[Shigeru] Ban in Aspen represents a high-culture culmination of this goodwashing force. His museum, a beautiful structure faced with a woven screen and featuring a timber truss, uses his signature paper tubes non-structurally, as decoration in the corporate board room and the gift shop—all the style of his humanitarian work with none of the substance. -Dana Goodyear — The New Yorker
11 Comments
lets see
if I put two things next to each other Im certain a clear causal narrative will automatically form between them:
dana goodyear intelligent architectural criticism
(waves wand for good measure...)
ok, maybe its not so simple.
shit.
Awful. The reverse is implied: "poor"and "rich" ie american diserve different architecture. Can't fathom a world were an architect can work for both.
A critical re-apprasial of Ban by own of his SCI-Arc professors. Also a background source for the New Yorker piece
http://www.smallatlarge.com/2014/06/shigeru-ban-pritzker-price-2014-spin/#more-1343
It seems a little disingenuous for someone writing for a publication that is geared towards the types that have the means and desire to fund art museums and the like, to be deriding Ban for completing a project that is not explicitly for a population in need. It comes off more as a personal attack on Ban, as well as quite tone-deaf on his philosophy.
I'm not sure how this article seems like a personal attack. I thought it was an interesting take on the branding that we all seem to need in order to consume culture. Like the author implies, without the humanitarian bent of his work, his explorations into unorthodox materials would probably never see the 'light' of day. I actually appreciate her finding the inconsistencies in his avoidance of one brand and embrace of another. Afterall, if good archtiects are able to manipulate form and spcae, why not manipulating their image?
"His museum, a beautiful structure faced with a woven screen and featuring a timber truss, uses his signature paper tubes non-structurally, as decoration in the corporate board room and the gift shop—all the style of his humanitarian work with none of the substance."
Is pointing out that the paper tubes are an applique so horrible? It didn't hurt Mies with his I beam applique so Ban will surely survive. Especially if the critic thinks this kind of gridded box is beautiful.
Branding culture had taken over all facets of design and culture--perhaps this is related:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118958/liberals-are-killing-art-insisting-its-always-political
Is this Ban's fault? The liberal culture is obsessed with labels: feminism, altruism, etc. Ban, who builds with paper tubes, wood, etc is somehow labeled an altruist because he made the "mistake" of using the same building method for rich and poor clients.
If Ban uses the same methods for different clients is it an "appliqué" or architecture? Do we feel somehow embarrassed that beauty and expression can be found in ordinary materials? Are we embarrassed in enjoying the quality of spaces and buildings for their own sake?
Bans previous takes on branding have been spot on: on sustainability, he says if people love the buildings, they are sustainable.
The media fills in these blanks because it does not care to talk of beauty of materials, texture, light and the things that make architecture valuable.
This isn't to say goodwashing doesn't exist. The writer asks at the end whether the Aspen museum will be a goad or a balm--so perhaps the answer isn't so simple as goodwashing....but in a capitalist society, everybody is connected and implicated...even if rich aspenites donated, maybe the museum inspires some kid to figure out something useful? Perhaps the writer would prefer Gehry or Zaha who make the most luxurious status symbols--at least we can easily vilify that (even if they are also beautiful).
The current architect bashing in the media is counterproductive. In a capitalist society the rich are always get first dibs on innovation--if they buy Teslas as status symbols that doesn't mean we should blame Tesla or that we won't see that progress down the road, or that we should mix their personal politics with Tesla.
Pritzker Prize: the Kiss of Death for Architects. They should be forced to retire after getting one.
+1 boy in a well, I LOL'd.
Ok, what is the point? I don't get it.
Is the author arguing from the standpoint of the architect's intentions or from the standpoint of a certain available interpretation? There is ambiguity and an impression of a criticism here (rather than necessarily an actual criticism).
Yes, I agree with boy in a well. Certain impressions (I cannot say really ideas) are brought together in order to suggest criticism where the arena of this gather seems to be more in the head of the author (who speaks for a certain culture of gathering such things together) than in the head of the architect or elsewhere.
Is laissez-faire criticism a contradiction in terms?
Welcome to the locust age, where altruistic architecture is always suspicious and uber is the next big thing
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.