 50 bilbaos over the world? My personal opinion is his design would be much more historically significant if only one was built. Have any of you been to the experience museum? Really really really not an attractive building. And isn't one going up in Biloxi Miss? What's up with that, apparently that one is supposed to relate to the Southern oaks on the site, I mean come on. At least say, well, it's a gambling town, it deserves a crazy museum - much stronger argument. I have no problem with an architect coming up with a language, a consistancy to their detailing and maybe even overall approach to design. It's absolutely necessary to survive as an architect. I think it's fascinating to study an architect's work from first project to last and see a process there - as you also do in Gehry. But when an architect takes the same forms and plops them down on different sites all over the world and then says, well fish made me think of this one, and then, the sky reflecting off the skin made me think about this one, and then the long knarly tree branches made me think of this, well, I think the architect should either try explaining his ideas in another way or come up with some new forms. Or maybe he's telling the truth and when he thinks about all those things, those forms are the result. I used to think Gehry was just a superstar architect who was taking advantage of huge budgets. I don't think that anymore but I do think he has more talent than he is currently sharing. Listen to an old interview on Fresh air with Terri Gross interviewing Gehry. Very interesting, it's a great interview:
my argument ol'dirty is that his buildings do relate to
their sites, but in a different way than we normally relate
buildings to their site...(maybe what you're saying as well)
i don't know his process..but is
it possible that his buildings are an expression of his
ideas of relating to a site...are we being a bit naive by
saying that he's just plopping the same design down
over and over again? other than the material...are the
forms entirely the same? bilbao, for instance, is low and
flat along the river..and rises at it's entrance which is on
access with a street that heads directly into it. Disney
rises up on the streets defining the corner and the street
edge...(I believe..sort of been a while since i've been there)
i have been to bilbao, the american center, la disney,
his house in santa monica, chiat day, the parking
garage in santa monica, the museum in toledo, the emp
(i actually saw a moe show in the emp...and i highly
reccomend seeing any kind of music show there..) and
maybe more...i'm not a fan of his detailing, but i don't
think he totally ignores context either..
and rationalist..my main problem with kristi (a guy i believe)
is that everything is either right or wrong...not much of
an attempt at creating a broader dialogue and further
expanding on points or arguing against other's points with
the same type of expansion of those points. i respect a
person's opinion to dislike gehry and to say that they're
all the same building, but i wouldn't mind it if he would
expand on why he thinks that way.
Lars, disney and Bilbao are the only 2 of that particular form of his that I like. the rest are plops in my opinion, especially experience. But, that's probably what the client asked for. Whatareyougonnado?
these all seem pretty different/specific to me...what's the issue?
Aug 25, 05 3:52 pm ·
·
I see the archinecter formerly known as kristi has changed his name. That's a good sign because from now on he will have to change his name everyday or so, that is, unless his real name is hypocrit.
I wonder where he got the idea to change his name here in the first place.
"why does Gehry find it necessary to find homes for 50 bilbaos over the world?" The process includes clients and banks and a host of other participants--individuals and organizations. Architects don't will this stuff into being from the ether; they are hired by (and answer to) people with (and often without) money to build on this or that site for particular purposes.
Enough already with the idea that the architect is purely a creator working in a vacuum.
oda,
i can respect that...i'm trying to think of others that are of
that particular ilk...i did really like the metal he used for
the middle section at emp...the reflections of the roller
coaster and overall carnival atmosphere behind that
building made it worth it for me...that and the monorail
going through it.. but on the surface i can agree with you
on those two buildings being the best of his blobs..
oh..i forgot the stata center at m.i.t. and one of his very
early commisions..the now virgin records on mass ave
in boston... although i may not like the stata center
completely...i do like that he has actually now built in
boston...for so long the architecture of boston was so stale
(1985?-2000 or so) in terms of large projects...as opposed
to the 60's and 70's.. mit's new building campaign has
brought several new nice large buildings to the area...
and i also think the stata center is another case of responding
to context in some ways...although formally the language
may be stale..his material choices seem to respond to
the area.
