Yes, Peter Zumthor has managed his "hermit in the Swiss mountains" image well.
However, he does only take a small number of the projects that are offered to him, and his body of work is relatively small for a Pritzker winner. He works out of a small village on the outskirts of a not-very-large city (Chur). Most of his work is in the region, a drive away from his office. So the image he has cultivated is in some sense an authentic image—or as authentic as it can be in a media-saturated age.
When Glenn Murcutt won the Pritzker, very few people had heard of him. And now he tries to maintain a small practice despite being a relatively famous figure in architectture, simultaneously teaching around the world and building outside of Australia. I don't begrudge him what he's doing, or think that somehow he's sold out because of it. I don't think we should think about Peter Zumthor this way, either.
I think you are missing the point of the article if you think that it is saying that Zumthor sold out or that he does not deserve the prize. It just says that he is managing his image very well, he doesn't even question the authenticity of the image.
He even points out that he likes the work and that he does indeed deserve the prize.
The biggest critique is that he may be not so forthcoming when he preaches that he does not network, or promote his work which he obviously does.
Before ripping on the writer, read and understand the tone of the previous 59 articles of the blog - it is clearly all quite satirical, but also an interesting take on the trappings of some aspects of our industry.
the article clearly wanted to prescribe a sort of blame but did not prescribe blame clearly (perhaps its deemed that to lay blame on a particular subject, in a world of meanings where subjecthood has been dead for some time, one could come across as being too unironic and uncontemporary).
this wanting to blame but not actually blaming -only superficially tarnishing- coupled with the lack of meat makes it insubstantial, more a nag than an analysis. i guess what seems trite about the article is that its too lazy and doesn't delve.
Any architect practicing today would be naive to not want recognition for his/her work. If you just love the craft, but don't care about influencing the profession or the world, become a cabinetmaker.
Architects, by their nature, dream big. We want to influence things. We want to change neighborhoods and cities and regions. If we don't think about how the work we create is transforming the world, aren't we failing to be architects in the full sense of the profession?
What Conrad Newell says about Zumthor is pretty self-evident, isn't it? He lives and practices in a fairly remote region of Switzerland. And he promotes that fact. So.
Quibble of Sundog & Halo, you sound like Polonius in Hamlet who contradicts himself all the time. An oxymoron really. He uses convoluted sentences, long winded overtures and then make the statement "brevity is the soul of wit"
Dude, just speak plain English!
You are accusing someone else of exactly what you are doing: You are making an insubstantial, superficial trashing, more a nag than an analysis, and you don't deliver anything but a convoluted rant.
He lives and practices in a fairly remote region of Switzerland. And he promotes that fact. So?
well ...he also promotes that he is not a networker,
he also promotes that he is he only wants to build
he also promotes that his work is not meant to be published
he also promotes these statements next to printed pictures of his work in magazines
he also promotes that he is not interested in transforming the world like the rest of us.
he also promotes that he does not go around promoting his work.
So...
He is a hypocrite.
but I should not say that.
No one should ever say anything remotely critical of Zumthor.
Come on. The man does beautiful work and then wants others to notice it, and that makes him a hypocrite? I love all these sidelines critics.
If Zumthor didn't promote himself, we wouldn't know about his work, and he'd exist in a perfectly anonymous vacuum. Zumthor was created as much by architecture superfans as he was by his own self-promotion. I liked his work from the time I first saw it, in a Japanese magazine without translations. I then sought out everything I could on him, as did many of my fellow students. We (the architectural papparazzi) made Zumthor as much as he made himself.
man, I don't disagree with you on that at all. I love his work too. He is one of the few architects alive that I hold the highest esteem for, but he is a human being.
We must be able to discuss his greatness as well as his flaws.
okay, maybe hypocrite is too harsh a word, but he is got to be delusional if he goes around telling young people that they don't need to promote their work to get recognized.
You're missing the point, ldbt. He's not delusional and he's not a hypocrite. He seems to be producing work which values the experience of the architecture, rather than creating simply for the sake of glossy photos. YES, he publishes glossy photos, but those are a byproduct of his buildings. I think we can all name several starchitects, some of them by their own admission, who design for the camera lens and the three photo viewpoints from which all photos will be published in books and magazines.
And if that's not the case, and he really is doing one thing while saying another, then good on him, because everybody's bought it hook, line and sinker. None of this takes away from his work.
