Everything I have seen in person from him is such a joke. That new project at MIT - lol
what a piece! The interiors are so terrible. This guy is a complete hack. Picking my nose generates more creativity than this LA fool. He's so Hollywood.
do u dislike him because the public likes him so much?
clients know what they are getting and ghery gives it to them.
what is wrong with that? you may not like his designs (nor do I) but to call him a complete hack is harsh. of course he is hollywood, but he can get just bout anything he wants built, i have to argue with clients all day so that efis doesn't end up being my only building material.
"Gehry will easily be considered the most celebrated architect of our time"
that is proof positive that we, as a society right now, are pathetic. His stuff is so weak I can't even begin to describe - it's so hollow, so un-spatial, so cliche' now. Sure he has some interesting stuff, but now that Bilbao has been repeated 800 times accross the globe, I feel his genius is in the way he has pulled the wool over our eyes and made us, or should I say groupies like you, think he is king. None of his work challenges the user to think in a different way, it's just blah....
To compare him to other greats is demeaning to them...
Personally the greatest living architect right now I would have to say is Robert Stern, he is the man - so insightful, so forward thinking, so revolutionary....
does anyone remember the 'frank spills the beans' from archinect v1?
i laughed so hard at it my stomach hurt. i have the link still but the images has been trashed or something....maybe sean who did it originally can go back and do it again....it is a seminal quote from frank that i think puts it all in perspective and gives one a fresh view of frank and his organic designs.....
hey DJ you almost had me convinced with your anti-gehry rhetoric but then you dropped a ROBERT STERN bomb?!...and you called him "forward thinking, revolutionary?! WHAAAAAAAT! howard stern could design better than that po-mo/pro-classical fuck!
i bought two gehry books for the time last weekend.
I drooled looking at the opportunities he's gotten.
He's been lucky, successful, proficient, and clear-minded as a professional architect. AND he has gotten himself stationed as an artist within the profession.
You can knock his artistic vision as it gets repeated for wannabe owners, but you've gotta give him props for being clear from the beginning about that vision to clients who might not otherwise have shared the dream.
I'm of the mind that the first challenge is getting the idea built. The second challenge is getting it detailed right. The third challenge is whether the design takes flight when it's loose in the public realm.
Me - I'm sick of him...and now I have to live with his latest abomination in the form of a Sheet metal prop/Solar Flare in the middle of Grant Park. If you stripped awat all of the unnecessary elements on that structure, you'd be left with a open field. Complete garbage...you can't even look at it on a sunny day....
curtclay.....
"Gehry will easily be considered the most celebrated architect of our time. Get with the program and recognize the genius that he is."
There was a time when Michael Jackson was the most celebrated musician of our time - that doesn't make him a genius.
Celebrity and Genius are usually mutually exclusive.
gerhy has done some nice things, but i am a bit sick of him too. his inability to deal with decent details and enviromental issues like sun, snow, and rain is sad. and as seattle is my home, we must have the worst gerhy building ever.
the guy wants to make $, so what. He has advanced the profession in many respects (Bilbao opened the world's eyes to architecture, Gehry technologies).
So what if he is doing the same shit over and over
DJ,
either you are Bob Stern or you are working for him and trying to brown nose. i may be a bit tired of gehry but when people think of architects, they are most likely thinking of gasbags like B.Stern.
mdler, i agree that he has advanced the profession and the public's awareness of architecture, but i think it's irresponsible of him to not properly detail his buildings to keep water out, to keep massive accumulated snow from sliding off of his buildings to only possibly hurt someone, and to deal with the glare and heat that is generated from the materials he has spec'ed of the outside of his buildings. i think these problems are the result of him doing the same shit over and over.
e: I agree with you. Gehry's office has done a lot to advance the cause of some advanced construction fabrication from what I have read, so I will give them plus marks for that. But these buildings that have no real relation to their site, context, or climate, that are basically sculptural amalgamations, are primarily appealing to the wealthy "patrons" that are often easily bamboozled by the latest trend....and I would put our latest "wunderkid" (liebskein) addition to Denver in that category: the art museum addition is a glitzy, over priced, trendy for the sake of being trendy, mistake.
the same opinion. all the big thing about gehry started and finished in bilbao. since then, those sculptural forms turned into a disneyland-like fashion. no doubt there are some spatial qualities in those buildings, but mostly there's a great lack of some other concept or relationship to their location. and now, libeskind seems to be on the same way which started (and finished?) in berlin.
