First post here - seems like you guys have a fantastic community.
Onto topic, for my research project this semester I have decided to investigate Glenn Murcutt. Whilst I am not yet 100% intimate with his works, he has held my architectural interest for a great number of years.
I have to select a particular theme or prompt to respond to in my essay, and I am struggling a little bit to come up with something.
A few approaches that I have been thinking of taking are:
* Glenn Murcutt preaches the idiom of 'touch the earth lightly', yet his extensive use of steel and other non-renewable materials suggest otherwise. Discuss.
* Glenn Murcutt commonly voices his lack of desire to forge an Australian architecture. He claims to be preoccupied with an architecture of site - creating buildings so relevant to their environment they transcend any style. Discuss.
* Glenn Murcutt is the first architect to forge a uniquely Australian architecture.........
As you can see, I have failed to get very far.
If you have any ideas of developing the aforementioned prompts, I would be more than keen to hear your suggestions.
Or perhaps somebody can suggest a completely different approach/theme? I can tell you now that I am not married to any of my ideas so far.
Perhaps you could consider your research project as a review of the work of Glenn Murcutt, and another site specific architect like Frank Harmon from North Carolina. A contrast and comparison between designers with similar philosophies in two different contexts would be far more interesting than a review of just one architect's work.
from various lectures and readings, murcutt's intents seem to be more about siting a building for maximum solar gain, daylighting, prevailing winds etc. tempered with a modern aesthetic.
that techniques such as bolting would allow his houses to be disassembled or recycled better than welded connections.
we specify that steel be something like 85% percent recycled.
As for his claim to not want to create an "Australian" architecture, it is important to know that his first major monograph and critical treatment did precisely that. Philip Drew painted him as such a ridiculous caricature of Australianness that I think he has been careful to stay away from such descriptions ever since.
Likewise, you'd do well to stay away from an argument that proposes that his architecture is uniquely Australian. It is impossible to make this claim without elaborating on what it is to be Australian, and more problemattically, what is NOT Australian. As you can see this isn't always a good place to put yourself, as an architect or a critic.
But to give you something more useful to chew on, I've always been insterested in the translation of his drawings into actual buildings. His analytical sketches are often building sections, so there is a direct link between his perceptions of the site conditions and the drawings that manifest the building. There's probably a paper in there somewhere.
Although he's poetic, I wouldn't call him overly intellectual, so it is probably not very useful to overanalyze and deconstruct his writings which are now becoming more available.
having seen him speak i would research more into how his methods include those of the indigenous population of OZ to be green sustainable and renewable.
agfa,
it was a bit of tongue in cheek.
but yeah, i feel his visual lightness and physical lightness both can be read in that light.
he also likes the poetic of the building being raised, allowing for numerous potentials (snakes + spiders living below, keeping heat gain to a minimum, flood plain issues, deconstructability, etc)
though he may not be highly intellectual, it's not like he's a layperson - the man is very knowledgeable about several subjects which is unfortunately more than i can claim.
furthermore his understanding of environmental systems and microclimate has allowed him to develop a unique and intriguing body of work. i think he is one of the few architects to blend sustainability and architecture in a manner that doesn't seem overly hokey or like it is still rooted in the 60s.
I visited his house in Sydney in 2004. It was interesting to see him working in an urban context. It was very urbane, and nicely detailed, particularly in the way it dealt with lighting and making environmental connections in a tightly squeezed site.
Alright, after further research I feel I should perhaps investigate Murcutt's sincere sensibility and empathy with the prevailing environment of his works.
It seems to me - and as previously mentioned - that he spends a great deal of time on site, examining the environmental conditions such as winds, solar trajectory, soils, surrounding foliage/trees, moisture, rainfall, etc., before even setting pen to paper (which is done exactly so, without the aid of computers whatsoever).
My previous interpretation of 'touching the earthy lightly' was indeed misleaded. Murcutt proclaims that he desires to create buildings that barely affect the delicacy of site, so much so that his buildings could easily be dismantled, and the site would return to its previous condition within a matter of months.
He may not be overly intellectual or articulate, but Murcutt knows nature. Particularly that of Australia. I believe this unheralded knowledge affects his designs to no end, and I feel it is something worth writing about.
