"Goldberger seems to suggest that being famous matters as much, at least to Frank Gehry, as the social service and aesthetic impact of his buildings...a talented, gutsy and energetic man, but not as a top-tier creator."
from Nicholas Fox Weber's review of ‘Building Art: The Life and Work of Frank Gehry' by Paul Goldberger.
But this picture of Gehry and his home is great.
citizen
Nov 15, 15 10:49 pm
Guilty*
*of designing a pretty great house, and other relatively modest but very good buildings in the 1970s and '80s.
davvid
Nov 16, 15 12:49 am
Honestly, I've never really been impressed by Goldberger. Maybe its because he is a writer, not a designer, but he always seems to try and reduce the complexity of architecture, and the effect of that reductionist approach is that he usually ends up missing the point. Frankly, he seems dense. Listening or reading his writing on architecture is a little like listening to Charlie Rose talk about architecture (all three appeared together recently: http://www.hulu.com/watch/870864#i2,p0,d1). But Charlie Rose can be excused for having a fairly basic understanding of architecture since he covers society generally, but Goldberger doesn't have an excuse. This is supposed to be his speciality.
Lets also remember that Goldberger is part of the media. He works for Vanity Fair. I really would not be surprised if Goldberger was more interested in his own career and his own stature as the guy writing the definitive biography on the most famous architect in the world than he is in the details and meaning of Gehry's work. In his recent interview with Charlie Rose he is asked:
Charlie Rose (to Goldberger): Why a biography of Frank Gehry for you?
Goldberger: Well... for me... First, I wanted to do a biography because it was a different kind of thing to do. I'd never written one before. And it was a way to push myself in a different direction and still make use of a lifetime of writing about Architecture...
Its possible that this book is as much about Goldberger's career strategy and relevance as it is as about Gehry's.
Volunteer
Nov 16, 15 8:01 am
Am I the only one who thinks Gehry's house is inappropriate for the neighborhood and extremely ugly besides? This generation's Robert Venturi? I have read stories that he remodeled it that way because he was appalled that people would park boats on trailers in his lower middle-class income neighborhood and was trying to get even. Getting even seems to be a characteristic of his.
null pointer
Nov 16, 15 8:09 am
Volunteer - Notions of context are a form of social control. Good art is transgressive. The same with architecture. If you can't comment (and therefore elicit dialogue) on social structures (context!) through your work, what good is it?
Volunteer
Nov 16, 15 8:20 am
I don't see any grace, beauty, proportion, attractiveness, cleverness, innovation, or purpose to it. To me it is just a giant middle finger to his neighbors.
null pointer
Nov 16, 15 8:26 am
All of those: modes of control. Beauty is the enemy.
Volunteer
Nov 16, 15 8:43 am
Like a Brancusi sculpture? They are modern and beautiful. Gehry's house is just modern and repulsive.
Donna Sink
Nov 16, 15 8:51 am
davvid, I 100% agree with you. Also, if one wants their book to be read by a lot of people, wouldn't one pepper it with as many celebrity gossip stories as one could? regardless of whether those stories were relevant to the work of the subject?
We're all made up of conflicting stories. In my mind Gehry is an artist who mostly wants to do his work but understands the crap that goes along with the ability to do that work.
Who are the young architects doing work this experimental right now? I'll put out the intentional provocation that not a one of them is in the Chicago Architecture Biennial, Venice Biennale, or any contemporary museum show; any truly experimental architect is more likely to be messing around on his/her own projects than doing commissioned work for arts organizations.
Miles Jaffe
Nov 16, 15 10:02 am
Am I the only one who thinks Gehry's house is inappropriate for the neighborhood and extremely ugly besides?
Nope.
Good art is transgressive.
That is a very narrow and poor definition.
The same with architecture.If you can't comment (and therefore elicit dialogue) on social structures (context!) through your work, what good is it?
A cross burning in your front yard satisfies that definition.
It started out looking like you were talking about art and architectures as two different things, but then you defined architecture with same narrow brush that you used to define what you call 'good' art.
