"Have you ever wondered why the Guggenheim is always covered in scaffolding? Why the random slashes on the exterior of Daniel Libeskind's Jewish Museum, supposed to represent Berlin locations where pre-war Jews flourished, reappear, for no apparent reason, on his Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto? Or why Frank Gehry's Stata Center, designed for MIT's top-secret Cryptography Unit, has transparent glass walls? Not to mention why, for $442 per square foot, it doesn't keep out the rain? You're not alone.
In Architecture of the Absurd, John Silber dares to peek behind the curtain of "genius" architects and expose their willful disdain for their clients, their budgets, and the people who live or work inside their creations. Absurdism in a painting or sculpture is one thing—if it's not to your taste, you don't have to look—but absurdism in buildings represents a blatant disregard for the needs of the building, whether it be a student center, music hall, or corporate headquarters.
Silber admires the precise engineering of Calatrava, the imaginative shapes of Gaudi, and the sleek beauty of Mies van der Rohe. But he refuses to kowtow to the egos of those "geniuses" who lack such respect for the craft. Absurdist architects have been sheltered by the academy, encouraged by critics, and commissioned by CEOs and trustees. They stamp the world with meaningless monstrosities, justify them with fanciful theories, and command outrageous "genius fees" for their trouble.
As a young man, Silber learned to draw blueprints and read elevations from his architect father. In twenty-five years as president of Boston University, Silber oversaw a building program totaling 13 million square feet. Here, Silber uses his experience as a builder, a client, and a noted philosopher to construct an unflinchingly intelligent illustrated critique of contemporary architecture.
Le Corbusier's megalomaniacal 1930s plan for Algiers, which called for the demolition of the entire city, was mercifully never built. But his blatant disregard for context and community lives on. In Boston, Josep Lluis Sert's unprotected northeast-facing entrance to the B.U. library flooded the first floor with snow and ice every New England winter. In Los Angeles, sunlight glinting off the sharply angled steel curves of Gehry's Walt Disney Music Hall raises the temperature of neighbors' houses by 15 degrees. And of course, Libeskind's World Trade Center plan, with its spindly 1776-foot tower and quarter-mile-high gardens, proved so impractical it had to be re-designed, in an exasperating negotiation hardly worthy of the complex tragedy of the site.
Dr. Silber, an honorary member of the American Institute of Architects, asks all the questions that critics dare not. He challenges architects to derive creative satisfaction from meeting their clients' practical needs. He appeals to the reasonable public to stop supporting overpriced architecture. And most of all, he calls for responsible clients to tell the emperors of our skylines that their pretensions cannot hide the naked absurdity of their designs."
i'm sure you could make similar arguments against calatrava, gaudi, and especially mies (did the farnsworth house really meet the 'clients' practical needs'? not so much ..)
i'm sure you can make the argument against many nondescript non high profile, non designcentric buildings that make my eyes bleed on a regular basis...architecture isn't practical. being able to read floorplans doesn't really qualify one to be an expert does it. otherwise, i would be a freaking expert.
I was wondering if this is the same man who was after the Physics and Math brain power of Yale and other Ivy Leagues Shools. I recall
a friend of mine talking about him years ago and how aggressive he was, but than again it might have been another President as they do come and go.
There are always things you can pick apart, but I think his argument dies a quick death at "Calatrava, Guadi and Mies" being "ok". That's pure subjectivity.
"he calls for responsible clients to tell the emperors of our skylines that their pretensions cannot hide the naked absurdity of their designs."---ah if they're reasonable don't they shy away from the absurdist megalomaniac? and develop a building standard calling for new buildings to mimic the historic buildings of the area/campus/neighborhood etc. while actually not providing the true "meaning" contained in the authentic buildings that are being imitated? this has been my real world experience with the academic world/commercial world and residential world. and its all startin to make me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
In case you guys haven't seen this - I thought this was hilarious -
"Funny..."The Big U" (not a good book though a first novel) by Neal Stephenson includes a fictional University president named Severus Krupps loosely based on the character of John Silber. The architecture of the dorm building in the Big U is the centerpiece of the American Megaversity. It was so 'functional' it had to be blown up in the end. It almost seems perfectly ironic that John Silber goes on to write a book championing the functional architecture in real life."
