the way i see it is this....the author is arguing that "genius" starchitects are not serving their clientele because the roof might leak or some one may bump their head on a sloped wall. but, the client wants the genius architect for the genius of the concept, the wow factor, the intant icon status that is achieved by commissioning one of our heroes to design a high profile project. that IS serving the client in this case. the client who wants a jaggedy liebskind, a shiny gehry wants that and that more than anything else. that IS the function. The symbolism, the photo-ops, the publicity...any hack can make a building that don't leak. that ain't the point. that aint the raison d'etre of the geniusatect. Their role is to provide the instant icon regardless of mundane concerns such as waterproofing, heat gain/loss, etc... and here the author totally misses the point. for chrissakes the guys a kantian and should have some concept of the geniusatects goal of creating a sublime work of art. wtf? man...
I think it is perfectly valid to criticize the premise of which a book is based on no matter how well he "backs it up". My understanding of the premise being that profitability of the project to the client is of absolute highest priority than the architects' responsibility/obligation to the public and to our profession - of which (beside the obvious life/health related issues) include non-quantifiable things such as "provide meaning, metaphor, interpretation, experimentation" (as Ronin mentioned above) among other things such as providing a landmark, sense of place, advancing the profession, etc. Its as if he's taking that simple formula of being able to have only two of "quality, cost, and time" and saying that cost is of highest priority for all projects - and he's reduced "quality" to "most financially efficient use of materials to have a high-performance building envelope". Yeah, for some (like storage warehouses), but he picked the wrong projects - high profile projects (high-impact to context) by high profile architects.
I think its also important to note that he's also picking out problems that were either not at 100% at the control of the architect or un-forseeable results problems that could have risen from unintentional mistakes (what no one can make mistakes?).
and Sarah Hamilton, the use of abortion is not intended to offend or turn this into an abortion discussion. To enter a conversation and say that people should read the book first does not contribute anything other than "shut up" (with my interpretation and exaggerration). I think we can all agree that we have not read the book and there may be something else to his argument. But that does not mean that we should not discuss the topic and/or concepts.
Do you think that a person that has selected architects has the knowledge to speak about the profession as a whole? He claims to know when the "Absurd" architecture began (as he states in the interview above where he says Ghery calls scientists monkeys). If you are not an architect or a historian, I would highly doubt someone would understand all of the areas that affect architecture and why it has progressed the way it has to this date. Listen to him for yourself.
Well, I have read the book recently so I will share some of my thoughts:
-I did find it hard to understand his justification of the designs of Gaudi and Rodia yet his distate for Gehry and Libeskind until I really began to understand his main bent. A building should be fully functional, fully economical.
- In his "analysis" of the Sagrada Familia by Gaudi, he states that the canting of the supporting columns serves a specific purpose - carry the load. Creative engineering was done to achieve this. Basically a wire model of the building was hung upside down to allow gravity to show the proper angle for the columns. Although a particulary ugly building in my opinion, his point is this,there must be true purpose behind every element. Now in considering Gehry's Stata Center on MIT's campus, those of you who have visited it know that that the interior is crap. We also know that most of its "supporting" columns support nothing. His(Silber) argument here and I paraphrase is that MIT was sold a bag of air - over budget, care nothing for the clientele (scientists working on top secret info. in glass offices -security?) just so long as someone rich will want to have their name placed on the side for a huge endowment. Golden!!
I think it annoys Silber more that in his opinion Gehry cared more for his own ego, cared even less for the budget and in the end Gehry's ideas were never fully conceived...example: Gehry's intent was to cause the scientists to interact with each other hence the open "atrium" or "street". However, it's relatively empty because the scientists would rather sit in their offices all day and actually work (no consideration for the actual work habits of the users).
He also argues the point that many architects feel the need to "bs" if you will and he finds it hard to understand the purpose of such. He comments that Kahn should not have felt the need to over explain his concept as his designs were genious within themselves. Excerpt from book: "Pretentious exposition had become so common by midcentury that even as fine an architect as Louis Kahn occasionally indulged in high-flown, airy explanations. Kahn, for example, explained to my aesthetics class at Yale why there was no ceiling in his new addition to the Yale Art Gallery. He explained that honesty and integrity called for the exposure of the overhead structure, with all the duct work and conduits. I(Silber) asked him why then he had covered all the electrical switches with opaque steel plates. Why not use Plexiglas so that the switch and the wiring would be exposed to ensure integrity and honesty? There was no response, and it didn't matter. The architecture spoke for itself. So why, I asked myself, did Kahn offer "explanations" that led inevitably to inconistencies?"