What do you guys think? Am I heading along the right path?
phased you've chosen a very difficult architect that is a bit of a contradiction, as well quite humerous. I think what i have always found interesting about his work, particularly his earlier ones was his Miesian interpretation of australian culture (versus architecture) and in that his craft as he calls it. There is much to develop from just that idea and there would be much spoken about the very topic.
Okay then, perhaps focusing his interpretation and empathy with the Australian landscape, in combination with his earlier interpretation of Miesian ideals - of which he strayed from after coming to the realization that such principles were relatively inappropriate in an Australian context.
Why do you think Murcutt is such a contradiction? Not having a go at you, just interested to see your logic as it may affect the light in which I intend to portray him.
Also, are there any nice search engines out there that will help me find articles / journals / essays on Murcutt that have been published? One scholarly enough to use as reference material on my essay..
Thanks again guys, your input so far has been invaluable and given me points in which to extend my research.
I don't think murcutt failed at his miesian stance, if you look at how many of his buildings are put together pared down with exposed structures, long structures, one room deep or at least with all open to the environment. This was radical stuff in an aussie context - articulated structure
his contradiction comes from when viewing the projection of his work culminating with the boyd centre...seemingly like a transition or evolution of self.
I think its important for you to fill in the blanks yourself. Look at the work, make an informed comparison interpret and form your own opinion - I'm only sharing mine because like you his work does something for me
OK -- I have a story: to this day my wife's (who is not an architect, but dutifully attended lectures with me when a mere girlfriend years ago) most hated lecture was Murcutt. 2 hours of wind diagrams and client's dogs (oh no -- the latter was Bruder, the 2nd worst ever and equally long/winded). But really, Murcutt was exceedingly long-winded and (ultimately) boring.
That said, I do think his architecture is credible (excellent) but is in great need of a context to address it as part of. Frampton's Critical Regionalism has always been the best vehicle for this (and he likes Glenn quite a lot), but I'm not sure how that's aged over the years. My thinking would be that it's still valid -- though I was always partial to Frampton over some others.
The issue has always seemed to me whether we can today still (or should) talk about particular limited forms of practice -- Murcutt in Austraiia; Zumthor in Switzerland; Siza in Portugal -- as actually being part of the larger architectural discourse. Granted, these are great figures and I admire every one of them, I simply wonder with regard to the scale of their practices.
i can probably speak more about the forms of practice in graubunden (zumthor) long before i speak about murcutt and australia.
zumthor's office is larger than murcutt's. zumthor's earlier projects came mostly through competitions, which i'm assuming is still done, though probably to a much smaller degree.
there also is a similar vein that runs through the regional architects:
bearth + deplazes
gion caminada
valerio olgiati
andreas rueedi
conradin clavuot
@ DB i would like to think that yes those three and many other practices which could be placed under the "Critical Regionalism" tag are still a part of the larger discourse.
Perhaps not directly, but i think they are certainly instructive in that, i would much prefer the larger discourse to take their direction than many of the other paths it has or is likely to take....
Their work and the work of others like them (of course like them not necessarily in practice) but in approach, is much more contextual than much of what is talked about in the larger architectural discourse....(read, architecural press, etc)
I am struggling to interpret what you have written. How is Murcutt's architectural development over a number of years a contradiction? If anything, it seems his growth is quite linear not not terribly indifferent to many of his contemporaries. Is it a 'contradiction' to stray from ideals one established as a relatively inexperienced designer (i.e. first 30 years of an architects life!)? A contradiction, in my eyes, implies a violent conflict of ideals - I see Murcutt's body of work as a fairly typical sequence of principles and implementation; I believe you used the words transition and evolution. I am not suggesting that his architectural language or motives have remained constant throughout his career (as they clearly have not) - rather a distinct maturation. Perhaps I am not reading into his development deeply enough?
In regards to a theme to focus on, I feel I am still keen on writing about his empathy with the land and how his designs relate to this comprehensive understanding of the Australian environment. However, simultaneously, I feel such avenues have been previously exploited, and I would prefer to not produce a generic paper on this pioneer of Australian architecture.
