Despite making recent news for a particularly antisocial public display, Frank Gehry remains a highly influential and crowd-drawing figure, as evidenced by SCI-Arc’s completely full Keck Lecture Hall over an hour before Gehry took the stage on Wednesday, March 4, for a lecture with Eric Owen Moss.
The lecture was the last in a series of five annual lectures honoring late SCI-Arc faculty Raimund Abraham, and opened with memorial remembrances of Abraham by Moss and Gehry. The lecture, “You Can’t Rehearse Something You Haven’t Invented Yet”, was a quote Gehry supplied to Moss from jazz saxophonist Wayne Shorter. The improvisational quality of Jazz as it relates to Gehry’s process of design was a major thread through the talk. Gehry related the actors required to produce a building – client, contractor, project manager (“we don’t really need those guys though” he quipped), building department, and bank – to the constraining three notes around which an improvisational jazz composition would be formed. One can begin with the same components and arrive at a final product (“though it’s never really finished” Gehry allowed) that’s different every time.
This framing of Gehry’s process was at least partly meant to refute a major critique of his work: that it’s always the same. Moss, using the jazz metaphor to question Gehry about repetition in his work, asked “how long can you ‘play Jazz’ before saying ‘I will never use these three notes again’?” Gehry responded by relating to Wayne Shorter, as someone who had decades of experience using the same tools in varying compositions. Pressing Gehry, Moss asked “do you worry that you reach a point where the practice becomes too ‘practiced’?”, to which Gehry responded shortly, “ask me another question.” There was a small laugh from the audience, though certainly some noted the capitulation of a coherent defense against the frequent critique of repetition in his work. Gehry seems to see overregulation as the anti-Jazz, saying “the AIA, through overprotection, has infantilized us.” He stated a recent example of a curtain wall consultant being hired for a project in his office solely for legal protection, to which he said “that’s the exact thing I’m trying to fight against.”
Moss asked if Gehry respected the client, or if they were just someone the architect uses to create a “funny building”. Gehry responded that “the client is a collaborator”, and stressed at several points that the client’s budget was always a paramount constraint in his process. This other critique of Gehry’s work, that it doesn’t respect clients and is in fact a canvas for Gehry’s ego was also addressed in the talk, with Moss pulling up a quote attributed to Lucian Freud, “all art is autobiographical”*. Gehry said he agrees, and that his own house is absolutely his canvas, but quickly added that “if you push that idea, it becomes egomaniacal.” He said he’s interested in all the discrete elements of producing a building – client, program, site – and that “that’s why I don’t repeat myself, though some people think I repeat myself.”
When Gehry recalled Raimund Abraham, he noted Abraham’s allegiance to an interest in east coast-identified theory and drawing, but that Abraham used that path, in opposition to Gehry’s own, to produce a building that was interesting. Gehry continued to say “for me the [finished] building part of things is most important”. He went on to say “I’m not a theorist and I don’t draw like Lebbeus Woods”. This refusal of interest in theory and critically rigorous exploration was a major theme running through the talk, and is clearly something Gehry and Moss have discussed previously. In introducing the quote that gave the lecture its name, Gehry said “I thought you might like it… But don’t make a manifesto out of it,” to laugher from the crowd. Moss shot back “I don’t know, you might like [the manifesto].” I recalled my own experience in a seminar with Sylvia Lavin where Gehry came up in the context of theory, and I said “Gehry doesn’t have a theoretical stance” to which Lavin’s head bobbed up and down excitedly and replied “but don’t you see, that IS a theoretical stance.” Moss brought up an occasion when, referring to an early project, Gehry told him, “there isn’t a straight line in the whole thing”. Moss then said, “you won’t like this word, but that was a polemical stance.” Gehry of course demurred, saying “I never thought of it that way.” This consistent refusal of taking a theoretical stance is interesting given the context of SCI-Arc, where faculty pay lip service to theoretical interests in both studios and their own work, but where student theses often engage in unbridled formalist exploration. Perhaps thinking of student work and not faculty pedagogy, Gehry talked up SCI-Arc as an important place with in his words, “a certain kind of freedom.”