So in "conclusion", I thought the book a bit thought provoking. Architects should be more responsible. If the public does not get it and are too easily swayed, should not the architect not take responsibility for the integrity of the profession? How much more of the taxpayers' money needs to be spent on fluff. I will write again with background of the author seeing that I have typed too much already...
Now to the background of the author Silber.......In the Introduction he spells out why he is a credible critic seeing that his formal education and current profession differ from the subject. I will be brief....kind of like discussing "Lost" in 20 seconds......lol
His dad was an architect, trained in Beaux-Arts, he was extremely detailed, contractors knew he meant business. Dad told son, "2 percent of my fee is to inspect all stages of construction to ensure that the client's interests were fully met by the exact execution of plans and specifications", dad did pencil smears to make sure paints coats were done as expected. Dad hired son as draftsman, Son learned a lot, dad had high expectations for all work completed, son respected that. Son became more observant of buildings all around him, useful in teaching classes on aesthetics (Professor of Philosophy and Law apparently), oversaw the building program of Boston U, made sure people knew who's who. Architects dismayed that they could not wooh him for he knew their design plans and would throw them for a loop, would make them feel small when their drawings were not up to par, earned respect by that, recognized excessive design and made them kick the bucket. Yet, there were many who stood to bat. AIA elected him honorary member, he then met with a group called the Texas Society of Architects to give an address on what has now been expaneded into a book called the "Architecture of the Absurd".
I think that regardless of this person's profession, I would still argue the same way (even if he was an architect). Responsibility should always fall on the shoulders of the person that is performing a duty/job. That's a one liner/not much substance. His criticises "genius" including Ghery, Libeskind, but not Gaudi and Calatrava? If functionality, budget and efficiency are paramount, then why would La Sagrada Familia still be under construction. And has this guy ever seen the original design for La Sagrada Familia? The city of Barcelona had to raise money in order to complete this project (and it still isn't completed).
How about Calatrava locating glass panels on a pedestrian bridge walking surface? Efficient, economical or thinking about the user? Swiss cheesse I tell you.
HaHa!!! Interesting note on the Sagrada Familia, didn't know that. I agree absolutely with this point:
Responsibility should always fall on the shoulders of the person that is performing a duty/job. 21Ronin
It is a matter of integrity...respect for the profession and one's name. Architects are to be held accountable just as in any other profession "should".
Nope I have not. Opinion based solely on pics which for me is an odd statement. I highly advocate well taken photographs and in this book I will say is lacking. However as Zumthor would say...you can't judge by pictures alone, you must experience it for yourself. Now, I have been to Stata and that is truly a jumbled mess.
if a client (and here i am talking about a client that is an institution or a corporation, rather than an individual) and does not vet the architects then its their own damn fault if they f it up. an architect is always going to believe that what they are proposing is the best solution to the design problem at hand. they may be wrong but they believe it. i mean fuck aren't there presentations, review commitees, discussions etc about these projects???? every fucking project we work on always seems to be picked over by clients to the point that the good stuff gets taken out or changes get made and made and made. doesnt mit do this? what was the process??? we do a great deal of university work and they always have four hundred people stickin their noses into the process. whether its faculty, the uni architect, the facilities people whoever...if you get a shitty building its your fault.
It looks as if it's melting (Sagrada Familia)...and the scaffolding is not too distracting in that one photo. I didn't realize it was there until you pointed it out.
Well, I will say Silber has a few other accomplishments under his belt....
John Silber
President Emeritus, Boston University; University Professor, Professor of Philosophy and Law
Office: 73 BSR
Phone: 617.353.4300
Education: Ph.D., Yale University
Interests: History of Philosophy, Philosophy of Law, Kant, Ethics. (Not currently teaching in the department.)
After teaching at Yale, Dr. John Silber returned to Texas, where he joined the department of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. After serving as chairman of his department he became Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
He was the first chairman of the Texas Society to Abolish Capital Punishment and a leader in the integration of the University of Texas. Dr. Silber is a leading spokesman for the maintenance of high academic standards and has gained national attention for his advocacy of a rational, comprehensive system for financing higher education. He was instrumental in founding Operation Head Start.
In January 1971 John Silber became the seventh president of Boston University, and in 1996 he became Chancellor. In January 1996, Governor William Weld chose Dr. Silber to head the Massachusetts Board of Education, the state's policy-making board for public education below the collegiate level.
Dr. Silber has written widely on philosophy (especially on Immanuel Kant), education, and social and foreign policy. His work has appeared in journals such as:
Philosophical Quarterly
Kant-Studien,
Philosophical Review
Ethics
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society
Zeitschift für Philosophische Forschung, and in many edited volumes.
He has also published in:
Atlantic
Harper's
New Republic
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
His book, Straight Shooting, was published by Harper's in 1989. A German edition, Ist Amerika zu Retten?, was published in 1992 by Ullstein. A Japanese edition was published in 1993.
