THE WORK OF 48-YEAR-OLD JEANNE GANG may at last herald the end of the starchitect era. The founder of Chicago's Studio Gang Architects puts more faith in her raw materials—and the purposes they can be put to—than in the pursuit of iconic shapes or the mind- bending possibilities of computer-aided design. — online.wsj.com
35 Comments
The hell? How come newspapers & magazine keep plying the narrative that "this guys isn't a star" or "she's an anti-celebrity" all the while they are publishing an article specifically featuring that person?
We may be stupid but we can see through this shit. Please, writers create a new cliche already.
Yo!
I think they're taking a stab at architects who may first focus on the overall form, speculating that we're all in pursuit of getting noticed that way saying its only then decide what materials to use to achieve that form. Apparently, Gang may start at a smaller scale, get creative with materials and let that influence the overall form. At least that's my take.
I don't think the writer is "wrong", but it's certainly not always true. Not even close. But I doubt many firms take as much care with materials as it sounds like Gang does. So it's simply a different breed of star-architect. I agree
imo her work is mediocre.
Mediocre as compared to what, jla-x? I love her work and it's the basis in materials that I enjoy - very sensual, very intimate.
What material choice are you talking about? Concrete slabs? What material combinations does she use that separates her for others? Raw materials over form? I am not buying that PR garbage at all.
Studio Gang's architectural work is just as formal as many other of the very good architects of our generation that work on high profile projects. I'm not exactly sure what makes them renegades. Is it who they work with? The projects they accept? Cultural renegages?
I also wouldn't call her architecture intimate or sensual. Quite frankly, I find that sexist. I wouldn't even use those words to describe her installations.
They are very diverse in their building explorations. Proably the biggest compliment you can get. Definilty not mediocre.
I think her work is sexy, because of the way she works across a broad range of issues, tackling them intellectually while also getting them built. That's attractive, so there is something sensual about the work.
Her choice of materials might not be ground-breaking, but she seems flexible in how to articulate them.
As for the 'renegade' title there is definitely some PR behind that. Then again, this article is in the Wall Street Journal.
There's the difference right there. Some people see concrete slabs as nothing more than concrete slabs. Granted Gang isnt the only firm doing anything incredibly unique - I agree - but aren't we stull glad to see others are finding a way to appreciate this way of thinking more? It's hard to make it as a real designer/design firm with all the hacks out there willing to do the same job for half the price. You've gotta be able to do the design work AND sell it to the developers/clients.
I like the work of Studio Gang, but I'm so bored with how the media covers architecture. Do we even realize that there are two partners at Studio Gang (the other being Mark Schendel?). This is a husband and wife architecture firm. And of course the other designers in the office. These profiles in general aim so low they border on nauseating. Even Koolhaas named his firm OMA and all they do was talk about Rem's designs.
I am not discussing how hard it is to be an architect at her level. That's obvious enough. It's incredibly tough. Also someone who brings that up. Thanks for the reminder. Much appriciated
I was just curious why people project sexy and sensuous while still calling this a material based practice.
When I think of material based I think of the former Office DA. A deep look into how materials can by manipulated and stretched to create forms.
Tehrani was/is doing great things in terms of materials in academia, but even the office DA stuff only happened at a small scale, like furniture. Continuously reexamining material to that extent only goes so far. Craftsmanship and spatial intellect at the scale that Gang produces is sexy. Any architect can be aroused by that.
Its really great to see such beautiful discourse between architects and all with valid critics!!! There is a certain sense of care and passion for the profession in this discussion.
maybe mediocre was harsh...Their work is better than mediocre, but what i'm saying is that there are many less known architects that do much better work and yet get much less publicity. I'm tired of all the stardom bs celebrity culture out there. Being famous is less about talent and more about connections, good pr, and good luck. Fame elevates work to heights that it does not necessarily merit. This starchitect culture is really bad for the profession imo.
I’m not sure how much of this Gang does, but the bent wood park structure they’ve been working on and the skin of the Arcus Center for Social Justice [http://www.studiogang.net/work/2010/arcuscenter] are definitely material explorations. They don’t settle for the standard applications but find new ones. The Arcus center not only uses end grain sections of tree as skin but also involved the coordination of a process that allowed end-users to participate in the installation. This is maybe not mind-blowing new stuff, but it’s thoughtful, driven by the project’s goals, and considers material choice and the process of constructing as an integral part of the design result.
