, former president of Boston University and author of Architecture of the Absurd: How "Genius" Disfigured a Practical Art, thinks “starchitects” lean towards form and away from function. Listen to Brian Lehrer's discussion with Silber @ wnyc.org | previously | related | discuss
This gentleman's comments border with reactionary.
Though it is perfectly reasonable to complain about leaks in a building meant to shelter, many of the world's most beautyful monuments would not be around if egocentric architects had not been given a chance to squander resources and patience.
comment posted by lorenzo @ wnyc.org
10 Comments
Interesting conversation, although not exactly groundbreaking. I would argue that there is no such thing as a neutral or purely functional form as Mr.Silber is implicitly implying. Regardless of its intentions, any built form or space will always trigger some kind of emotional/intelligent response by people. "Starchitects" are masters at manipulating this reponse - and often take on projects where form serves a function beyond "function". Did Daniel Libeskind think about profitability of the Freedom Tower? Should that be the primary function?
Funny..."The Big U" (not a good book though a first novel) by Neal Stephenson includes a fictional University president named Severus Krupps loosely based on the character of John Silber. The architecture of the dorm building in the Big U is the centerpiece of the American Megaversity. It was so 'functional' it had to be blown up in the end. It almost seems perfectly ironic that John Silber goes on to write a book championing the functional architecture in real life.
is this officially the end of architecture?
Wow, that is funny Mirin.
I wouldn't want to read this book, but maybe some of you have; Does he go into explicitly what he means by "function" and "form"? Would "inspiring students" and "creating a landmark" be considered function? Or is he talking about a nicely air-conditioned room in the summer without leaking roofs?
Anyone else tired of the whole "Form vs. Function" thing considering how that underplays the complexities and variety of roles of architects?
The hypocrisy of Silber seems astounding. On one hand he claims an allegiance to pure functionality in building and on another slights the former World Trade Center as being two 'big blocks' which he finds ugly.
He also helps any critics when he claims that in the 50s he never thought architecture would be impractical and that he turned out to be wrong. How does he expect to have any credibility when he has already been so wrong before!
Mr Silber arguments are weak, and I suspect many unsubstantiated. I get the impression he simply does not like architects, of which his father was one. Perhaps an honest look at that relationship will shed some light on his difficulty with architects.
I disagree. I believe his comments are sound. He may be a bit crass, but he makes a very simplistic and basic point: that egotistical architects who do not have their clients best wishes at highest priorities will produce buildings that do not function as they were intended to by the client.
archi#, where and how is he being hypocritical? It was a caller that stated that the WTC towers were admirable. Silbert stated that they were ugly and that the engineering was flawed, which they were. listen closer next time. and if you said a decade ago that "theres no way someone could be so stupid as to not build stronger levees in N. Orleans.." and the flood occured, how are you discredited? How could the understatement of someone else's stupidity result in a discredit to you? and no - thats not a rhetorical question.
and how does one "suspect" something to be "unsubstantiated"? thats like saying "i think i know"...either you do or you dont - if you suspect its unsubstantiated, then prove it, because from what I know about silbert, he has a shitload of experience and exposure to architecture. probably more than that of even architects themselves. and an impression that he does not like architects because his father is an architect? and that an "honest look at that relationship" will show us this?
what a stretch.
come on - lets try to go about this on a more intelligent basis - not a paternal grievance thats based on an "impression" from an architectural discussion.
so loren - you mean to tell me that every egocentric architect with an imagination that begets him/her should be allowed to create whatever they want? and these should just be accepted by the public so that we could have iconic and historic buildings/monuments?
i believe we have a social responsibility that involves promoting the creation of monuments. however, that same social responsibility involves critique and even terminating some of these intended monuments that are not heeding the clients or the public's needs.
I question everything and everyone, and when someone makes broad statements which really cannot be substantiated one way or the other, I immediately question the motives.
For instance Mr Sibler begins by talking about architecture as sculpture, attempting to paint a picture to bolster his argument, that some architects design buildings simply as sculpture with no consideration as to the buldings functional (intended) purpose. Unless he can come up with proof of these client architect meetings, I will consider that unsubstantiated, and quite absurd.
He references Frank Gerhrys new IAC building in New York, stating that he likes the building for various reasons, one of which is it's horizontal floors. Now, I could be wrong, but I don't know of any Gehry building that doesn't have horizontal floors, with the exception of ramps. He also states that the reason the building looks the way it does is because Mr. Dillers' pulling in the reins on Gehrys formal gymnastics. Now I don't know if Mr Silber spoke with Mr Diller, or Mr Gehry about this, and frankly it's not my responsibility to find out. However I do consider it Mr Silbers (if he's going to use it to bolster his argument)responsibility to state wheather or not he did. He did not, leaving me with no other option but to question this statement. He also references Wrights disagreement with his contractor/engineer at Falling Water, claiming Wrights defiance on structural issues to be "sheer arrogance" when perhaps it was just sheer ignorance. We all know of Wrights legendary ego, and he's probably right but can this be substantiated?
Perhaps the references to his father was a bit of a stretch, but no more I think than some of Mr Silbers arguments. Anyway, I was just throwing that out there... hey you never know.
philarch mentioned that sometimes "form serves a function beyond "function""; furthermore, sometimes architects are hired for their egocentric forms serving a marketing/iconic function...it makes money...
also, in re. to formxfunction and broad statements, can't we all agree that good architecture is not about form or function, but both...at the same time, with the same importance...
What gets me the most is how this guys starts off the interview (we can forget any discussion of form, meaning, etc. as this, I dare say, goes too far in this instance) by qualifying himself as someone who knows basically everything about architecture because he has supervised constructions, read specs as an infant, and helped pick out contractors (pick the low number!?), etc. Before you guys write in about how naive the guy is in his thinking (architects have no power to push form on someone, first of all) could we all please agree that what is even more tiresome is consistently hearing how everyone in the whole wide world always wanted to be an architect or may even be an architect, in affect, already?! The fact that architects are not roof contractors is another point entirely.
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.