I can't think of another profession that likes to pat itself on the back as much as we do, through the million and one awards that get handed out every year....
but not that i did not enjoy the nag, though yes it is quite a lazy one; one is left with a flaccid blame that has no where to go teetering undecidedly between the author of the image and the system of imagery. having said that, i did enjoy the glimmer of psychological peculairism (zumthor as an author of his own image) and it would have been interesting, not lazy, and quite quite neurotic-maybe even scary in a vlaerie solanas (the ultimate critic - an ars]assin) for the critic to follow Zumthor around, meticulously archiving all self-propoganda attempts. also, it would have been more becoming had the critic not carried so clear a tone of moral righteousness. i bet that by casting pretty much the same point in a slightly less nagging tone, he would have left far fewer irked readers in his wake. after all, non of the people here who have objected to the article have actually refuted the critics (singular) point. its mostly the tone and not the content that did it.
but not that i did not enjoy the nag, though yes it is quite a lazy one; one is left with a flaccid blame that has no where to go teetering undecidedly between the author of the image and the system of imagery. having said that, i did enjoy the glimmer of psychological peculairism (zumthor as an author of his own image) and it would have been interesting, not lazy, and quite quite neurotic-maybe even scary in a vlaerie solanas (the ultimate critic - an ars]assin) for the critic to follow Zumthor around, meticulously archiving all self-propoganda attempts. also, it would have been more becoming had the critic not carried so clear a tone of moral righteousness. i bet that by casting pretty much the same point in a slightly less nagging tone, he would have left far fewer irked readers in his wake. after all, non of the people here who have objected to the article have actually refuted the critics (singular) point. its mostly the tone and not the content that did it.
but not that i did not enjoy the nag, though yes it is quite a lazy one; one is left with a flaccid blame that has no where to go teetering undecidedly between the author of the image and the system of imagery. having said that, i did enjoy the glimmer of psychological peculairism (zumthor as an author of his own image) and it would have been interesting, not lazy, and quite quite neurotic-maybe even scary in a vlaerie solanas (the ultimate critic - an ars]assin) for the critic to follow Zumthor around, meticulously archiving all self-propoganda attempts. also, it would have been more becoming had the critic not carried so clear a tone of moral righteousness. i bet that by casting pretty much the same point in a slightly less nagging tone, he would have left far fewer irked readers in his wake. after all, non of the people here who have objected to the article have actually refuted the critics (singular) point. its mostly the tone and not the content that did it.
I think the author, and most of those defending the author, are looking at Zumthor's work through the lens of the contemporary usage of the term "brand". Whether than consider it as a body of work worthy of a generous criticism, instead it's thinned down to the notion of a brand. I'm seriously tired of this usage of this word.
(I'm going to somewhat shoot my own argument by agreeing with kungapa that the article in the context of the web site are all satirical/full of attitude, aka a "brand".)
I also agree with simples, Dustin and others that the work stands for itself, and what others see/interpret/write utterly pales in comparison. When all our little electronic musings have dissipated the work will still stand. I dream of a world where most architects are as dedicated to the physical world as Zumthor.
the caliber of zumthor's work is besides the point, the critic made that clear enough. even though this is acknowledged, some people still feel that an attack on another front is an affrontal assault on the whole. well, no, and given the awe and reverence shown, i'm glad there's someone who will always try to frame a blemish and stain.
completely besides the point: come to think of it, what bothered me about zumthor's architecture is exactly its fetishism of materials...its the pleasure of masturbation without the ensuing filth of ejaculation. well made antiseptic material pornography that precludes rustic eroticism. barbara cartland materialism...far sleazier, in its dubious holier-than-thou intentions, than sleazy real porno.
i disagree with the article because it makes peter zumthor, the individual, seem duplicitous where i see it as a self-deception by the media and so-called fans. there are two sides to fame, and i think fans have idolized him so much that any interview or press he does would make it seem counter to his principles.
he's not the messiah and he's not a media whore, he's just a really great architect.
dot, i agree with your point that it makes him seem duplicitous, but its not necessarily the case that he's not, or to be wiser..never, duplicitous. perhaps the critic has touched on something quite evocative in the realized contrast between monkish self-reservation and hip commercialism. maybe there is also something to that enjoyment, if not pride, that zumthor expresses in being 'different' by virtue of location and temperament...an understated smugness maybe? but its very human and not necessarily a vice in itself...no need for the critic's sense of righteousness.
Zumthor wins Pritzker Prize
See here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/arts/design/13pritzker.html?_r=1&hp
I figured it would happen sooner or later.
A worthy choice. I can't wait to visit some of his buildings this summer.
about damn time.
i didn't get to visit any of his projects in time. now it'll probably be a real pain.
anyone want to go to Norway this summer to see his newest?
its about damn time is right!
aw yay. this gives me the warm fuzzies.
Not everyone is surprised and have warm fuzzy feelings about this ...
http://famousarchitect.blogspot.com/2009/05/60-play-peter-pritzker-peddling-hermit.html
good article, thanks for sharing
Yes, Peter Zumthor has managed his "hermit in the Swiss mountains" image well.