- Mirin, Dec 28, 07 | 11:08 pm
and believe it or not, the question I asked in response to Mr.Silber wasn't 100% rhetorical -
"Did Daniel Libeskind think about profitability of the Freedom Tower? Should that be the primary function?"
All of the criticism of Libeskind seems to be based on some personal distaste for his aesthetic. He's a deconstructivist and I think the slices, angular lines and faceted masses convey that aesthetic perfectly. Libeskind's design for the World Trade Center needed to be made "real", but design concept competitions will generate outlandish schemes and far fetched ideas. Structural design will always be transformed by technological advances of the time.
Doesn't anyone else think that the same excessive and "Absurd" design concept can be applied to almost any one of the architects that he prasies? So, Calatrava's Spire in Chicago is functional? What is this thread really about?
Computer aided design is opening the possibilities of structural design and architecture at the same time. He can complain all that he wants, but if a client is willing to pay for a starchitect's ridiculous design, bravo to the architect for selling garbage to an idiot.
I don't think there is anyone will say that Millenium Park's band shell is the best representation of contemporary architecture, but this book sounds awful. I would hardly place any importance on a book that is written by the son of an architect (and not an architect himself) regarding architecture. Essentially, this guy witnessed a project and I would expect nothing less than this type of complaint from a layman. Functionalism produced public housing that spawned from a school that Mies helped form (Bauhaus).
laymen very often say smart things. things worth paying attention to.
this fellow is educated inteligent well informed and experienced. he is also curmudgeontunidly challenged. the fault is not that he is not an architect but that he wants to make a point and will ignore all kinds of reasonable ideas to do so.
i toy with buying book anyway, just to see why all the hate. his interview suggests isn't worth the read, but still...
nothing wrong with functionalism. i think gehry might even claim to be functional. nothing wrong with art too. i don'T think the two are divided or hard to reconcile, nor that any of the starchitects find it challenging. that idea is mildly absurd. sometimes things work better than planned, sometimes less so...and sometimes amazing things happen. the curmudgeon is just feeling a bit disconnected with the world he lives in poor dear. i imagine he finds richard florida's ideas slightly vomitous too.
"All of the criticism of Libeskind seems to be based on some personal distaste for his aesthetic. He's a deconstructivist and I think the slices, angular lines and faceted masses convey that aesthetic perfectly."
But who cares? I mean really. The slices are supposed to represent the tragedy of the holocaust and meanwhile represent an adherence to an interpreted aesthetic of a bullshit french philosophical technique? (yes it's bullshit and you know it). Libeskind and his ilk are pathological, they market their "visions" to a gullible and stupid public who will buy anything that they think will get them reviewed in the Times.
Go look at the Denver Art Musuem. They have paintings hanging on columns because they are the only straight surface in the place. 2 x 4's are nailed to the ground so blind people don't hit their heads on the low angular ceilings. Oh right, he is challenging our assumptions about what a museum is. Well ain't that somethin'.
^^^ same with the ROM in Toronto. Libeskind's work is simply an aesthetic one - hence seeing the same rigid aesthetic all over the world, stuck on to various projects. I think that's the kind of work that needs more criticism.
They stamp the world with meaningless monstrosities, justify them with fanciful theories, and command outrageous "genius fees" for their trouble.
i agree completely.*
discuss.
* - well, maybe not completely, but to a point, sure. but if you were to substitute "monstrosities" with "fractional ownership high-rise condos" then yes, i agree completely.
Regardless of the whether or not Libeskind uses similar aesthetic elsewhere and regardless of anyone's personal tastes, couldn't you argue that his original proposal had a much more emotionally appropriate response than the one proposed now? (OK, I'm not as sensitive as I just sounded there, but you get the idea)
Can't buildings be designed as landmarks, symbols, and memorials - which have "functions" and responsibilities that go beyond the "practical art"? Obviously life safety overrides any kind of other function, but besides that couldn't architecture serve other functions? Was it practical to have calligraphy written all over the Taj Mahal? Was it even "practical" to build it in the first place?
...he wants to make a point and will ignore all kinds of reasonable ideas to do so.
jump called it, and explains why this book is of zero interest to me, even as a self-defense tactic. Come up with a little melodramatic and controversial topic for a book, research only enough to back up your point while ignoring anything contrary, and start making the talk show rounds.