Dr. Silber has also served as an editor of Kant-Studien, and has been the recipient of Fulbright, Guggenheim, and ACLS Fellowships.
Thought it would be interesting to see...for the sake of fun....or whatever...
Vado interesting point. I see what you mean in terms of the many noses which pry into the design process but can we put all the blame on the uninformed public? I in no way would ever suggest that a building must be perfect but I just understand his argument when ego overrides sensibility...there has to be a balance. Would you not agree?
Whats the worth of proposing a design and then working through it and engineering it? Isn't that common? I just assume that at some point, one set of eyes on a project would catch a faulty detail. There's no excuse for it and I can't imagine how that could happen.
I have seen Sagrada Familia, navigated my way through the saffolding, climbed the spires and finished through the exhibit in the cellar. If anyone tells me that Gaudi was somehow outside of this "genius" title, I will kindly shoot myself in the mouth. Kidding. Anyway, La Sagrada Familia is beautiful regarless of imperfections and it does not discredit the architect. I think its an amazing building and it is a memory that will stick in my mind for the rest of my life (looking from the top of the spire and then descending down the never ending spiral stair case). My point is not that this "negative" detail of the project did not harm my impression of it. Testing a theory that 1. efficiency 2. turning profit 3. clients needs 4. Aesthetics (finally!) based on examples from the except and two interviews leaves me at the point where I can start to challenge the theory. If you test his own words against what he says, it doesn't hold water.
So, his resume is impressive, but it still does not necessarily make him any more or less respectable than a person with the following honorary degrees, does it?
-Visual Arts; California Institute of the Arts (Valencia, California, USA—1987)
-Fine Arts; Rhode Island School of Design (Providence, Rhode Island, USA—1987)
-Engineering; Technical University of Nova Scotia (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada—1989)
-Fine Arts; Otis Arts Institute (Los Angeles, California, USA—1989)
-Humanities; Occidental College (Los Angeles, California, USA—1993)
-Whittier College (Whittier, California, USA—1995)
-Architecture; Southern California Institute of Architecture (Los Angeles, California, USA—1997)
-Laws; University of Toronto (Toronto, Ontario, Canada—1998)
-University of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom—2000)
-University of Southern California (Los Angeles, California, USA —2000)
-Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut, USA—2000)
-Harvard University (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA—2000)
-City College of New York (New York, New York, USA—2002)
-The School of The Art Institute of Chicago (Chicago, Illinois, USA—2004
.....................oh yeah, that's Frank Ghery bye the way.
i did listen to the interview. not much content there; it's purpose was to promote his book, as is the summary from amazon.com. but i had never heard of john silber until about two weeks ago, and i think he brings up some interesting, if disagreeable points. rather than write him off, i was intrigued by the fact that he defends calatrava and gaudi but not gehry or libeskind, enough to purchase his book which hasn't arrived. i wasn't looking for a book report, but the content of things like the amazon summary or promotional radio interview really aren't sufficient enough in my mind for people to go through such scathing critiques of him like that it isn't even worth one's time to pick up his book, or to speculate on what his arguements are without knowing their full content. often i am far more intrigued by the general public's opinion of architecture than i am of architects themselves. maybe silber doesn't know what he's talking about, but i'd at least like to hear him out first. some people once thought robert venturi was a quack. maybe i'd feel differently if we were talking about the latest book by someone like stan allen or kenneth frampton that most people on archinect are already familiar with. but i'd never heard of silber. let me put it another way: suppose you were teaching a theory seminar, and rather than read the books assigned to them, your students just read the back covers of the books and attempted to construct arguements about the simulacra, about survelliance or panaopticism or whatever they're teaching these days simply from this minor amount of information. would this be in your mind sufficient for them to grasp the concepts at hand? and yes, i was being provocative but i was hoping someone would catch my drift. i don't think that this means i am somehow lacking in "balls" as you say.
Never said his (Silber) argument didn't have holes in it nor did I post Silber's resume to prove any real point...it was a matter of giving context to the discussion at hand and to answer previous questions. And again my opinion is based solely on the photos (underline photos) of the Familia Sagrada nothing more. His (Gehry) designs are innovative and interesting, why not give him an honorary degree? I think that in a way proves the point of the exaltation of "genius" for the sake of "genius". Stata still reaks of nonsense. That's not to say that at first glance I don't find the overall concepts of his designs appealing but as a properly functioning building, you can't negate one to have the other. Thinking Venturi?....
I in no way would ever suggest that a building must be perfect but I just understand his argument when ego overrides sensibility...there has to be a balance. Would you not agree?
not sensiblility...supersensible since we're in kant country...