I would agree that some of his recent work (seattle) is nearing trainwreck status, but that shouldn't diminish what he has done. if you follow the evolution of his work you'd realize how smart and ahead of everyone else he has been for so long and how bilbao was a logical conclusion of decades of development. it also created gehry's admitted dilenma, where does he go from there?
i don't hail gehry as my favourite architect, but like some here, i do respect him for how much he launched technology in architecture. he's a main figure in our period. decades from now, when our 'period' has been established (whatever it may be called), you're going to see gehry as a primary figure, no matter much we hate him. i wonder if the spanish said the same thing of Gaudi when he was building admist art nouveau. they might have hated him just the same. he was unique and 'avant garde' during his time.
and gehry doesn't mainly or always disregard all physical site context for all his work. his current scheme for the AGO in toronto is an addition for an existing gallery. generally, he surely had to regard the existing here. i actually like his design. it's not so gehry but gehry enough for the city to brag that they have gehry. also, look at his DG Bank on pariser platz in berlin. it is pretty amazing when you see it in person. critical reconstruction had to be addressed in the design and i think he did it with style and made impact.
what do you think about the fact that architecture is so slow to come about?
is there not room for improving on a theme within one's work over time and over projects?
if you consider the interior of the Weisman Gallery in Mineapolis (is that the right name?), for instance, is totally boxy and quite workmanlike, very much true to the "lip-service" gehry gives to program study and arranging boxes.
then, consider the spatial complexity of the guggenheim's interior and realize that the boxes are still there AND this time they're interesting.
The things that disturbs me the most is people complaining about Gehry. He's made some incredible buildings, some not so great (I could do without the Experience one, although I'd visit it and that's something). He's brought architecture to the forefront of many discussions, the cover of magazines, etc., and that is remarkable. The buildings I've been in of his really knocked me out! His use of light, materials, and space create something magical (again, at least in the one's I've seen). Then there is the technology side, and on and on...
Sure, they aren't really contextual, but then again most contexts stink. Look at Libeskind, for example, and the Denver museum. Sole, have you driven by it recently? It's looking pretty great so far. I don't care how much it cost, it will be THE attraction in Denver, and that is something special. Personally, I love it and think it's his best design (that I've seen). It's inspirational and will change architecture in Denver, and that is really something special.
So people can knock the avant garde for whatever, but at the end of the day they took a chance and made a difference. That's more than 99.999% of architects can claim. Seems like that's something special.
I met someone that works in Gehry's MIT building. She said ask anyone who works there and it's a terrible building. She said she works in the 'Tin can" which gets extremely loud and echo-y when it rains and that the whole building leaks. Mind you it's a computer science building. Additionally, she said when you get off the elevator, you can see right into the bathroom and see who's pissing at the urinals. I know that good architecture takes some liberties and sometimes function follows form, but some of those problems seem like a major issue, not a this door swing is a little odd or something. Like Kahn said "A painter can paint a wagon with square wheels, but an architect needs to make them round."
I've not been to MIT, but I will say that it looks like one of his lesser works, especially compared to Bard College, at least imo. I'll admit that I was a tad disappointed that he won the UCONN competition, esp. when he started showing colors, but it's so much better than the usual crap.
Form follows function? Depends on the function...or what if the function changes? Or what if it's boring and uninspiring, like an office building with cubicles? Do we make it a big cubicle? Sure seems like a lot of folk agree with you...
Sorry, just giving you a hard time. I don't think anyone can make a definitive argument eitherway, sometimes one approach works, sometimes another.
One could argue that the function of FOG's buildings is to generate attention.