Hell, I should do it - but my topic would be something far more interesting to the general populace, like "The Sports Religion: How State Support of Sports is Akin to Supporting Religion and Why It Must Stop".
yeah, LB, it would take away from your posting time on the 'nect.
oh, and I agree that if you say you're doing something for a poetic/regional reason, you can't very well use the SAME something in a different location or for a different poetic reason. That would be like writing the same love song for two different girls; not everything should be recycled.
OK, let's not talk about my hypothetical book any more. The point is, this is an insignificant book on a topic of little interest to anyone but us, and the more we get up in arms about it the more attention gets paid to something that doesn't deserve it.
A slice can mean many things (aesthetically). It is obviously something that Libeskind has utilized quite frequently from his design vocabulary. Many people dislike it and attack him for it. The same criticism can be made for many architects. But, his slice doesn't make his building non-functional (quite the opposite, actually).
I think his rationalization of the use of a slice is bullshit. His interpretation of the slice is what made it remotely powerful for the Jewish Museum (he got lucky). I have seen many designs that are post-rationalized and still are built to the architects taste. So, what he says about the Denver Art Museum doesn't matter to me. It's his preferred aesthetic and he just needs to own up to it. At least with Ghery, you know that it's just the way that he likes it. But, that's what people pay for, so where's the problem? I doubt the city of Bilbao is complaining.
It's true that laymen can say intelligent things, but I think that what he is touching on is beyond a non-architect's/non-construction professional's comprehension. After listening to the Brian Lerher show, it's clear to me that he's (Silber's)a conservative businessman that sees the less successful attempts in contemporary architecture as a flaw of the profession. If you are looking for a high return on a building, go to strip mall architects, don't hire Frank Ghery. But there are reasons that people like Zaha Hadid will be chosen for projects. They provide meaning, metaphor, interpretation, experimentation with buildings to cultural, municipal, university and sometimes residentail projects. There's a reason why everyone watches what they do; because they advance the profession.
And le bossman, we were asked to discuss certain aspects of the book highlighted above. Does it matter that we have read the book? Is this a book club? Has anyone addressed the book directly? No. It's a discussion, not a research paper.
I think the deeper question is whether many of are famous starchitects are simply seducing us with image and not architecture. And of course that begs the question if we are pointing to image as our highest ideals, than are we meaningful or worth listening to? Just a thought
I would agree Jayness. Many architects produce an image and not architecture. No need to name names, but it is what sells the design. Before, it was the elevation or the plan that sold the design, but, our means of representation has advanced tremendously and that has influenced the image conscious architect.
I find it entertaining that the same (st)architects we routinely bash on this forum are now being defended after an outsider has written a book that basically calls bullshit on the trend since Bilbao.
It's a Catch-22: While I enjoy Architecture being noted in main stream media outlets when a new building is awarded or opened, I also hate it when the same media outlets point out flaws, not only in design but in performance not long after these new masterpieces by "genius" architects are occupied and used. We should be stepping up our game and not pointing fingers (aka "it's the contractor's job to build it so it doesn't leak").
I also don't subscribe to the theory that great architecture is like buying a Jaguar - sure, it looks great but it leaks and doesn't run...
dml955i, I think the reason that this thread has ended up defending some (st)architects is becuase there is a flaw in what Sibler has proposed. He bashes "genius' but praises Calatrava. Does that mean that Calatrava is not a "genius". Eventhough his buildings are much more skeletal and based on structural design, his designs are still excessive (sometimes). If he wants to be a critic of architecture, let him be. But, I think that is completely something different than claiming there is a problem with the profession on the whole.
If Sibler is correct, there should be no SUV's, fast food, candy, strip clubs, Prada or Nike. He dislikes blatant excess...........welcome to the new Millenium!
i think the community here likes to be the only one allowed to bash the celebrity architects. when it's done by an outsider it's immediately seen as false, disingenuous critique with ulterior motives, regardless of whether or not it's justified.
architects are a pretty insular bunch...only architects are allowed to criticize other architects.
Sibler probably finds Calatrava more accessible than say a Gehry or Koolhaas building. I would bet he really likes guys like Piano and Meier as well. He's probably really turned off by the "weirdness" of the work and feels fleeced or ripped off when they don't ultimately function as well or live up to the "masterpiece" label. I think he mis-reads oddity as excess. But I do agree that a lot of the weirdness is just the architect's ego coming through in an attempt to show off.