Perhaps focusing on his amalgamation of vernacular tradition (iconic wool sheds, verandas) and the sophisticated international discourse of modernism. I would also like to touch on Murcutt's distaste for the notion of an 'Australian architecture', preferring to pursue an architecture of place (giving me an opportunity to explore his interpretation of the building/environment relationship).
I like these ideas but am struggling to translate such ideas into a succinct 'stance', 'prompt' or even a 'question' (a sentence or two, perhaps a small paragraph) in which I can respond to.
Additionally, I still can't help but feel that this approach may be a little stale (and vague?). However, I can't think of a more complex / original theme that I will be able to cover comprehensively.
I'm stuck in a bit of a rut, and any advice appropriate to my problems is greatly welcomed!
phased, email me if you want a list of references off the Avery Index. About 111 show up.
As far as your critical angle, I think that may depend on your own interests. One possible strategy might be to compare or connect Murcutt's work with someone else's. What about discourses of nationalism? Homi Bhabha's Location of Culture and Nation and Narration might be useful.
Homi Bhabha is f'cking amazing, by far one of the greatest post-colonial writers.
Phased, sorry about the confusion - I was aiming at seeing your interpretation. The contradiction I see is as you say in his maturity. His earlier works have this articulated sections, less about the space and more replicaition of the same slice and details through the length of this buildings. He has progressed showing this wealth of internal spaces with profiles to make. I guess I find the contradiction and hence the irony in that still lives in one of those sectional houses (formerly the Marie Short house)
his work is simultaneously appealling and ugly to me...which is why it is so fascinating...
not certain how to write about him as it is quite unromantic and direct in the end...the intent is clear and it is possible to measure and say this thing (energy embedd-edness) or that thing (ability to dismantle), etc...works well or not. so interpretation takes some work. that is, it isn't really symbolic, programatically complex, or otherwise complicated...and it isn't even based on aesthetic theories that can be parsed in clever ways...makes it hard.
after a quick look online i came across this site, which is interesting but makes him come off as a bit of an obnoxious prat. some might see his responses to the questions as confident, or that the questions were daft, but i think he was just being arrogant...and, surprsingly, evasive...
anyway, if i were to approach writing about him i would be tempted to start from that difficulty...why is he so hard to analyse, is he REALLY that clear or is there more to his work than meets the eye? sorta thing...sort of taking the opposite road to enlightenment than normal...
You're right, jump, that mini-interview makes him seem like a bit of a dink, but I also happen to think that crotchety old guys are pretty awesome. The less somebody gives a shit, the more I like 'em.
When I first came upon Murcutt's work, before I'd even decided to pursue architecture, it really blew my mind. His work was/is accessible to non-architects, which I think might be a rarity among the 'big names' of the industry. His houses fit perfectly with their surroundings - I could see that without having read a word about the project or the architect.
What others have referred to as 'non-intellectual' is, to me, an asset and not a hindrance. Then again, who decides what is or what isn't intellectual? And does it matter?
i think non-intellectual is correct. that is not bad thing.
ando is also non-intellectual. however he can be written about cuz his work is romantic so there is wriggling room and hooks to hang on (my fav article about ando, btw, is one by tom heneghan who basically says ando is not good with big scale)...not so sure there is much room with murcutt...this not a comment on his work, just the difficulty in doing a paper on him...;-)
as for crotchety...hm, nah, crotchety doesn't impress me at all. i grew up with people on meds who were old an crotchety and mostly i see no reason to want to be that way on purpose, not when there is a choice...;-)
still like his work. and assume he ain't really such a pissant as that interview suggests...what i found interesting about the post and why i linked it was that murcutt hisself seems to not be overly interested in analysing his own work...so is hard to even begin with his point of view... so ... a tough project. done well it would be very interesting to read.
Oct 1, 07 12:30 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.
Glenn Murcutt
Hey guys,
First post here - seems like you guys have a fantastic community.
Onto topic, for my research project this semester I have decided to investigate Glenn Murcutt. Whilst I am not yet 100% intimate with his works, he has held my architectural interest for a great number of years.
I have to select a particular theme or prompt to respond to in my essay, and I am struggling a little bit to come up with something.
A few approaches that I have been thinking of taking are:
* Glenn Murcutt preaches the idiom of 'touch the earth lightly', yet his extensive use of steel and other non-renewable materials suggest otherwise. Discuss.
