In a fifty-one minute conversation with New York Times critic Michael Kimmelman, Bjarke Ingels does little to dispel his reputation as a media-friendly starchitect who dances his way around thorny design issues by reminding everyone of the rose. When Kimmelman brings up the wind issues that an 80th story outdoor space (such as the ones proposed for Two World Trade Center) is likely to encounter, Ingels relates an anecdote about how in Denmark the only car to have is a convertible, because even if the pleasant days are rare, they must be savored fully.
However, it is Ingels' redefinition of the architect's role, especially in the context of the discussion about how to shape the future cultural vibe of Manhattan, that makes Kimmelman shift in his seat:
Ingels: [Architects] are not the creators of the city, but the midwives.
Kimmelman: You make the architect sound a little more passive or receptive than maybe I'm comfortable with. Do you think the architect is just receiving other people's ideas and realizing them? There's no agency?
Ingels: Architecture is like portraiture...the mission is to capture the appearance and soul of the object you're trying to convey.
Watch the full discussion below:
62 Comments
Bjarke speaks branding
Midwife is a protected term.
What's funny is how he grins to himself and looks away from Kimmelman. he knows that the Times will reprint his talking points (he's young! He's the overlap of pragmatic and avant garde!) as if Shop, Holl, Selldorf etc couldn't have run circles around his Lego fetish. He should just interview himself
Who loves themself more Bjark or Kanye?
Bjarke favorited one of my tweets. It was the highlight of my day, possibly of my week.
(Resisting urge to post ridiculous dancing eagle hater gonna hate gif.)
I absolutely love how Bjarke makes the peanut gallery go crazy.
I'll quote Clay Shirky yet again:
Go to any party -- architects, fashion designers, mathematicians -- and you'll hear the same thing, and usually so subtle, so sophisticated: "Well, I enjoyed the piece, but I thought it was a little derivative", "The building is interesting on its own terms, but it isn't very well integrated with the neighborhood." Tiny sprinklings of corrosive doubt, offered by people gnawed by envy, and seized on by those made sick by over-exposure to quality...Criticize, sure -- if something's bullshit, say so, and if you have an insight about how something might be better, sing it, and sing it loud...But when you feel yourself about to criticize something because you just can't stand how good it is (and you know you do this, we all do), at that moment, stop...Stop, because it will turn you into the kind of small-minded champion of mediocrity we all came here to escape.
Someone should take this thesis topic: architecture, new media, and the new philistinism (and its critics "haters")
Wait. Did I miss the part where Fed Herring expressed substantive criticism?
"criticize something because you just can't stand how good it is"
Are we talking about his work or his charm?
I'm not sure what people are talking about exactly when they use the word "charm". I listened to the interview, I didn't watch it. And his responses to Kimmelman's question were very intelligent. Even when the questions were politically tricky because he's discussing clients, he was able to speak candidly. His comparison of architecture to portraiture was spot on.
been having this premonition for a while, didnt want to express it, but NYC will be the beginning of the end for our home boy.........but i am not an accurate psychic so hopefully i be wrong.
if Norman Foster is your homeboy
Well said Donna!
hmmmmm....clearly wrote 'our' home boy. davvid you reading the same stuff I am reading. you need to start drinking, you make very little sense sober.
Hi Olaf. I always read your poetry very carefully.
I like the line in the film The Interview where james franco keeps saying..."they hate us cause they aint us." Then his less arrogant friend replies..."No they hate us cause we is us." Possible this is not a case of "Haters" and more an accurate critique / complaint about the overall power that fame/pr/charm/bullshit has on warping our perception of art.......
@Donna, which this one?
Yes, Nam, that's it!
I think BIG's work is excellent, so that's what I mean by "can't stand how good it is", along with his overall level of succes which has been incredible to watch.
Our perceptions are defiantly being warped. But its happening in all kinds of ways. Bjarke's charm works for him and against him. Some find it repulsive. I saw him present at the Storefront for Art and Architecture a few years ago and a woman actually asked him out on a date during the question and answer portion of the interview. She did it in front of everyone! I wanted to boo her. In that moment I was anti-BIG.
my midwife painted my portrait and, sorry to say , it didn't turn out too good.
The Hamptons Dictionary defines midwife as any wife between the first one and the last one.
If architects are the city's midwives, then developers are the fathers, planners are the mothers, politicians the baby brothers and sisters, cops the nannies, and JH Kunstler the bitter old spinster aunt.
Come on, Bjarke, think it through.
What a frightening thing to hear an advocate for architects compare architecture to portraiture.
Architects are the baby daddies of the built environment.
'What a frightening thing to hear an advocate for architects compare architecture to portraiture.'
I bet he is not licensed. Balkins, please confirm?
That's why he talkin' shit about Registered Architects, that's what's really going on here, he be hating on the AIA people and what nots....
Where is the place where we can talk about "substantive criticism"?
My question isn't whether it's derivative or even better than mediocre. It's how he gets work over better firms that I stated.
It's like going to an artist thread and her undying praise from Jeff Koons fangirls. Please can you retweet me pretty please??????
Jesus.
What a sad day that architecture is being destroyed by an ad man in architect clothing
But you guys: his buildings are good. And they're reconsidering and incorporating how architecture can include other issues like pollution and density and joy. He's broadening the reach of architects in the minds of the GP, is how I see it.
I would love to see what his buildings are like but that almost seems beyond the point--he is a media company architect--designing the image of the building more than the reality. It's eco friendly... Is it? Who knows? Who cares?
Bjarke is similar to the musician Drake. None of the other rappers seem to like him and are constantly taking shots. He plays both sides--the rapper and the r&b crooner. The Ladies love him. He's ok--but he's no Tupac.