I agree that he needs to lighten up a bit, but I think it's a valid criticism of our profession: We celebrate and continually reward architects based solely on their ability to make exciting forms. That's only a fraction of what Architecture should be about and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
At least, I would think that a person's criticism should address a valid point if he is bold enough to do so about the profession. Why make a book about such a general idea and why not talk specific architect or project? I think his mistake is being too general and he discusses too many cases. I have criticisms about the profession, but I cannot say that the profession is one thing. Why stereotype? Of course there are examples where his criticism is true, but then there can be examples where his criticism can be negated. It shows a flaw with his argument at its base. So if you want to hear that there may be validity to his point, there is. But, there are a lot of holes as well. If I bash Ghery, it will be because his vocabulary is limited and repetitive. If I bash Libeskind, it is because his buildings tend to have poor relationships to the environment.
Who would conclude that "genius" architects ignore clients needs, when these same clients seek out famous architects. His case neglects the fact that the famous architects are famous for the exact reason that they hired them for: to make "unique" or signature building that will gain the client recognition/publication/notoriety.
Its a poor argument and the blame hardly falls completely in the architects shoulders.
it would be better if a former president of a uni wrote a book criticizing the ricockulous costs of a college education in this country and the ricockulous salaries the bureaucrats at these institutions receive. now i would read that.
But then, he would have to question his salary. That book could find some answers in the fact that many Universities hire "genius" architects to design their buildings. It's like attacking a jewler because his diamonds are too big.
I agree with bossman. He may actually support his arguement very well, or he may not, but you can't really tell just from a summary. I think I would read it just on that basis, that I could then decide if it was crap or not.
Then don't comment. This is a speculative chat thread, isnt' that obvious? Are you some sort of politician? le bossman, have you listened to the Brian Lehrer interview? For the sake of a discussion, can you read a couple written words and respond? Or must you know all sides of the issue before you have the balls to speak up?
How many people in this chat thread have questioned whether the book is supported adequately or a good read? Most entries are about what other people think about the ideas generated from the excerpt from his book. Of course this conversation is manipulated by the editing process of the person that created the thread. But, does the fact that none of us have read the book mean that we have no right to speak about the ideas?
I guess only people that have had an abortion should be allowed to express their opinions too, right?
One point he did make on an interview someone posted a few months back is that a distinct change in the avante-garde occurred at the precise time publiclicly held companies with no individual owner, institutions run on trusts etc. started proliferating and soliciting these buildings. i guess he's pointing out these buildings are somehow related to the trend of group think in large organizations and somehow are the physical manifestation. I havent read the book but my guess is theirs more to it than he doesnt like art.
Actually, I was just framing my responses based on what other people on the forum wrote...
I'm not much of a book reader (more of a visual thinker)... Does anyone know if Sibler's book has pictures? If not, it sounds like a snooze-fest to me.
I know what I'm getting at, regarding reading the book, and what I assume bossman is also getting at, isn't the topic of the book, but hacking up the author without reading the book. The topic is a great one, and I think should be discussed, but the author and his book has little to do with that.
Using the abortion analogy mentioned above, its not the abortion that is being argued, its the person getting the abortion. And that is where I was having an issue. Tear apart the topic, not the person that brings it without first knowing their story.
Ok. Listen to this interview. Do you believe that Frank Ghery thinks of scientists as monkeys only to come down to eat together? Sibler "quotes" Ghery to say just that.
Architecture of the Absurd: How "Genius" Disfigured a Practical Art
"Have you ever wondered why the Guggenheim is always covered in scaffolding? Why the random slashes on the exterior of Daniel Libeskind's Jewish Museum, supposed to represent Berlin locations where pre-war Jews flourished, reappear, for no apparent reason, on his Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto? Or why Frank Gehry's Stata Center, designed for MIT's top-secret Cryptography Unit, has transparent glass walls? Not to mention why, for $442 per square foot, it doesn't keep out the rain? You're not alone.