It sounds like a book of criticism and not one that I would pay money for? Is there a concept, "Absurdist" architecture?
From what I hear, you come from the school of thought where a person's resume, credentials and achievements precede them. I come from the school of thought that those things do not mean anything until a point is proven. I question motives, listen, think and interpret. You listen, memorize and regurgitate.
"Though he does note, apropos of nothing, that the rise of 'absurdism' has 'accompanied a decline in standards of taste in popular music and movies and the prevalence of tattoos and body-piercing ornamentation."
of course! body piercing and tattoos! it all makes sense now.
anyway...kahn's lightswitch is a good story. i love kahn's buildings and hate his theories too, and that story is pretty much the reason why. its a good point. don't mean gehry is a doorknob however. just that louis kahn was not a particularly good rhetoritator.
i like vado's take, as usual. don't agree entirely about the duties of architects but i suspect any institution that hires an architect will in the end get exactly what they want. bureacracy has a habit of reducing genius to pablum and in my experience, as with vado's, institutional clients are (factionally) very much full of their desires and push them quite a lot. the idea that the starchitects are working outside those pressures is not likely in my view...
but to step back a bit and consider the topic from a distance, think about my old friend chris wren, who did an actual bait and switch with an entire building when he built st. pauls. the clergy who vetted the design agreed to a piece of crap (wren made the design assuming the clergy-men would reject it but they didn't) which wren slowly changed during the decades of construction to match more the original design that had been rejected. he of course did that with the support of the king (and a queen and another king i believe - england went through a few of them while wren was building)...and now it is symbol of city...
so what? you ask?
exactly. a little perspective is necessary. silber doesn't really have any yet so what he is speaking of is hard to really comment on intelligently. i say lets wait 50 years or so and then start the thread again.
"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."
yes, he likes it, but who else likes it? the question, more importantly, is - does the user like the product? if it works, then yes, they should like it. if it is beautiful and it does not work, then no - they may not. and also if it does not work, then deep inside, the client (not the user), does not either. an architect 'liking' his techniques doesnt quantify him/her using them incessantly without function for them.
and the idea that an ENTIRE city is not complaining about a blobitecture gehry bldg is like saying everyone in the state of massachusets likes pink underwear. prove it.
and lets remember what the word "necessity" really means.
"If Sibler is correct, there should be no SUV's, fast food, candy, strip clubs, Prada or Nike. He dislikes blatant excess...
although I own some items of the above brands or types - what is the "necessity" of them? if there is no real need, then it is an extra or an indulgence, or a brand. not blatant, but more an "excess" than anything else. somewhat like a client wanting a gehry building for its media exposure. the (outside the realm of architects)type of media. red carpet media. tom brady and modell girlfriend type media. bullshit media. and if thats your definition of a "need", then you are in the rights to defend. as you've been heartily doing.
in some ways, i agree with silber, as i've sat in b&n (yes...unfortunately) and read a couple chapters of his book. and i agree with T-huh - its basic premise is that buildings should be functional (as functional as possible), they should address the needs of both client and user (as much as possible), and should pay attention to the budget (ditto). now the real art is when these three elements of the project are succesful (as could be) while still evoking the artistic impression that the architect intended. its possible, and we all know where these buildings are and who they've been designed and built by. in retrospect, we also know where and who has done the opposite.
Lets be clear here - There is no architect in the world that wants their building to leak, be over-budget, or behind schedule. Its a matter of priority - which (like "function") can be extremely complex depending on the project. And frankly, the client might have unrealistic goals. Without proper feasibility studies, the project might be set up for failure in at least one aspect of the building from the beginning (I mean how many detailed feasibility studies are done vs. feasibility studies that SHOULD be done).
Many buildings that may have been on-budget, on schedule, and not have leaks can create negative social or contextual impact making it a bigger failure (in terms of the bigger picture) than a building that is positive for social or contextual impact yet leaks or is behind schedule or is not on-budget (due to improper feasibility study).
Silber might have a valid point if he was talking about different kinds of building types where the priority is really aligned with his narrow-minded idea of "function" and if he called his book "How "Genius" disfigureS a Practical Art." Not a big difference but I think it changes the premise and perspective.
Architecture of the Absurd: How "Genius" Disfigured a Practical Art
the way i see it is this....the author is arguing that "genius" starchitects are not serving their clientele because the roof might leak or some one may bump their head on a sloped wall. but, the client wants the genius architect for the genius of the concept, the wow factor, the intant icon status that is achieved by commissioning one of our heroes to design a high profile project. that IS serving the client in this case. the client who wants a jaggedy liebskind, a shiny gehry wants that and that more than anything else. that IS the function. The symbolism, the photo-ops, the publicity...any hack can make a building that don't leak. that ain't the point. that aint the raison d'etre of the geniusatect. Their role is to provide the instant icon regardless of mundane concerns such as waterproofing, heat gain/loss, etc... and here the author totally misses the point. for chrissakes the guys a kantian and should have some concept of the geniusatects goal of creating a sublime work of art. wtf? man...
