Its forms are basic, totemic: Euclidean shapes dredged from the long memory of the field. It sometimes relies on modules or grids. It’s often monochromatic. It’s post-digital, which means it rejects the compulsion to push form-making to its absolute limits that overtook architecture at the turn of the century. As a result, it sometimes looks ancient or even primordial. It never looks futuristic. — LA Times
Famed LA Times architectural critic, Christopher Hawthorne, released his view of contemporary architecture that culminates in it being classified as boring, and yet, that might be exactly what the architectural discipline ordered. As a reaction to 'hyperactive form-making,' Hawthorne argues that contemporary architects are getting 'boring.'
One could understand that as an insult or derivative comment, but Hawthorne states that their work is well considered and measured and that the 'Room Temperature' of the work is just right but is also aware of the viability of such a project to be under question and scrutiny.
11 Comments
Boring buildings with absolutely no commercial success value.
We talk about this article on the podcast this week, and our excellent guest suggests that maybe it should be labeled "Thoughtful Architecture". We also make allusions to TWBTA's manifesto on slowness in architecture, and Michael Benedikt's call for architecture to provide more "direct aesthetic experience(s) of the real"
I refrained, with effort, from referencing sameold's empty assertion above that buildings, and by extension everything else, only have value if they have *commercial* value. What a derpy, defeated attitude.
Interesting choice of splash image. The Menil has a history of "liking" boring buildings because it emphasizes the cultural value of the objects within the architecture. Although I think the rendering tries too hard to make boring engaging by adding a moody background and atmospheric effects.
Relative to the rest of the article and images, the benefit of restraint makes all the selected buildings highly context and temporal, being present not by screaming "lookeee, lookee (fast banter)," but by making you think "well that's a different frame."
The critic said the "rendering" was boring. Did he mean to say the building was boring also? Seems like a perfectly good take on mid-century modern (no sarcasm intended). Much better than some parametric building that looks like it is melting.
Hawthorn actually seems very enthusiastic about this current batch of work "A boring building in 2017 is a building with something meaningful to say". I actually had to read the article to learn that as nothing here suggested that.
Did Anthony add the second paragraph after your comment?
First, there is nothing new about this "new style" as suggested. Second, I do agree that these buildings seem to match the sort of "Quakerism" hipster style, but I don't see a direct correlation there. Third, "boring" is a state of mind. Architecture is a stage for life. If the actors suck the play will suck regardless of its set design. People with their dumb faces illuminated 24/7 by their iPhone will never provide the life necessary to properly bring life to space. The Spanish steps are just steps without people. We as a culture have retreated into the virtual making the physical world a little less important. "Here we are now...entertain us!" That Architecture is dead. No one cares. Your curves are not as interesting as Snapchat. So now what is the end game? is architectures ultimate destiny a matrix like pod that keeps our bodies warm while our minds enjoy pure freedom from law and physics in virtual reality?
My prediction. We will experience a spatial dichotomy in the near future. The virtual realm will become more and more real, and the physical realm will become more and more utilitarian. The physical future will look 'boring', while we fly around on Tigers through fantastic virtual worlds filled with spaces that are wilder than anything ZHA could do in the real world. Can architecture exist with pure Freedom? Freedom from budget, physical constraints, law? One one hand we will have pure utility, on the other pure pleasure. Firmness commodity and delight will split into different universes.
I think the profession needs to get over the compulsion that each new building needs to be more titillating than the last one. Eventually you crash into the Wall of Terminal Weirdness, which we are rapidly approaching.
I've been bored for years. This is what happens when you prohibit architects from using ornament.
who banned you from ornament?
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.