"There is a backlash," says Gehry, now aged 82, "against me and everyone who has done buildings that have movement and feeling", that is "self-righteous" and "annoying… The notion is that it is counterproductive to social responsibility and sustainability. Therefore, curving the wall or doing something so-called wilful is wrong and so there is a tendency back to bland." — guardian.co.uk
Also make sure to check out the heated debate going on in Driehaus and Krier do battle against Gehry's Eisenhower Memorial design
36 Comments
This isn't new Frank, so stop whining. Lots of folks have been railing against blobs and twisty pieces of cardboard that get enlarge into being a building for as long as you have been trying to be a sculpture and not an architect.
^like.
tho i have to disagree if he's referring to the neo-traditionalist NDU whackjobs at the NCAS. that pathetically canned reaction would have been directed at anyone other than a christopher alexander or bob stern
The biggest fault is from those who paid for these buildings.
I personally have no problem against buildings that have "movement and feeling" as Gehry describes it, but there are a few points that I do have against Gehry's position.
Firstly, is that a building does not need to be twisty and organic to have movement and feeling, there are huge numbers of buildings in every corner of the world that are emotional and beautiful and don't require complex scultural shapes.
And secondly, and this is more specific to Gehry, and it is that his style has been so typical and repeated that it is becoming boring to keep up with. As a designer, I envision many more layers in the architecture than the skin and the material used. If Gehry wants to prevent blandness in archi, he should start from scratch and reform his design practices. One of Gehry's first buildings was a very interesting combination of rectilinear shapes and code-evasion. It was his own house, and it was beautiful. Go back Gehry. Go back.
there's a lot to be learned from gehry, for those who can look *beyond* the 'skin and the materials used'.
Amen steven, the usual suspects can't get over forms. To box or to curve is not question.
Juan do you have any personal experience or documentation that Gehry's work is "poorly built"? Beyond the MIT canopy issue, which I believe has been resolved as a case of the contractor ignoring the documents. My understanding, from people who have worked in Gehry's office, is that quality construction is a high concern of the office.
Now Libeskind, on the other hand, seems to be fine to have his buildings be taped together.
"self-righteous". Look it up Frank.
A lot of architects disagree with his approach, but i think Ghery can be credited with progressing the use of BIM software for architecture and construction. I've only seen a few of his projects and they do draw attention in a good way, even if there are inherent issues leading to leaks,ice buildup or useless interior spaces, its something that can be learned from. His work has shown us what we can get away with, and I think that can be valuable to any designer, as we know our lack of bounds as to what the public sees and we know our bounds of what other designers see. In the end the clients get the attention grabbing facade they asked for.
Juan,
One could create 'civil, noble' buildings of lasting value and quality with Gehry'-esque design sensibilities.
Gehry is just not the "flavor of the season" anymore. Firms like BIG are.
That said, Gehry and his firm have done more to advance the discourse and the profession more than anyone else, at least in the technological realm. The reason why a lot of the younger architects can get away with curved structures or complex geometries is because Gehry did it first. As someone else also suggested here, if you look beyond the shiny forms and the skin, Gehry's architecture has influenced the way we look at structure and skin, and how it can all actually be built.
As a disclaimer, I would say that the Bleeckman Towers in NYC suck a whole lot. High-rise is just not his forte.
less bling and more substance, but is only a sign of the times.....
That's very true, look at the music nowadays. Bling Bling! Gherry is kinda the Lil Wayne of the industry trying to keep the love in a post recession world where gold chains annoy more people more than they inspire.
Its hard out here for a pimp. Now as far as his influence goes, we are all here talking about him, so his work is obviously an important addition to the history of architecture, and he does deserve much credit for that, but Gherry is a pre 2008 architect, and his work reflects the pre 2008 culture and mentality. The zeitgeist has changed and the people are questioning how we got here. Symbols that represent the attitudes that brought us to our demise will naturally face backlash even if their intentions were good.
agreed with sameold and kevin - Gehry did a lot to advance our profession technologically. I really like some of his buildings (although while I like the fisher center, it's roofs make absolutely no sense in upstate NY).
anyway - I don't really understand why he's taking this personally - I think these days people would rather spend money on nicer, standard, and durable materials and "easier" spaces than expressive forms and highly irregular custom fabricated materials... it's a trade-off if someone wants a signature building. They're looking down the road and thinking how long can they get good use out of this building, and how easy (and cost effective) it is to do upkeep. it's not that people don't like curved walls and crazy stainless steel roofs - it's seen as a bit of an extravagance and a little wasteful. unless he can prove that his buildings are viable financially in the long term, there's going to be a backlash.