Moreover, FOG has become a name-brand. His name is tremendously valuable when a museum, school, or other institution needs to raise money to fund the construction.
If gaining attention is the function, he has mastered the form.
who says an office space has to be a bunch of square cubicles? again form should always follow function....only an uninspired designer creates uninspired spaces
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Sometimes that works, but sometimes it doesn't, imo. To me, that is an over generalization and a simplistic answer to a complex, ever changing question.
There is no 'right way' or 'wrong way', but there is 'good' and there is 'bad'.
this is exactly what i posted on the MIT thread a couple weeks back:
Gehry's buildings are not the most difficult things to design from the exterior. thus, inappropriately configured interior spaces. Note: his sketches are not that entailed. detailed. wispy lines and curves. all exterior forms. he's reached a level of normalcy in his own extensive array of whimsical designs. kind of an oversaturation of insane angles, curves just becomes.....boring.
overrated.
MIT arch students are probably not very excited about their new "masterpiece"
because the "administration" wanted adulation, attention, and ultimately the evil in us all- more MONEY- they vouched for a "gehry masterpiece" as a part of their campus- giving him full reign on how to totally fuck up this good school's image with commercial starchitecture...
needless to say- my opinon. the mit "village" should be pelted and burned down by the archies on a drunken late night.
i know it's not an arch. student bldg- its just that the rest of the general public accepted it enough to be there. archies may have the knowledge enough to see if the metal exterior dents or tears when large stones become projectiles.
no. if there is any possible object of jealousy among famous architects, it's definitly not gehry.
and about form+function - mbr said that quite nice. form should not blindly follow function. functionalism is over. we should really try to access things from different angles than just function. take a look at holl or koolhaas or any of his pupils or van berkel or others...
Gehry is claimed to be a genius? try george metzger or any of the other partners that actually run the firm...or I should say designers that stumbled onto an already invented process...
And I thought a genius could solve things others could not. and I have not seen that firm solve anything but their own in-house formality ventures. Take this Experience Music Project in Seattle, or ANY of his interiors for that matter. For all the money that goes into those projects, it's truly quite pathetic.
i cannot believe that some people here are saying that gehry's work is shit...
why dont you post your work here, and lets extrapolate where you'd be when you are 75...??? the very fact that he can think about non-linear and non-cartesian structural systems is commendable enough
i see his structural dynamics equivalent to the domino sytem by corbusier - kinda like a one-liner but someone has to state the point, right??? and non-linear structural dynamics is the wave of the future, embrace it now or force to ride it later...
his work is a starting step in this direction-lets see who advances it....
Im just happy that he has at least one project in every issue of Architecture or Architectural Record. It gives me something to look forward to every month.
Sure, 'their' form is nice, but their interiors still pitifully lack any sophistication. I cannot respect and exalt a firm that does not attempt to solve all phenomenological challenges. And, I'm sorry, but hiring someone whose only job is to stuff program into a sculpture is not an attempt...It is perhaps the firms intent to prey on the visual dependancy of contemporary culture. Whatever happened to high standards set for greatness? I'd be happy to post work here.
"the very fact that he can think about non-linear and non-cartesian structural systems is commendable enough"
huh?heh
why oh why is a non rectlinear non orthogonal structure/form-making synonymous with the 'non cartesian'....and what oh what do you mean by 'non linear' ...whoever said a line can't meander within a cartesian graph? Whoever said that challenging linearity in buldings is a challenge to dogma and conservatism?
Like....is there a direct link between Gehry and Riemannian,Taxi-Cab,Gauss,Einstein...? There is a beautiful villa house in Stuttgart by
Scharoun...from the outside (I could not go in) it was a beautiful moment when modernism showed that it can be like candle wax too (if I thought I had intellectual diahrrea, I would claim it preempted Gehry) . And of course, it still had that delicate balance between same self-flagellating guilt and in-denial optimism that is a mark of european modernity.
Have you been inside of his buildings? That's actually the part that I find the most inspiring. The collision of form creates wonderful spaces, unique skylights, and simply unpredictable spatial limits.
