So, I am in a store with my wife who is buying a new dress. I sit down in the dressing room section and pick up Vogue magazine as it was the only one there. I find an add for Tiffany & Co. that is introducing a new line of jewerly designed by Frank Gehry. The ad read something to the effect of "the most beautiful jewelry meets the most innovative architect..." and then there was some picture of a half naked girl wearing a braclet he designed and another page with a girl wearing a necklace.
Anyhow, I thought the funniest part aboout it was that it said "most innovative architect..."
I don't know, I guess my opinion is that guys like Renzo Piano are really innovative. Gehry just goes for shock value.
that's not really correct. Gehry may not be glamorizing technology like Piano or Foster, but he is certainly using it. Look a little deeper and you'll see his stuff has pushed the boundaries of architecture and technology for a while now. Thank Randy Jefferson, his partner/engineer for that.
Too many people look at his stuff as only sculpture and miss that it is architecture - both function, sculputer and structure.
I would argue, as others will argue against, that Gehry has potentially done more for arhcitectural technology in the past 15 years than Foster and Piano combined. Yes, I said it... in my opinion Piano and Foster have added to architectural discourse by detailing the hell out of their work so that they are Swiss watches, with refined components engineered, fitting together beautifully.
More can be argued for the engineering behind their work, rather than their architecture alone in a vaccum.
Though Gehry's work is not an entirely digital process, his work ONLY gets executed as a result of the technological processes he has developed (along with dozens others) under Frank Gehry Technologies.
seems like 'innovative' is such a touchy word. i think it is impossible for anyone or anything to be 'most innovative' i.e. arch school rankings, but i don't think you can argue that gehry is in fact, (just) innovative.
also, love him or hate him, he is the most influential architect of the past 15 years.
however 'innovative' is defined, you really can't deny gehry's contribution. look closely at his early work to appreciate how far ahead of everyone he was.
same with Disney Concert Hall. The corners are atrocious. It would be more innovative to me if, 1) it was done better, because anyone can do something badly, and 2) if the inside was more like the outside. It disappoints me so much to go inside these things and find just another normal, boxy space. He's got some good starts, I remember some museum pods I liked a lot, but the big stuff is just shiny wrapping paper.
And I hate that jewellery. The scale is all off on those fish-shaped things, probably wouldn't wear it if it were given to me as a gift.
Damn, I sound bitter. I just really don't like his designs too much, and feel like there are other architects out there that deserve as much press as he gets, but will never get it.
well, originally why I made the post and found that it was an interesting adjective - "innovative" - is that the processes by which he gets his work from a model to a built space is definitely innovative, but the architectural process I do not think is at all. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that he has done a lot for architecture in regard to new processes of building, but his work in an of itself is incredibly arbitrary. To me, that is not innovation at all. If the Tiffany Ad had read, "the most sculptural architect," then I would have probably agreed more. However, I don't think his architecture is innovative, but I will agree that the processes by which he is able to actually build them is. Also, I don't believe this is one in the same. I could take some clay and mold a similar object as most of his work and make it look "cool" with no ryhme or reason as to its shape, but I wouldn't hae the tools to get to a state in which I could inhabit it. Gehry just happens to have the resources to do so. Neither his shapes that are built nor my hypothetical piece of clay is innovative.
show me one of his buildings that doesn't work. You may not like the details, but they do work. Sorry, I am bitter against the haters. The Gehry buildings that I've been to (many, but not Bilbao) look fine to me.
It's the space that matters to me. That is what he's pioneered - bring unique space, expression and experience to architecture. No one else has even come close.
I don't care if you like him or not, but to say he's not one of the most innovative and influential architects of the last 50+ years is naive.
And for those that will argue, show me others. I can't think of a single architect that has pushed the boundaries of an entire profession, almost single handedly.
Trace, I am right there with you. Gehry belongs in the hallowed list of names such as Vitruvius, Le Corbusier, Auguste Perret, Gaudi, Michaelangelo, Venturi, Greg Lynn, Pierre Chareau, Buckminster Fuller (ok, so maybe an engineer . . . see Calatrava), Palladio, and dude . . . lest you forget, your mom, 2nd cousin, and bosses daughter all own cooking utensils designed by the retail boundary pusher himself, Mr Postmodern . . . Mike Graves.