I think it is perfectly valid to criticize the premise of which a book is based on no matter how well he "backs it up". My understanding of the premise being that profitability of the project to the client is of absolute highest priority than the architects' responsibility/obligation to the public and to our profession - of which (beside the obvious life/health related issues) include non-quantifiable things such as "provide meaning, metaphor, interpretation, experimentation" (as Ronin mentioned above) among other things such as providing a landmark, sense of place, advancing the profession, etc. Its as if he's taking that simple formula of being able to have only two of "quality, cost, and time" and saying that cost is of highest priority for all projects - and he's reduced "quality" to "most financially efficient use of materials to have a high-performance building envelope". Yeah, for some (like storage warehouses), but he picked the wrong projects - high profile projects (high-impact to context) by high profile architects.
I think its also important to note that he's also picking out problems that were either not at 100% at the control of the architect or un-forseeable results problems that could have risen from unintentional mistakes (what no one can make mistakes?).
and Sarah Hamilton, the use of abortion is not intended to offend or turn this into an abortion discussion. To enter a conversation and say that people should read the book first does not contribute anything other than "shut up" (with my interpretation and exaggerration). I think we can all agree that we have not read the book and there may be something else to his argument. But that does not mean that we should not discuss the topic and/or concepts.
Do you think that a person that has selected architects has the knowledge to speak about the profession as a whole? He claims to know when the "Absurd" architecture began (as he states in the interview above where he says Ghery calls scientists monkeys). If you are not an architect or a historian, I would highly doubt someone would understand all of the areas that affect architecture and why it has progressed the way it has to this date. Listen to him for yourself.
Well, I have read the book recently so I will share some of my thoughts:
-I did find it hard to understand his justification of the designs of Gaudi and Rodia yet his distate for Gehry and Libeskind until I really began to understand his main bent. A building should be fully functional, fully economical.
- In his "analysis" of the Sagrada Familia by Gaudi, he states that the canting of the supporting columns serves a specific purpose - carry the load. Creative engineering was done to achieve this. Basically a wire model of the building was hung upside down to allow gravity to show the proper angle for the columns. Although a particulary ugly building in my opinion, his point is this,there must be true purpose behind every element. Now in considering Gehry's Stata Center on MIT's campus, those of you who have visited it know that that the interior is crap. We also know that most of its "supporting" columns support nothing. His(Silber) argument here and I paraphrase is that MIT was sold a bag of air - over budget, care nothing for the clientele (scientists working on top secret info. in glass offices -security?) just so long as someone rich will want to have their name placed on the side for a huge endowment. Golden!!
I think it annoys Silber more that in his opinion Gehry cared more for his own ego, cared even less for the budget and in the end Gehry's ideas were never fully conceived...example: Gehry's intent was to cause the scientists to interact with each other hence the open "atrium" or "street". However, it's relatively empty because the scientists would rather sit in their offices all day and actually work (no consideration for the actual work habits of the users).
He also argues the point that many architects feel the need to "bs" if you will and he finds it hard to understand the purpose of such. He comments that Kahn should not have felt the need to over explain his concept as his designs were genious within themselves. Excerpt from book: "Pretentious exposition had become so common by midcentury that even as fine an architect as Louis Kahn occasionally indulged in high-flown, airy explanations. Kahn, for example, explained to my aesthetics class at Yale why there was no ceiling in his new addition to the Yale Art Gallery. He explained that honesty and integrity called for the exposure of the overhead structure, with all the duct work and conduits. I(Silber) asked him why then he had covered all the electrical switches with opaque steel plates. Why not use Plexiglas so that the switch and the wiring would be exposed to ensure integrity and honesty? There was no response, and it didn't matter. The architecture spoke for itself. So why, I asked myself, did Kahn offer "explanations" that led inevitably to inconistencies?"
So in "conclusion", I thought the book a bit thought provoking. Architects should be more responsible. If the public does not get it and are too easily swayed, should not the architect not take responsibility for the integrity of the profession? How much more of the taxpayers' money needs to be spent on fluff. I will write again with background of the author seeing that I have typed too much already...
I agree that some architects need to be more responsible, but he calls it Absurd (like its a movement).
thank you sarah we are on the same page, and "thuh" whoever you are. 21 i will post an explaination later when i am not at work.