As to Goldberger, he's no fool. For the most part I don't particularly like what he likes but he is quite astute and has critically nailed many who well deserved it, including my father.
davvid
Nov 16, 15 11:28 am
I just bought a book specifically about Gehry's house. Once the the baggage around historical styles and "blending in" with the neighborhood or our assumptions about what is or is not a luxurious high-quality material is discarded, it can open us up to new types of architectural experiences. The points about beauty vs ugliness are way too simplistic and seem to ignore so much of what art and design history has already taught us about the fluidity of what defines beauty.
Donna, I think that there is a lot of pressure on young architects to create quiet and modest work to get along with the establishment. Personally, I'm finding a lot of experimentation around materiality, aesthetics and media among certain artists, industrial designers and fashion designers and some interior designers. I'm not really finding much inspiration in current Architecture circles.
Nate Hornblower
Nov 16, 15 12:37 pm
Guilty.
Gehry understands that celebrity is a means to an end. Charlie Rose asks Goldberger a question, how can he not respond? Everyone has their motivations. Of course Goldberger elevates himself when tackling the most influential (for better or worse) architect of the 80-now times. Unfortunatley, now celebrity is seen as the end in itself by the new breed of designers (not architects) that make magazine covers, not buildings.
davvid
Nov 16, 15 1:11 pm
Nate, I'm seeing designers, architects, writers, students, sandwich shop owners, single parents and pretty much anyone who wants to get noticed for what they make or what they like or what they think engaging in some form of public relations and self-promotion. Self promotion can't really be subtracted from the work itself anymore. When social media allows for a continuous feedback loop, we're more aware of who and where they are. Anyone who is on social media is posting things they find interesting while at the same time imagining what their audience will find interesting. Its a little ironic that Gehry's signature style is pointed to as being all about PR and branding at the same time that young architects are on instagram, twitter and Facebook constantly hustling and selling their brand.
What was revealing about Goldberger's answer is that he started with his own career strategy and then shoehorned Gehry into it. I interpreted Charlie Rose's question as asking why Paul Goldberger is the best person for the specific task of writing a biography about Frank Gehry. Why isn't some other writer, maybe a writer in LA or an architect-turned-writer, the better person for this job?
Nate Hornblower
Nov 16, 15 3:26 pm
I assume Goldberger is of the same generation, and has many of the same values as Gehry--respect for the craft overall. Goldberger probably would be more thorough than most, and may not try to formulate their own narrative to overshadow the life/work of the subject like many "critics" do now. I'm guessing in the next generation there won't be any separation between architect and biographer--probably will be one and the same, a hired PR-blogger to formulate some markatable and timely narrative with an instagram-linked media campaign.
Volunteer
Nov 16, 15 3:47 pm
Actually if you got rid of the Gehry crap and the unfortunate shed dormer the house itself with the gambrel roof has possibilities. The project would need a really good minimalist landscape architect after you haul the dreck away as well.
will galloway
Nov 16, 15 5:50 pm
Barbara Isenberg compiled a book of interviews between herself and gehry that almost qualifies as biography. It's quite good. Was hoping this new book would offer a bit more depth but perhaps not....
Gehry's house is very innovative. I agree with Donna there are few architects who are as interesting or as bold working today. We have all become quite serious and mindful of others as we play. Such a pity.
Comes of all the fear in the air. I half expect someone will start denouncing the Bauhaus as evil and an unwelcome intrusion from the Middle East again.
Miles Jaffe
Nov 16, 15 6:37 pm
I think that there is a lot of pressure on young architects to create quiet and modest work to get along with the establishment.
What exactly is the establishment - Goldberger, critics in general, the AIA? And what's wrong with quiet and modest (responsible) work? If the work is any good you don't have to blow your own horn.
Self promotion can't really be subtracted from the work itself anymore.
