Sad. I appreciate the passion and flair with which he wrote about architecture. He seemed to be a true champion for the profession, and goodness knows we need more of those....
I remember that he once said that for a work of architecture to be successful it should give you a hard-on. He was convinced that sex and architecture had a lot of common ground.
He derided the previous NY Times critic as the at helm of "the real estate section." I respect his ideals.
"You're seeing sex too narrowly as sexy.
I was on a panel with other critics (in Chicago) and someone asked to describe the critic's job and I said that my job was to get a hard-on. And what I meant by this is that the city is among other things an inherently erotic phenomenon. It's about expectation and the stimulation of desire. I do think that one of the fundamental functions of civilization is to convert aggression into desire. I also think that the act of building is more often than not highly aggressive and that the architect's job is often to supervise the conversion into desire. That can sometimes be done very effectively by stimulating antipathy, since negative attachment is after all a kind of attachment and one that often precedes positive attachment." Herbert Muschamp, 2003
from Silica Boy. #3 Local Stroll and Critical Urban Blow (Job)
Yes, there was a lonn email exchnage and he allowed to post some of it. There was no mention of where you got the information from. If you're really a "writer", you should cite your sources.
Architecture, we forget at our peril, is inherently violent. It invariably subtracts from the range of available possibilities, especially the perennially attractive option of building nothing at all. In this sense, construction sites are crime scenes. Memories, landscapes, slices of sky, beloved vistas and old neighborhoods are violated even when buildings of distinction take their place. Perhaps the most architecture can do is convert aggression into desire, its primitive twin. Beauty is an effect of this emotional transmutation.
and:
At Trump Place the [Municipal Art] Society and a coalition of civic organizations succeeded in imposing a master plan and design guidelines prepared by Skidmore Owings & Merrill. The result, Trump reports, is a roaring commercial success.
But does anyone think it's architecture? I would call it a perfected portrait of late 20th-century hypocrisy. The idea was to emulate the residential buildings of Central Park West. Why? Had the architects of the 1920's and 30's possessed large-span plate glass, they would have been among the first to spring for it. Glass, in any case, is far more "contextual" than masonry for waterfront locations: its reflective surface mirrors that of water; it yields a more radiant light. Context, moreover, is a matter of time as well as place. At Trump Place, ahistorical mutants masquerade as historical landmarks.
Of course, Trump's responsibility for these spoiled monsters is limited. He didn't want to work with the guidelines in the first place. Going along with them merely revealed the Municipal Art Society's blindness to contemporary architecture and to beauty in any form.
Trump Place reflects the values of an organization that routinely tries to mask its territorial aggressions behind facades of politesse. In a perverse way, Trump Place is a landmark. It signifies a time when tastefulness was mistaken for beauty.
Oct 4, 07 12:10 pm ·
·
I wonder if Muschamp always credited his sources.
The non-creditting of sources (among architects) is virtually status quo. For example, N.O. recently cites Tafuri but actually cribs Bloomer.
wasn't he really just a paranoid, petulant critic who wished he could influence the world as much as the architects he castigated did on a daily basis.
dlb, there were definite instances were Muschamp as NYTimes architecture critic did try to influence/write history, and the problem there was that he didn't necessarily offer objective views. Often it was well veiled advertising copy. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast these days--there really isn't that much distinction between critical review and advertising anymore, especially in newsprint.
Herbert Muschamp RIP
......
Sad. I appreciate the passion and flair with which he wrote about architecture. He seemed to be a true champion for the profession, and goodness knows we need more of those....
no way. really?! i understood why people sometimes made fun of him but...yeah...what wonderk said: it was because it was a passion with him.
I remember that he once said that for a work of architecture to be successful it should give you a hard-on. He was convinced that sex and architecture had a lot of common ground.
He derided the previous NY Times critic as the at helm of "the real estate section." I respect his ideals.
He was a nut! RIP.
Passion!
Heres to that....
I was on a panel with other critics (in Chicago) and someone asked to describe the critic's job and I said that my job was to get a hard-on. And what I meant by this is that the city is among other things an inherently erotic phenomenon. It's about expectation and the stimulation of desire. I do think that one of the fundamental functions of civilization is to convert aggression into desire. I also think that the act of building is more often than not highly aggressive and that the architect's job is often to supervise the conversion into desire. That can sometimes be done very effectively by stimulating antipathy, since negative attachment is after all a kind of attachment and one that often precedes positive attachment." Herbert Muschamp, 2003
from Silica Boy. #3 Local Stroll and Critical Urban Blow (Job)
Orhan,
Actually that was in an email Herbert sent me a couple of years ago. Silica boy and you should credit your sources.
Wm
hm's comment is second one from the top, after 'kelly', before 'laura.'
Yes, there was a lonn email exchnage and he allowed to post some of it. There was no mention of where you got the information from. If you're really a "writer", you should cite your sources.
i am just a ghost. 'you' are the real writer.
now this is abot muschamp.
words i've liked:
Context is a matter of time as well as place.
and:
Architecture, we forget at our peril, is inherently violent. It invariably subtracts from the range of available possibilities, especially the perennially attractive option of building nothing at all. In this sense, construction sites are crime scenes. Memories, landscapes, slices of sky, beloved vistas and old neighborhoods are violated even when buildings of distinction take their place. Perhaps the most architecture can do is convert aggression into desire, its primitive twin. Beauty is an effect of this emotional transmutation.
and:
At Trump Place the [Municipal Art] Society and a coalition of civic organizations succeeded in imposing a master plan and design guidelines prepared by Skidmore Owings & Merrill. The result, Trump reports, is a roaring commercial success.
But does anyone think it's architecture? I would call it a perfected portrait of late 20th-century hypocrisy. The idea was to emulate the residential buildings of Central Park West. Why? Had the architects of the 1920's and 30's possessed large-span plate glass, they would have been among the first to spring for it. Glass, in any case, is far more "contextual" than masonry for waterfront locations: its reflective surface mirrors that of water; it yields a more radiant light. Context, moreover, is a matter of time as well as place. At Trump Place, ahistorical mutants masquerade as historical landmarks.
Of course, Trump's responsibility for these spoiled monsters is limited. He didn't want to work with the guidelines in the first place. Going along with them merely revealed the Municipal Art Society's blindness to contemporary architecture and to beauty in any form.
Trump Place reflects the values of an organization that routinely tries to mask its territorial aggressions behind facades of politesse. In a perverse way, Trump Place is a landmark. It signifies a time when tastefulness was mistaken for beauty.
I wonder if Muschamp always credited his sources.
The non-creditting of sources (among architects) is virtually status quo. For example, N.O. recently cites Tafuri but actually cribs Bloomer.
Yeah Herbert, rest in peace.
"It often seems to me that the architect's task today is to shape spaces that don't make the world more diseased than it is.”
herbert muschamp
...a call for true beauty as our responsibility, as i read it...
steven...fantastic exerpts...i enjoyed them thoroughly...including that last "bitch-slap"
wasn't he really just a paranoid, petulant critic who wished he could influence the world as much as the architects he castigated did on a daily basis.
not so much 'penis-envy' as 'edifice-envy'.
um, no.
dlb, there were definite instances were Muschamp as NYTimes architecture critic did try to influence/write history, and the problem there was that he didn't necessarily offer objective views. Often it was well veiled advertising copy. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast these days--there really isn't that much distinction between critical review and advertising anymore, especially in newsprint.
Ultimately though, we had some things in common though.
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.