Gehry at several points disparaged “minimalism”, which he appeared to use as a catch-all term for formalist and theoretically engaged work. While Moss and Gehry agreed on their interest in qualities of minimalism in art and such composers as John Cage, Gehry repeatedly dismissed minimalism in architecture as it “excludes the passion.” He said “rich people feeling guilty like minimalist houses.” He added, “but now I’m rich...” to laughter from the audience. Despite rejecting minimalism, Gehry consistently related his practice to those of artists. He said he first started experimenting with “junk” in his early work because he saw artists using low budget materials to make art “that people would buy [chuckling], so I thought, why couldn’t I do that with architecture?”
He did distance himself from art practice in some ways, saying “the culture has gotten crazy, with artists saying other artists aren’t artists”, referring in part to his friend Richard Serra saying to Charlie Rose that Gehry isn’t an artist – he’s a plumber. Gehry clearly stated that architecture is art, and can still be art when it’s in the service of a developer, but that he identifies as an architect, and always corrects people when they call him an artist. Moss accused Gehry’s work of not being part of a “shared story”, that it’s separate from a recognizable stream of cultural history. Gehry predictably rejected this, relating the story of his Guggenheim in Bilbao. He contrasted the time when the design was announced and residents took out a newspaper ad saying “kill the American architect”, to after its completion when it was widely credited with reviving that region’s economy in the oft-cited ‘Bilbao effect’. Gehry said he “could live for free off the love” of the people there. This and other responses over the course of the night did not actually answer Moss' questions, leading some in the audience to conclude that at 86, Gehry is getting too old for this. To others, these tangential responses had the ring of a politician attempting to control the narrative by answering the questions he wanted to answer, not the ones that were actually asked.
The tools of producing architecture were an important part of Gehry’s narrative about the development of his work. He related the limitations of using descriptive geometry notation (presumably by hand) to express compound curves in his early Vitra project, resulting in a kink in what was meant to be a smooth surface on the finished building. This led to his interest in Catia to describe these increasingly complex surfaces, which he first used in his fish installation in Barcelona. He saw the introduction of computation and 3d modeling tools as a way for architects to regain power and control over the creation of a building. When his office used these tools in the bidding process for Bilbao, bids came in under budget and within 1% of each other – a sign of a very efficient and precise bid document. He said this “lit a light bulb in my head” and led him to evangelize the tools to architect contemporaries.
Moss concluded by asking Gehry about being rooted in Los Angeles, and whether it deserved its reputation as a creative place or whether it was actually mundane. Gehry responded by saying that LA not being taken seriously by outsiders is actually an asset. It gave him the freedom to explore rather than being “coagulated” around a movement, as he might have been in New York. Moss asked to what degree a benediction from the New York elite mattered, and Gehry restated, “we weren’t taken seriously, and that was a positive.”
*The quote “All art is autobiographical” is attributed to Federico Fellini, not Freud. Although Freud has been quoted as saying: “Everything is autobiographical and everything is a portrait, even if it’s a chair.” (source)
42 Comments
Gehry actually had a project come in on budget?!
After what Frei Otto pointed to last week, these conversations sound just so diddly-squat for architecture. It is like living some version of 80's in last 35 years. At this time and place things really need to move on. Gehry's work generates only more Gehry's work. Same with Moss. World needs universally applicable and wider public benefiting building concepts now. Neither of them has those. Whatever was fresh about them in the past is no more because they never went beyond working for hi-end developers and deep pocket capitalist market people.
Gehry is inimitable and we shouldn't expect other than what he has been doing, serving wealthy clients and delivering them what they like. Sort of architecture equivalent to blue chip gallery art. All those conversations and questions about the theory etc., are just a road show. I didn't go to the show and this well-written report verified why I didn't.
The wealthier the client you serve, the higher your status among them. You become an exclusive brand, another commodity that is bought and sold for status. Chopard, Ferrari, Gehry, it's all the same, except for actual quality, of course.