The fame thing is unfortunate, but appreciating when someone is doing something special is good. Star culture is just another symptom of this strange profession in which architects are engaged. It’s a crappy broken business model and a twisted culture with bizarre priorities, but architecture is also a wonderful way to live your life.
I like the starchitect system for providing a healthy dose of angst in architectural discourse. Next best thing is Muslim (at least generally assumed ones) critics who reject Bonjour Paris for Salaam Bombay as the world turns.;.)))
As far as ridiculousness goes, we can start with the headline of this article: "A Renegade Architect..." So building condo towers makes you a renegade how? I feel like the whole "sensuous" forms thing is a sort of PR-doublespeak for hey look, it's a woman architect--so the forms must be "sexy." Thank god Frank Gehry wasn't a woman or the press would probably resemble "orgasm guy."
^ what lazy whiny things to say, u didn't even read the article
I agree with Darkman that the PR-doublespeak isn't helping the whole sexism in architecture. Infact, not sure the word sex needs to be part of the lexicon of archtiectural criticism, but eitherway, her work does look like run-of-the-mill graduate school stuff.
Knowing that there aren't many on these blogs that would lower themselves to do something overtly traditional, I'll go ahead with something that has always puzzled me. What's with the whole "material based" practice? I know it stems from the early modernist fetishiszing of expressing materials in lieu of compositional beauty, ie, the abstraction/coldness of the Barcelona is offest with the "honesty" of the materials, but does that still hld water?
I like an old warehouse brick wall as much as beautifully detailed wood, or funcky shaped concrete, especially when natural light is involved, but does that in and of itself make the work interesting? Furthermore, does someone's work have to be groundbreaking either conceptually or materialy to be good? It seems so, yet, once you're over that one aspect, ie, when the novelty wears off, will it still be good architecture in 20 years? Just asking.
I guess my beef goes along with what Darkman stated.. "A Renegade Architect..." So building condo towers makes you a renegade how?
Honesty in material? maybe, but defidently not any honesty in the true nature of these buildings. The message being conveyed in the skin, the clothing, the facade....is revolutionary avant-garde newness......However beneath the surface we just find more of the same. There is nothing "renegade" about an expensive condo tower. By presenting such a fallacy to the public, we get a false sense of change and progress while never really ruffling the feathers of the status quo....The architectural equivilant of lady gaga, lil wayne, or niki manaj. Corporate conforming art with little substance posing as revolution through the use of costume and spectacle....What we need is real revolution and change. Real renegades. When the mainstream media labels something in a positive light it is probably a sign that it is status quo. When a project is faced with protesters, corporate smear campains, or political opposition then we know we are dealing with a real renegade. Not that everyone should be a renegade or that gang studio is any less important, but lets call it how it is and stop putting false labels on things that do not merit them.
Thayer, yeah people love the Eiffel Tower because it pushed boundaries. Maybe you will say something about icons now? In which case you should look at the lack of progressive architecture being built. Novelty never really wears off, at least for nostalgists. Same goes for the warmth of the Barcelona pavilion.
On a side note, I have a problem with the putting down of successful architects such as Gang and comparing their intellect and business attitude with pop stars. More often than not such criticism is indicative of a lack of insight into what the projects are about.
Her work is in many ways above and beyond her starchitect predecessors of the 60s. While she may appear to be 'mainstream' to a few because she is on a magazine. She does not have a gigantic practice, nor is most of the US aware of her work to the extent of someone like Miley Cyrus.
Further, some of these complaints sounds like a case of sour grapes, in addition to not knowing anything about the topics that Gang is addressing. being a 'renegade' as a successful architect is a funny thing. You have to balance many things, including your PR. She is bringing to light many topics which were isolated in 90's academia. Even the everymans architect can introduce something new to every project, but please spare the second-guess retroactiveness that most humdrum buildings are about.
Lastly, I don’t find Gang particularly attractive, but her work is.
Thelma,
"Novelty never really wears off", Really? I thought that's why they called it novelty. If I'm not mistaken though, at the time, pushing boundaries wasn't why the Eifell Tower was loved when originaly built, in fact, people hated it becasue it was novel. My guess is people love the Eiffel Tower today becasue it's a beautiful form, interesting construction, and symbolizes a city many love, with all the nostalgic 19th century Neo-classical boulevards. I could be wrong though.
