It is a thoroughly cynical piece of work, a building that uses a frenzy of architectural forms to endorse the idea that architecture, in the end, is mere decoration. Mayne's design appears to put innovative architecture on a literal pedestal — or a plinth, to be exact — while actually allowing it to become peripheral, noticeably separate from the heart of the museum and its galleries. — latimes.com
46 Comments
bunch a whining..
I think the design press has moved on to more important matters, like video games.
If only the punches were literal, not rhetorical...
Every time I see a new image of this building I like it more.
Granted I've not been to visit it in real life, but this article sounds, as others have said, very whiny, as if Hawthorne was spoiling for a fight and this building - complex, bold, in-your-face physical - is an easy target for that fight.
Critics are creative types, too, as writers. Some of them may think of their own oeuvre as something to be pushed or expanded over time, regardless of the review subject. I think this is why some critics seem to "go big" and bold in their coverage and opinions later in their careers (and negative is sexier than positive... it is called criticism, after all).
Anyone recognize some subtle irony in the critique that the building represents a "billboard advertisement" aesthetic of the architecture, coming from a reviewer who's home in Los Angeles is surrounded by that type of building logic?
I don't know if that makes him more qualified to author this argument, but I suppose Dallas probably shares some similar characteristics in its glitz and glamour that mirror LA's building treatments (and all that movie-set/hollywood metaphorical building interpretation).
Morphosis buildings = Thom Mayne's ego. There is a reason why they get bigger and grander every time.
Visit the building before you cast judgement, it's a wonderful place.
Good for Chris. He is putting forward some really important issues for discussion. I would like Thom to respond. I hope he does.
My question to the critic; why now?
This is one of the best critics of the state of architecture for the last 30 years which has only just gotten more shrill. It's fascinating that it many here declare it to be whining when not liking a building can never really be called whining. The preening, the thinness, the vacuous flamboyancy that passes for intellectual rigor has been exposed here. The emperor has no clothes, but no one with-in the institutionalized mind set has the courage to call these phony decorative stuctures for what they are, abstract art, not architecture. "The building's apparent radicalism is tacked on, its braggadocio paper-thin." Bravo!
Thayer, how *exactly* is this amazing building "not architecture"? Your critique of it, as with most of your critiques on this site, is what is paper thin. You sound like a scared old man.
"the vacuous flamboyancy that passes for intellectual rigor has been exposed here"
This coming from someone who can't see how whining about modernism is super-old already. Lack of rigor indeed.
Problem is whining offers either: 1.no alternative, 2. faux-old edifices for neanderthals
With cane or wooden club in hand, Thayer-D will now proceed to ramble on about the superiority his stone age beliefs.
A few of these will include how we need to be "free" like Leon, freddy, barney, and north korea, by embracing our inner cave dweller.
You're right, Donna, this is architecture. But as hard as you try to make this a personal thing with me, I was simply agreeing with the original writter and extrapolating that some of his criticisms are applicable to much of the architectural establishment's output, one that you seem to be heavily invested in. I don't think being scared is defined as taking on intellectual bullies like you, but rather than waste my time, let me quote some of the things I agree with and maybe you can focus your intellectual gravitas on the actual author.
"It is a thoroughly cynical piece of work, a building that uses a frenzy of architectural forms to endorse the idea that architecture, in the end, is mere decoration."
"The building's apparent radicalism is tacked on, its braggadocio paper-thin. Like many of Mayne's recent buildings, it is a work of architecture without the courage of its convictions — convictions that are shouted, naturally, at top volume."
"In each project he's put the architectural focus on the facade of the building and a single dramatic staircase. This skin-and-stair strategy then allows the client to make the rest of the building — every interior office or gallery — conventional at best and banal at worst."
"The decision to lift the museum up on a plinth also sets it apart from the streets immediately surrounding it while giving it a stronger presence as seen from the freeway."
"Mayne has an incentive to try out oversized architectural moves that look mannered and overdone up close, it's a kind of bullhorn urbanism. The building, marked by the civic aloofness that has become an unfortunate Mayne trademark"
"The Perot Museum suggests the kind of expedient — and, yes, cynical — exchange between architect and client that has become depressingly common over the last decade.
"Mayne and Morphosis have delivered their architecture of cartoon menace, of exaggerated and slashing forms, and they've been given an unusually prominent site to put it on display. The museum, meanwhile, has banked its edgy-looking monument by a Pritzker Prize laureate without having to commit to a truly innovative or surprising piece of architecture."
Yeah, sorry, Thayer. I feel badly about calling you an old man, and as an old woman myself I should be more cautious not to post when I'm tired and cranky. I spent a long time last night thinking about why some work is ok to "praise" as capital-A Architecture and some isn't. Obviously, the definition will always change with the circumstance.