He's a scultor and a dreamer, someone that does not limit his creativity by what is 'normal'. Again, regardless if it's to your particular taste, you have to admit that he has been one of the most influential architects of the last 100 years.
for all the people that seem to dislike him , he sure is getting a lot of buildings built :) what i take of it he has had a great evolution in his career and i wouldnt be surprised if he takes another direction before he "retires" peace
"Unpredictable", I'd say yes to that...Which for some reason doesn't seem to work when dealing with a majority of first and last time visitors to museums. Let's not forget the age old debate on the conflict between the building and the works being exhibited within or adjacent. His overpowering forms and boxlike circulation are a definite result of treating program as an afterthought.
I think both of our 'tastes' are of no relevance here, I do admit, but if it is the question of influence, then yes, they are influential. A group who is influencial does not make them great however, or even positive in cases.
Influencial, yes, but the larger question that has come up, and what interests me, is what is our tolerance to influence? And where do our tolerences, or standards of the built environment root from? And if visual stimulus is the extent or breaking point of influence, then the future is in fact on a reaccuring tangent.
Just close your eyes in one of their buildings. tada! nothing...No thought to how the building moves acoustically with the body, no emphasis on the transfer of sound throughout spaces, no thought of all of the other senses in fact, which would make for a complete experience of a space. You may as well be in a parking garage.
Carlo Scarpa's cemetery or Hassan Fathy's kindergarten, are true accomplishments of manipulated space, and fine examples of a small, modest project revealing a multiplication of sensoral awakenings, spawning personal memory and a pure conversation with the space. Simple moves and happenings to let the user build upon. Now that, to me, is influencial. What is your def. of influence?
'kurtneis', the amount they have built or the amount of evolution is by no means a sign of their success as architects.
oh typical...
reverting to oh yummy-respectful-reverential-humane-haptic-ooooooo gasp look at that listen to that-the subtle mmm factor-'greats' ..oh i wanna roll in moss and listen to Pan flute music as I masturbate
I've actually had more connection with gehrys firm than the typical soul, and just don't agree with the level of work. I too completely agree with their influence on architecture. But it IS possible to push an influencial entity towards something stronger, and to not be timid to criticize or to have high standards for someone who is influencial. I wouldn't say it is a opinion on gehry himself, because 95% of the workings of the firm is not run by him. It is not a judgement by any means.
neither does posting a short lameass response going to change the world's view...dear. Question : Why are you 'here' then? To tell others to be not here or to just be concise?
I give Gehry high marks for succeeding as a business: at least I hope with all of the public adulation and high profile commissions, he should be getting rich and fat. I also give him high marks for raising the topic of architecture in the general media, for making the general public more aware of the potential of architecture. And finally, I also think his firm gets high marks for technology/integrating construction with design documents.
I still also think that it does matter if the roof leaks, or you can see folks standing at the urinals from the elevator door, or if the interior spaces are uninspired boxes with little relation to the curves and sculpture of the exterior skin....and when the curvy skin simply billows over the "real" weatherproof rectangular walls/roof beneath, don't we have to ask if this isn't just another, maybe updated stylisticly, version of Bob Venturi's decorated shed? Viva Las Vegas, and all that.
Who else is completely sick of Frank Gehry's bs?
Everything I have seen in person from him is such a joke. That new project at MIT - lol
what a piece! The interiors are so terrible. This guy is a complete hack. Picking my nose generates more creativity than this LA fool. He's so Hollywood.
do u dislike him because the public likes him so much?
clients know what they are getting and ghery gives it to them.
what is wrong with that? you may not like his designs (nor do I) but to call him a complete hack is harsh. of course he is hollywood, but he can get just bout anything he wants built, i have to argue with clients all day so that efis doesn't end up being my only building material.
DJ,
Gehry will easily be considered the most celebrated architect of our time. Get with the program and recognize the genius that he is..