* Glenn Murcutt commonly voices his lack of desire to forge an Australian architecture. He claims to be preoccupied with an architecture of site - creating buildings so relevant to their environment they transcend any style. Discuss.
* Glenn Murcutt is the first architect to forge a uniquely Australian architecture.........
As you can see, I have failed to get very far.
If you have any ideas of developing the aforementioned prompts, I would be more than keen to hear your suggestions.
Or perhaps somebody can suggest a completely different approach/theme? I can tell you now that I am not married to any of my ideas so far.
Well, thanks for any input!
Regards
Perhaps you could consider your research project as a review of the work of Glenn Murcutt, and another site specific architect like Frank Harmon from North Carolina. A contrast and comparison between designers with similar philosophies in two different contexts would be far more interesting than a review of just one architect's work.
Thanks for the suggestions but by defaults I'm quite sure I have to focus on just the single architect.
Anyone else care to chime in?
Cheers
he means to literally touch the earth lightly
from various lectures and readings, murcutt's intents seem to be more about siting a building for maximum solar gain, daylighting, prevailing winds etc. tempered with a modern aesthetic.
that techniques such as bolting would allow his houses to be disassembled or recycled better than welded connections.
we specify that steel be something like 85% percent recycled.
As for his claim to not want to create an "Australian" architecture, it is important to know that his first major monograph and critical treatment did precisely that. Philip Drew painted him as such a ridiculous caricature of Australianness that I think he has been careful to stay away from such descriptions ever since.
Likewise, you'd do well to stay away from an argument that proposes that his architecture is uniquely Australian. It is impossible to make this claim without elaborating on what it is to be Australian, and more problemattically, what is NOT Australian. As you can see this isn't always a good place to put yourself, as an architect or a critic.
But to give you something more useful to chew on, I've always been insterested in the translation of his drawings into actual buildings. His analytical sketches are often building sections, so there is a direct link between his perceptions of the site conditions and the drawings that manifest the building. There's probably a paper in there somewhere.
Although he's poetic, I wouldn't call him overly intellectual, so it is probably not very useful to overanalyze and deconstruct his writings which are now becoming more available.
holz, do you think that the physical and visual lightness of touch could be read as expressing an environmental attitude?
I met Laurie Virr this last summer, he is from Canberra and has a very good vision of what Aussie Architecture should be like.
having seen him speak i would research more into how his methods include those of the indigenous population of OZ to be green sustainable and renewable.
agfa,
it was a bit of tongue in cheek.
but yeah, i feel his visual lightness and physical lightness both can be read in that light.
he also likes the poetic of the building being raised, allowing for numerous potentials (snakes + spiders living below, keeping heat gain to a minimum, flood plain issues, deconstructability, etc)
though he may not be highly intellectual, it's not like he's a layperson - the man is very knowledgeable about several subjects which is unfortunately more than i can claim.
furthermore his understanding of environmental systems and microclimate has allowed him to develop a unique and intriguing body of work. i think he is one of the few architects to blend sustainability and architecture in a manner that doesn't seem overly hokey or like it is still rooted in the 60s.
Oh, sorry, missed the subtlety.
I visited his house in Sydney in 2004. It was interesting to see him working in an urban context. It was very urbane, and nicely detailed, particularly in the way it dealt with lighting and making environmental connections in a tightly squeezed site.
Alright, after further research I feel I should perhaps investigate Murcutt's sincere sensibility and empathy with the prevailing environment of his works.
It seems to me - and as previously mentioned - that he spends a great deal of time on site, examining the environmental conditions such as winds, solar trajectory, soils, surrounding foliage/trees, moisture, rainfall, etc., before even setting pen to paper (which is done exactly so, without the aid of computers whatsoever).
My previous interpretation of 'touching the earthy lightly' was indeed misleaded. Murcutt proclaims that he desires to create buildings that barely affect the delicacy of site, so much so that his buildings could easily be dismantled, and the site would return to its previous condition within a matter of months.
He may not be overly intellectual or articulate, but Murcutt knows nature. Particularly that of Australia. I believe this unheralded knowledge affects his designs to no end, and I feel it is something worth writing about.
What do you guys think? Am I heading along the right path?