Couple years ago I met some architect at a party that boasted about the $40 million reno he was doing for some Sheik's kid's NYC college apartment. I just about barfed on the spot.
"This consistent refusal of taking a theoretical stance is interesting given the context of SCI-Arc, where faculty pay lip service to theoretical interests in both studios and their own work, but where student theses often engage in unbridled formalist exploration."
I wonder what the common term for'unbridled formalist exploration' would be? Interesting that the title of the lecture was “You Can’t Rehearse Something You Haven’t Invented Yet”, but then again, consistency would imply a theoretical stance, which he seems to understand would give his critics a bulls eye to shoot for.
"Gehry at several points disparaged “minimalism”, which he appeared to use as a catch-all term for formalist and theoretically engaged work. While Moss and Gehry agreed on their interest in qualities of minimalism in art and such composers as John Cage, Gehry repeatedly dismissed minimalism in architecture as it “excludes the passion.”
It's fascinating to read into the vines of his language. It must be this, but not that. This is ok, but that is verboten. I think Gehry is indeed an artist, and a very talented one, although I don't think I'd call him a good architect. Not every building needs to be sculptural, or an "unbridled formalist exploration."
Love the sea of black in the audience. Looks like a priest convention when the Pope's in town. It's how you can tell they are deep thinkers.
Why are we architects our own worst enemies? Seriously?
Frank has done amazing, beautiful buildings that are adored and revered by many and despised by others. Love him or hate him, he's brought the public discourse and awareness on architecture to a higher level than it would have been before he was on The Simpsons. This is overall good for us and our discipline and IMO has made the world more beautiful.
While you all were at SCI-Arc last night listening to Frank I was in Muncie, Indiana listening to your founder, Thom Mayne. He spoke for hours in four different venues on his work and his thoughts on how architecture gets done. It was amazing and refreshing to hear someone unapologetic about doing work that he thinks is good and that other people apparently want strongly enough to pay for it.
We bash our peers, and by extension ourselves, CONSTANTLY in this profession and it needs to stop. There is room in the world for all kinds of architecture, seemingly crazy form-making by high-profile stars and comfortable gemutlichkeit spaces by nameless community practitioners and everything in between. The endless need to attack and denigrate one another is really tiresome and I'm sure a reason why a good many architects don't bother coming to Archinect to read commentary.
And: it's ok if we all dress in black; it's adorable, and we don't all do it, anyway. (That link offers the most optimistic view of contemporary architecture I have heard ever and is a pleasure to listen to. Highly recommended.)
"We bash our peers, and by extension ourselves, CONSTANTLY in this profession and it needs to stop. " Donna, I hate to tell you, but that's what's called criticism, and it's healthy when warranted. After all, the AIA thinks things our perception with the public is so bad that they need to have a marketing campaign. It won't kill us to do a little introspection and see that this kind of hyper expressive architecture isn't necessarily the thing right now. We need to come together much more than stand apart in individual heroism. What do we have in common, rather than what set's us apart, and that's where symbols come in to play, much like our shared use of language and other symbols.
Funny enough, your inspirational video is all about bashing architects (that you don't agree with). It's modernism 5.0 cause when you can't convince them with steam ships, airplanes, mass production, socialism, commercialism, or whatever ism you put out, try the media revolution! So the "digital media" will finally make our symbols irrelevant? That guy sounds like he's pitching chucky cheese to a bunch of elementary school kids.
You just don't seem to get it. Many people don't always look for constant innovation. They don't want constant change, not because they hate progress, but because it can be disorienting. Every time you get attached to a product, they 'upgrade' it for you. Consistency is underrated in architecture, but yet people still crave it as much as novelty, if not more. They like consistency in their family, their employment, and even the public library. In fact, the faster the media cycle speeds up, the more people might crave slow change. Not everything needs to be trending. Sometimes you just want firmness, commodity, and delight, which doesn't preclude innovation, but it doesn't require it either. Instead of an olive garden, he might have shown them the (Schwarz) Classical building you recently held up as lovely. I bet some in that audience would have agreed, with out caring if the technical components where state of the art.