However, he does only take a small number of the projects that are offered to him, and his body of work is relatively small for a Pritzker winner. He works out of a small village on the outskirts of a not-very-large city (Chur). Most of his work is in the region, a drive away from his office. So the image he has cultivated is in some sense an authentic image—or as authentic as it can be in a media-saturated age.
When Glenn Murcutt won the Pritzker, very few people had heard of him. And now he tries to maintain a small practice despite being a relatively famous figure in architectture, simultaneously teaching around the world and building outside of Australia. I don't begrudge him what he's doing, or think that somehow he's sold out because of it. I don't think we should think about Peter Zumthor this way, either.
The worst that critics can come up with is that he's subverting the idea of starchitects - by beating them at their own game?
Lame. He produces wonderful architecture and I think he deserves the prize.
I think you are missing the point of the article if you think that it is saying that Zumthor sold out or that he does not deserve the prize. It just says that he is managing his image very well, he doesn't even question the authenticity of the image.
He even points out that he likes the work and that he does indeed deserve the prize.
The biggest critique is that he may be not so forthcoming when he preaches that he does not network, or promote his work which he obviously does.
was it really a critique? sounded more like a frustrated nag.
Before ripping on the writer, read and understand the tone of the previous 59 articles of the blog - it is clearly all quite satirical, but also an interesting take on the trappings of some aspects of our industry.
the article clearly wanted to prescribe a sort of blame but did not prescribe blame clearly (perhaps its deemed that to lay blame on a particular subject, in a world of meanings where subjecthood has been dead for some time, one could come across as being too unironic and uncontemporary).
this wanting to blame but not actually blaming -only superficially tarnishing- coupled with the lack of meat makes it insubstantial, more a nag than an analysis. i guess what seems trite about the article is that its too lazy and doesn't delve.
Any architect practicing today would be naive to not want recognition for his/her work. If you just love the craft, but don't care about influencing the profession or the world, become a cabinetmaker.
Architects, by their nature, dream big. We want to influence things. We want to change neighborhoods and cities and regions. If we don't think about how the work we create is transforming the world, aren't we failing to be architects in the full sense of the profession?
What Conrad Newell says about Zumthor is pretty self-evident, isn't it? He lives and practices in a fairly remote region of Switzerland. And he promotes that fact. So.
Quibble of Sundog & Halo, you sound like Polonius in Hamlet who contradicts himself all the time. An oxymoron really. He uses convoluted sentences, long winded overtures and then make the statement "brevity is the soul of wit"
Dude, just speak plain English!
You are accusing someone else of exactly what you are doing: You are making an insubstantial, superficial trashing, more a nag than an analysis, and you don't deliver anything but a convoluted rant.
He lives and practices in a fairly remote region of Switzerland. And he promotes that fact. So?
well ...he also promotes that he is not a networker,
he also promotes that he is he only wants to build
he also promotes that his work is not meant to be published
he also promotes these statements next to printed pictures of his work in magazines
he also promotes that he is not interested in transforming the world like the rest of us.
he also promotes that he does not go around promoting his work.
So...
He is a hypocrite.
but I should not say that.
No one should ever say anything remotely critical of Zumthor.
It is lame.
Come on. The man does beautiful work and then wants others to notice it, and that makes him a hypocrite? I love all these sidelines critics.
If Zumthor didn't promote himself, we wouldn't know about his work, and he'd exist in a perfectly anonymous vacuum. Zumthor was created as much by architecture superfans as he was by his own self-promotion. I liked his work from the time I first saw it, in a Japanese magazine without translations. I then sought out everything I could on him, as did many of my fellow students. We (the architectural papparazzi) made Zumthor as much as he made himself.
man, I don't disagree with you on that at all. I love his work too. He is one of the few architects alive that I hold the highest esteem for, but he is a human being.
We must be able to discuss his greatness as well as his flaws.
okay, maybe hypocrite is too harsh a word, but he is got to be delusional if he goes around telling young people that they don't need to promote their work to get recognized.
You're missing the point, ldbt. He's not delusional and he's not a hypocrite. He seems to be producing work which values the experience of the architecture, rather than creating simply for the sake of glossy photos. YES, he publishes glossy photos, but those are a byproduct of his buildings. I think we can all name several starchitects, some of them by their own admission, who design for the camera lens and the three photo viewpoints from which all photos will be published in books and magazines.
And if that's not the case, and he really is doing one thing while saying another, then good on him, because everybody's bought it hook, line and sinker. None of this takes away from his work.