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
phased you've chosen a very difficult architect that is a bit of a contradiction, as well quite humerous. I think what i have always found interesting about his work, particularly his earlier ones was his Miesian interpretation of australian culture (versus architecture) and in that his craft as he calls it. There is much to develop from just that idea and there would be much spoken about the very topic.
Okay then, perhaps focusing his interpretation and empathy with the Australian landscape, in combination with his earlier interpretation of Miesian ideals - of which he strayed from after coming to the realization that such principles were relatively inappropriate in an Australian context.
Why do you think Murcutt is such a contradiction? Not having a go at you, just interested to see your logic as it may affect the light in which I intend to portray him.
Also, are there any nice search engines out there that will help me find articles / journals / essays on Murcutt that have been published? One scholarly enough to use as reference material on my essay..
Thanks again guys, your input so far has been invaluable and given me points in which to extend my research.
Cheers.
Sorry, I hate to bump..
I don't think murcutt failed at his miesian stance, if you look at how many of his buildings are put together pared down with exposed structures, long structures, one room deep or at least with all open to the environment. This was radical stuff in an aussie context - articulated structure
his contradiction comes from when viewing the projection of his work culminating with the boyd centre...seemingly like a transition or evolution of self.
I think its important for you to fill in the blanks yourself. Look at the work, make an informed comparison interpret and form your own opinion - I'm only sharing mine because like you his work does something for me
OK -- I have a story: to this day my wife's (who is not an architect, but dutifully attended lectures with me when a mere girlfriend years ago) most hated lecture was Murcutt. 2 hours of wind diagrams and client's dogs (oh no -- the latter was Bruder, the 2nd worst ever and equally long/winded). But really, Murcutt was exceedingly long-winded and (ultimately) boring.
That said, I do think his architecture is credible (excellent) but is in great need of a context to address it as part of. Frampton's Critical Regionalism has always been the best vehicle for this (and he likes Glenn quite a lot), but I'm not sure how that's aged over the years. My thinking would be that it's still valid -- though I was always partial to Frampton over some others.
The issue has always seemed to me whether we can today still (or should) talk about particular limited forms of practice -- Murcutt in Austraiia; Zumthor in Switzerland; Siza in Portugal -- as actually being part of the larger architectural discourse. Granted, these are great figures and I admire every one of them, I simply wonder with regard to the scale of their practices.
i can probably speak more about the forms of practice in graubunden (zumthor) long before i speak about murcutt and australia.
zumthor's office is larger than murcutt's. zumthor's earlier projects came mostly through competitions, which i'm assuming is still done, though probably to a much smaller degree.
there also is a similar vein that runs through the regional architects:
bearth + deplazes
gion caminada
valerio olgiati
andreas rueedi
conradin clavuot
@ DB i would like to think that yes those three and many other practices which could be placed under the "Critical Regionalism" tag are still a part of the larger discourse.
Perhaps not directly, but i think they are certainly instructive in that, i would much prefer the larger discourse to take their direction than many of the other paths it has or is likely to take....
Their work and the work of others like them (of course like them not necessarily in practice) but in approach, is much more contextual than much of what is talked about in the larger architectural discourse....(read, architecural press, etc)
architechnophilia,
I am struggling to interpret what you have written. How is Murcutt's architectural development over a number of years a contradiction? If anything, it seems his growth is quite linear not not terribly indifferent to many of his contemporaries. Is it a 'contradiction' to stray from ideals one established as a relatively inexperienced designer (i.e. first 30 years of an architects life!)? A contradiction, in my eyes, implies a violent conflict of ideals - I see Murcutt's body of work as a fairly typical sequence of principles and implementation; I believe you used the words transition and evolution. I am not suggesting that his architectural language or motives have remained constant throughout his career (as they clearly have not) - rather a distinct maturation. Perhaps I am not reading into his development deeply enough?
In regards to a theme to focus on, I feel I am still keen on writing about his empathy with the land and how his designs relate to this comprehensive understanding of the Australian environment. However, simultaneously, I feel such avenues have been previously exploited, and I would prefer to not produce a generic paper on this pioneer of Australian architecture.