In 50 years, Gehry will have made more of an affect on the built environment than most of the guys above. Architecture is moving into a flattened world where the gap between architect and manufacturer will collapse. Gehry has already provided the design initiative to begin the transition. Screw his product. I could care less what the damn building looks like . . . the man has designed a process.
trace- I categorize buildings which contribute to sunburn (stupid freshmen asking questions while in a hot spot!) and get the architect sued by the neighboring tenants because of heat gain as buildings which don't work. I'm picky like that.
Have to agree with the 'influential' description, though. Love him or hate him, the influence is undeniable.
yup, I agree that Disney's skin was a stupid mistake that seems pretty easy to avoid. And by no means am I suggesting his buildings are the best thing in the world. I own one Gehry book. I love some of his stuff, others I think are pretty bland, or too over the top. I still think it would have looked much better in the original limstone (I am blaming the clients for pushing the 'make it look like Bilbao').
But, and especially after having a class that went through his process with Jefferson (his engineer), I do acknowledge what he's contributed. CNC'd? Lasered? Machined? Slumped glass? He's done more of that than anyone I know of, he just doesn't brag about it and that's what I love - he has an architectural idea, then works to create a solution and does this over and over again, from his SM house to Bilbao.
silverlake. I suppose I don't consider the golden section or nurbs or a double helix or any other heuristic diagram rational to use as a basis to start generating ideas. I say that carefully though. What I mean is that I believe, personally, that architecture becomes arbitrary when it is filled with preconceived ideas that may have no place where they are actually placed. I see this a lot of places. The people at my school who seem the most frustrated during final crits are those who, from the very beginning, have determined that certain geometry must be used because "I like it;" however, the program and the site conditions, etc... call for nothing that they are proposing. Because of this, it is obvious that their work was not successful because their work was predetermined without considering much of the project itself and all its authenticites.
Therefore, I think anyone who says, "Well, I am going to design using nurbs, or the golden section, or with Denari's 'architecture as skin' concept, etc... are headed in the wrong direction if these concepts presuppose any real knowledge and understanding of the program and ideas of the project. Now, if the designer/architect, or whoever, has carefully educated him or herself and if left recognizing that only nurbs make sense, or the golden section makes sense, then let them go for it. However, to simply say, I want to do this or that, I believe is incorrect. I think that it eliminates the idea of "making architecture" and then becomes style. Like deconstructivism. Sure, I believe the NY 5 had some pretty good ideas as to why they decided to design the way they did, but as it became popular, it started to become style-it was a fad and it was irrational.
well, did anyone look at the jewelry???? I thought some of it was nice, definitely gehry distinguished, considering some of the other "artist collections" in their past months.
in technology yes, gehry has been a decade ahead. lets put stylistics aside, because i hate his buildings.
"he's a business man, not a business-man"
he's dove into film, jewelry, product design, uhm- some architecture, automobile design, blah, etc.
you have no choice but to respect his (ok- his biz advisors) direction for the profound career he's established on the "world of design" (i cringed typing that).
again - i think his bldgs suck. but the man is making crazy dough and hanging out with the leader of fight club. that just rocks....
yep. todd- I looked at it, and felt it was out of scale. And I'm not generally afraid of big jewellery- I'm currently wearing spirals in my ears that are about an inch in diameter. I think that this stuff is just too chunky.
Jun 23, 06 5:21 pm ·
·
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.
Gehry with Tiffany & Co.
So, I am in a store with my wife who is buying a new dress. I sit down in the dressing room section and pick up Vogue magazine as it was the only one there. I find an add for Tiffany & Co. that is introducing a new line of jewerly designed by Frank Gehry. The ad read something to the effect of "the most beautiful jewelry meets the most innovative architect..." and then there was some picture of a half naked girl wearing a braclet he designed and another page with a girl wearing a necklace.
Anyhow, I thought the funniest part aboout it was that it said "most innovative architect..."