I personally could care less if she's mainstream, a starchitect, or a renegade, that still has no bearing on the quality of her work. Like I said before, it looks mediocre to me, not that I've read her literature (I'm a bit lazy that way), but since her work will be part of the public realm, IMHO it should respond first to the 99% of people who will never read her literature to truly appreciate how her work pushes the boundaries. I'm all for innovation, but too often it's used as a scapegoat for crappy work. It's what's taught in most schools and what passes for ground breaking on forums like this one.
I personally have no sour grapes for Ms. Gang and her gang, I wish her all the best, and I'm sure she's dedicated and sinsere in her work, I just wish all the topics she's "bringing to light" would be a bit more apparent to those who aren't going to read her writting. Like the kid with a crayon, you can always bring something "new" to every project, but it dosen't make it a great project. Just ask any artist or musician throwing stuff against a whall in the hope that it will stick. I respect your attraction to her work, but the PR machine that props up their anointed star is as phony as the PR machine that props up the likes of Britney Spears.
@ Steven - not to mention the poured-in-place tinted concrete strata at one of my favorite Studio Gang projects, SOS Children's Villages:
Wait a minute, did someone here seriously say: I don’t find Gang particularly attractive, but her work is. Are you serious? Your user account should be revoked. Sexist fool.
Let me be more clear....I LIKE THEIR WORK BUT IT IS NOT AS SPECIAL AND AVANT GARDE AS IT IS BEING PORTRAYED. They do good work, no question about that, but not avant garde or radical work. They are good, but I do not find their work to be that different from the hundreds of good competition proposals and good local architecture firms. Fame sometimes elevates ones work to a level that it does not merit. Their work does deserve some praise, but not, imo, the level of praise it gets. Just my opinion though...
Lastly, I don’t find Gang particularly attractive, but her work is.
that's a dumb statement and has nothing to do with her architecture, but you must be blind. imo she is very beautiful. And ladies you all know you look at Ingles BIG smile and make your judgements. It is just a natural subconscious reaction to an image of another person and that will never be socialized out of us.
Anyway, sexism is retarded and it holds society back. Imagine all the great things we would have had if women were able to work equally as men during the last 4000 years..We lost out on things that we will never know about. A woman 100 years ago may have had a design for cold fusion in her notebook but never able to make it happen because of all the fools that held her back. I also think that to be fair we should criticise everyone equally and not jump to the conclusion that a critique against the work of a female is automatically sexist. It has nothing to do with sex.
I never said a critique against the work of a female is inherently sexist. Clearly that is idiotic. The point of feminism - a movement toward equality - is to bring society to a point at which the quality of work can be judged without descending to genderized patronizing of the work's author. To comment on a woman's appearance, in the context of a discussion about her work, reduces the level of discourse to that of sexist patronization. And so, for example, does your praise of her beauty. It doesn't, and shouldn't, matter one bit what an architect looks like. "Oh look at that architect! She's so beautiful! Now let's look at her work." This is just as problematic as "she's not attractive but her work is". It's not somehow ok to be patronizing because you're saying someone's pretty. Just leave it out. Especially generalizations like "ladies, you all" (featuring with the patronizing diminutive "ladies" to boot, ugh). We don't "all" do anything, no matter our gender, and anyone mistaking Bjarke Ingels' smile for his work is just as much an idiot as any other sexist. For heavens' sake, evolve already.
Sorry, I know you were trying to back my point up, jla-x, and I don't mean to jump on you, but without realizing it, you yourself used some unfortunate turns of phrase in your response that it's worth calling attention to. Sexism goes both ways - telling someone they're pretty can be just as demeaning as telling them they're ugly. The point is to leave it out entirely.
Anyway.....I have argued before, with friends, that scale kills. Sometimes good achitects have to sacrifice quality and "art" for scale. Really big projects that require many cooks in the kitchen are often not the best work of any firm. Their small stuff seems much much better than their larger projects. Starchitects are often burdened with this....As they gain fame they get bigger commissions and quaility suffers...
The days of Gaudi are over where an architect can take 20 years to work on a big project.
I don't think finding some people more attractive than others is sexist. The point I made actually fits your (mantaray) definition of feminism, where personal gender and appearance bears no impact on the projects of the architect.