Same here, agree that his designs brought a lot to the field, and again put the emphasis on new ways of thinking about design with modern materials, however you feel about the aesthetics. Also his work gave a lot of people insight to the role of an architect, with his books, documentary, press coverage, etc.
I'm wondering how much of this feeling of backlash is more the lack of constant praise to feed his ego, which I think he's become accustomed to. I would guess that anyone that refers to themselves as a 'Starchitect' probably has a large ego to feed, and if it's not fed it turns to sad grabs for attention....case in point: the Kardashians
SWebRepDesigners and non designers should be excited to see what Gehry and his colleagues are up to. It's not about 'loving' the aesthetics of his work, it's about appreciating Gehry's willingness to expand the definition of architecture via exterior and interior manipulations. Those who simply try to define his work as good or bad miss the point of architecture completely.
the last time FOG 'expanded the definition of architecture' was well over 10 years ago. He's been rehashing the same trope ever since, just with more powerful computational abilities. btw expressive exteriors don't make good interiors, nor does it make good architecture (which is the point).
not true barry. so many examples that prove the hollowness of such a sweeping claim.
as for his expanding the definition of architecture, not sure that he is over it yet. still seems to be doing interesting work to me. may have a fifth wind in him yet. i would be happy to have a first wind myself ;-)
While I understand all the different points of view, and I tend to be less amused by shinny things myself, and critical of Gherry, Zaha in the immediate realm, we need to step back sometimes and think about his influence from a historic perspective. Will his work be important in 300 years? I would say yes to that. He has contributed much to architecture. We tend to critisize based on an idea that each project is a sort of final destination, but none are, they are all just evolutionary mutations, and he explored one that was an inevitable and necessary step in the evolution of architecture. The world is richer with him than without, and that is the only thing we can all strive for.
yeah actually gehry they are pissed off at you because you effing hired brat pitt as your right hand man in this shit economy where experienced architects are eating ramen noodles every night or simple leaving the profession all together for good. what a fail. he hasn't even done anything interesting since bilbao so why are we still even talking about him?
Barry, I dont think that is very true. Can you give me a few other names of architects who have 'expanded the definition of architecture', in the same way the FOG has?
Actually FOGA were pioneers in parametric design technology as well, which every other firm use these days in the form of Revit.
I do agree that old Frank is probably getting a bit senile in his old age, but to say that he has not been important to the profession is really not fair.
Gehry has had a huge impact on the architectural profession, most of it detrimental. If he's experiencing any backlash, it's well-deserved and overdue.
Love it how you all are picking apart Barry, without actually reading his words correctly. Geezus. Does anyone know what a 'trope' is?
sameolddoctor: by 'the same way' do you mean, 'repeating the same idea over and over again through form?' or are you really saying that Ghery is the only influential architect you can name? I call fallacy on you.
Yes, Ghery has been influential to architecture, but that doesn't mean FOG creates 'good' architecture.
In a time where money is tight, people are more interested in buildings that function and relate to the human experience, rather than shiny baubles of pure form.
PS: Guess what. It's time to move on from Post-Modernism.
So-called architects like Gehry should be just denied the right to exercise the profession. Their license/degree/etc retired. His sculptural "things" are just that, ugly, boring, ultra-expensive, annoying and dangerous, bad sculptures. (It is actually no favor for real sculptors to call his work "sculptures".) They have almost nothing to do with architecture and even less with people. (Yes, "people", you know, those little "things" that usually populate buildings and architectures...)
Only ignorance, opportunism, narcism and extremely bad taste can lead to architects like Gehry getting commissions to build what he has built.
Our civilization is decaying.
forget bilbao-based assumptions. the interior of the disney concert hall is sublime, the path around its upper exterior is a gift to l.a., and - with very few of what might be considered gehry-trope characteristics - the project in miami is a triumph.
the office is still pushing and what they're pursuing isn't always what we might expect. respect.
It hardly seems fair to be criticizing a currently-practicing architect, with said criticism being based on work from almost a generation ago. Still, what's been said has been more or less fair, both the positive and the negative. If FOG is only now noticing a backlash against his work, he's a bit slow on the uptake !