Thanks for trying to elucidate your opinion further, and sorry I've come across as such a bully (what a fucking loaded word) to you.
As for Mayne, we've disagreed on him before. I think he's one of the most interesting architects working today, and love every building by him I've experienced. But I don't feel like thinking any more about Mayne right now, because I'm going to hear Michael Graves lecture tonight, and he's who I feel like thinking about.
No problem Donna. I am an old man by some peoples standards and I am scared by a lot of things, just not architecture. I also don't like the distinction between capital A architecture and lower case architecture. I've got nothing against this kind of neat-o architecture now and then, I just would like to maintain the intellectual space for everyone to express themselves, even though they might not be ground breaking.
There's nothing like the friction of a good argument to generate new ideas, I just think everyone should feel welcome to contribute. Too many times I've seen intelligent people passed by becasue they weren't ballsy enough to promote their ideas. One might say, tough luck, if you're not strong enough to push it out there you should shut up. I just think we're more evolved than that. I hope you enjoy the Graves lecture.
You're right, Thayer, the friction is what leads to interesting discussion/argument. And I've often not risen to the level of intelligent argument with you. Of course everyone here should feel welcome to contribute.
Of course, the snarky comment only takes 10 seconds, while the reasoned debate takes much longer, and that often comes into play as well.
This shows a disturbing trend, which is that buildings are no longer judged by their own merits. Hawthorne creates a straw man, "starchitecture" which the younger generation is rebelling against (with what exactly? social networking? 15 second gimmicks?). Like the recent debate about Brutalism, the word automatically comes with its own connotations. I don't believe in brands--only particulars--the architectural way of thinking.
Notice that if a building has a social cause--a library in a disadvantaged community--it is praised, while the art of building itself is seen somewhat as yesterdays trend. Social meaning comes into play somewhat, but how we respond to shape and form is a universal issue. The Perot Museum is isolated, but it is a museum--usually they are all oasises of some sort apart from the city. Obviously much care went into its creation. Morphosis has done much better in San Francisco and New York, but the picture above is somewhat misleading as to the real experience of the building.
indeed, architecture needs less superificial critics trying to make a buck.
Except Thayer, you are no freedom fighter.
The kind of issues you dabble in do not contribute to generating any ideas for architecture. They are useless noise, an open call to backwardness. They are not about"universal inclusion", what a cute and naïve way to see life BTW.
You criticize anything done past 1920, lumping it all into a category of "architectural establishment". All in an effort to portray your stone age parables as if it they were coming from do-gooder underdogs.
It's the conservative victimization game, and certain oppressive international groups play the same faux-old fiddle.
Since all that expose the faux-old as fraud are "bullies", Thayer-D & flintstones are not advocates of learning, They prefer to go back to a time that was worse, full of stomach parasites and no anesthesia.
Or maybe they just want to stagnate and complain like this article.
For god's sake, Profile, give it a rest. If you listen to his words, Thayer-D does not criticize everything after 1920, he just has concerns about the direction architecture has taken since it abandoned the Beaux Arts model. I think this is a valid stance to take and I don't think there is anything wrong about asking those questions and expressing a different opinion. Having those personalities add to the comments only make Archinect a more richly layered place to read about and discuss architecture.
You can't forget about the past. Those are where all the lessons are. Can't we all just get along?
I think a broader critique of how we as architects contribute to the lived experience of the built environment is valid. on that level, criticizing this building for being standalone/in a parking lot/whatever is fine. But a pre-selected bad site doesn't make a building a failure, just as an excellent, pedestrian-friendly, accessible site doesn't make an EIFS box a success.
And while I with Darkman that pinning Mayne with the starchitect label immediately puts up a wall to a nuanced reading of the building, I'm glad there are starchitects in the world. Mayne's work is brash and exciting and messy and, IMO, optimistic. I don't think I want every building to be all those things, but if we're going to get a punchy, in-your-face object I'd rather it be by Mayne than by, for example, Libeskind, or by a no-talent hack who thinks they can paste some other starchitect's language onto a box and call it quality. *That* is decoration, and it actually is paper thin - Mayne's work is not.
Mayne experiments and pushes the profession and culture forward, as did Michael Graves, by the way.
(OT: How was the Graves lecture, Donna?)
I completely agree that this building's site is what it is, so a bit unfair to criticize it on that basis. I also agree that for an "in-your-face" object building, Mayne does a great job of it. Understanding that there's a place for all sorts of approaches and typologies goes a long way to recognizing the plurality of our modern world and that arbitrary discrimination against any one style regardless of context, is as ludicrous as if done in any other art form.