BTW, I wear black also, and sometimes very, very dark grey.
Thayer, is that not what I'm saying?!? Not everything has to be the same. And I seriously challenge you to tell us all - explicitly - how the i look up campaign is bashing architects.
here is a real basher, a jerk!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/justinshubow/2015/03/17/the-american-institute-of-architects-outreach-campaign-is-doomed-to-failure/?fb_action_ids=10153176959674604&fb_action_types=forbessocial:comment
I know both Eric and Frank from my student years. Eric was my fifth-year studio teacher and I learned from him. So from Frank, when I worked restoring few things in three of his early houses, I got to see his work up close. I have a lot of respect for them for different reasons. But in the context of above news item/review from SCI Arc, I had to say what I had to say. I personally stay away from boosterism because it ends up being in the same rank as bashing in the opposite direction with similar polarization effect. We should never quit being critical of each other, not bashing, of course. It's the nature of our field and we all do it as long as we can differentiate personal attack with architectural criticism. And, praise when it is due as I have done many times about Gehry. The keywords as mentioned in this conversation are "all art is biographical." My criticism centers around its validity in today's context in the social realm of architecture. Is it possible to do exceptional works of architecture without centering on personality? That is why I started my comment with Frei Otto.
Many people don't always look for constant innovation. They don't want constant change, not because they hate progress, but because it can be disorienting.
And because far more often than not newer and better! is an empty promise.
You can't rehearse something you haven't invented yet is a pretentious load of crap. Buildings have never been built before? You've never experienced a client architect builder relationship? Building as we all know it is far below your exalted level? Fuck off, Frank.
Hi Donna,
I didn't say the 'I look up' campaign bashed architects, I was referring to the architect on the TED talk you gave a link to. So I can't take your 'challenge' , nor would I take it very seriously should it be based in reality, since you consistently avoid my own questions. But, to the point, I'll quote Pier Luigi Nervi back in 1971 regarding the bifurcation of aesthetics and construction in architecture that the likes of Gehry revel in...
"This consequence, if understood and accepted in good faith by certain avant-guard circles, could put an end to the disastrous haste with which our architecture is rushing toward an empty, costly, and at times impractical formalism."
critique of an architect to that architect about his/her work can be helpful to both that architect and, by extension, the profession. a conversation between moss and gehry made public like this is a positive, in my mind. long form critique in a daily paper is another.
what doesn't happen enough is architects getting together and critiquing each others' work in a productive and mutually supportive way. imagine having that conversation with peers in your own city! (it's hard, isn't it? but it happened when you were in school!) if we were more of a community and less competitive, we could actually help each other make our local built environs into better and richer places.
these forums often have a different spin on critique. ad hominem attacks on an architects' entire body of work, on wholesale approaches to design by a certain contingent of the profession, or take-downs of a project based on individual images or otherwise limited documentation. we're so quick to give our opinions - considered or not - that the dialogue quickly degenerates to dumb.
which is fine. everybody gets to say their piece, thoughtful or not. but what happens here shouldn't be (or should seldom be) mistaken for useful criticism.
thanks, donna, for - as usual - taking a gracious and affirming position in the midst of an otherwise ungenerous discussion.
Agree with the idea of peer critique, as in a studio environment. That's how my father ran his practice, and I use it too. It would be nice to see that happen in the professional environment but ...
My father once sat at a roundtable discussion with Gwathmey, Stern and some others. It was nothing more than an ego contest of posturing attitudes and superior philosophies. He had been really excited to sit with his peers and came away completely disenchanted.
My old man had quite an ego, but he tended to reserve it for clients. The kind of rewards for success that is lavished on people has a strong tendency to change them. Hollywood is probably the most visible example of that, but to think that it doesn't happen in other professions is ridiculous. Especially once dump trucks full of money start arriving. It's celebrity culture.
Thayer, I'm sorry, I did misunderstand you. Yes I thought you were saying the "I look up" video bashes architects. I do find it to be an inspirational video, so that's where I misunderstood you. My mistake!