Now to the background of the author Silber.......In the Introduction he spells out why he is a credible critic seeing that his formal education and current profession differ from the subject. I will be brief....kind of like discussing "Lost" in 20 seconds......lol
His dad was an architect, trained in Beaux-Arts, he was extremely detailed, contractors knew he meant business. Dad told son, "2 percent of my fee is to inspect all stages of construction to ensure that the client's interests were fully met by the exact execution of plans and specifications", dad did pencil smears to make sure paints coats were done as expected. Dad hired son as draftsman, Son learned a lot, dad had high expectations for all work completed, son respected that. Son became more observant of buildings all around him, useful in teaching classes on aesthetics (Professor of Philosophy and Law apparently), oversaw the building program of Boston U, made sure people knew who's who. Architects dismayed that they could not wooh him for he knew their design plans and would throw them for a loop, would make them feel small when their drawings were not up to par, earned respect by that, recognized excessive design and made them kick the bucket. Yet, there were many who stood to bat. AIA elected him honorary member, he then met with a group called the Texas Society of Architects to give an address on what has now been expaneded into a book called the "Architecture of the Absurd".
Couldn't help myself!
I think that regardless of this person's profession, I would still argue the same way (even if he was an architect). Responsibility should always fall on the shoulders of the person that is performing a duty/job. That's a one liner/not much substance. His criticises "genius" including Ghery, Libeskind, but not Gaudi and Calatrava? If functionality, budget and efficiency are paramount, then why would La Sagrada Familia still be under construction. And has this guy ever seen the original design for La Sagrada Familia? The city of Barcelona had to raise money in order to complete this project (and it still isn't completed).
How about Calatrava locating glass panels on a pedestrian bridge walking surface? Efficient, economical or thinking about the user? Swiss cheesse I tell you.
man i drew a lot of blueprints today!
HaHa!!! Interesting note on the Sagrada Familia, didn't know that. I agree absolutely with this point:
Responsibility should always fall on the shoulders of the person that is performing a duty/job. 21Ronin
It is a matter of integrity...respect for the profession and one's name. Architects are to be held accountable just as in any other profession "should".
vado can't seem to get over that one!! LOL
Thuh, have you ever been to the sagrada familia? i dont think the pictures do it justice especially because of all the scaffolding/cranes you see.
i went htis summer and found it to be truly remarkable.
Nope I have not. Opinion based solely on pics which for me is an odd statement. I highly advocate well taken photographs and in this book I will say is lacking. However as Zumthor would say...you can't judge by pictures alone, you must experience it for yourself. Now, I have been to Stata and that is truly a jumbled mess.
if a client (and here i am talking about a client that is an institution or a corporation, rather than an individual) and does not vet the architects then its their own damn fault if they f it up. an architect is always going to believe that what they are proposing is the best solution to the design problem at hand. they may be wrong but they believe it. i mean fuck aren't there presentations, review commitees, discussions etc about these projects???? every fucking project we work on always seems to be picked over by clients to the point that the good stuff gets taken out or changes get made and made and made. doesnt mit do this? what was the process??? we do a great deal of university work and they always have four hundred people stickin their noses into the process. whether its faculty, the uni architect, the facilities people whoever...if you get a shitty building its your fault.
It looks as if it's melting (Sagrada Familia)...and the scaffolding is not too distracting in that one photo. I didn't realize it was there until you pointed it out.
Well, I will say Silber has a few other accomplishments under his belt....
John Silber
President Emeritus, Boston University; University Professor, Professor of Philosophy and Law
Office: 73 BSR
Phone: 617.353.4300
Education: Ph.D., Yale University
Interests: History of Philosophy, Philosophy of Law, Kant, Ethics. (Not currently teaching in the department.)
After teaching at Yale, Dr. John Silber returned to Texas, where he joined the department of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. After serving as chairman of his department he became Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
He was the first chairman of the Texas Society to Abolish Capital Punishment and a leader in the integration of the University of Texas. Dr. Silber is a leading spokesman for the maintenance of high academic standards and has gained national attention for his advocacy of a rational, comprehensive system for financing higher education. He was instrumental in founding Operation Head Start.
In January 1971 John Silber became the seventh president of Boston University, and in 1996 he became Chancellor. In January 1996, Governor William Weld chose Dr. Silber to head the Massachusetts Board of Education, the state's policy-making board for public education below the collegiate level.
Dr. Silber has written widely on philosophy (especially on Immanuel Kant), education, and social and foreign policy. His work has appeared in journals such as:
Philosophical Quarterly
Kant-Studien,
Philosophical Review
Ethics
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society
Zeitschift für Philosophische Forschung, and in many edited volumes.
