should an architect, who is considered great by many not just inside the realm of architecture but in the mtv culture have every one of his works be kept for all time or until the big one hits california? or should we demolish the ones that simply need to go? and on top of that, has his "style" hurt him? has his computer program, CATIA (i think) where basically anyone can take a shit in the palm of their hand, place it upon the platform, and watch catia make the structural/engineering configurations so it can be built, all to be clad in titanium or aluminum sheets become repeated? in finding his style, his signature, has gehry lost/forsaken his imagination? i mean, seriously, his designs are becoming elements of a form in motion, the same form, in different areas and fabrics, a form of which we are only seeing "screenshots" of the same shit, over and over.....
im sure i dont know much about how FOG uses CATIA but im sure is not as simply as you put it
his designs i agree have lost a lot by being so repeated
Mies in his day repeated himself too much as well using the "pavillion" TYPE to the max
i like to think that when they demolish something, they will put up something better in that place, gehry's early work is very interesting to me, and i could bet that anything that common developers will build instead will not be interesting at all
perhaps when he dies, many will start talking about how great his very last building was
"gehry's early work is very interesting to me"
but if, as you say, his late work is nothing but his early work later on
,then, perhaps, simply an inversion: early on,i was interested in gehry's work
i never was 'interested' in gehry's work. i found the fish amusing, for the jewish associations...not much else. but not being interested in does not equate with being disturbed by, of course. his laissez faire laissez passer non-intellectualism (but, importantly, not anti-intellectual) and
the non-eurocentric non-masochistic/tortured get-down-to-it attutide
(although this is more of a cliche as the dutch have a strain of that and im sure there are many tortured us-centricisms) is fine, someone having fun. he's even been successful at being lighthearted enough not to taint it with too much disneyfication..although i dont find disney&co. hitlers in pink.
i'm not sure whether the man's darker moments are simply hidden or nonexistent at all. on par,on the other side of the expressionist mountain, someone like miralles...and not just for dying... interesting.
SALLY: Amanda mentioned you had a dark side.
HARRY: That's what drew her to me.
SALLY: Your dark side?
HARRY: Sure. Why? Don't you have a dark side? I know, you're probably one of those cheerful people who dot their "i's" with little hearts.
SALLY: I have just as much of a dark side as the next person.
HARRY: Oh, really? When I buy a new book, I read the last page first. That way, in case I die before I finish, I know how it ends.
That, my friend, is a dark side.
"So? That doesn't mean your deep or anything...."
I read in an LA Times article that Frank was asked about both projects and he said that he could care less.
He was stated before that he is not so concerned with the future of his buildings. I think he just enjoys them in the conceptual phase and then loses interest once they get built ( this is my deduction, not his).
I will miss the giant "SANTA MONICA" super-text that decorated the garage. In fact the garage was the best thing about Santa Monica Place.
i'm still convinced his last several designs have been his shit on CATIA, don't get me wrong, sculpturally, they're pretty cool if you're on acid, but then again, so is shit. something that bothered me about the guggenheim bilbao was that it housed art, but his design almost overwhelmned the art it was suppose to display. was his design serving a function, that of the museum and a place to experience the art of others, or was his design self serving?
misery , as mass art, was the crucible of the neorealist film makers.
of course, when harry met sally things changed. misery was superseded by very american cynicism towards misery. we are no
longer allowed to wallow in unproductive misery (unless its cute and is sson vanquished by cuteness- the antichrist meg) at the expense of being made fun of. (that,my non friend, is the intellectual anti-intellectual .. academic american pragmatism in its pop disguise...javier posted a very good link, but not touching on the pop somewhere)
im not sure which is the more miserable, 40s italian movies with endless scenes of working class povery, desolation and war-ridden cities and towns...or the slapstick health-radiating smugness of harry and sally, always ready to fireball a cute cleverness, an adorable witticism, a finely manufactured machine that prototypes cliches (when harry met sally was not a cliche..it was a deliberated prototype for forthcoming cliches..)
how is it self-serving if he's made the institution a landmark?
as much as people may go to these galleries to view the art, there is always a group of people who would go to the gallery for the sole reason of having their picture taken in front of or inside this new famous building. if it encourages more people to go in then i think he's done more than he had to.
not necessarily every piece of an architect's work is amazing, no matter how famous they are now. buildings will be torn down and unless the general public feels that a particular building is worth keeping... well that's the cycle of life. we will eventually run out of land.
so the new question becomes, is it so significant that it's either worth restoring or restoring and integrating it into a new building.
i'm surprised that wasn't an option. several universities in canada have simply integrated old architure with the new.