The quality of the work is inversely related to the amount of energy spent on self-promotion. The very best self-promotion is a satisfied client. Ask MIT what they think of Gehry, or Cornell what they think of Rem, or any of the people Calatrava has bankrupted, etc.
Nicki Minaj architecture: big fake T&A as a substitute for substance for those who don't know the difference.
b3tadine[sutures]
Nov 16, 15 8:58 pm
Gehry's House = KKK Cross Burning?
Volunteer
Nov 17, 15 9:23 am
Not sure about the KKK thingy but the house would make a good set for the remake of "Psycho". I can easily see how Norman Bates's stuffed mom in her rocker in the basement would fit in. Looks a little like Norman posing in the photo as well.
Wilma Buttfit
Nov 17, 15 9:38 am
Reminds me, Gehry's name isn't actually Gehry, isn't it something like Goldberg/Goldberger?
Thayer-D
Nov 17, 15 9:39 am
I agree with Volunteer. Gehry is a product of the starchitect system that values bold sculptural forms over beauty and harmony. Gehry and is ilk never consider the landscape except as a foil for their ego. This is the cultural landscape we play in. Who ever is the boldest salesman wins. The Trumpian age.
Nam Henderson
Nov 17, 15 10:29 am
@tintt yes as the review notes was "Goldberg". Also agree with quondam re: "The real problem with Fox Weber's review of the book is that we learn nothing about the book at all" all I got out of the interview was that he is not a fan of Gehry.
Finally, re: "The mystery in these pages is Goldberger’s own judgment of Frank Gehry’s architecture" quote by Fox Weber, it isn't entirely clear to me whether this is as it should be or not. Although Goldberger is an architecture critic I wouldn't expect a bio to be a piece of criticism per se. So if that is true than perhaps the take-away is that the book is a success as a biography just not as a piece of criticism?
Wilma Buttfit
Nov 17, 15 10:53 am
Oops, guilty of commenting before clicking.
Miles Jaffe
Nov 17, 15 11:03 am
Gehry is a product of the starchitect system that values bold sculptural forms over beauty and harmony.
Not that bold sculptural forms can't be beautiful, but when they are compromised by the lack of things architecture is supposed to be about (functionality, suitability to purpose, efficiency, durability, sustainability, etc.) ... as a society we tend to value the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
Thayer-D
Nov 17, 15 2:49 pm
I think Gehry is a very accomplished sculpture, and I hear the Disney Hall is quite good as a concert hall. I even love his Guggenheim as a perfect counter point to the perfectly lined 19th century facades of Bilbao. But how many Gehry projects are architects going to get? Take care of the superstars and screw the rest of the landscape.
Nate Hornblower
Nov 17, 15 2:59 pm
As Justin Timberlake said, "having art is isn't cool, you know what's cool... Building art"
"Goldberger seems to suggest that being famous matters as much, at least to Frank Gehry, as the social service and aesthetic impact of his buildings...a talented, gutsy and energetic man, but not as a top-tier creator."
from Nicholas Fox Weber's review of ‘Building Art: The Life and Work of Frank Gehry' by Paul Goldberger.
But this picture of Gehry and his home is great.
Guilty*
*of designing a pretty great house, and other relatively modest but very good buildings in the 1970s and '80s.
Honestly, I've never really been impressed by Goldberger. Maybe its because he is a writer, not a designer, but he always seems to try and reduce the complexity of architecture, and the effect of that reductionist approach is that he usually ends up missing the point. Frankly, he seems dense. Listening or reading his writing on architecture is a little like listening to Charlie Rose talk about architecture (all three appeared together recently: http://www.hulu.com/watch/870864#i2,p0,d1). But Charlie Rose can be excused for having a fairly basic understanding of architecture since he covers society generally, but Goldberger doesn't have an excuse. This is supposed to be his speciality.
Lets also remember that Goldberger is part of the media. He works for Vanity Fair. I really would not be surprised if Goldberger was more interested in his own career and his own stature as the guy writing the definitive biography on the most famous architect in the world than he is in the details and meaning of Gehry's work. In his recent interview with Charlie Rose he is asked:
Charlie Rose (to Goldberger): Why a biography of Frank Gehry for you?