I don't know about the simmons domitory by holl though. I know someone who lived in it while in grad school. He said he thought it was the wrong design for a university with the highest suicide rate in the country.
i agree with you on simmons...although having holl's
building on basically the same street as gehry's is
an interesting juxtaposition..that and having pei's
buildings for the campus, saarinen's sp? chapel (one
of my favorite buildings), aalto's dorm and the
other buildings in that area...it is a rich area for
architecture.
i think holl's building is an example of an architect
not truly considering his end user's needs...as well
as going over budget when he really didn't need to.
the detailing of the metal skin is ridiculous though
for something that looks basically like aluminum
panel from far away...all stainless 3/32" thick i
believe attached with hex head stainless steel screws.
Damn, I need to go visit. I've never been despite having so many friends in Boston. I'd say it's on the top of my list for U.S. cities I've yet to visit.
Hello Rita (God you again, one doesn't have right to change name in peace) , YES I'm new now!
Oh you shouldn't be surpriesed, you said something like that... I just don't wanna have the same name, sex,blah bla blah etc for too long otherwise people think I'm rich and have to retire cause boring. I like the way you play down your own intellectual ability in order to sarcastically criticise me for having my own personal ideas!!! I suppose you are right and I am wrong but I am intellectually inferior to realise this! I see that this has becoming your favourite place where to channel your frustration, woman. I'd be able to accept those constructive comments from rationalist (and yeah,often I'm a pig-headed :) ) than your offensive ones. I'm just sick of you posting here, Your Sarcasm has the sense of humour with the sound of the vomitorium! And please don't talk about nonsense hypocrisy... I'm tired of your intellectual ways of playing with arrogance. Sick of it. (Just don't wanna reply you anymore, you don't deserve a f*)
dude, you way out of your league. don't make it worse by showing how big the gap is. you're idea is posed in an intellectual framework why get upset when someone with an intellect answers you...very weak.
Tiring architects VS Real Architects
Frank Lloyd Mike,
I'm not bashing anyone for expressing an opinion---student or seasoned professional. I'm questioning the tone: the absolute CERTAINTY with which Kristi asserts an opinion as virtual fact, while picking and choosing her examples without 1) looking at the FULL historical record, and 2) ever actually done this for a living.
citizen, my reference to "bashing" wasn't that you were bashing anyone, but to an earlier thread about "Gehry-bashing." Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part there. and I agree with what you just said.
Citizen I am a boy, Male!!! And yes mine is a personal opinion.
Larslarson once again you're wrong cause we're not argueing about the process or materials that would make a 'Gehry' biulding look a bit different from others. The fact is that he digs only in his 'evergreen' style for making them, not involving new creativity other architecture directions (as to me).
I think that fossilizing in a style weakens this profession (men I'm working on a studio of architects) and more imortant is that like this, Cloning kills Gehrians buildings. I mean when first time I saw great Gugg I was astonished by such beauty (who hasn't been!) but then I saw all the other copies (and I mean all what he built and planned to but didn't) I saw that astonishing fade away. The same building (with some retouches here and there and given another name likely to the place) lose their Value of a Unique Epic building of that kind. Once Marvel is repeted to eterninty it barely touches banality. And I'm not talking about how long do I have to travell (from Blilbao to LA) to meet another Gehry's and feel the change in them
Well Rita couldn't you really understand what I meant?? I was saying that with your replies you contribute to make the thing go round and round, means it won't stop til you continou to write, til you add another reply to the thread. I never said I will continou writing cause you do, please don't feel so imortant miss. God your musical tastes are stuck to early 60's, yakky yak Oh talking about sex, this is a little argument I didn't want to touch but as you did... this is what I thought from first time I read your replies : GOD, RITA!!! That poor woman needs to have some sex!!! :) (about the sex-changing) Actually I do. My dad is a surgeon and he changes my sex everytime i desire and me and my girl/boy have some extremely joyfully time in bed, lucky us. God, This new Generation, huhhhhhhhhhhh
Kristi,
Perhaps you should broaden your horizons and look at other architects out there who design worthy buildings. This fixation you have with starchitects, while a characteristic of the young student, is not doing anything for your education. It is your duty to expand your knowledge of the profession and its proponents, and not just consume whatever El Croquis dishes up to you.
Good luck,
d.