~C
"Gehry will easily be considered the most celebrated architect of our time"
that is proof positive that we, as a society right now, are pathetic. His stuff is so weak I can't even begin to describe - it's so hollow, so un-spatial, so cliche' now. Sure he has some interesting stuff, but now that Bilbao has been repeated 800 times accross the globe, I feel his genius is in the way he has pulled the wool over our eyes and made us, or should I say groupies like you, think he is king. None of his work challenges the user to think in a different way, it's just blah....
To compare him to other greats is demeaning to them...
Personally the greatest living architect right now I would have to say is Robert Stern, he is the man - so insightful, so forward thinking, so revolutionary....
does anyone remember the 'frank spills the beans' from archinect v1?
i laughed so hard at it my stomach hurt. i have the link still but the images has been trashed or something....maybe sean who did it originally can go back and do it again....it is a seminal quote from frank that i think puts it all in perspective and gives one a fresh view of frank and his organic designs.....
hey DJ you almost had me convinced with your anti-gehry rhetoric but then you dropped a ROBERT STERN bomb?!...and you called him "forward thinking, revolutionary?! WHAAAAAAAT! howard stern could design better than that po-mo/pro-classical fuck!
i bought two gehry books for the time last weekend.
I drooled looking at the opportunities he's gotten.
He's been lucky, successful, proficient, and clear-minded as a professional architect. AND he has gotten himself stationed as an artist within the profession.
You can knock his artistic vision as it gets repeated for wannabe owners, but you've gotta give him props for being clear from the beginning about that vision to clients who might not otherwise have shared the dream.
I'm of the mind that the first challenge is getting the idea built. The second challenge is getting it detailed right. The third challenge is whether the design takes flight when it's loose in the public realm.
Me - I'm sick of him...and now I have to live with his latest abomination in the form of a Sheet metal prop/Solar Flare in the middle of Grant Park. If you stripped awat all of the unnecessary elements on that structure, you'd be left with a open field. Complete garbage...you can't even look at it on a sunny day....
curtclay.....
"Gehry will easily be considered the most celebrated architect of our time. Get with the program and recognize the genius that he is."
There was a time when Michael Jackson was the most celebrated musician of our time - that doesn't make him a genius.
Celebrity and Genius are usually mutually exclusive.
gerhy has done some nice things, but i am a bit sick of him too. his inability to deal with decent details and enviromental issues like sun, snow, and rain is sad. and as seattle is my home, we must have the worst gerhy building ever.
hey,
the guy wants to make $, so what. He has advanced the profession in many respects (Bilbao opened the world's eyes to architecture, Gehry technologies).
So what if he is doing the same shit over and over
DJ,
either you are Bob Stern or you are working for him and trying to brown nose. i may be a bit tired of gehry but when people think of architects, they are most likely thinking of gasbags like B.Stern.
mdler, i agree that he has advanced the profession and the public's awareness of architecture, but i think it's irresponsible of him to not properly detail his buildings to keep water out, to keep massive accumulated snow from sliding off of his buildings to only possibly hurt someone, and to deal with the glare and heat that is generated from the materials he has spec'ed of the outside of his buildings. i think these problems are the result of him doing the same shit over and over.
e: I agree with you. Gehry's office has done a lot to advance the cause of some advanced construction fabrication from what I have read, so I will give them plus marks for that. But these buildings that have no real relation to their site, context, or climate, that are basically sculptural amalgamations, are primarily appealing to the wealthy "patrons" that are often easily bamboozled by the latest trend....and I would put our latest "wunderkid" (liebskein) addition to Denver in that category: the art museum addition is a glitzy, over priced, trendy for the sake of being trendy, mistake.
sorry...spelled his name wrong...libeskind...the imported architect of some angular folly for Denver Art Museum.
the same opinion. all the big thing about gehry started and finished in bilbao. since then, those sculptural forms turned into a disneyland-like fashion. no doubt there are some spatial qualities in those buildings, but mostly there's a great lack of some other concept or relationship to their location. and now, libeskind seems to be on the same way which started (and finished?) in berlin.