Perhaps focusing on his amalgamation of vernacular tradition (iconic wool sheds, verandas) and the sophisticated international discourse of modernism. I would also like to touch on Murcutt's distaste for the notion of an 'Australian architecture', preferring to pursue an architecture of place (giving me an opportunity to explore his interpretation of the building/environment relationship).
I like these ideas but am struggling to translate such ideas into a succinct 'stance', 'prompt' or even a 'question' (a sentence or two, perhaps a small paragraph) in which I can respond to.
Additionally, I still can't help but feel that this approach may be a little stale (and vague?). However, I can't think of a more complex / original theme that I will be able to cover comprehensively.
I'm stuck in a bit of a rut, and any advice appropriate to my problems is greatly welcomed!
p.s. What's the best way to find journals / articles / essays written on Murcutt on the net?
Perhaps reading holistic interpretations of Murcutt from other authors may help prompt ideas? Cheers
if you have access to the avery periodical index, it will be the most comprehensive database to find anything in print from the last 30 years.
I dont have access to avery, but I do to EBSCOHOST, Newsbank, Web of knowledge and a few others, so I'll check them out again.
Anyone have time to check out my ideas above?
Cheers!
........... once more, sorry to bump
phased, email me if you want a list of references off the Avery Index. About 111 show up.
As far as your critical angle, I think that may depend on your own interests. One possible strategy might be to compare or connect Murcutt's work with someone else's. What about discourses of nationalism? Homi Bhabha's Location of Culture and Nation and Narration might be useful.
Homi Bhabha is f'cking amazing, by far one of the greatest post-colonial writers.
Phased, sorry about the confusion - I was aiming at seeing your interpretation. The contradiction I see is as you say in his maturity. His earlier works have this articulated sections, less about the space and more replicaition of the same slice and details through the length of this buildings. He has progressed showing this wealth of internal spaces with profiles to make. I guess I find the contradiction and hence the irony in that still lives in one of those sectional houses (formerly the Marie Short house)
his work is simultaneously appealling and ugly to me...which is why it is so fascinating...
not certain how to write about him as it is quite unromantic and direct in the end...the intent is clear and it is possible to measure and say this thing (energy embedd-edness) or that thing (ability to dismantle), etc...works well or not. so interpretation takes some work. that is, it isn't really symbolic, programatically complex, or otherwise complicated...and it isn't even based on aesthetic theories that can be parsed in clever ways...makes it hard.
after a quick look online i came across this site, which is interesting but makes him come off as a bit of an obnoxious prat. some might see his responses to the questions as confident, or that the questions were daft, but i think he was just being arrogant...and, surprsingly, evasive...
anyway, if i were to approach writing about him i would be tempted to start from that difficulty...why is he so hard to analyse, is he REALLY that clear or is there more to his work than meets the eye? sorta thing...sort of taking the opposite road to enlightenment than normal...
You're right, jump, that mini-interview makes him seem like a bit of a dink, but I also happen to think that crotchety old guys are pretty awesome. The less somebody gives a shit, the more I like 'em.
When I first came upon Murcutt's work, before I'd even decided to pursue architecture, it really blew my mind. His work was/is accessible to non-architects, which I think might be a rarity among the 'big names' of the industry. His houses fit perfectly with their surroundings - I could see that without having read a word about the project or the architect.
What others have referred to as 'non-intellectual' is, to me, an asset and not a hindrance. Then again, who decides what is or what isn't intellectual? And does it matter?
the man is old and crotchety and seeing work in person is inspiring beyond believe for something photographs so well...simple, elegant, etc
i think non-intellectual is correct. that is not bad thing.
ando is also non-intellectual. however he can be written about cuz his work is romantic so there is wriggling room and hooks to hang on (my fav article about ando, btw, is one by tom heneghan who basically says ando is not good with big scale)...not so sure there is much room with murcutt...this not a comment on his work, just the difficulty in doing a paper on him...;-)
as for crotchety...hm, nah, crotchety doesn't impress me at all. i grew up with people on meds who were old an crotchety and mostly i see no reason to want to be that way on purpose, not when there is a choice...;-)
still like his work. and assume he ain't really such a pissant as that interview suggests...what i found interesting about the post and why i linked it was that murcutt hisself seems to not be overly interested in analysing his own work...so is hard to even begin with his point of view... so ... a tough project. done well it would be very interesting to read.
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.