I don't know, I guess my opinion is that guys like Renzo Piano are really innovative. Gehry just goes for shock value.
that's not really correct. Gehry may not be glamorizing technology like Piano or Foster, but he is certainly using it. Look a little deeper and you'll see his stuff has pushed the boundaries of architecture and technology for a while now. Thank Randy Jefferson, his partner/engineer for that.
Too many people look at his stuff as only sculpture and miss that it is architecture - both function, sculputer and structure.
I agree with trace...
I would argue, as others will argue against, that Gehry has potentially done more for arhcitectural technology in the past 15 years than Foster and Piano combined. Yes, I said it... in my opinion Piano and Foster have added to architectural discourse by detailing the hell out of their work so that they are Swiss watches, with refined components engineered, fitting together beautifully.
More can be argued for the engineering behind their work, rather than their architecture alone in a vaccum.
Though Gehry's work is not an entirely digital process, his work ONLY gets executed as a result of the technological processes he has developed (along with dozens others) under Frank Gehry Technologies.
Just an opinion...
seems like 'innovative' is such a touchy word. i think it is impossible for anyone or anything to be 'most innovative' i.e. arch school rankings, but i don't think you can argue that gehry is in fact, (just) innovative.
also, love him or hate him, he is the most influential architect of the past 15 years.
however 'innovative' is defined, you really can't deny gehry's contribution. look closely at his early work to appreciate how far ahead of everyone he was.
The detailing on the bilbao guggenheim is shockingly bad.
"he wasn't the best, just the biggest"
same with Disney Concert Hall. The corners are atrocious. It would be more innovative to me if, 1) it was done better, because anyone can do something badly, and 2) if the inside was more like the outside. It disappoints me so much to go inside these things and find just another normal, boxy space. He's got some good starts, I remember some museum pods I liked a lot, but the big stuff is just shiny wrapping paper.
And I hate that jewellery. The scale is all off on those fish-shaped things, probably wouldn't wear it if it were given to me as a gift.
Damn, I sound bitter. I just really don't like his designs too much, and feel like there are other architects out there that deserve as much press as he gets, but will never get it.
well, originally why I made the post and found that it was an interesting adjective - "innovative" - is that the processes by which he gets his work from a model to a built space is definitely innovative, but the architectural process I do not think is at all. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that he has done a lot for architecture in regard to new processes of building, but his work in an of itself is incredibly arbitrary. To me, that is not innovation at all. If the Tiffany Ad had read, "the most sculptural architect," then I would have probably agreed more. However, I don't think his architecture is innovative, but I will agree that the processes by which he is able to actually build them is. Also, I don't believe this is one in the same. I could take some clay and mold a similar object as most of his work and make it look "cool" with no ryhme or reason as to its shape, but I wouldn't hae the tools to get to a state in which I could inhabit it. Gehry just happens to have the resources to do so. Neither his shapes that are built nor my hypothetical piece of clay is innovative.
regarding your "gets his work from a model to a built space" comment.
how is it innovative if it dooesn't work?
show me one of his buildings that doesn't work. You may not like the details, but they do work. Sorry, I am bitter against the haters. The Gehry buildings that I've been to (many, but not Bilbao) look fine to me.
It's the space that matters to me. That is what he's pioneered - bring unique space, expression and experience to architecture. No one else has even come close.
I don't care if you like him or not, but to say he's not one of the most innovative and influential architects of the last 50+ years is naive.
And for those that will argue, show me others. I can't think of a single architect that has pushed the boundaries of an entire profession, almost single handedly.
I will refrain.
i am not a hater.
i am glad you are so passionate about him.
People can disagree.
Trace, I am right there with you. Gehry belongs in the hallowed list of names such as Vitruvius, Le Corbusier, Auguste Perret, Gaudi, Michaelangelo, Venturi, Greg Lynn, Pierre Chareau, Buckminster Fuller (ok, so maybe an engineer . . . see Calatrava), Palladio, and dude . . . lest you forget, your mom, 2nd cousin, and bosses daughter all own cooking utensils designed by the retail boundary pusher himself, Mr Postmodern . . . Mike Graves.