Goldberger: Well... for me... First, I wanted to do a biography because it was a different kind of thing to do. I'd never written one before. And it was a way to push myself in a different direction and still make use of a lifetime of writing about Architecture...
Its possible that this book is as much about Goldberger's career strategy and relevance as it is as about Gehry's.
Am I the only one who thinks Gehry's house is inappropriate for the neighborhood and extremely ugly besides? This generation's Robert Venturi? I have read stories that he remodeled it that way because he was appalled that people would park boats on trailers in his lower middle-class income neighborhood and was trying to get even. Getting even seems to be a characteristic of his.
Volunteer - Notions of context are a form of social control. Good art is transgressive. The same with architecture. If you can't comment (and therefore elicit dialogue) on social structures (context!) through your work, what good is it?
I don't see any grace, beauty, proportion, attractiveness, cleverness, innovation, or purpose to it. To me it is just a giant middle finger to his neighbors.
All of those: modes of control. Beauty is the enemy.
Like a Brancusi sculpture? They are modern and beautiful. Gehry's house is just modern and repulsive.
davvid, I 100% agree with you. Also, if one wants their book to be read by a lot of people, wouldn't one pepper it with as many celebrity gossip stories as one could? regardless of whether those stories were relevant to the work of the subject?
We're all made up of conflicting stories. In my mind Gehry is an artist who mostly wants to do his work but understands the crap that goes along with the ability to do that work.
Who are the young architects doing work this experimental right now? I'll put out the intentional provocation that not a one of them is in the Chicago Architecture Biennial, Venice Biennale, or any contemporary museum show; any truly experimental architect is more likely to be messing around on his/her own projects than doing commissioned work for arts organizations.
Am I the only one who thinks Gehry's house is inappropriate for the neighborhood and extremely ugly besides?
Nope.
Good art is transgressive.
That is a very narrow and poor definition.
The same with architecture. If you can't comment (and therefore elicit dialogue) on social structures (context!) through your work, what good is it?
A cross burning in your front yard satisfies that definition.
It started out looking like you were talking about art and architectures as two different things, but then you defined architecture with same narrow brush that you used to define what you call 'good' art.
As to Goldberger, he's no fool. For the most part I don't particularly like what he likes but he is quite astute and has critically nailed many who well deserved it, including my father.
I just bought a book specifically about Gehry's house. Once the the baggage around historical styles and "blending in" with the neighborhood or our assumptions about what is or is not a luxurious high-quality material is discarded, it can open us up to new types of architectural experiences. The points about beauty vs ugliness are way too simplistic and seem to ignore so much of what art and design history has already taught us about the fluidity of what defines beauty.
Donna, I think that there is a lot of pressure on young architects to create quiet and modest work to get along with the establishment. Personally, I'm finding a lot of experimentation around materiality, aesthetics and media among certain artists, industrial designers and fashion designers and some interior designers. I'm not really finding much inspiration in current Architecture circles.
Guilty.
Gehry understands that celebrity is a means to an end. Charlie Rose asks Goldberger a question, how can he not respond? Everyone has their motivations. Of course Goldberger elevates himself when tackling the most influential (for better or worse) architect of the 80-now times. Unfortunatley, now celebrity is seen as the end in itself by the new breed of designers (not architects) that make magazine covers, not buildings.
Nate, I'm seeing designers, architects, writers, students, sandwich shop owners, single parents and pretty much anyone who wants to get noticed for what they make or what they like or what they think engaging in some form of public relations and self-promotion. Self promotion can't really be subtracted from the work itself anymore. When social media allows for a continuous feedback loop, we're more aware of who and where they are. Anyone who is on social media is posting things they find interesting while at the same time imagining what their audience will find interesting. Its a little ironic that Gehry's signature style is pointed to as being all about PR and branding at the same time that young architects are on instagram, twitter and Facebook constantly hustling and selling their brand.