DiaBase, are you kidding. Do you think I spend my time reding CasaBella on Good old Calatrava, Gehry, Liebsknid and all the rest. I have no fixation with starchitects with none of them (Gehry came to became just symbol of it talking in this thread) I'm just discussing the way architecture formal language that makes money is used in such an opportunistic way by 'clever' architects.
Please you just do not know nothing about my horizons, how can you judge just by a thread and the fact I'm a student. It's just superficial to you. I'm not about to make a list of my favourite superyoung architects but just some stuff I was interested of some time ago.
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=P19049_0_42_0_C
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=P19281_0_42_0_C
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=P19286_0_42_0_C
and this one saved my life http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=P20598_0_42_0_C thanks again architecturegreek
diabase, that's an excellent point. I've found that often my professors talk about both star architects and much lesser known ones, but the virtually anonymous ones remain virtually anonymous compared to star architects, because you rarely if ever hear their names again. I'm not by any means suggesting this is the fault of the professor or that it makes the architects' work less valuable. I'm wondering, however, if you know of a good way to broaden my horizons as an architecture student. I try to keep up with some of the local architecture, but it can be tough and there's just so much out there. Thanks.
Also, I think kristi makes a good point about something beautiful and astonishing becoming banal and ordinary because of being reproduced or imitated. Kristi said this of Gehry's buildings, but I think it's true in general. I'm trying to remember from my "architecture & lit" course something that explained this. I think it was a German philosopher by the name of Benjamin, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the argument is that mass production or reproduction of something cheapens the original. I think it would be great if we could convince the larger public that brick facades, six-pane windows and "colonial" architecture do nothing but make a joke out of the new building and cheapen the true buildings done in the style. (again an over simplification, I know)
I never thought Id be defending Frank Gehry, but I guess I was wrong. (Although personally I dont find his aesthetics beautiful..yet)
In a Archrechord not so long ago, I saw a proposal for something by Frank Gehry that was not a Bilbao or disney, in which he was trying to experiment with a simple box-fusing with the curvy stuff, but overall it looked like a glass box. I still disagree in the image on the magazine, but I respected his will to get search further-
In the same repitition of style, I find it interesting that Tadao Ando- who with very few exceptions always uses concrete and glass for a box, is only mentioned once, then dissapears.
If it looks the same, it dosent necessarily mean the same. If it looks different, it does not necessary mean different. Perhaps you are looking at architecture too much as an end product-
Progression can take many different forms, and occasionally they are not as clear.
Kristi,
My point is that it is only your perception which is giving you this opinion that Gehry (and others) are commercial architects. I'm happy for Gehry to keep doing his thing - he is only one architect out there, albeit with a lot more public and media attention.
This opinion of yours is personal and subjective. Gehry's design process is his own, as is Novak, Murcutt, Lautner, Scarpa and Oosterhuis. I'm not sure that you can accuse Gehry of being a populist or an opprtunist - in my opinion Libeskind may qualify. Whereas Meier is repetitive in his work in the same way that Pollock was.
Would you be willing to wake Pollock from the dead and suggest he take up video installaion?
FrankLloydMike,
At the end of my degree it dawned on me why it takes so long. The architectural education is intended, or should be intended to instill and engender a sense of responsibility on the architect for the huge task that awaits.
To design a building, and have it built is a mammoth responsibility. It affects people on a daily basis, it exerts both intimate and subtle experiences. As an act of translation from idea to form, it should not be underestimated in its seriousness.
It is because of this that you should prepare yourself as much as possible, because the bettter you know your profession, the more you can contribute to it.
Diabase Don't touch Pollock! Got nothing to add to what you said.
The sad fact is that here I am finding this inappropriate racism towards students treated with indifference and arrogance by the intellectually advanced archi-types. It just makes me sad (for having this treatment by professors as you pretend to be).
Frogpiss architecture can be seen in different aspects and one of them, for sure, is that (important) of an end product (that's what clients want)!
Kristi,
We have all been there before, no patronisation was intended. I am just challenging students to take the profession seriously and learn as much as you can.
Architecture is a profession where you must have your own opinions, but opinions dont matter if they are based on shallow foundations. I'm not neccesarily syaing this of you personally.