Well, what's it been? 2, maybe 3 weeks since we've had any Gehry bashing. Here's something that will lose me all the little credibility I might have: I like Gehry's work. I can think of several thousand other bldgs to demo.
myster man, dont' get me wrong, i love gehry, i really do. i think he has done great things to forward american design and what architects can do in this wonderful country. i'm not joking, i've always liked his work, my beef is guess is roaming round his spaces, especially his museums, that he oversteps the boundaries of purpose, that is, the purpose of the design, but that is just my point of view.
dear rita, oh my sweet sweet rita, i'd say we have a love/hate relationship inspired by the witty remarks of han and princess leia in empire...but then i think, and i'd bet my life on it, you would look more like jubba the hut in that sexy return of the jedi two piece bikini and closer to the shit you send, both figuratively literally, so it couldn't possibly be love....and you insufferable cookie, what would i do without you? i damn near expected your book to be in that pile of shit, but it was just your reflection. however, i applaud you for stooping to my level.....
This reminds me of the demolition of 'Rio' by Arquitectenica. A decent 'deconstructivist' shopping center. Got demo'd in the mid '90s. Replaced w/ sunny-happy Post Apts & a prototypical Walgreen's that all the company's corporate architects must love.
Maybe everything said about Santa Monica Place is true - I briefly remember a part of it. Thinking back, this is maybe one valid instance of gehry-bashin'. However, be careful what you wish for - Walgreen's is always lurking.
Paper T ;
"has his computer program, CATIA (i think) where basically anyone can take a shit in the palm of their hand, place it upon the platform, and watch catia make the structural/engineering configurations so it can be built, all to be clad in titanium or aluminum sheets become repeated?"
LOOK and Look again at the core of these emty metal tophats , the CORE of these paneled structures there are no core, it is surface focused like a lame computer mesh -- it is _not_ what you here describe a relevant today's digital design-tool ,the program only work with the tradisional steel profiles and you are it seem, expected to fight the rigid profiles rather than make them easy and fast as today's systems can work, --- don't let a program that was cutting edge technike _20 years ago_ and bound in an oldfasion perception of the build works limit your understanding of what fantastic today's options, digital shaped and generated building structure can make. Look closer to any foto taken while these early computer-mesh structures was fiddled together by skilled craftmen and you reconise the fiddle But, do not say that while this lame aproach bring so many troubles, that then _all_ digital tools bring nothing but emty metal tophats, --- they don't, some new methods even bring all that that was missing in this 20 year old attitude ,the core structure oposed the "structures" you mention, acturly most of these are just surfaces and then another but tradisional house build inside.
Don't let these overexposed Icon structures make your picture about what real new digital production can bring. Other structural systems is a compleatly different world, do not fight the rigid steel profiles or put extra expenses ontop a hollow shell.
per correll,
i have not idea what the hell you just wrote.
for a while i was wicked confused at what the hell a tophat is. then i realized you meant top hat....i hope.
are you typing angry?
i agree with you, i think, if i'm understanding what little i understood correctly, today's technoligies are a fascinating tool, like ruler, like the straightedge, like the eraser, and i want to embrace everything technology has to offer any of those who fuck around with the creative process, all i'm saying is if gehry has such great tools, why not branch into regions he has yet to explore, with all the freedom he has, which is damn near complete, i would hope, nay, i expect him to constantly recreating himself from project to project, not rehashing the old simply because it "worked" the first time. it's like beck, the musician, whom i worship like a god, he is able to retain his "beckness" (for better lack of a word) and still reinvent himself everytime. like i said earlier, i love gehry, but with all his tools and cash at his disposal, i'd prefer it if he made a different album, not basically putting out "odelay" over and over but just with a different cover, then try to tell us it's a whole new set of songs!!
demolishing gehry
demolishing gehry....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050901/ap_on_re_us/gehry_demolition
cut n paste folks, (i'm an idiot...)
should an architect, who is considered great by many not just inside the realm of architecture but in the mtv culture have every one of his works be kept for all time or until the big one hits california? or should we demolish the ones that simply need to go? and on top of that, has his "style" hurt him? has his computer program, CATIA (i think) where basically anyone can take a shit in the palm of their hand, place it upon the platform, and watch catia make the structural/engineering configurations so it can be built, all to be clad in titanium or aluminum sheets become repeated? in finding his style, his signature, has gehry lost/forsaken his imagination? i mean, seriously, his designs are becoming elements of a form in motion, the same form, in different areas and fabrics, a form of which we are only seeing "screenshots" of the same shit, over and over.....