Steven Ward, you nailed it. Critique is fine, and frequently deserved, but critique that's not meant to be helpful is not useful for any of us. Thayer, I think Marc's TED talk is *useful* criticism - he's saying that we architects now have a better feedback loop for our designs. And he's not at all saying that only one kind of architecture is "allowed" in society. That's where you and I experience the world differently, Thayer: I see loose categories and innovation allowing for anyone to express themselves and their clients in any way that seems appropriate; you see a constricting, overarching power structure of academia that requires one to hew to a stylistic line or be banished to obscurity. Most architects don't operate at either extreme. The "likes of gehry" are so few and far between.
By the way, Thayer, are you really Justin Shubow (the shit-stirring author of that tripe that Orhan sadly linked to)? No, you can't be, because he's a lawyer, not an architect. Rather, he has a law degree, no idea if he's a lawyer; you are actually an architect, yes? God if Shubow was an architect he would *never* shut up about it. Ugh.
Donna,
I'm amazed that you didn't find the TED talk incredible juvenile the way he expressed how architects worked in the past and even today. I think most architects, regardless of their inclinations would steer clear of that guy's pitch. The video is uplifting if you're predisposed to that point of view though.
I think where we differ is in our priorities for architecture, as we've explored on some previous back and forths. You believe in "forwarding the discipline" as defined by innovation where I believe in building beautiful homes that fulfill their function and are well built. This doesn't mean that you are against my ideals and I against yours, but I'm speaking of motivating factors and baselines. Furthermore, I'd venture to guess that most people see buildings as backdrops to life, with the most attention going to their abodes, although there are some wonderful exceptions thankfully. Assuming that, I think the emphasis you and the AIA and schools in general seem to place on innovation is not in line with what most people seek in architecture. Again, this doesn't mean that pursuing innovation isn't legitimate, but it's just not on many people's wish list when hiring an architect.
Going back to your David Schwarz building, I still think if the TED talker had put it up instead of a tacky Olive Garden building, it wouldn't have served his polemic, which is what I find disingenuous. Even when you speak of allowing expressive freedom, you couch it in this framework of innovation. "I see loose categories and innovation allowing for anyone to express themselves and their clients in any way that seems appropriate" Why not simply allowing anyone to express themselves period? I don't see a problem simply calling it what it is and sparing us the needless animosity that this kind of debate seems to generate. You are clearly a nice person, and if we have differing philosophies, that's fine, which brings me to your characterization of my view. "you see a constricting, overarching power structure of academia that requires one to hew to a stylistic line or be banished to obscurity." I see what's there. When I came to architecture school, I drew houses for a hobby since my mom got into real-estate and left house plan books lying around. (Used to love split levels!) Point being, when I went to architecture school I had no indoctrination or expectations beyond the feeling that I was entering a wonderful profession that would teach me how to design the beautiful buildings that drew me to architecture. My portfolio in high school had all sorts of "styles", traditional all the way to "formal expressionist". Since my schooling, having visited other schools, spoken to other architects, and even been a crit at the University of Maryland, I've encountered the same suffocating ideologically charged environment. By now you must think I'm a country rube for not accepting politics in any large institution, and yes, I finally do, but it still bothers me that the schooling doesn't account for the kind of work that most clients seem to want, ie, a well built, commodious, and delightful abode.
So I guess we'll have to disagree on how most architecture schools function, but I think it's fair to say we simply work from different starting points, mine being a bit more pedestrian and yours being a bit more intellectual. I could still design you a kick ass mid-century house, but rather than sell it to you by how innovative it is, I would simply try to make you love it. If I innovated on the way, so much the better.
Thayer, you're not a rube.
You said: "You believe in "forwarding the discipline" as defined by innovation where I believe in building beautiful homes that fulfill their function and are well built." Stating first that residential work is, in many ways, an entirely singular topic within architecture, these two beliefs are not exclusive. The only difference is that I think a beautiful building can be something other than Classical, and if you are capable (which I don't doubt) of designing a kick-ass MCM house, then you must not disagree.