I can't think of another profession that likes to pat itself on the back as much as we do, through the million and one awards that get handed out every year....
he is a fantastic architect, making fantastic architecture at a level most of us can only dream of...i was truely happy that he won the pritzker...
but not that i did not enjoy the nag, though yes it is quite a lazy one; one is left with a flaccid blame that has no where to go teetering undecidedly between the author of the image and the system of imagery. having said that, i did enjoy the glimmer of psychological peculairism (zumthor as an author of his own image) and it would have been interesting, not lazy, and quite quite neurotic-maybe even scary in a vlaerie solanas (the ultimate critic - an ars]assin) for the critic to follow Zumthor around, meticulously archiving all self-propoganda attempts. also, it would have been more becoming had the critic not carried so clear a tone of moral righteousness. i bet that by casting pretty much the same point in a slightly less nagging tone, he would have left far fewer irked readers in his wake. after all, non of the people here who have objected to the article have actually refuted the critics (singular) point. its mostly the tone and not the content that did it.
but not that i did not enjoy the nag, though yes it is quite a lazy one; one is left with a flaccid blame that has no where to go teetering undecidedly between the author of the image and the system of imagery. having said that, i did enjoy the glimmer of psychological peculairism (zumthor as an author of his own image) and it would have been interesting, not lazy, and quite quite neurotic-maybe even scary in a vlaerie solanas (the ultimate critic - an ars]assin) for the critic to follow Zumthor around, meticulously archiving all self-propoganda attempts. also, it would have been more becoming had the critic not carried so clear a tone of moral righteousness. i bet that by casting pretty much the same point in a slightly less nagging tone, he would have left far fewer irked readers in his wake. after all, non of the people here who have objected to the article have actually refuted the critics (singular) point. its mostly the tone and not the content that did it.
but not that i did not enjoy the nag, though yes it is quite a lazy one; one is left with a flaccid blame that has no where to go teetering undecidedly between the author of the image and the system of imagery. having said that, i did enjoy the glimmer of psychological peculairism (zumthor as an author of his own image) and it would have been interesting, not lazy, and quite quite neurotic-maybe even scary in a vlaerie solanas (the ultimate critic - an ars]assin) for the critic to follow Zumthor around, meticulously archiving all self-propoganda attempts. also, it would have been more becoming had the critic not carried so clear a tone of moral righteousness. i bet that by casting pretty much the same point in a slightly less nagging tone, he would have left far fewer irked readers in his wake. after all, non of the people here who have objected to the article have actually refuted the critics (singular) point. its mostly the tone and not the content that did it.
the clones were not my doing.
I think the author, and most of those defending the author, are looking at Zumthor's work through the lens of the contemporary usage of the term "brand". Whether than consider it as a body of work worthy of a generous criticism, instead it's thinned down to the notion of a brand. I'm seriously tired of this usage of this word.
(I'm going to somewhat shoot my own argument by agreeing with kungapa that the article in the context of the web site are all satirical/full of attitude, aka a "brand".)
I also agree with simples, Dustin and others that the work stands for itself, and what others see/interpret/write utterly pales in comparison. When all our little electronic musings have dissipated the work will still stand. I dream of a world where most architects are as dedicated to the physical world as Zumthor.
the caliber of zumthor's work is besides the point, the critic made that clear enough. even though this is acknowledged, some people still feel that an attack on another front is an affrontal assault on the whole. well, no, and given the awe and reverence shown, i'm glad there's someone who will always try to frame a blemish and stain.
completely besides the point: come to think of it, what bothered me about zumthor's architecture is exactly its fetishism of materials...its the pleasure of masturbation without the ensuing filth of ejaculation. well made antiseptic material pornography that precludes rustic eroticism. barbara cartland materialism...far sleazier, in its dubious holier-than-thou intentions, than sleazy real porno.
a dissipating electronic musing
i disagree with the article because it makes peter zumthor, the individual, seem duplicitous where i see it as a self-deception by the media and so-called fans. there are two sides to fame, and i think fans have idolized him so much that any interview or press he does would make it seem counter to his principles.
he's not the messiah and he's not a media whore, he's just a really great architect.
dot, i agree with your point that it makes him seem duplicitous, but its not necessarily the case that he's not, or to be wiser..never, duplicitous. perhaps the critic has touched on something quite evocative in the realized contrast between monkish self-reservation and hip commercialism. maybe there is also something to that enjoyment, if not pride, that zumthor expresses in being 'different' by virtue of location and temperament...an understated smugness maybe? but its very human and not necessarily a vice in itself...no need for the critic's sense of righteousness.
Right on, dot.
When did Zaha get an ethnoplasty, a sex change, a tummy tuck and become Swiss?
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.