I only brought up appearances because we're on the subject of architects, their appearance in the media, and association with superstars like Lady Gaga. Appearances are a double edged sword aren't they, subconsciously relevant.. Maybe not much among architects, but to their clients perhaps. The whole point of the internet is to be able to bring up discourse even if it's a bit taboo. If you want to suppress that, I'd suggest seeing a psychiatrist.
That being said, Bjarke is too short and kind of chubby for my taste, which doesn't really match his work. Someone like HH Richardson though had an appearance which complimented his buildings.
Interesting thought, jla-x... but is that actually scale itself that's causing the banality, or is it the fact that most of those larger projects are either developer driven or institutional-driven? Both types of clients can tend toward banality, in my opinion, regardless of scale - the first because they are guessing at what they think the market wants and don't to take any risks, and the second due to the nature of large group decision-making. It seems like the more adventuresome projects tend to be typically from private owners (or small, adventuresome institutions - such as those dedicated to the arts). There are always exceptions, of course...
Let me be more clear....I LIKE THEIR WORK BUT IT IS NOT AS SPECIAL AND AVANT GARDE AS IT IS BEING PORTRAYED. They do good work, no question about that, but not avant garde or radical work. They are good, but I do not find their work to be that different from the hundreds of good competition proposals and good local architecture firms. Fame sometimes elevates ones work to a level that it does not merit. Their work does deserve some praise, but not, imo, the level of praise it gets. Just my opinion though...
If you can post an example of something that is more radical, that is as smart and stimulating as what Gang does, AND is getting built. I'll believe you.
I'll say two things about this thread, many of the comments are shit, second, she's hardly a renegade, but she's a white woman that has clearly seen her share of white privilege.
When did taking risks or being adventurous become the primary criteria for judging architecture? Is the best song judged by its novelty or by it's composition? Is the best meal judged by originality or the interplay of it's flavors? Is the best poem judged by it's originality, or by how it moves one to feel something? I love originality, but not at the expense of design, or lack there of. I won't read a manifesto if the work leaves me cold, no matter how unusual. This obsession with novelty is not entirely bad as a lot of interesting things get generated, but if your only goal is to shock or titilate rather than move or inspire, then it leaves something to be desired.
As a "consumer" of architectural images, I see the majority of Gang's work in a similar light to any of the other trendy OMA children. That is, programmatically gimmicky and formally adventurous. To be honest, her material ingenuity has never struck me as a driving force behind her practice. This is especially true with her recent work a la the high line tower that was just recently unveiled with more puffy marketing similar to the Wall Street piece.
Gang, Bjarke, etc. all seem to be interested in shape making and then shoehorning some social and environmental reasoning into it after the fact. I heard someone else recently refer to it as junk food architecture.
thayer-d you are generally all over the place with your commentary. if you want to look at architecture in a vacuum, and miss the relative cultural, social, and whatever context, then fine, but don't assume that what was good 100 years ago, would be relevant today.
i loved Sugar Hill Gang back in the day, but they'd suck ass if they tried that shit today.
Hizzey, gizzirls! Yizzall hizzave t' mizzove izzout the wizzay sizzo Izzi cizzan gizzet pizzast...
I say wizzat? Nizzo-izzo wizzay!
Yizzall bizzetter mizzove!
I say wizzat? Willze illzain't millzovin'...
Shillzu-gillzar! ....., bilzzaby!
Willze illzare plizzayin' dizzouble dizzutch!
Millze cillzan sillzome ....plilzay dilzzouble dilzutch!
Hilzzoo?
My gizzirl!
Brillzing her izzin!
Izzo kizzay!
Izzall rizzight...
Izzall rizzight! Nizzow wizzee wilzzo-izzo-zee!
Bip, bomp, bam alakazam
Brings a smile to my face like ultrbrite. Everytime!
Everything else I’m reading up here izza deuce.
b3tadine[sutures] , I'm hoping that you could let me know "the relative cultural, social, and whatever context," I'm missing becasue I'm knee deep in architecture and deal with these and more all day long. That poured in place coloured strata building mantaray posted is the dumbest and ugliest thing I've seen in a while. "Hey look, I wall papered my building with a blown up copy of a randomly tinted concrete sample", in the middle of a late victorian neighborhood". That's dealing with social issues? That's speaking to our cultural context? And talking about stuff that's 100 years old, modernism is amost that old, but it's all over these blogs, yet Sugar Hill is only 30 years old and it's still freshhh! (Que the human beat box)
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.