In Architecture of the Absurd, John Silber dares to peek behind the curtain of "genius" architects and expose their willful disdain for their clients, their budgets, and the people who live or work inside their creations. Absurdism in a painting or sculpture is one thing—if it's not to your taste, you don't have to look—but absurdism in buildings represents a blatant disregard for the needs of the building, whether it be a student center, music hall, or corporate headquarters.
Silber admires the precise engineering of Calatrava, the imaginative shapes of Gaudi, and the sleek beauty of Mies van der Rohe. But he refuses to kowtow to the egos of those "geniuses" who lack such respect for the craft. Absurdist architects have been sheltered by the academy, encouraged by critics, and commissioned by CEOs and trustees. They stamp the world with meaningless monstrosities, justify them with fanciful theories, and command outrageous "genius fees" for their trouble.
As a young man, Silber learned to draw blueprints and read elevations from his architect father. In twenty-five years as president of Boston University, Silber oversaw a building program totaling 13 million square feet. Here, Silber uses his experience as a builder, a client, and a noted philosopher to construct an unflinchingly intelligent illustrated critique of contemporary architecture.
Le Corbusier's megalomaniacal 1930s plan for Algiers, which called for the demolition of the entire city, was mercifully never built. But his blatant disregard for context and community lives on. In Boston, Josep Lluis Sert's unprotected northeast-facing entrance to the B.U. library flooded the first floor with snow and ice every New England winter. In Los Angeles, sunlight glinting off the sharply angled steel curves of Gehry's Walt Disney Music Hall raises the temperature of neighbors' houses by 15 degrees. And of course, Libeskind's World Trade Center plan, with its spindly 1776-foot tower and quarter-mile-high gardens, proved so impractical it had to be re-designed, in an exasperating negotiation hardly worthy of the complex tragedy of the site.
Dr. Silber, an honorary member of the American Institute of Architects, asks all the questions that critics dare not. He challenges architects to derive creative satisfaction from meeting their clients' practical needs. He appeals to the reasonable public to stop supporting overpriced architecture. And most of all, he calls for responsible clients to tell the emperors of our skylines that their pretensions cannot hide the naked absurdity of their designs."
Discuss.
i'm sure you could make similar arguments against calatrava, gaudi, and especially mies (did the farnsworth house really meet the 'clients' practical needs'? not so much ..)
i'm sure you can make the argument against many nondescript non high profile, non designcentric buildings that make my eyes bleed on a regular basis...architecture isn't practical. being able to read floorplans doesn't really qualify one to be an expert does it. otherwise, i would be a freaking expert.
well how about elevations? he can read elevations.
and draw blueprints
well i don't know how to draw a blueprint. i do know how to make one although know one has a blueprint machine anymore.
I was wondering if this is the same man who was after the Physics and Math brain power of Yale and other Ivy Leagues Shools. I recall
a friend of mine talking about him years ago and how aggressive he was, but than again it might have been another President as they do come and go.
Think this is the same guy.
There are always things you can pick apart, but I think his argument dies a quick death at "Calatrava, Guadi and Mies" being "ok". That's pure subjectivity.
Sounds like he's bitter and jealous.
this book sounds like an editorial waste of time.
"he calls for responsible clients to tell the emperors of our skylines that their pretensions cannot hide the naked absurdity of their designs."---ah if they're reasonable don't they shy away from the absurdist megalomaniac? and develop a building standard calling for new buildings to mimic the historic buildings of the area/campus/neighborhood etc. while actually not providing the true "meaning" contained in the authentic buildings that are being imitated? this has been my real world experience with the academic world/commercial world and residential world. and its all startin to make me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
another toohey
In case you guys haven't seen this - I thought this was hilarious -
"Funny..."The Big U" (not a good book though a first novel) by Neal Stephenson includes a fictional University president named Severus Krupps loosely based on the character of John Silber. The architecture of the dorm building in the Big U is the centerpiece of the American Megaversity. It was so 'functional' it had to be blown up in the end. It almost seems perfectly ironic that John Silber goes on to write a book championing the functional architecture in real life."
- Mirin, Dec 28, 07 | 11:08 pm
and believe it or not, the question I asked in response to Mr.Silber wasn't 100% rhetorical -
"Did Daniel Libeskind think about profitability of the Freedom Tower? Should that be the primary function?"