Fifty years ago, when FLLW was freshly in his grave, academia was at the height of its denial of his legitimacy and relevance as an architect -- though he might even then have been credited as a poetic sculptor. Times have changed (even if the issues of Wright's construction detailing remain). Perhaps Gehry's relevance has yet to become clear ?
There will always be practitioners who gain the title of "pioneer," regardless of the quality of their work. Do we agree that FOG can take full credit for what comes from his office . . . for better or worse ?
So-called architects like Gehry should be just denied the right to exercise the profession.
amagazine, I'm curious if you think architects who do strip mall Petcos and Carrabas should also/not be denied the right to exercise the profession?
amagazine....
ah, nevermind.
Good point Donna...
Anyway, my neighbor is a really annoying bastard. He's one of those hipster assholes that drive a huge SUV with a coexist sticker on the back. Hey dick, as long as you drive a truck that gets 7 miles per gallon we can't coexist you fucking imbecile (similar to the guy who designs a 5000 ft.sq. house with the green roof.) At least admit that you really don't give a shit and hang a set of those steel balls from the hitch (be like Gherry.) There is a false sense of “doing something” plaguing our society. The fucking polar bears are floating around on little ice rafts like “come on you shit head, a sticker, really, that’s the best you could do?”
This jerk got me thinking about this anti Gherry debate. Just felt like breaking it down a bit....Seems to be 5 types of attitudes among architects out there. I would say #2 #4 and #5 are the most respectable. 1 and 3 really annoy me!
1. Bullshit and feel good about it. (too many fall here)
2. Bling Bling, I just don't give a fuck! (Gherry)
3. Whats wrong with wal-mart? (most fall here)
4. There is a problem and here's a real solution! (James Corners fresh kills park)
5. We know there's a problem, but we are not the ones to solve it. Architecture is about Architecture. (Zumthor, Ando)
I would argue that 1 and 3 are the reason our profession is falling down. Not #2 like some critics claim. The Gherry attitude keeps the debate alive and keeps us on our toes, the Zumthor attitude refines the practice and keeps us grounded. The Corner attitude expands our value to society. Gherry's work has value period. Only a very small % of architects create value. We need to criticise the ones that destroy not the ones that create!
I Love it!!!
meaghans, I will take you a little seriously, when you get the spelling of "Gehry" right. Frankly speaking, it seems that most peeps trashing Gehry on this forum have really never built anything. If you had, you'd know how difficult it is to achieve 5% of what he has gotten built. Oh, and I live in LA, and the Concert Hall (and the Caltrans building) is one of the best things to happen to downtown LA. The Moneo church is a walled garden, the MOCA is somehow a little too private.
People here dont seem to be able to communicate in English. Their ability to design or comment on the design of buildings is therefore questionable. I also wonder if ANY have been inside and explored a real Gehry or Libeskind project ? (I have, several - and they DO work internally). Get yourself a passport.
I quote: "neo-traditionalist NDU whackjobs" "hipster assholes that drive a huge SUV with a coexist sticker" "Gehry should be just denied the right to exercise the profession" and my favourite "The zeitgeist has changed and the people are questioning how we got here"
To misquote Lou Reed: "if thats how you write, then nobody is listening"
To all of you: examine the fact that we are all talking about a named Architect (though many on this post cant even spell the guys name right - c'mon there are only 5 letters!). That is his influence - like it or hate it, his designs have moved the Architectural profession forward ... in parallel with Zaha Hadid, Kengo Kuma, Norman Foster et al.
And by the way; I think Gehry is quite right to kick off against his detractors. If there is a backlash, then that has to be a sign of respect - I just hope that the 'backlash' (which includes many of the semi-literate posters above) will create Architecture even better than Gehry's.
"and my favourite"
Hahaha, and my favorite. Is that what you mean? If you are going to be the designated English teacher of Archinect you need to get your spelling right buddy.
"favourite" is correct in the U.K and Canada, my apologies. But you are still annoying!
lapin, I see your point, but really, architects *do* tend to communicate with the visual and the material, not with words, correct? I try to get my students to work on excellent writing skills, but then I see my 9 year old child who can convey emotion, character, and context with cartooning beautifully but struggles with writing sentences...and then I think that maybe it's OK if architects blow off steam with lazy writing on the internet and that the way we write has no bearing on our ability to critique or practice design.
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.