How can we let geriatrics design the future? There is a creeping conservatism in old age, Rogers and Piano’s Pompidou was genuinely revolutionary, but that was in 1977, ever since then they've been riffing off the same ideas, with decreasing vitality...They are past retirement age and yet they march on, pulling out the same ideas over and over again, while the planet fawns obsequiously at their feet. — Vice
As part of Vice Future Week, Eddie Blake pens a critique of the current geriatric state of architecture. He believes that we must move beyond the tired designs of the past and embrace a new emerging architecture. The future of architecture is more co-operative, varied, often temporary and emphasizes "the evolution of a building, rather than how it looks as a finished piece".
H/T sevensixfive
15 Comments
The King is dead. Long live the King. Sort of.. Does the author need new heroes to preach? I like the idea of criticizing old bottlenecks but don't quite get the declaration of new Gods. Maybe I misunderstood it all. Did I? These days people cover both ends.
ugggh...
i just got eddie blake rolled.
i thought there was a chance of a possibility of maybe just the slimmest bit of content in that link
but, alas...
..nice gehry pic though..
FAT Pomo 2.0 is the future ?
I agree with some of the ideas in this article, for example the shift from emphasizing a famous single name to a firm name that suggests collaboration. This is a welcome shift, in my mind.
But...FAT? Are they doing any work that wasn't first proposed in the 1970s, just with more irony this time around?
And what about all the work being done by amazing young architects that is too small-scale for people outside the profession or without personal contact with the project to even know about? The author seems to have a shallow recognition of what constitutes 'architecture" - local projects, work by people like SHoP and KTA and Williams Tsien and WHy seem to be off his radar.
"There is a creeping conservatism in old age, Rogers and Piano’s Pompidou was genuinely revolutionary, but that was in 1977, ever since then they've been riffing off the same ideas, with decreasing vitality"
What the author failed to mention in his article was that when the winners for the Pompidou competition were announced in 1971, Piano was 34 and Rogers was 38. That is a pretty amazing accomplishment for an architect in their 30s, especially for that time. If anything I feel it has become easier for young architects today to receive big/bigger commissions as opposed to 30-40 years ago. In the past 10-15 years technology and the Internet has offered the field of Architecture abundant opportunities, resources and accessibility to young architects. In the 70s and 80s there was no Archinect, Bustler, Death By Arch, Architizer, Europaconcorsi, etc.. that listed hundreds of competitions/jobs/collaborations to participate in. There was no Arch League YAP PS1 competition to kickstart your office. There wasn't even a "Kickstarter" to con your friends and family to fund your latest and greatest architectural idea.
I believe what is amazing about the discipline of Architecture is that it is not ageist. Whether you are in your 20s or in your 100s, you have the potential of having your design being physically built. We have seen this not only from Niemeyer, Piano and Rogers but also from Maya Lin, Bjarke Ingels, NArchitects and most recently Michael Arad. Arad likely won the most significant american memorial competition of the 21st century, and he accomplished this in his early 30's. (Side note, he had no major team or corporate office helping him when he submitted his winning proposal, though eventually he had to team up with Handel Arch. to secure it) That is what is incredible about architecture. Be rigorous, be tenacious. This doesn't come with age, it comes with will and drive, and that's ageless.
"There are [sic] a limited number of buildings to build, and so the stranglehold that septuagenarians and octogenarians have on design means that no-one under 30 gets to build a building... How can we let geriatrics design the future?"
It's hard to take seriously someone who doesn't seem to know much about architectural practice, or architectural journalism, or even the basics of urban development. (Or is it just that the hyperbolic broadbrush is just much easier, if so very lazy?)
Has he not even glanced at the reams of press given to the young whippersnappers in our trade journals? Younger architects and firms are regularly slobbered over, and (as Ovalle points out) they have far more opportunities to build than ever before.
So, yes, a few of the old guys still have the gall to work, win commissions, and get big projects built. But as a proportion of all new development, this is a tiny fraction. (He might favor of some kind of Logan's Run-type device that will send old architects to their doom at a certain age.)
Time to find another straw man to set ablaze. Maybe something on all those cute-kitten websites?
"Or is it just that the hyperbolic broadbrush is just much easier, if so very lazy?"