I would agree that some of his recent work (seattle) is nearing trainwreck status, but that shouldn't diminish what he has done. if you follow the evolution of his work you'd realize how smart and ahead of everyone else he has been for so long and how bilbao was a logical conclusion of decades of development. it also created gehry's admitted dilenma, where does he go from there?
gehry's recent stuff is the Hummer of architecture...perfect last-gasp americana.
although he did have some interesting early houses.
i don't hail gehry as my favourite architect, but like some here, i do respect him for how much he launched technology in architecture. he's a main figure in our period. decades from now, when our 'period' has been established (whatever it may be called), you're going to see gehry as a primary figure, no matter much we hate him. i wonder if the spanish said the same thing of Gaudi when he was building admist art nouveau. they might have hated him just the same. he was unique and 'avant garde' during his time.
and gehry doesn't mainly or always disregard all physical site context for all his work. his current scheme for the AGO in toronto is an addition for an existing gallery. generally, he surely had to regard the existing here. i actually like his design. it's not so gehry but gehry enough for the city to brag that they have gehry. also, look at his DG Bank on pariser platz in berlin. it is pretty amazing when you see it in person. critical reconstruction had to be addressed in the design and i think he did it with style and made impact.
what do you think about the fact that architecture is so slow to come about?
is there not room for improving on a theme within one's work over time and over projects?
if you consider the interior of the Weisman Gallery in Mineapolis (is that the right name?), for instance, is totally boxy and quite workmanlike, very much true to the "lip-service" gehry gives to program study and arranging boxes.
then, consider the spatial complexity of the guggenheim's interior and realize that the boxes are still there AND this time they're interesting.
just a thought hoping to provoke another...
fllw's buildings leaked
it really is funny how sarcasm is perceived or not perceived via text.
gehry and stern geniuses? doh!
the only genius in architecture is......Micah Conagra da, da, da!! I love the smell of sarcasm in the morn!
seriously, John Hejduk, everytime i say that name i get woosy.
The things that disturbs me the most is people complaining about Gehry. He's made some incredible buildings, some not so great (I could do without the Experience one, although I'd visit it and that's something). He's brought architecture to the forefront of many discussions, the cover of magazines, etc., and that is remarkable. The buildings I've been in of his really knocked me out! His use of light, materials, and space create something magical (again, at least in the one's I've seen). Then there is the technology side, and on and on...
Sure, they aren't really contextual, but then again most contexts stink. Look at Libeskind, for example, and the Denver museum. Sole, have you driven by it recently? It's looking pretty great so far. I don't care how much it cost, it will be THE attraction in Denver, and that is something special. Personally, I love it and think it's his best design (that I've seen). It's inspirational and will change architecture in Denver, and that is really something special.
So people can knock the avant garde for whatever, but at the end of the day they took a chance and made a difference. That's more than 99.999% of architects can claim. Seems like that's something special.
I met someone that works in Gehry's MIT building. She said ask anyone who works there and it's a terrible building. She said she works in the 'Tin can" which gets extremely loud and echo-y when it rains and that the whole building leaks. Mind you it's a computer science building. Additionally, she said when you get off the elevator, you can see right into the bathroom and see who's pissing at the urinals. I know that good architecture takes some liberties and sometimes function follows form, but some of those problems seem like a major issue, not a this door swing is a little odd or something. Like Kahn said "A painter can paint a wagon with square wheels, but an architect needs to make them round."
Form should always follow function....end of story
I've not been to MIT, but I will say that it looks like one of his lesser works, especially compared to Bard College, at least imo. I'll admit that I was a tad disappointed that he won the UCONN competition, esp. when he started showing colors, but it's so much better than the usual crap.
Form follows function? Depends on the function...or what if the function changes? Or what if it's boring and uninspiring, like an office building with cubicles? Do we make it a big cubicle? Sure seems like a lot of folk agree with you...
Sorry, just giving you a hard time. I don't think anyone can make a definitive argument eitherway, sometimes one approach works, sometimes another.
strangely, this thread is quite similar to the discussion about the beastie boys.
One could argue that the function of FOG's buildings is to generate attention.