He has also published in:
Atlantic
Harper's
New Republic
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
His book, Straight Shooting, was published by Harper's in 1989. A German edition, Ist Amerika zu Retten?, was published in 1992 by Ullstein. A Japanese edition was published in 1993.
Dr. Silber has also served as an editor of Kant-Studien, and has been the recipient of Fulbright, Guggenheim, and ACLS Fellowships.
Thought it would be interesting to see...for the sake of fun....or whatever...
Vado interesting point. I see what you mean in terms of the many noses which pry into the design process but can we put all the blame on the uninformed public? I in no way would ever suggest that a building must be perfect but I just understand his argument when ego overrides sensibility...there has to be a balance. Would you not agree?
Whats the worth of proposing a design and then working through it and engineering it? Isn't that common? I just assume that at some point, one set of eyes on a project would catch a faulty detail. There's no excuse for it and I can't imagine how that could happen.
I have seen Sagrada Familia, navigated my way through the saffolding, climbed the spires and finished through the exhibit in the cellar. If anyone tells me that Gaudi was somehow outside of this "genius" title, I will kindly shoot myself in the mouth. Kidding. Anyway, La Sagrada Familia is beautiful regarless of imperfections and it does not discredit the architect. I think its an amazing building and it is a memory that will stick in my mind for the rest of my life (looking from the top of the spire and then descending down the never ending spiral stair case). My point is not that this "negative" detail of the project did not harm my impression of it. Testing a theory that 1. efficiency 2. turning profit 3. clients needs 4. Aesthetics (finally!) based on examples from the except and two interviews leaves me at the point where I can start to challenge the theory. If you test his own words against what he says, it doesn't hold water.
So, his resume is impressive, but it still does not necessarily make him any more or less respectable than a person with the following honorary degrees, does it?
-Visual Arts; California Institute of the Arts (Valencia, California, USA—1987)
-Fine Arts; Rhode Island School of Design (Providence, Rhode Island, USA—1987)
-Engineering; Technical University of Nova Scotia (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada—1989)
-Fine Arts; Otis Arts Institute (Los Angeles, California, USA—1989)
-Humanities; Occidental College (Los Angeles, California, USA—1993)
-Whittier College (Whittier, California, USA—1995)
-Architecture; Southern California Institute of Architecture (Los Angeles, California, USA—1997)
-Laws; University of Toronto (Toronto, Ontario, Canada—1998)
-University of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom—2000)
-University of Southern California (Los Angeles, California, USA —2000)
-Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut, USA—2000)
-Harvard University (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA—2000)
-City College of New York (New York, New York, USA—2002)
-The School of The Art Institute of Chicago (Chicago, Illinois, USA—2004
.....................oh yeah, that's Frank Ghery bye the way.
i did listen to the interview. not much content there; it's purpose was to promote his book, as is the summary from amazon.com. but i had never heard of john silber until about two weeks ago, and i think he brings up some interesting, if disagreeable points. rather than write him off, i was intrigued by the fact that he defends calatrava and gaudi but not gehry or libeskind, enough to purchase his book which hasn't arrived. i wasn't looking for a book report, but the content of things like the amazon summary or promotional radio interview really aren't sufficient enough in my mind for people to go through such scathing critiques of him like that it isn't even worth one's time to pick up his book, or to speculate on what his arguements are without knowing their full content. often i am far more intrigued by the general public's opinion of architecture than i am of architects themselves. maybe silber doesn't know what he's talking about, but i'd at least like to hear him out first. some people once thought robert venturi was a quack. maybe i'd feel differently if we were talking about the latest book by someone like stan allen or kenneth frampton that most people on archinect are already familiar with. but i'd never heard of silber. let me put it another way: suppose you were teaching a theory seminar, and rather than read the books assigned to them, your students just read the back covers of the books and attempted to construct arguements about the simulacra, about survelliance or panaopticism or whatever they're teaching these days simply from this minor amount of information. would this be in your mind sufficient for them to grasp the concepts at hand? and yes, i was being provocative but i was hoping someone would catch my drift. i don't think that this means i am somehow lacking in "balls" as you say.
Never said his (Silber) argument didn't have holes in it nor did I post Silber's resume to prove any real point...it was a matter of giving context to the discussion at hand and to answer previous questions. And again my opinion is based solely on the photos (underline photos) of the Familia Sagrada nothing more. His (Gehry) designs are innovative and interesting, why not give him an honorary degree? I think that in a way proves the point of the exaltation of "genius" for the sake of "genius". Stata still reaks of nonsense. That's not to say that at first glance I don't find the overall concepts of his designs appealing but as a properly functioning building, you can't negate one to have the other. Thinking Venturi?....
Just incase...my comments were addressing 21Ronin not le bossman...interestingly venturi was mentioned in both(le bossman and I)....