im sure i dont know much about how FOG uses CATIA but im sure is not as simply as you put it
his designs i agree have lost a lot by being so repeated
Mies in his day repeated himself too much as well using the "pavillion" TYPE to the max
i like to think that when they demolish something, they will put up something better in that place, gehry's early work is very interesting to me, and i could bet that anything that common developers will build instead will not be interesting at all
it was already remodeled in festive style years ago and altough it is not gehry's doing, the santa monica place badly blocks north-south connection in the center of the city.
it won't be a sorry affair to see it go and the new proposal doesn't give much back either.
additional news..
http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=P12675_0_24_0_C
http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=P11302_0_24_0_C
http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=P10618_0_24_0_C
perhaps when he dies, many will start talking about how great his very last building was
"gehry's early work is very interesting to me"
but if, as you say, his late work is nothing but his early work later on
,then, perhaps, simply an inversion: early on,i was interested in gehry's work
i never was 'interested' in gehry's work. i found the fish amusing, for the jewish associations...not much else. but not being interested in does not equate with being disturbed by, of course. his laissez faire laissez passer non-intellectualism (but, importantly, not anti-intellectual) and
the non-eurocentric non-masochistic/tortured get-down-to-it attutide
(although this is more of a cliche as the dutch have a strain of that and im sure there are many tortured us-centricisms) is fine, someone having fun. he's even been successful at being lighthearted enough not to taint it with too much disneyfication..although i dont find disney&co. hitlers in pink.
i'm not sure whether the man's darker moments are simply hidden or nonexistent at all. on par,on the other side of the expressionist mountain, someone like miralles...and not just for dying... interesting.
"perhaps when he dies, many will start talking about how great his very last building was"
now thats the philosophy of time-syntax making itself felt :-)
if i correct one then theres an err in the other:- perhaps when he dies, many will start talking about how great his very last building will be
SALLY: Amanda mentioned you had a dark side.
HARRY: That's what drew her to me.
SALLY: Your dark side?
HARRY: Sure. Why? Don't you have a dark side? I know, you're probably one of those cheerful people who dot their "i's" with little hearts.
SALLY: I have just as much of a dark side as the next person.
HARRY: Oh, really? When I buy a new book, I read the last page first. That way, in case I die before I finish, I know how it ends.
That, my friend, is a dark side.
"So? That doesn't mean your deep or anything...."
UCI and a shopping mall are really the same thing aren't they?
I read in an LA Times article that Frank was asked about both projects and he said that he could care less.
He was stated before that he is not so concerned with the future of his buildings. I think he just enjoys them in the conceptual phase and then loses interest once they get built ( this is my deduction, not his).
I will miss the giant "SANTA MONICA" super-text that decorated the garage. In fact the garage was the best thing about Santa Monica Place.
i'm still convinced his last several designs have been his shit on CATIA, don't get me wrong, sculpturally, they're pretty cool if you're on acid, but then again, so is shit. something that bothered me about the guggenheim bilbao was that it housed art, but his design almost overwhelmned the art it was suppose to display. was his design serving a function, that of the museum and a place to experience the art of others, or was his design self serving?
misery , as mass art, was the crucible of the neorealist film makers.
of course, when harry met sally things changed. misery was superseded by very american cynicism towards misery. we are no
longer allowed to wallow in unproductive misery (unless its cute and is sson vanquished by cuteness- the antichrist meg) at the expense of being made fun of. (that,my non friend, is the intellectual anti-intellectual .. academic american pragmatism in its pop disguise...javier posted a very good link, but not touching on the pop somewhere)
im not sure which is the more miserable, 40s italian movies with endless scenes of working class povery, desolation and war-ridden cities and towns...or the slapstick health-radiating smugness of harry and sally, always ready to fireball a cute cleverness, an adorable witticism, a finely manufactured machine that prototypes cliches (when harry met sally was not a cliche..it was a deliberated prototype for forthcoming cliches..)
of course, i assume that was from w. h. m. s. :-)
how is it self-serving if he's made the institution a landmark?
as much as people may go to these galleries to view the art, there is always a group of people who would go to the gallery for the sole reason of having their picture taken in front of or inside this new famous building. if it encourages more people to go in then i think he's done more than he had to.
not necessarily every piece of an architect's work is amazing, no matter how famous they are now. buildings will be torn down and unless the general public feels that a particular building is worth keeping... well that's the cycle of life. we will eventually run out of land.
so the new question becomes, is it so significant that it's either worth restoring or restoring and integrating it into a new building.
i'm surprised that wasn't an option. several universities in canada have simply integrated old architure with the new.
hey paper tiger, this one's for you.
Thats disgusting!
..like so many human achievements.
Well, what's it been? 2, maybe 3 weeks since we've had any Gehry bashing. Here's something that will lose me all the little credibility I might have: I like Gehry's work. I can think of several thousand other bldgs to demo.
here's the rub. from the article:
santa monica: "a developer wants to replace it with a large commercial and residential complex, but some in the community oppose those plans."
irvine: "they'll be replaced by a 150,000 square-foot building."