I remember being in my final year and being astounded at the lack of knowledge that my fellow students had. I know of a 4th year student not knowing who Mies van der Rohe was! Chances are that they were blinded by the light reflected from titanium panels.
d.
Thats not my point, Kiristi. I may have been unclear in my "end product"
Sure, the "built building" is very important yes, but it is never a end product. for a built building may inspire a new way to make it, or a new tangent of a concept. The "end", becomes a beggining.
Do you see my meaning of "end product"?
Oftentimes, its hard to expand beyond a style, because you cannot explore everything in one building. This can be said for musicians too! Out of curiousity, one may suck certain things till death, and I feel thats ok.(wow, that didnt sound right) Sometimes you need to in order to fully explore a style until you move on to the next....
the fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing.
isaiah berlin quoted by colin rowe on collage city. pp. 91-92
any great artist or thinker must reinvent themselves every eight years.
hm, yeah, funny that ando isn't slammed as often as gehry in this forum. he is far more self-referential (though the new H+H building is very fine indeed).
anyway, when it comes right down to it style is not as important as you might think, and critiqueing any building based on such is nearly impossible to support. Beauty is nice to talk about, but who can seriously offer to judge such things?
Case in point, I positively dislike POMO, but last year on a trip to genoa I saw a building by Aldo Rossi that was fantastic top to bottom. At first blush it was just another pomo thing, and I still don't like POMO at all, but that building was a fine piece of architecture. The materials and details were beautiful and the whole thing was a serious masterpiece. Actually in retrospect I still don't like the way the building looks at all, but remain very impressed by the project. cuz when it comes down to it style just isn't important.
Who cares if gehry is fascinated by sculptural forms lately. that's his muse, same as NOX does twisty wormy things all the time, and Koolhaas uses program. it's just a way of getting from A to B, making good buildings, et cetera et cetera. Now if you want to talk about the dissapointing disconnect between gehry's interiors and exteriors, maybe then we have something in common. I love his stuff but it is always a let down that the interiors are not nearly as dramatic...
Yeah Jump I heard even about that about Gehry's interior-exterior non corresponding to. Nox may be yeah a bit wormy (and me too some time ago went through those) But I find OOsterhuis a nice example of architecture not based in a strict 'could say from a thousands miles it's theirs' style, eventhough they have their own way of designing and that's pretty fine.
The late period of artists is often under-rated. Picasso's Late Period was mostly disliked while he was alive--seen as repetitious and unimportant. Yet with Picasso dead, the late works were not so unimportant anymore, in fact they manifest one of Picasso's most creative periods.
Frank Gehry may be in a wonderful position if he continues to do architecture for another decade or so, because, when he isn't around anymore, his late works might just manifest his most creative period.
I like to look at and study the late periods of artists because of all the facile-ness and confidence and even (if you're lucky) the "I don't give a fuck" found there.
Philip Johnson produced an interesting late period, and he did change 'styles' with every new project, yet his overall style has always been reenactionary architecturism.
FrankLloydMike where do you study?
Intersting thread. Of course in order to change a design style you would first have to establish the style from which to change. I think that what we don't want is a Madonna of the Architecture world who would reinvent their building style several times every decade. Buildings are not as fickle as fasion due to time and cost considerations'.
Part of the style perception is to do with the increased speed change in our evolving society. I don't think that questions of sytle would have been so prevalent in the past where the pace of change was considered to be slower and therefore less reactionary.
Remember fashion is fickle, you may want a Ghery inspired design today. Tomorrows is for someone else (or every eight years as e states).
I'm at Wentworth in Boston.. you?
I'm, the 1000th viewer of this thread! Do i get a cookie?
SeanNOLA, tell me your name is a reference to Ween's "Shinola."
if so, you most certainly get a cookie
I'm in Florence, Italy...dreaming of Columbia under H.D.Alonzo or W.McDonald or just Lars Spuybroek :)
For you SeanNOLA? YAMMY
Racism? Did I miss something?
Hmm, I am confused...
let's see...
Hadid, Gehry, and Calatrava making the same things and yet Moss and Eisenman and Koolhaas aren't? I am still confused.
All of them have changed substantially from where they started to now. They are just building tons now, so it's inevitable a lot will look similar, especially when clients demand it.