LL Cool Bjarke
Sorry, I disagree.
Wait, according to the Lean In lady I'm not supposed to say sorry first. So "Bite me, I disagree", I guess?
The Mountain building is freaking awesome, not because of its image but because of the interior space of the units, how they're arranged on the site, how the interior-exterior space works, how the parking is organized and navigated, how the colors create identity, how the building relates to the adjacent site, how a screen wall becomes an accessory...seriously.
IMO, in BIG's case they were able to design a really good building first and then come up with a really simple, accessible, and cool way to present the building in a likable image that people can't resist. And it all works because he's honestly earnest and enthusiastic about it, not just pretending to be to close the deal.
I don't know anything about Drake but is there a reason someone can't be skilled at both rap and R&B? Can't we all be YES/AND about architecture?
The good ones speak through their work and don't have to sell you a load of manure.
Perhaps Ingels is the lefts answer to Donald Trump.... Equally polarizing, creates bombastic cheap arch
But ecological! Or the appearance of eco friendly if not the reality
I just can't even with you guys.
Bjarke Ingels is not Brad Pitt.
There are little known architects around the world doing credible things with sustainability. For Ingels it's just a tag line. In this case he's being backed by the global media corporations that own the project.
I think the Donald found his new tag line
Let's leave Brad out of this ;-) Although, much like when Brad Pitt talks to the media about substandard housing it brings the discussion into new venues, when Bjarke discusses innovations in architecture that include sustainability and awareness of how we live in the world, it leads others to talk about it too. Isn't it better to have these discussions at all rather than shut them down because the spokesperson happens to be too handsome?
There is more to sustainability than plants. Look at how disparate the Architect Magazine R&D Awards are this year. Much more broadly speaking, sustainability is about innovating (I know we're all tired of that word but true innovation transcends buzzwords) different and better ways of using our resources and adjusting how we operate in our daily lives. Some of this change will be driven by small projects, and some by large. As always, I think we can have both. Yes is more.
"What a frightening thing to hear an advocate for architects compare architecture to portraiture."
Why?
Miles, that project you posted, the "credible" and " sustainable" thing, is interesting but hideous.
Glib jumps to mind whenever I hear this guy talk. His 'concepts' are simplistic and don't stand up to close examination, like mashing up the towers of downtown with finer grained fabric in Tribeca for his cantilevered tower. Sounds like the architectural equivalent of the Liger. If he was from Florida he would be a motivational speaker.
sustainability is about innovating
Not necessarily. Indigenous peoples around the world - now nearly extinct of course due to "progress" - developed and maintained sustainable architecture suitable to their local climates for millennia. Now we build in spite of climate because it's an integral part of the economic steamroller.
Technology is 50% (or more) revenge of unintended consequences.
What a frightening thing to hear an advocate for architects compare architecture to portraiture
Because architecture should be more than a pretty picture.
that project you posted, the "credible" and " sustainable" thing, is interesting but hideous
Because for you personal aesthetics trump performance every time.
Ahhh Progress....that can go both ways...
Magic spells - 21st century vaccines = good progress
spears - patriot missles = bad progress
Unfortunatly...more often than not...the word progress is synonomous with killing more people and pillaging the earth for excess goods with less effort...
"What a frightening thing to hear an advocate for architects compare architecture to portraiture
Because architecture should be more than a pretty picture."
I agree. And that was pretty much the point Bjarke Ingels was making. His point was more about control and the degree to which the architect can shape the project, a client's business model, or other aspects of the context. If a painter is hired to paint a portrait of a person, they can't really paint whatever they want.
Like it or not, BIG recognizes that architecture is subject to the whims of capital and makes the most of the situation. They are realists.
"that project you posted, the "credible" and " sustainable" thing, is interesting but hideous
Because for you personal aesthetics trump performance every time."
The tree-shaped steel elements are an aesthetic choice that seem contrived and unnecessary. There are a bunch of arbitrary "treehouse"-themed aesthetic choices that add up to a messy composition. And when you look closely, there are many crude and poorly resolved construction details. The geothermal system and water collecting is a good thing. I hope it works well.
+++ monosierra.
Ah, the whims of capital.
Architecture, the world's oldest profession.
That's a very narrow role you've set out for the architect, davvid.
The comparison is frightening because it is in response to the question of what agency he thinks architecture has. You may say that he knows that his role is to create the will of the client, but that is the just a choice that is very limiting. As someone who stands atop the profession, Bjarke says that because it is enough for him, because he is very successful doing it, even though that is not the cause of his success. It's just a passive answer to an important question.
There is a lot of richness and value to the process of "creat(ing) the will of the client" alone. The architect gives form, for starters, and that could take on many permutations when the client's commercial concerns are aligned with architectural adventures. Then there are programmatic suggestions, ways to deal with inevitable externalities etc. While not a big fan of BIG's ouerve or their post-hoc diagrams, I admire their ability to get things built and deliver relatively interesting and fun buildings in the process. 2WTC could well have been a generic tower. Given the contingencies of site and client(s), they produced a tower that is quite different from its neighbors and a pretty dramatic - if watered down - form as well. Look forward to seeing more of how the interior spaces work.
Personally, I think being able to communicate well - "selling" if you will - is an integral part of the design process. Architecture students are taught to draw well, their visual representation being a crucial part of the design itself but for some reason good speakers are treated with suspicion. I'm sure that the ability to speak well - schmooze, pitch, whatever you call it - is as important in delivering the final product as a professional team's ability to execute construction drawings.
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.