All of the criticism of Libeskind seems to be based on some personal distaste for his aesthetic. He's a deconstructivist and I think the slices, angular lines and faceted masses convey that aesthetic perfectly. Libeskind's design for the World Trade Center needed to be made "real", but design concept competitions will generate outlandish schemes and far fetched ideas. Structural design will always be transformed by technological advances of the time.
Doesn't anyone else think that the same excessive and "Absurd" design concept can be applied to almost any one of the architects that he prasies? So, Calatrava's Spire in Chicago is functional? What is this thread really about?
Computer aided design is opening the possibilities of structural design and architecture at the same time. He can complain all that he wants, but if a client is willing to pay for a starchitect's ridiculous design, bravo to the architect for selling garbage to an idiot.
I don't think there is anyone will say that Millenium Park's band shell is the best representation of contemporary architecture, but this book sounds awful. I would hardly place any importance on a book that is written by the son of an architect (and not an architect himself) regarding architecture. Essentially, this guy witnessed a project and I would expect nothing less than this type of complaint from a layman. Functionalism produced public housing that spawned from a school that Mies helped form (Bauhaus).
laymen very often say smart things. things worth paying attention to.
this fellow is educated inteligent well informed and experienced. he is also curmudgeontunidly challenged. the fault is not that he is not an architect but that he wants to make a point and will ignore all kinds of reasonable ideas to do so.
i toy with buying book anyway, just to see why all the hate. his interview suggests isn't worth the read, but still...
nothing wrong with functionalism. i think gehry might even claim to be functional. nothing wrong with art too. i don'T think the two are divided or hard to reconcile, nor that any of the starchitects find it challenging. that idea is mildly absurd. sometimes things work better than planned, sometimes less so...and sometimes amazing things happen. the curmudgeon is just feeling a bit disconnected with the world he lives in poor dear. i imagine he finds richard florida's ideas slightly vomitous too.
I can guess what he'd think of Boston City Hall...
"All of the criticism of Libeskind seems to be based on some personal distaste for his aesthetic. He's a deconstructivist and I think the slices, angular lines and faceted masses convey that aesthetic perfectly."
But who cares? I mean really. The slices are supposed to represent the tragedy of the holocaust and meanwhile represent an adherence to an interpreted aesthetic of a bullshit french philosophical technique? (yes it's bullshit and you know it). Libeskind and his ilk are pathological, they market their "visions" to a gullible and stupid public who will buy anything that they think will get them reviewed in the Times.
Go look at the Denver Art Musuem. They have paintings hanging on columns because they are the only straight surface in the place. 2 x 4's are nailed to the ground so blind people don't hit their heads on the low angular ceilings. Oh right, he is challenging our assumptions about what a museum is. Well ain't that somethin'.
^^^ same with the ROM in Toronto. Libeskind's work is simply an aesthetic one - hence seeing the same rigid aesthetic all over the world, stuck on to various projects. I think that's the kind of work that needs more criticism.
i agree completely.*
discuss.
* - well, maybe not completely, but to a point, sure. but if you were to substitute "monstrosities" with "fractional ownership high-rise condos" then yes, i agree completely.
Regardless of the whether or not Libeskind uses similar aesthetic elsewhere and regardless of anyone's personal tastes, couldn't you argue that his original proposal had a much more emotionally appropriate response than the one proposed now? (OK, I'm not as sensitive as I just sounded there, but you get the idea)
Can't buildings be designed as landmarks, symbols, and memorials - which have "functions" and responsibilities that go beyond the "practical art"? Obviously life safety overrides any kind of other function, but besides that couldn't architecture serve other functions? Was it practical to have calligraphy written all over the Taj Mahal? Was it even "practical" to build it in the first place?
jump called it, and explains why this book is of zero interest to me, even as a self-defense tactic. Come up with a little melodramatic and controversial topic for a book, research only enough to back up your point while ignoring anything contrary, and start making the talk show rounds.
Hell, I should do it - but my topic would be something far more interesting to the general populace, like "The Sports Religion: How State Support of Sports is Akin to Supporting Religion and Why It Must Stop".
the state support of sports?
has anyone actually read the book?
*yawn*
elle belle - don't do it.
yeah, LB, it would take away from your posting time on the 'nect.
oh, and I agree that if you say you're doing something for a poetic/regional reason, you can't very well use the SAME something in a different location or for a different poetic reason. That would be like writing the same love song for two different girls; not everything should be recycled.
i would read this book.