In 50 years, Gehry will have made more of an affect on the built environment than most of the guys above. Architecture is moving into a flattened world where the gap between architect and manufacturer will collapse. Gehry has already provided the design initiative to begin the transition. Screw his product. I could care less what the damn building looks like . . . the man has designed a process.
'a fish is architecture, a cow is not'
-frank o. gehry
brilliant in so many ways (seriously) ...
mjh00c, his forms are always derived from something; be it a fish, a morandi painting, a sluter sculpture...
how is this any more arbitrary than deriving a form from the golden section, or nurbs, or a double helix, or any other heuristic diagram?
trace- I categorize buildings which contribute to sunburn (stupid freshmen asking questions while in a hot spot!) and get the architect sued by the neighboring tenants because of heat gain as buildings which don't work. I'm picky like that.
Have to agree with the 'influential' description, though. Love him or hate him, the influence is undeniable.
yup, I agree that Disney's skin was a stupid mistake that seems pretty easy to avoid. And by no means am I suggesting his buildings are the best thing in the world. I own one Gehry book. I love some of his stuff, others I think are pretty bland, or too over the top. I still think it would have looked much better in the original limstone (I am blaming the clients for pushing the 'make it look like Bilbao').
But, and especially after having a class that went through his process with Jefferson (his engineer), I do acknowledge what he's contributed. CNC'd? Lasered? Machined? Slumped glass? He's done more of that than anyone I know of, he just doesn't brag about it and that's what I love - he has an architectural idea, then works to create a solution and does this over and over again, from his SM house to Bilbao.
The only Tiffany's i'll wear
The previous thread:
Gehry + Tiffany = ??
silverlake. I suppose I don't consider the golden section or nurbs or a double helix or any other heuristic diagram rational to use as a basis to start generating ideas. I say that carefully though. What I mean is that I believe, personally, that architecture becomes arbitrary when it is filled with preconceived ideas that may have no place where they are actually placed. I see this a lot of places. The people at my school who seem the most frustrated during final crits are those who, from the very beginning, have determined that certain geometry must be used because "I like it;" however, the program and the site conditions, etc... call for nothing that they are proposing. Because of this, it is obvious that their work was not successful because their work was predetermined without considering much of the project itself and all its authenticites.
Therefore, I think anyone who says, "Well, I am going to design using nurbs, or the golden section, or with Denari's 'architecture as skin' concept, etc... are headed in the wrong direction if these concepts presuppose any real knowledge and understanding of the program and ideas of the project. Now, if the designer/architect, or whoever, has carefully educated him or herself and if left recognizing that only nurbs make sense, or the golden section makes sense, then let them go for it. However, to simply say, I want to do this or that, I believe is incorrect. I think that it eliminates the idea of "making architecture" and then becomes style. Like deconstructivism. Sure, I believe the NY 5 had some pretty good ideas as to why they decided to design the way they did, but as it became popular, it started to become style-it was a fad and it was irrational.
well, did anyone look at the jewelry???? I thought some of it was nice, definitely gehry distinguished, considering some of the other "artist collections" in their past months.
their site will show you it in its entirety.
silverlake-
fish yes... cow no...
but how about a duck?
"their work was not successful because their work was predetermined without considering much of the project itself and all its authenticites"
- mjh00c
Well said.
indeed.
is Zaha listening too?
Gehry has always been 10 yrs ahead of the profession...
in technology yes, gehry has been a decade ahead. lets put stylistics aside, because i hate his buildings.
"he's a business man, not a business-man"
he's dove into film, jewelry, product design, uhm- some architecture, automobile design, blah, etc.
you have no choice but to respect his (ok- his biz advisors) direction for the profound career he's established on the "world of design" (i cringed typing that).
again - i think his bldgs suck. but the man is making crazy dough and hanging out with the leader of fight club. that just rocks....
gotta hustle...
make the money
doesn't mean this shyt is good..... it's business
either you a pimp or you a hoe
in terms of style as well
yep. todd- I looked at it, and felt it was out of scale. And I'm not generally afraid of big jewellery- I'm currently wearing spirals in my ears that are about an inch in diameter. I think that this stuff is just too chunky.
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.