Obviously innovation can sometimes be terrible - the latest updates to Apple's Pages program being a great example. But it's confounding to me that our society (speaking,again, of residential buildings, mainly) is so eager to be the first in line to buy Apple's or Tesla's new innovation but wants to house those objects in their throwback-style abode. Why?
(Apologies to everyone who wants to read about FOG and EOM. Thayer and I are derailing the whole thing, as usual.)
so thayer, as with most of your attempts at debate, you agree with donna. there is nothing wrong with contemporary architecture, or modern architecture, there is nothing wrong with innovation. you love all styles of architecture and don't try to exclusively defend a single 'traditional' style. you actually agree with everyone. you simply want to try to create a fight to pass time?
FOG is doing a great job. EOM is doing a great job. it's great that they were able to have this public conversation, and it's great Donna was able to listen to thom mayne speak.
innovation in architecture is great. building beautiful homes is great. everyone agrees. pretending that donna would not design a beautiful home because she prioritizes innovation is beyond stupid.
Donna,
"But it's confounding to me that our society (speaking,again, of residential buildings, mainly) is so eager to be the first in line to buy Apple's or Tesla's new innovation but wants to house those objects in their throwback-style abode. Why?"
I think it's because (some) people don't look for the same things in their car, or their home, or a meal. In other words, we wear different hats to different parties. I know this is confusing from an ideologues point of view, but it's what I've seen in most people. And definitely, a building can be beautiful and not classical. That goes without saying.
curtkram,
I don't love all styles of architecture, but all styles are legitimate. I don't believe in "an architecture of our time" that's all. To be honest with you though, the main reason I tended to defend traditionalists, besides knowing so many people that like it, is the kind of intellectual bullying I found at my school for those as interested in emotions as innovation. But I agree that it's great to have the kind of discussion these two architects had, it just reminded me of so much tripe I heard in school and confirmed that with both the black uniforms and the "unbridled formalist exploration." schools have remained incredibly stagnant since my time. I'm sorry if we don't agree, but so be it.
"pretending that donna would not design a beautiful home because she prioritizes innovation is beyond stupid.' Again, I explicitly said our interests overlap.
Fineprint,
I am busy thankfully, but as you might know, it takes a bit more than attention to humanoid traits to make one a big shot. There's the whole politics thing, which you can probably guess I suck at. Being connected helps, strike two! And having a bunch of young kids that you want to help raise also doesn't help in taking over the world. Also, I wouldn't trade my education for anything. One can learn from adversity as well as conformity, and it drove me deep into American architectural history, something I still love deeply. There where non-ideological type professors, but too few and far between.
Also, glad you spent time with Lutyen's house and Michelangelo. And yes, they innovated, but the innovations they are known for weren't technological, but aesthetic. Try what they did at most schools and all they'll be able to see is the family resemblance and start with the whole Disney critique. to actually understand the innovations, you have to spend time working with the vocabulary, something that's simply not allowed. And if you did finally innovate aesthetically, some might still say it looks like a pig.
Appreciate Donna's link, essentially a public apology that somebody had to deliver, glad he did.... and with nearly half a million views it's a relief that the message is being received.... more architects need to be doing this sort of thing, good for him.
Wonder if artists of fine art lambast each other on public forums.... as you walk through a fine arts museum nothings identical, I like Peter Max and his style is repetitious but my house isn't full of his work, my city has a Gehry, just one..... seems like we fear that it's going to take over the world and we need to somehow stop it. Actors don't criticize each others movies it's left to the public.... tourism went up 2,500% upon the completion of Bilbao, 4,000,000 visitors in 3 years, think that is the measure, buildings need to be experienced to be judged... the best measure is not wanting to leave once there and that can't be measured on the internet.
i'm sorry your education went so bad thayer. i can say that mine was not nearly as bad, so the animosity you hold towards education in general should not apply to any university i went to. i'm sure that applies to most universities. surely there is a point in life where you should just kind of get over the trials you faced as a child and become a man and all that?