But then McDonald (I still see those hideous renderings of blobitecture done ages ago being published!!). Same thing with PS1, which I didn't have a huge problem with, but it's certainly regurgitated work from several years ago (again, fine, but it's not 'new').
The Picasso analogy was good. It's too easy to look at things in a small frame, especially when there are lots of examples to look at.
Trace Discussion was not about whole career of those, nut just a part, part about cloning buildings of an moneymaking style...
About the Picasso's analogy- Let's hope Gehry doesn't die tomorrow!!!
Welcome to the Death Clock, the Internet's friendly reminder that life is slipping away...
The most AAAAwsome thing i've seen in days. Terrible :)
wow! i'm living 'til 2066! so i guess you won't see my best work for another 40 years or so....
kristi = (the new) per ????
"...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."
HA!
thanks Rita, that quote made reading all of kristi's nonsense worthwhile...
what i've learned from this thread:
we're talking about a completely reductive argument...
there is no history, we're solely speaking of right now
at this moment...the argument involves the idea of
'cloning' buildings...any attempt to say that this is 'process'
or a possible series is 'wrong'...
anyone attempting to
create analogies to similar art-related field icons is
irrelevant since it is somehow not germaine sp? to
the topic since no analogies or rhetoric can be applied
to this particular argument...
and any attempts to inform, educate, or speak from
relevant experience is deemed as being 'rascist' towards
students and/or patronizing...
have i missed anything?
dudes, I think that what kristi's saying is really typical of people at a certain point in their education. Come on- in school you see slides and slides of people's work, and yeah, after a few it does all look the same. And that is frustrating, when somebody is telling you that 'here is a GREAT architect- a master of his craft" and you're sitting there going, "but all his buildings look the same!" That's what happens when you experience architecture as a slide show. As you grow and you travel, and you experience architecture in a more personal way, you feel this less, or at least understand it more, because you're getting a more real experience out of it that helps you understand it more completely.
So anyways, I think people are being a bit harsh on kristi, but kristi, damnit, wake up and realize you're in the middle of a process yourself, and you're talking to people further along in that process than you, and you're being exceptionally pig-headed about this.
Quite honestly, I don't see what is so wrong about her posting. why does Gehry find it necessary to find homes for 50 bilbaos over the world? My personal opinion is his design would be much more historically significant if only one was built. Have any of you been to the experience museum? Really really really not an attractive building. And isn't one going up in Biloxi Miss? What's up with that, apparently that one is supposed to relate to the Southern oaks on the site, I mean come on. At least say, well, it's a gambling town, it deserves a crazy museum - much stronger argument. I have no problem with an architect coming up with a language, a consistancy to their detailing and maybe even overall approach to design. It's absolutely necessary to survive as an architect. I think it's fascinating to study an architect's work from first project to last and see a process there - as you also do in Gehry. But when an architect takes the same forms and plops them down on different sites all over the world and then says, well fish made me think of this one, and then, the sky reflecting off the skin made me think about this one, and then the long knarly tree branches made me think of this, well, I think the architect should either try explaining his ideas in another way or come up with some new forms. Or maybe he's telling the truth and when he thinks about all those things, those forms are the result. I used to think Gehry was just a superstar architect who was taking advantage of huge budgets. I don't think that anymore but I do think he has more talent than he is currently sharing. Listen to an old interview on Fresh air with Terri Gross interviewing Gehry. Very interesting, it's a great interview:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3622028
my argument ol'dirty is that his buildings do relate to
their sites, but in a different way than we normally relate
buildings to their site...(maybe what you're saying as well)
i don't know his process..but is
it possible that his buildings are an expression of his
ideas of relating to a site...are we being a bit naive by
saying that he's just plopping the same design down
over and over again? other than the material...are the
forms entirely the same? bilbao, for instance, is low and
flat along the river..and rises at it's entrance which is on
access with a street that heads directly into it. Disney
rises up on the streets defining the corner and the street
edge...(I believe..sort of been a while since i've been there)
i have been to bilbao, the american center, la disney,
his house in santa monica, chiat day, the parking
garage in santa monica, the museum in toledo, the emp
(i actually saw a moe show in the emp...and i highly
reccomend seeing any kind of music show there..) and
maybe more...i'm not a fan of his detailing, but i don't
think he totally ignores context either..
and rationalist..my main problem with kristi (a guy i believe)
is that everything is either right or wrong...not much of
an attempt at creating a broader dialogue and further
expanding on points or arguing against other's points with
the same type of expansion of those points. i respect a
person's opinion to dislike gehry and to say that they're
all the same building, but i wouldn't mind it if he would
expand on why he thinks that way.