Moreover, FOG has become a name-brand. His name is tremendously valuable when a museum, school, or other institution needs to raise money to fund the construction.
If gaining attention is the function, he has mastered the form.
who says an office space has to be a bunch of square cubicles? again form should always follow function....only an uninspired designer creates uninspired spaces
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Sometimes that works, but sometimes it doesn't, imo. To me, that is an over generalization and a simplistic answer to a complex, ever changing question.
There is no 'right way' or 'wrong way', but there is 'good' and there is 'bad'.
this is exactly what i posted on the MIT thread a couple weeks back:
Gehry's buildings are not the most difficult things to design from the exterior. thus, inappropriately configured interior spaces. Note: his sketches are not that entailed. detailed. wispy lines and curves. all exterior forms. he's reached a level of normalcy in his own extensive array of whimsical designs. kind of an oversaturation of insane angles, curves just becomes.....boring.
overrated.
MIT arch students are probably not very excited about their new "masterpiece"
because the "administration" wanted adulation, attention, and ultimately the evil in us all- more MONEY- they vouched for a "gehry masterpiece" as a part of their campus- giving him full reign on how to totally fuck up this good school's image with commercial starchitecture...
needless to say- my opinon. the mit "village" should be pelted and burned down by the archies on a drunken late night.
i know it's not an arch. student bldg- its just that the rest of the general public accepted it enough to be there. archies may have the knowledge enough to see if the metal exterior dents or tears when large stones become projectiles.
gehry may suck, but at least he gets to hang out with Brad Pitt
i think we're all plain jealous. just admit it. he's good.
no. if there is any possible object of jealousy among famous architects, it's definitly not gehry.
and about form+function - mbr said that quite nice. form should not blindly follow function. functionalism is over. we should really try to access things from different angles than just function. take a look at holl or koolhaas or any of his pupils or van berkel or others...
Gehry is claimed to be a genius? try george metzger or any of the other partners that actually run the firm...or I should say designers that stumbled onto an already invented process...
And I thought a genius could solve things others could not. and I have not seen that firm solve anything but their own in-house formality ventures. Take this Experience Music Project in Seattle, or ANY of his interiors for that matter. For all the money that goes into those projects, it's truly quite pathetic.
i cannot believe that some people here are saying that gehry's work is shit...
why dont you post your work here, and lets extrapolate where you'd be when you are 75...??? the very fact that he can think about non-linear and non-cartesian structural systems is commendable enough
i see his structural dynamics equivalent to the domino sytem by corbusier - kinda like a one-liner but someone has to state the point, right??? and non-linear structural dynamics is the wave of the future, embrace it now or force to ride it later...
his work is a starting step in this direction-lets see who advances it....
I hear you sameolddr.
Cheers.
Im just happy that he has at least one project in every issue of Architecture or Architectural Record. It gives me something to look forward to every month.
Sure, 'their' form is nice, but their interiors still pitifully lack any sophistication. I cannot respect and exalt a firm that does not attempt to solve all phenomenological challenges. And, I'm sorry, but hiring someone whose only job is to stuff program into a sculpture is not an attempt...It is perhaps the firms intent to prey on the visual dependancy of contemporary culture. Whatever happened to high standards set for greatness? I'd be happy to post work here.
"the very fact that he can think about non-linear and non-cartesian structural systems is commendable enough"
huh?heh
why oh why is a non rectlinear non orthogonal structure/form-making synonymous with the 'non cartesian'....and what oh what do you mean by 'non linear' ...whoever said a line can't meander within a cartesian graph? Whoever said that challenging linearity in buldings is a challenge to dogma and conservatism?
Like....is there a direct link between Gehry and Riemannian,Taxi-Cab,Gauss,Einstein...? There is a beautiful villa house in Stuttgart by
Scharoun...from the outside (I could not go in) it was a beautiful moment when modernism showed that it can be like candle wax too (if I thought I had intellectual diahrrea, I would claim it preempted Gehry) . And of course, it still had that delicate balance between same self-flagellating guilt and in-denial optimism that is a mark of european modernity.