OK, let's not talk about my hypothetical book any more. The point is, this is an insignificant book on a topic of little interest to anyone but us, and the more we get up in arms about it the more attention gets paid to something that doesn't deserve it.
A slice can mean many things (aesthetically). It is obviously something that Libeskind has utilized quite frequently from his design vocabulary. Many people dislike it and attack him for it. The same criticism can be made for many architects. But, his slice doesn't make his building non-functional (quite the opposite, actually).
I think his rationalization of the use of a slice is bullshit. His interpretation of the slice is what made it remotely powerful for the Jewish Museum (he got lucky). I have seen many designs that are post-rationalized and still are built to the architects taste. So, what he says about the Denver Art Museum doesn't matter to me. It's his preferred aesthetic and he just needs to own up to it. At least with Ghery, you know that it's just the way that he likes it. But, that's what people pay for, so where's the problem? I doubt the city of Bilbao is complaining.
It's true that laymen can say intelligent things, but I think that what he is touching on is beyond a non-architect's/non-construction professional's comprehension. After listening to the Brian Lerher show, it's clear to me that he's (Silber's)a conservative businessman that sees the less successful attempts in contemporary architecture as a flaw of the profession. If you are looking for a high return on a building, go to strip mall architects, don't hire Frank Ghery. But there are reasons that people like Zaha Hadid will be chosen for projects. They provide meaning, metaphor, interpretation, experimentation with buildings to cultural, municipal, university and sometimes residentail projects. There's a reason why everyone watches what they do; because they advance the profession.
And le bossman, we were asked to discuss certain aspects of the book highlighted above. Does it matter that we have read the book? Is this a book club? Has anyone addressed the book directly? No. It's a discussion, not a research paper.
I think the deeper question is whether many of are famous starchitects are simply seducing us with image and not architecture. And of course that begs the question if we are pointing to image as our highest ideals, than are we meaningful or worth listening to? Just a thought
actually these are the kinds of "architecture" books that do sell well and influence the general population.
I would agree Jayness. Many architects produce an image and not architecture. No need to name names, but it is what sells the design. Before, it was the elevation or the plan that sold the design, but, our means of representation has advanced tremendously and that has influenced the image conscious architect.
I find it entertaining that the same (st)architects we routinely bash on this forum are now being defended after an outsider has written a book that basically calls bullshit on the trend since Bilbao.
It's a Catch-22: While I enjoy Architecture being noted in main stream media outlets when a new building is awarded or opened, I also hate it when the same media outlets point out flaws, not only in design but in performance not long after these new masterpieces by "genius" architects are occupied and used. We should be stepping up our game and not pointing fingers (aka "it's the contractor's job to build it so it doesn't leak").
I also don't subscribe to the theory that great architecture is like buying a Jaguar - sure, it looks great but it leaks and doesn't run...
dml955i, I think the reason that this thread has ended up defending some (st)architects is becuase there is a flaw in what Sibler has proposed. He bashes "genius' but praises Calatrava. Does that mean that Calatrava is not a "genius". Eventhough his buildings are much more skeletal and based on structural design, his designs are still excessive (sometimes). If he wants to be a critic of architecture, let him be. But, I think that is completely something different than claiming there is a problem with the profession on the whole.
If Sibler is correct, there should be no SUV's, fast food, candy, strip clubs, Prada or Nike. He dislikes blatant excess...........welcome to the new Millenium!
i think the community here likes to be the only one allowed to bash the celebrity architects. when it's done by an outsider it's immediately seen as false, disingenuous critique with ulterior motives, regardless of whether or not it's justified.
architects are a pretty insular bunch...only architects are allowed to criticize other architects.
Sibler probably finds Calatrava more accessible than say a Gehry or Koolhaas building. I would bet he really likes guys like Piano and Meier as well. He's probably really turned off by the "weirdness" of the work and feels fleeced or ripped off when they don't ultimately function as well or live up to the "masterpiece" label. I think he mis-reads oddity as excess. But I do agree that a lot of the weirdness is just the architect's ego coming through in an attempt to show off.