I in no way would ever suggest that a building must be perfect but I just understand his argument when ego overrides sensibility...there has to be a balance. Would you not agree?
not sensiblility...supersensible since we're in kant country...
hehe
It sounds like a book of criticism and not one that I would pay money for? Is there a concept, "Absurdist" architecture?
From what I hear, you come from the school of thought where a person's resume, credentials and achievements precede them. I come from the school of thought that those things do not mean anything until a point is proven. I question motives, listen, think and interpret. You listen, memorize and regurgitate.
I've posted this before, but here it is again:
http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/books/la-bk-lamster23dec23,1,4026785.story
quote from the article:
"Though he does note, apropos of nothing, that the rise of 'absurdism' has 'accompanied a decline in standards of taste in popular music and movies and the prevalence of tattoos and body-piercing ornamentation."
of course! body piercing and tattoos! it all makes sense now.
ronin dude, how fallacious can a person be?
anyway...kahn's lightswitch is a good story. i love kahn's buildings and hate his theories too, and that story is pretty much the reason why. its a good point. don't mean gehry is a doorknob however. just that louis kahn was not a particularly good rhetoritator.
i like vado's take, as usual. don't agree entirely about the duties of architects but i suspect any institution that hires an architect will in the end get exactly what they want. bureacracy has a habit of reducing genius to pablum and in my experience, as with vado's, institutional clients are (factionally) very much full of their desires and push them quite a lot. the idea that the starchitects are working outside those pressures is not likely in my view...
but to step back a bit and consider the topic from a distance, think about my old friend chris wren, who did an actual bait and switch with an entire building when he built st. pauls. the clergy who vetted the design agreed to a piece of crap (wren made the design assuming the clergy-men would reject it but they didn't) which wren slowly changed during the decades of construction to match more the original design that had been rejected. he of course did that with the support of the king (and a queen and another king i believe - england went through a few of them while wren was building)...and now it is symbol of city...
so what? you ask?
exactly. a little perspective is necessary. silber doesn't really have any yet so what he is speaking of is hard to really comment on intelligently. i say lets wait 50 years or so and then start the thread again.
but wren rocks.
st pauls really rocks as they have taken several centuries of grime of its exterior.
"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."
yes, he likes it, but who else likes it? the question, more importantly, is - does the user like the product? if it works, then yes, they should like it. if it is beautiful and it does not work, then no - they may not. and also if it does not work, then deep inside, the client (not the user), does not either. an architect 'liking' his techniques doesnt quantify him/her using them incessantly without function for them.
and the idea that an ENTIRE city is not complaining about a blobitecture gehry bldg is like saying everyone in the state of massachusets likes pink underwear. prove it.
and lets remember what the word "necessity" really means.
"If Sibler is correct, there should be no SUV's, fast food, candy, strip clubs, Prada or Nike. He dislikes blatant excess...
although I own some items of the above brands or types - what is the "necessity" of them? if there is no real need, then it is an extra or an indulgence, or a brand. not blatant, but more an "excess" than anything else. somewhat like a client wanting a gehry building for its media exposure. the (outside the realm of architects)type of media. red carpet media. tom brady and modell girlfriend type media. bullshit media. and if thats your definition of a "need", then you are in the rights to defend. as you've been heartily doing.
in some ways, i agree with silber, as i've sat in b&n (yes...unfortunately) and read a couple chapters of his book. and i agree with T-huh - its basic premise is that buildings should be functional (as functional as possible), they should address the needs of both client and user (as much as possible), and should pay attention to the budget (ditto). now the real art is when these three elements of the project are succesful (as could be) while still evoking the artistic impression that the architect intended. its possible, and we all know where these buildings are and who they've been designed and built by. in retrospect, we also know where and who has done the opposite.
well, most of us do....
Lets be clear here - There is no architect in the world that wants their building to leak, be over-budget, or behind schedule. Its a matter of priority - which (like "function") can be extremely complex depending on the project. And frankly, the client might have unrealistic goals. Without proper feasibility studies, the project might be set up for failure in at least one aspect of the building from the beginning (I mean how many detailed feasibility studies are done vs. feasibility studies that SHOULD be done).
Many buildings that may have been on-budget, on schedule, and not have leaks can create negative social or contextual impact making it a bigger failure (in terms of the bigger picture) than a building that is positive for social or contextual impact yet leaks or is behind schedule or is not on-budget (due to improper feasibility study).
Silber might have a valid point if he was talking about different kinds of building types where the priority is really aligned with his narrow-minded idea of "function" and if he called his book "How "Genius" disfigureS a Practical Art." Not a big difference but I think it changes the premise and perspective.
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.