The American Institute of Architects (AIA) today issued the following statement in opposition to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Completion Act, introduced Wednesday by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah). Among other things, the legislation would mandate an alternative to architect Frank Gehry's design for the Eisenhower Memorial and would eliminate further federal funding for the project. — aia.org
16 Comments
This project seems to be revealing some interesting but unsurprising correlations between political ideology and aesthetics/architectural ideas.
If it was a monument for the Lds church he would back it. He is such a douche
i agree with davvid and shimmy:
only douches hate modern architecture
This was the AIA's original statement for Rep. Rob I hear.
It's not about hating modern architecture, it's about hating 80 foot tall concrete pylons holding a metal screen that covers the archtiectural framework for this public space.
The AIA says "It is nothing more than an effort to intimidate the innovative thinking for which our profession is recognized at home and around the globe". People don't think about our profession as innovators, they think of them as purveyors of schlock, modernist schlock that the public has disliked ever since the first manifestos where written to explain why we should like it. Some of it is infact great, but for everyday buildings most of it fails to inspire anyone with a beating heart. There's a reason Psychology Today did an article about modernism http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/design-and-the-mind/201002/unhappy-hipsters-does-modern-architecture-make-us-gloomy.
Maybe 1% of people cared about the i-phones innovation, the rest of the population was interested in how this new phone was going to make their lives more efficient, and maybe make them look cool. duches!
Well said, Thayer-D.
And remember to spell it as "douche", which comes from the French word for "shower", which strangely evolved into American english to mean a special kind of self-cleansing and later as a personal insult.
It's okay to design in the Modern style for your clients and even employ it your own home, which I do where appropriate, but it's also healthy to understand why the majority of people don't relate to it and not to call them dumb for feeling that way. Somehow, many of us go to school, obtain a kind 'secret' knowledge on the wonders of the Modern movement, then graduate to accuse everyone else as clueless reactionaries. I appreciate your link to that phsychology today article.
By the way, Gehry's scheme for the Eisenhower memorial is atrocious. Considering the high overall quality of his output, I think he's better off not to have this project built since I bet it would drag his reputation down over time. He apparently collaborated with Robert Wilson, a stage designer famous for staging Philip Glass' "Einstein on the Beach". I remember when he came to our school once and he was an absolute wacko, even if there were glimmers of genious at times.
Isn't it strange how some people treat architects as though they are an isolated group looking in on society from the outside. Its as if we imagine that Frank Gehry and the network of clients, collaborators and employees are not actually experiencing the results of their effort as any critical thinking human being would. Furthermore, we actually trust our own far-removed observations based on a few online images and a few select quotations more than we trust a highly accomplished Architect and his company who are actually giving the work their full attention.
I also find it extremely hard to ignore that the opposition is almost entirely coming from conservative corners of academia and politics.
Indeed the dinosaurs have awoken in the wrong century
It's not about hating modern architecture, it's about hating 80 foot tall concrete pylons holding a metal screen that covers the archtiectural framework for this public space.
The AIA says "It is nothing more than an effort to intimidate the innovative thinking for which our profession is recognized at home and around the globe". People don't think about our profession as innovators, they think of them as purveyors of schlock, modernist schlock that the public has disliked ever since the first manifestos where written to explain why we should like it.
Your point is invalid and contradicting. So it is not about hating modern architecture, yet your faux-old parable has assumed that the public "dislikes" architects because they purvey modernist schlock.
People don't think of architects as innovators because there are too many stuffy old farts busy copying thigns from bygone.
Some of it is infact great, but for everyday buildings most of it fails to inspire anyone with a beating heart. There's a reason Psychology Today did an article about modernism http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/design-and-the-mind/201002/unhappy-hipsters-does-modern-architecture-make-us-gloomy.
That article is pop psychology from a generic designer who utilizes the same forms (with dashes of color to bring "joy") she is commenting on. Also DWELL is not an architecture magazine, it's interior design for yuppies. The whole discussion is superficial.
Maybe 1% of people cared about the i-phones innovation, the rest of the population was interested in how this new phone was going to make their lives more efficient, and maybe make them look cool. duches! The machine wins regardless, The success of those technologies is not attributed to theological circumstances.
--------------------------------
It's okay to design in the Modern style for your clients and even employ it your own home, which I do where appropriate, but it's also healthy to understand why the majority of people don't relate to it and not to call them dumb for feeling that way..
For the 1 billionth time, Modernism is super-old already, we have moved on. it's time to stop complaining about it.
faux-old whiners would like a neoclassical monstrosity put in place of Ghery's proposal.
It's not gonna happen, and it would be a shame if any architect is retarded enough to think this is a good thing.
Profile,
Your arguments don't convince since they don't directly address the points made by Thayer-D and mysef. He and I both think that the design stinks, both from a formal and stylistic point of view. The proportions of the pylons appears to overwhelm the scale of the surrounding buildings. The metal screens are gargantuan in size. I don't recall another memorial bringing that much attention to itself in this kind of urban context. Maybe it isn't wise to judge the design based on few shots of the physical model, but since this model is a primary means of communicating Gehry's design intent, it has failed to make the his design compelling.