Lars, disney and Bilbao are the only 2 of that particular form of his that I like. the rest are plops in my opinion, especially experience. But, that's probably what the client asked for. Whatareyougonnado?
vontz center, cincinnati, 1999
nationale-nedelanden, prague, 1996
disney ice center, anaheim, 1993
dg bank, berlin, 1994
these all seem pretty different/specific to me...what's the issue?
I see the archinecter formerly known as kristi has changed his name. That's a good sign because from now on he will have to change his name everyday or so, that is, unless his real name is hypocrit.
I wonder where he got the idea to change his name here in the first place.
"why does Gehry find it necessary to find homes for 50 bilbaos over the world?" The process includes clients and banks and a host of other participants--individuals and organizations. Architects don't will this stuff into being from the ether; they are hired by (and answer to) people with (and often without) money to build on this or that site for particular purposes.
Enough already with the idea that the architect is purely a creator working in a vacuum.
oda,
i can respect that...i'm trying to think of others that are of
that particular ilk...i did really like the metal he used for
the middle section at emp...the reflections of the roller
coaster and overall carnival atmosphere behind that
building made it worth it for me...that and the monorail
going through it.. but on the surface i can agree with you
on those two buildings being the best of his blobs..
oh..i forgot the stata center at m.i.t. and one of his very
early commisions..the now virgin records on mass ave
in boston... although i may not like the stata center
completely...i do like that he has actually now built in
boston...for so long the architecture of boston was so stale
(1985?-2000 or so) in terms of large projects...as opposed
to the 60's and 70's.. mit's new building campaign has
brought several new nice large buildings to the area...
and i also think the stata center is another case of responding
to context in some ways...although formally the language
may be stale..his material choices seem to respond to
the area.
I don't know about the simmons domitory by holl though. I know someone who lived in it while in grad school. He said he thought it was the wrong design for a university with the highest suicide rate in the country.
i agree with you on simmons...although having holl's
building on basically the same street as gehry's is
an interesting juxtaposition..that and having pei's
buildings for the campus, saarinen's sp? chapel (one
of my favorite buildings), aalto's dorm and the
other buildings in that area...it is a rich area for
architecture.
i think holl's building is an example of an architect
not truly considering his end user's needs...as well
as going over budget when he really didn't need to.
the detailing of the metal skin is ridiculous though
for something that looks basically like aluminum
panel from far away...all stainless 3/32" thick i
believe attached with hex head stainless steel screws.
Damn, I need to go visit. I've never been despite having so many friends in Boston. I'd say it's on the top of my list for U.S. cities I've yet to visit.
Hello Rita (God you again, one doesn't have right to change name in peace) , YES I'm new now!
Oh you shouldn't be surpriesed, you said something like that... I just don't wanna have the same name, sex,blah bla blah etc for too long otherwise people think I'm rich and have to retire cause boring. I like the way you play down your own intellectual ability in order to sarcastically criticise me for having my own personal ideas!!! I suppose you are right and I am wrong but I am intellectually inferior to realise this! I see that this has becoming your favourite place where to channel your frustration, woman. I'd be able to accept those constructive comments from rationalist (and yeah,often I'm a pig-headed :) ) than your offensive ones. I'm just sick of you posting here, Your Sarcasm has the sense of humour with the sound of the vomitorium! And please don't talk about nonsense hypocrisy... I'm tired of your intellectual ways of playing with arrogance. Sick of it. (Just don't wanna reply you anymore, you don't deserve a f*)
Very interesting reading larslarson and OlDirtyArchitect comments :)
Hey quondam kristi, you're getting more and more like Gehry all the time.
hahah. man that was hilarious.
dude, you way out of your league. don't make it worse by showing how big the gap is. you're idea is posed in an intellectual framework why get upset when someone with an intellect answers you...very weak.
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.