What was revealing about Goldberger's answer is that he started with his own career strategy and then shoehorned Gehry into it. I interpreted Charlie Rose's question as asking why Paul Goldberger is the best person for the specific task of writing a biography about Frank Gehry. Why isn't some other writer, maybe a writer in LA or an architect-turned-writer, the better person for this job?
I assume Goldberger is of the same generation, and has many of the same values as Gehry--respect for the craft overall. Goldberger probably would be more thorough than most, and may not try to formulate their own narrative to overshadow the life/work of the subject like many "critics" do now. I'm guessing in the next generation there won't be any separation between architect and biographer--probably will be one and the same, a hired PR-blogger to formulate some markatable and timely narrative with an instagram-linked media campaign.
Actually if you got rid of the Gehry crap and the unfortunate shed dormer the house itself with the gambrel roof has possibilities. The project would need a really good minimalist landscape architect after you haul the dreck away as well.
Barbara Isenberg compiled a book of interviews between herself and gehry that almost qualifies as biography. It's quite good. Was hoping this new book would offer a bit more depth but perhaps not....
Gehry's house is very innovative. I agree with Donna there are few architects who are as interesting or as bold working today. We have all become quite serious and mindful of others as we play. Such a pity.
Comes of all the fear in the air. I half expect someone will start denouncing the Bauhaus as evil and an unwelcome intrusion from the Middle East again.
I think that there is a lot of pressure on young architects to create quiet and modest work to get along with the establishment.
What exactly is the establishment - Goldberger, critics in general, the AIA? And what's wrong with quiet and modest (responsible) work? If the work is any good you don't have to blow your own horn.
Self promotion can't really be subtracted from the work itself anymore.
The quality of the work is inversely related to the amount of energy spent on self-promotion. The very best self-promotion is a satisfied client. Ask MIT what they think of Gehry, or Cornell what they think of Rem, or any of the people Calatrava has bankrupted, etc.
Nicki Minaj architecture: big fake T&A as a substitute for substance for those who don't know the difference.
Gehry's House = KKK Cross Burning?
Not sure about the KKK thingy but the house would make a good set for the remake of "Psycho". I can easily see how Norman Bates's stuffed mom in her rocker in the basement would fit in. Looks a little like Norman posing in the photo as well.
Reminds me, Gehry's name isn't actually Gehry, isn't it something like Goldberg/Goldberger?
I agree with Volunteer. Gehry is a product of the starchitect system that values bold sculptural forms over beauty and harmony. Gehry and is ilk never consider the landscape except as a foil for their ego. This is the cultural landscape we play in. Who ever is the boldest salesman wins. The Trumpian age.
@tintt yes as the review notes was "Goldberg". Also agree with quondam re: "The real problem with Fox Weber's review of the book is that we learn nothing about the book at all" all I got out of the interview was that he is not a fan of Gehry.
Finally, re: "The mystery in these pages is Goldberger’s own judgment of Frank Gehry’s architecture" quote by Fox Weber, it isn't entirely clear to me whether this is as it should be or not. Although Goldberger is an architecture critic I wouldn't expect a bio to be a piece of criticism per se. So if that is true than perhaps the take-away is that the book is a success as a biography just not as a piece of criticism?
Oops, guilty of commenting before clicking.
Gehry is a product of the starchitect system that values bold sculptural forms over beauty and harmony.
Not that bold sculptural forms can't be beautiful, but when they are compromised by the lack of things architecture is supposed to be about (functionality, suitability to purpose, efficiency, durability, sustainability, etc.) ... as a society we tend to value the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
I think Gehry is a very accomplished sculpture, and I hear the Disney Hall is quite good as a concert hall. I even love his Guggenheim as a perfect counter point to the perfectly lined 19th century facades of Bilbao. But how many Gehry projects are architects going to get? Take care of the superstars and screw the rest of the landscape.
As Justin Timberlake said, "having art is isn't cool, you know what's cool... Building art"