Considering that Gehry's past body of work screams "innovation", I'm kind of a suprised to this scheme looks so unoriginal. Giant columns supporting a long billboard? Where have I seen this before--wasn't it on the side of the highway during my morning commute--or even at the train stop? Judging by who he collaborated with, this memorial seems nothing more than a giant stage set, which gives it an inherent superficial quality unbecoming for a building of this type.
The notion that people might have a psychological aversion to modernism might be 'pop' psychology and thus worthy of disregard by you, but it doesn't change the fact that most people seem to opt for a look and style in their dwelling that is decidedly not modern or contemporary? I don't believe it's because they lack choices but rather than modern spaces don't quite sit well with them especially when it comes to feeling at home. If modern design has been around for about 90 years, how come it's still so niche to the point that Dwell is the only mainstream magazine that promotes it? It surely doesn't seem to me that most people have moved on as you suggest. Why are they still stuck in the past? Is it because they are dumb, or is there a deeper explanation that you and like-minded colleagues will quickly shrug off anyway? Why are we such unsuccessful advocates for modern design?
Modernism is old, to be sure, both as as style and as way of thinking. Much of what I see published in architecture journals today are hardly all that progressive compared to what was being produced for the first time in the 1920s. Sure, there is a larger variety of materials available, better performing, but compositionally hardly all that much better than Mies' Barcelona pavilion. The parametric stuff is a bit more interesting, but it isn't obvious yet how it measurably enhances the lives its occupants any better than a traditional building with the same program could.
And lastly, I see you employ the common strawman argument that if one doesn't approve the work of an avant-garde master, one must want to revive historicism. The Post-Modern moment came and went over 30 years ago, and we are long past the point of considering a literal revival of neoclassicism as a serious architectural proposal for a memorial in this day and age. But do you really think Gehry's proposal is decent enough? Why? Do you think the philistine public will ever come around to it? I'm scratching my head on those questions.
Oh It's not a straw-man, it's real bro. There is too much conservative smugness coming from proposed alternatives and the peanut gallery determined to impose their caveman ideology on this project. Ghery wins over them any day. They even got around to using a computer to post their yaba-daba-doo's on the internets.
I don't believe it's because they lack choices but rather than modern spaces don't quite sit well with them especially when it comes to feeling at home. If modern design has been around for about 90 years, how come it's still so niche to the point that Dwell is the only mainstream magazine that promotes it?
Not true, modernism has already been digested by society, plenty of magazines showcase modern design the likes of DWELL. Yuppies are not a niche demographic, don't ignore them.
Why are they still stuck in the past? Is it because they are dumb, or is there a deeper explanation that you and like-minded colleagues will quickly shrug off anyway?
They just haven't met the right architect to lead them into tomorrow.
Modernism is old, to be sure, both as as style and as way of thinking. Much of what I see published in architecture journals today are hardly all that progressive compared to what was being produced for the first time in the 1920s...
The parametric stuff is a bit more interesting, but it isn't obvious yet how it measurably enhances the lives its occupants any better than a traditional building with the same program could.
You don't see it because you are too busy complaining about modernism and romanticizing the past. Stay away from pop psychology.
"Not true, modernism has already been digested by society"
"For the 1 billionth time, Modernism is super-old already, we have moved on."
...which one is it? Society has already 'digested' modernism, yet 'we' have moved on? Or maybe it's becasue...
"People don't know what they want."
"They just haven't met the right architect to lead them into tomorrow."
...so people don't know what they want even though they've digested modernism, yet aren't allowed to complain about modernism, even though they are still looking for the next savior to lead them into tomorrow. Can I recommend romanticizing the future?
from a nyt article re; the current status of fight against Gehry's design,
“What then are the universal requirements of a monument?” Mr. Shubow asked at the hearing. “Monuments are civic art that cause us to solemnly reflect on who we are and what we value. They are heroic-sized, timeless and possess grandeur. They present an ideal we aspire to rather than warts-and-all reality
Justin Shubow, is the president and chairman of the National Civic Art Society. Personally the above quote sort of says it all, plus re: heroic-sized, i would argue Gehry's design is in fact heroic-sized..
OMG thayer,
"Not true, modernism has already been digested by society"
"For the 1 billionth time, Modernism is super-old already, we have moved on."
...which one is it? Society has already 'digested' modernism, yet 'we' have moved on? Or maybe it's becasue...
"People don't know what they want."
"They just haven't met the right architect to lead them into tomorrow."
..so people don't know what they want even though they've digested modernism,
Precisely, all of the above.
yet aren't allowed to complain about modernism,
"People" do whatever. Faux-old theologians are not allowed to complain because they then go on to impose their conservative, faux-oldie ways. Whining about modernism, in the long run at least is like crying over spilled dinosaur blood, yaba-daba-doo.
even though they are still looking for the next savior to lead them into tomorrow.
No, just an architect, preferably one that doesn't deceive them into thinking it's still1850
Can I recommend romanticizing the future?
Cavemen are unable to make predictions due to lack of adequate tools, among other things, blame it on the admiration of cave-painting bro.
"Not true, (super old) modernism has already been digested by society, but we have moved on already!!!" Too much information...
There is nothing complicated about such a premise, cave-dweller.
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.