150,000 sq ft behemoth and a development the community opposes. nice.
wow i wonder if they need an architect....
they definetly need an architect, but what they really need is an ARCHINECTOR !!!
myster man, dont' get me wrong, i love gehry, i really do. i think he has done great things to forward american design and what architects can do in this wonderful country. i'm not joking, i've always liked his work, my beef is guess is roaming round his spaces, especially his museums, that he oversteps the boundaries of purpose, that is, the purpose of the design, but that is just my point of view.
dear rita, oh my sweet sweet rita, i'd say we have a love/hate relationship inspired by the witty remarks of han and princess leia in empire...but then i think, and i'd bet my life on it, you would look more like jubba the hut in that sexy return of the jedi two piece bikini and closer to the shit you send, both figuratively literally, so it couldn't possibly be love....and you insufferable cookie, what would i do without you? i damn near expected your book to be in that pile of shit, but it was just your reflection. however, i applaud you for stooping to my level.....
This reminds me of the demolition of 'Rio' by Arquitectenica. A decent 'deconstructivist' shopping center. Got demo'd in the mid '90s. Replaced w/ sunny-happy Post Apts & a prototypical Walgreen's that all the company's corporate architects must love.
Maybe everything said about Santa Monica Place is true - I briefly remember a part of it. Thinking back, this is maybe one valid instance of gehry-bashin'. However, be careful what you wish for - Walgreen's is always lurking.
walgreen's.....good point. but maybe they could get gehry to design it. we could aways use another titanium cladded poop sculpture.....
sweetheart...you shouldn't have....
Sunny, happy people...
BTW, if Walgreen's ever dropped EIFS & bricks for titanium...well, I'd have to re-eval my thoughts abt. Walgreens.
i know it. she's such a flirt.
Hi
Paper T ;
"has his computer program, CATIA (i think) where basically anyone can take a shit in the palm of their hand, place it upon the platform, and watch catia make the structural/engineering configurations so it can be built, all to be clad in titanium or aluminum sheets become repeated?"
LOOK and Look again at the core of these emty metal tophats , the CORE of these paneled structures there are no core, it is surface focused like a lame computer mesh -- it is _not_ what you here describe a relevant today's digital design-tool ,the program only work with the tradisional steel profiles and you are it seem, expected to fight the rigid profiles rather than make them easy and fast as today's systems can work, --- don't let a program that was cutting edge technike _20 years ago_ and bound in an oldfasion perception of the build works limit your understanding of what fantastic today's options, digital shaped and generated building structure can make. Look closer to any foto taken while these early computer-mesh structures was fiddled together by skilled craftmen and you reconise the fiddle But, do not say that while this lame aproach bring so many troubles, that then _all_ digital tools bring nothing but emty metal tophats, --- they don't, some new methods even bring all that that was missing in this 20 year old attitude ,the core structure oposed the "structures" you mention, acturly most of these are just surfaces and then another but tradisional house build inside.
Don't let these overexposed Icon structures make your picture about what real new digital production can bring. Other structural systems is a compleatly different world, do not fight the rigid steel profiles or put extra expenses ontop a hollow shell.
To remove yourself from receiving further notifications from this thread, click here:
http://archinect.com/members/members.php?p=rmv&id=24175&m=462
per correll,
i have not idea what the hell you just wrote.
for a while i was wicked confused at what the hell a tophat is. then i realized you meant top hat....i hope.
are you typing angry?
i agree with you, i think, if i'm understanding what little i understood correctly, today's technoligies are a fascinating tool, like ruler, like the straightedge, like the eraser, and i want to embrace everything technology has to offer any of those who fuck around with the creative process, all i'm saying is if gehry has such great tools, why not branch into regions he has yet to explore, with all the freedom he has, which is damn near complete, i would hope, nay, i expect him to constantly recreating himself from project to project, not rehashing the old simply because it "worked" the first time. it's like beck, the musician, whom i worship like a god, he is able to retain his "beckness" (for better lack of a word) and still reinvent himself everytime. like i said earlier, i love gehry, but with all his tools and cash at his disposal, i'd prefer it if he made a different album, not basically putting out "odelay" over and over but just with a different cover, then try to tell us it's a whole new set of songs!!
rita, i'm not gonna sleep with you. no means no. so please, quit making an ass of yourself in public.
per correl + beck + paper tigers i can't believe i read this far
chau
i can't believe it either. obviously, you're an idiot. i would never read any of my postings....hopefully you've learned yourlesson.
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.