Of course!!! This is the standard rhetorical device used by the up and coming archtiectural hustler. Don't forget the side dish of irony, without which none of this would be even remotely palatable. Now let's assume this premis isn't completely foolish as citizen deftly lay's bare. This is the modernist fetishizing the new over the old except the young are now eating their own, like Robespierre's own downfall. Let's look at the music analogy that the writter assumes makes his point, that the old are holding back the new (by extension the better).
"Some people seemed surprised when Bowie produced a top ten hit at the age of 66, but no one bats an eyelid at the 75-year-old Renzo Piano penning the Shard. Oscar Niemeyer, who died last year, was still churning out drawings at the age of 104. Can you imagine if Cliff Richard, Acker Bill and The Osmonds dominated the whole of this week’s top ten?"
This analogy assumes that there's any equivalence with how we experience a piece of pop music with how we experience a new building. We don't have to buy the music and if we do, we don't have to play it, and if we do, we are usually listening to it in isolation. Now imagine being able to say that about a three-dimensional building. It's ludicrous.
When it comes to how music is created and how it might reflect our various eclectic tastes, there are many paralells, but in how it's experienced, one is a private act, while the other is a public act, one that hopefully will last longer than the expiration date of pcosseced food, if a sense of place still means anything.
As one who's been derided as faux-old more times that I can remember, it's rich to see that same accusation being turned on the very architects who (partially) rose on the back of similar accusations. I'm glad to see a recognition that we all age and that has nothing to do with the quality of our thought. The assets of youth like speed and nimblness, are balanced by the assets of age like forsight and wisdom. That's why better technology doesn't equate to better architecture, becasue architecture begins in ones mind, not in the tools through which one will execute it. Also, the idea that new technology is by extension better, while true in many cases is far from a truism unless one's fooled by the marketers who's only ambition is to move more product through the consumerist pipe line.
Yes, new technologies do not make good architecture but may help. The basis for a design of quality is the creativity and hard work.
Designers experience and continuous efforts enables them to bring new ideas.
Unfortunately what I have noticed it is a furious mimicking or copying tendency among many young and even some older stars bold designers.
Please do not evoke geriatric problems; experience is coming with years of practice…
Please study, consult on internet, read design revues, papers and books to inform you for not to re-invent what has already been done. If I may advice you, please don’t copy, avoid plagiarism and follow your own ideas.
I aspire to creativity and hard work, but they don't nesessarily quarantee design quality. I would also recommend to avoid copying, yet is it copying if a problem's solution bears resemblance to previous solutions to similar problems? This is where too many architects get hung up imo. After all, the purpose of study is to fill your mind with possible solutions that might be transmuted into another solution. At what point is it fully original is a matter for academics. What makes it a good solution is how well it addresses the problem at hand, regardless of provenance. The cult of originality stiffles real creativity becasue we all learn from observation. The quality of a design is based on how well used and loved a building is, not how different it is from what's preceeded it.
“What makes it a good solution is how well it addresses the problem at hand, regardless of provenance… The quality of a design is based on how well used and loved a building is, not how different it is from what's preceeded it.”
I entirely adhere to this point and like the theme of “Je t’aime, moi non plus” taken by Serge Gainsbourg from a Chopin’s prelude is beautiful, however the fact that for example Zaha Hadid’s Galaxy Soho has to many similitude’s with earlier competition proposal by MVRDV for Korean competition and it is not so nice:
http://www.bustler.net/index.php/article/mvrdv_wins_gwanggyo_city_centre_competition_in_south_korea/
The legion of faux-old cavemen stifle creativity and progress with faux-old formalism and worshiping of grandfatherly "rules" in the "basics of design".
The quality of design is based on how well new ideas ground themselves into the future and how well they represent and challenge the present.
Yes, most of this article is comical tap-dancing. Have a giggle then forget about it.
"The quality of design is based on how well new ideas ground themselves into the future and how well they represent and challenge the present."
Ahh, the old Zeitgeist chestnut. Hegel couldn't have said it better.
:)
it's like the iPhone you spend all day tapping on
"The quality of design is based on how well new ideas ground themselves into the future and how well they represent and challenge the present."
architecture needs to be more like that -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive
why is it ever time i read a Thayer-D comment all i can think of is Zyklon-B, or some kind of drug made to put me to sleep. zzzzzz.......zz.zz.zzz...
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.