I agree that he needs to lighten up a bit, but I think it's a valid criticism of our profession: We celebrate and continually reward architects based solely on their ability to make exciting forms. That's only a fraction of what Architecture should be about and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
At least, I would think that a person's criticism should address a valid point if he is bold enough to do so about the profession. Why make a book about such a general idea and why not talk specific architect or project? I think his mistake is being too general and he discusses too many cases. I have criticisms about the profession, but I cannot say that the profession is one thing. Why stereotype? Of course there are examples where his criticism is true, but then there can be examples where his criticism can be negated. It shows a flaw with his argument at its base. So if you want to hear that there may be validity to his point, there is. But, there are a lot of holes as well. If I bash Ghery, it will be because his vocabulary is limited and repetitive. If I bash Libeskind, it is because his buildings tend to have poor relationships to the environment.
Who would conclude that "genius" architects ignore clients needs, when these same clients seek out famous architects. His case neglects the fact that the famous architects are famous for the exact reason that they hired them for: to make "unique" or signature building that will gain the client recognition/publication/notoriety.
Its a poor argument and the blame hardly falls completely in the architects shoulders.
it would be better if a former president of a uni wrote a book criticizing the ricockulous costs of a college education in this country and the ricockulous salaries the bureaucrats at these institutions receive. now i would read that.
"Ricockulous" is a great word. I would definitely read a book titled, "Ricockulous Douchebaggery"
Depending on the company I'm in, I often interchange Ricockulous with Ridonkulous. It's the polite thing to do.
But then, he would have to question his salary. That book could find some answers in the fact that many Universities hire "genius" architects to design their buildings. It's like attacking a jewler because his diamonds are too big.
i still do not understand how you guys know the true content of this person's arguement without actually reading the book.
I agree with bossman. He may actually support his arguement very well, or he may not, but you can't really tell just from a summary. I think I would read it just on that basis, that I could then decide if it was crap or not.
Then don't comment. This is a speculative chat thread, isnt' that obvious? Are you some sort of politician? le bossman, have you listened to the Brian Lehrer interview? For the sake of a discussion, can you read a couple written words and respond? Or must you know all sides of the issue before you have the balls to speak up?
How many people in this chat thread have questioned whether the book is supported adequately or a good read? Most entries are about what other people think about the ideas generated from the excerpt from his book. Of course this conversation is manipulated by the editing process of the person that created the thread. But, does the fact that none of us have read the book mean that we have no right to speak about the ideas?
I guess only people that have had an abortion should be allowed to express their opinions too, right?
One point he did make on an interview someone posted a few months back is that a distinct change in the avante-garde occurred at the precise time publiclicly held companies with no individual owner, institutions run on trusts etc. started proliferating and soliciting these buildings. i guess he's pointing out these buildings are somehow related to the trend of group think in large organizations and somehow are the physical manifestation. I havent read the book but my guess is theirs more to it than he doesnt like art.
That is a topic that is interesting. It would be something that could be potentially valuable from the book.
Actually, I was just framing my responses based on what other people on the forum wrote...
I'm not much of a book reader (more of a visual thinker)... Does anyone know if Sibler's book has pictures? If not, it sounds like a snooze-fest to me.
I know what I'm getting at, regarding reading the book, and what I assume bossman is also getting at, isn't the topic of the book, but hacking up the author without reading the book. The topic is a great one, and I think should be discussed, but the author and his book has little to do with that.
Using the abortion analogy mentioned above, its not the abortion that is being argued, its the person getting the abortion. And that is where I was having an issue. Tear apart the topic, not the person that brings it without first knowing their story.
Ok. Listen to this interview. Do you believe that Frank Ghery thinks of scientists as monkeys only to come down to eat together? Sibler "quotes" Ghery to say just that.
[http://multimedia.boston.com/pub/m/14225972/john_sibler_on_architecture_of.htm?col=en-vid-pod_bcom-ep&s=PZSID_0000009296&match=query,keyword=4]
[url=http://multimedia.boston.com/pub/m/14225972/john_sibler_on_architecture_of.htm?col=en-vid-pod_bcom-ep&s=PZSID_0000009296&match=query,keyword=4[/http://multimedia.boston.com/pub/m/14225972/john_sibler_on_architecture_of.htm?col=en-vid-pod_bcom-ep&s=PZSID_0000009296&match=query,keyword=40
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.