As for Gehry....I suspect that ihis work is a form of psychotherapy. A Woody Allen sort of architect who's creativity is a consequence of unresolved/unresolving sublimation of his secular Jewishness. But then again, this might as well be a cliché...
Mr. Bucknam,
Have you been inside of his buildings? That's actually the part that I find the most inspiring. The collision of form creates wonderful spaces, unique skylights, and simply unpredictable spatial limits.
He's a scultor and a dreamer, someone that does not limit his creativity by what is 'normal'. Again, regardless if it's to your particular taste, you have to admit that he has been one of the most influential architects of the last 100 years.
for all the people that seem to dislike him , he sure is getting a lot of buildings built :) what i take of it he has had a great evolution in his career and i wouldnt be surprised if he takes another direction before he "retires" peace
Ms, Mrs, Mr mbr?
"Unpredictable", I'd say yes to that...Which for some reason doesn't seem to work when dealing with a majority of first and last time visitors to museums. Let's not forget the age old debate on the conflict between the building and the works being exhibited within or adjacent. His overpowering forms and boxlike circulation are a definite result of treating program as an afterthought.
I think both of our 'tastes' are of no relevance here, I do admit, but if it is the question of influence, then yes, they are influential. A group who is influencial does not make them great however, or even positive in cases.
Influencial, yes, but the larger question that has come up, and what interests me, is what is our tolerance to influence? And where do our tolerences, or standards of the built environment root from? And if visual stimulus is the extent or breaking point of influence, then the future is in fact on a reaccuring tangent.
Just close your eyes in one of their buildings. tada! nothing...No thought to how the building moves acoustically with the body, no emphasis on the transfer of sound throughout spaces, no thought of all of the other senses in fact, which would make for a complete experience of a space. You may as well be in a parking garage.
Carlo Scarpa's cemetery or Hassan Fathy's kindergarten, are true accomplishments of manipulated space, and fine examples of a small, modest project revealing a multiplication of sensoral awakenings, spawning personal memory and a pure conversation with the space. Simple moves and happenings to let the user build upon. Now that, to me, is influencial. What is your def. of influence?
'kurtneis', the amount they have built or the amount of evolution is by no means a sign of their success as architects.
oh typical...
reverting to oh yummy-respectful-reverential-humane-haptic-ooooooo gasp look at that listen to that-the subtle mmm factor-'greats' ..oh i wanna roll in moss and listen to Pan flute music as I masturbate
yuk
boy, are you pissed? mirror the typical...
it's called hope...
I've actually had more connection with gehrys firm than the typical soul, and just don't agree with the level of work. I too completely agree with their influence on architecture. But it IS possible to push an influencial entity towards something stronger, and to not be timid to criticize or to have high standards for someone who is influencial. I wouldn't say it is a opinion on gehry himself, because 95% of the workings of the firm is not run by him. It is not a judgement by any means.
What is our tolerence to influence as architects?
Who do you think meets your standards, and why?
I am simply curious, as I do believe much of this is related to 'taste'.
OK I THINK EVERYONE NEED TO RELAX A BIT POSTING LONG ASS RESPONSES IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLDS VIEW.
so you would prefer sound bites? come on.
neither does posting a short lameass response going to change the world's view...dear. Question : Why are you 'here' then? To tell others to be not here or to just be concise?
selfrighteous blahism!
I give Gehry high marks for succeeding as a business: at least I hope with all of the public adulation and high profile commissions, he should be getting rich and fat. I also give him high marks for raising the topic of architecture in the general media, for making the general public more aware of the potential of architecture. And finally, I also think his firm gets high marks for technology/integrating construction with design documents.
I still also think that it does matter if the roof leaks, or you can see folks standing at the urinals from the elevator door, or if the interior spaces are uninspired boxes with little relation to the curves and sculpture of the exterior skin....and when the curvy skin simply billows over the "real" weatherproof rectangular walls/roof beneath, don't we have to ask if this isn't just another, maybe updated stylisticly, version of Bob Venturi's decorated shed? Viva Las Vegas, and all that.
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.