if you get over the grudge you hold against your previous professors, there is no reason to be upset, right? we're all on the same page. good architecture is good architecture. we can be supportive of each other without making up some weird conspiracy thing.
curtkram,
You seem intent on re-writing everything I say to suit your world view, much like any ideologue would. Like I said, I wouldn't trade it for a thing as it taught me to look beyond the university to learn about the world. The library at Pratt Institute is a gem where I spent countless hours to say nothing about biking throughout NYC and taking thousands of photographs. This is the education I got at Pratt, not the one on the curriculum, but the one you have to get yourself. I know that might be hard for you to process as pretty much anything I say, but that's the way it played out. I would have loved to simply look at architecture divorced from politics, but it's hard to avoid in any institution and so you either sign up or look from the outside (where by the way, the public sits, so it's not that lonely, thankfully) Actually, I think that's what made it hard to 'fall in line', the fact that I had spent 6 years drawing buildings only to be (literally) told that everything I knew about architecture was bunk. That's not the way I teach architecture nor is it the way I practice.
Here's a little Danish cartoon that might explain my perspective. Not that it will make much difference, but it might make you smile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xw_tH_sSVU
Wonder if artists of fine art lambast each other
The sensitive / misunderstood / difficult artist is a persona that more than a few architects have adopted. Most of this philosophical shit is just a sales pitch to differentiate each other from the competition.
tourism went up 2,500% upon the completion of Bilbao
I think it was more like a 10^9 % compared to tourism before, as there was pretty much nothing there except a fishing village. And the guy who made the Pet Rock made $40m in the 70's back when $1m was actually worth something.
my world-view being that i think you should move past what you perceive to be a bad curriculum during your educational experience? the ideology i cling to is that, while academia isn't perfect, it's not as bad as you're making it out to be? that isn't much of an ideology.
i did go out into the world and learned stuff, just like you did. however, i don't keep complaining about minor inconveniences that happened years ago. when you were told that everything you knew about architecture was bunk, you probably should have listened. the education you received from your mom's plan books is really not equivalent to the education you could have received from a university professor had you given a shit about getting an education when you had the opportunity. having said that, i know there are bad professors. i know there are bad experiences in architecture school. i know some students have heard really mean things from professors. even so, the idea that you can thumb through a catalog and then think you know more than your professors is astounding.
of course a bad experience in school isn't the end of your career either. you can move on and learn to practice architecture by working with other people who have already learned the craft. you can still become a good architect if you're willing to try.
that cartoon was funny. it's good you went out into the world and learned the difference between real-life and cartoons. unless your idea of 'the public' really is something you saw in a cartoon....
Bilbao, is not a fishing village, it's a port city, mining city. The quote "You can't rehearse something you haven't invented" is not Gehry's quote.
curtkram, you are a sad person.
probably, but that has nothing to do with architecture.
Agree with everything Donna says. Gehry gets a lot of 'you sucks" but his work is amazing, technologically, spatially, architecture of the first rate. Same with Morphosis. What people don't like is really just the media handling of architecture for the past 20 years. I get tired of these debates. Like why are we still having the same argument that I had in school 15 years ago. Sadly to the extent that Michael Graves is todays most loved architect says a lot about how the media has failed to promote the architects of today--probably what people here are so mad and bitter about. Media always fails architecture by promoting -isms rather than the work itself which is great. And media's new way of talking about architecture is by not talking about architecture at all--just personality profiles, and identity branding. BIG's work could be amazing, but you'd never know since all of the bloggers are just smitten with his boyish charm.
Still, "you can't reherse something you haven't invented yet" sounds hilarously like Will Ferrell as George W.'s "Your Welcome" Broadway show.
Without trying to over dissect this, I think Mr. Gehry's attitude and work is best understood in the context of his approach of "architecture as artifact" and his preference to treat all his architecture endeavors with the attitude of a very large scale sculptor.
This approach clearly warms the hearts of some, but deeply troubles others. Part of my reason for moving from architecture to urban design was my distress at the failure of the profession to embrace deep context and go beyond the pervasive artist's prerogative of the "unfettered act of self-expression". Sure, some buildings set the context (particularly when there is none to begin with), and wherever Gehry's buildings do that, they tend to fill a useful role. But when they reject their responsibilities in places where the context does matter, the result is pure hubris.
With age comes impatience and a reluctance to candy coat the controversial. Clearly his recent flipping off those who ask for something more reflects a clear honesty of attitudes he may have politely hidden earlier. We don’t have to like it, but it’s valuable just for its straightforwardness. If only everyone could be so open right from the start.
I don't understand why anyone would leave the profession because of a conception of what the media tells you it is about. The idea that urban design is all about streets and parks and transportation leaves out the identities of each particular building. All of this Gehl bike washing, conveniently saving cities like Copenhagen and New York, with their hundreds of years of architecture rich tradition. Or the feminists who say they leave the profession because they are disturbed by how few females there are. It doesn't say anything about the profession, just about you.
Lightperson, I agree with you too. There is a strong misconception that architecture only exists within the latest starchitect project, when that is a tiny percentage of what actual architects actually do. I'm so tired of these conversation, too.
Found this article by Matt Tyrnauer in Vanity Fair, it's not new but interesting, with interesting quotes from those being discussed. Maybe the words “Vanity Fair” is a clue to all this…..unfortunately a reality.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2010/08/architecture-survey-201008
The only group of individuals less competent and more dramatic than politicians are the media....Frank gave them the middle finger - surely something they could grasp deep down in their shallow hearts and minds........the way people talk about starchitects is no different then the way people talk about politicians, in other words it's just using symbols to state what you don't like etc....you might as well cut to the chase and say what's really on your mind, which many archinectors do aometimes?
BTW it's just creepy to me to see so many people in one room with the same wardrobe. Are they all taking pills to commit suicide as well so that their redeeming alien savior will take them off to planet Archtekistan?
Welcome to Jonestown, have some KoolAid.
Miles, that's less funny to me (although I still laugh at those fundamentalist whack jobs), since back in the day my mother in her rebellion (she's practically a nun) took my younger brother and I back to the states to visit the relatives against the 'churches' wishes....
I love these conversations. The more the merrier. It's wonderful to hear the various perspectives and that under all that black, there's a lot of color waiting to come out.
BERNINI SUCKS!
NO, BORROMINI SUCKS!
And to be clear we were in Germany and not Jonestown .....No BRUNELLESCHI sucks, except for the Kitchen Cousins Brunelleschi's on HGTV, they work for the people.
new death grips leaked . . .
Both of these men are responsible for producing some truly awful architecture over the last several decades. The profession deserves better, but too many professionals are afraid to challenge the b.s. The public will turn against the architecture industry, which has become nothing more than a marketing industry at this point, and start destroying these increasingly shitter contemporary buildings that flow out of the anuses of entitled, whitebread trust fund kids and their equally pompous parents.
On a separate, more interesting note...
It's always amazing to witness the sea of white people in the audience looking to be inspired by some cheap babble regarding the state of the profession. It's as if they cannot think outside of the masses...
thats quite an opinion you have.
thanks for letting us know.
Bernini definitely sucks, he stole from Borromini.
I'm amazed at how little actual building critique plays into people's blind hatred. The critique of starchitecture is mostly political--rarely about the content of the building. There are some Gehry buildings i like, and some i don't.
The interesting thing about architecture and design is that it can give physical form to any idea. Gehry is perhaps the eventually of a certain idea to its farthest extreme. You can take it for what it is, even if you don't think it solves housing, urbanism, or is even a repeatable idea. Perhaps it isn't meant to be repeated--that is the mistake of "starchitecture" if there is such a thing. Clearly the interview makes it clear that its more of a sculptural form, which is one peace of architecture. Enjoy it for what it is. Life is short.
Yet I don't care for Bjarke Ingels mostly because it seems like he is creating narrative information packages, popular in media and museum circles, instead of physical design, or at least that is what his marketing team promotes. Just let the work stand on its own. I find this new kind of politically correct architecture that is anti-form, data-driven and bland to be soul-crushing.
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.