Where I part company (civilly) is that culture must or should be moved forward. It's like a relationship with another person where one determines progress through tangible goalposts when the emotional reality might be completely different. I personally prefer to let future historians sort out the final significance of what we are doing (architecturally) and think that the more we focus on the here and now, the more we will accuratley reflect the spirit of the times, not the other way around where one needs to determine a zeigheist before designing with-in it.
That being said, there's no invalid approach to designing because the ultimate arbiter of a building's quality is the affection and attention it engenders once built.
Did anyone actually read Hawthorne's critique? The building's a billboard, a la Venturi, without being cheap, and adds nothing to its environment or community. Don't have to visit the building to see that his critique has some basis in reality and raises serious issues of responsibility and ethics.
Of course, the Perot Museum is architecture, bad architecture. If you are an architect and are seduced by its bravado, you haven't evolved far from 5th year studio and you have a long road ahead of you if you intend to become adept at your chosen profession.
I personally don't think Mayne's work pushes the profession forward, at least not in a good direction. It actually helps perpetuate the cultural concept that buildings have nothing significant to contribute to the built environment than being a facade or sculptural object.
There is plenty to criticize about this building. It's less like a billboard then like a closed off bunker. It's wrong to group it with gehry or even previous morphosis projects--its just not that inviting. Is that Mayne's version of modesty? But then again, I will have to trust this review since I have not been there. I do buy that it is severely lacking in windows--the cooper union breathes in and out light, while this looks completely closed off.
The other main problem I see here is that it seems lacking in tactility, humanity or the experience of human life. The smooth curving walls lack in texture and shadow. The tilting window is a meaningless visual trick. Every move is too controlled and without meaning.
"the haptic sensibility savors plasticity, materiality, tactility, and intimacy. It offers nearness and affection, rather than distance and control."
Does the cooper union play by the same over controlled rules? Yes. but I think you can get away with more if you give back a little in the form of tactility, light, color, ornament and reaching your hand out to people.
Great review by Hawthorne. Almost reminds me of the old critics like Ruskin & Sullivan who could eviscerate when warranted. It should build character. Dallas is oozing with a type of urban boosterism going on worldwide as cities try to compete globally by accumulating cultural trophy buildings and carefully engineering their brand.
Face it--this building is a dud on the whole...indeed a "bunker". I bet Shenzhen's copy will turn out better. The whole gimmick of 'making the circulation visible' is tired, and looks to be very strangely articulated. There are some nice massing sweeps and 'pinches'--worthy of the best cake decorators.
And the [AT&T] 'Arts District' gets another toy.
And saying one has no right to criticize unless one has a better option is an old trick used to repress political dissent--being recycled today in our 'expertocracy'. The right to criticize without necessarily offering a better solution is the basic foundation of democracy.
I think its a beautiful building. Urbanism in Dallas? Really? This building is a wonderful critique to that very notion.
The whole issue of the exhibits being disjointed from the building is a common one. I have worked with science exhibit designers (and as one also), and I have to admit they are one of the most regressive bunch. All they want is dumb boxes with a lot of wall space and NO windows, or skylights. Its no wonder the architecture turns up disjointed.
ouch.....
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Man-who-lost-finger-at-Perot-Museum-exhibit-plans-to-sue-190316981.html
@Alexander I wondered why that exhibit was closed so soon after the museums opening.
As for the article I agree with some points mentioned like the building giving it's back to the Arts District and park. The museum isn't really part of the Arts District and yes it's a bit of a walking distance and not as easily accessible as some of the other museums but it would have been nice to see the area acknowledged.
In terms of disconnecting the architecture from the exhibits I think Hawthorne completely missed the point. Yes they are two separate elements but I also believe it was meant to be that way. The exhibits are very interesting and the primary reason for the museum in the first place. Would it not be more of a call for attention to design a space that screams "look a me not the exhibits!!" If Thom Mayne were throwing his ego all over this project he would have done just that, but he didn't. Yes the exterior is a bit out of the box, or cube, and yes maybe he didn't acknowledge the public's accessibility by raising it on a plinth but then again there's not much to work with in the area to begin with. You have parking lots on three sides with hooters and the house of blues a block away. I believe he did an extraordinary job given the location and conditions of the site.
Having visited it a few times I can say I really enjoy it and everyone in the community has welcomed the project, architects and common-folk alike.
Alexander, you mean well but…
he just has concerns about the direction architecture has taken since it abandoned the Beaux Arts model. I think this is a valid stance to take and I don't think there is anything wrong about asking those questions and expressing a different opinion.
Every time a new star rises the cavemen raise their clubs and proclaim their doubt. We can foster neutrality to the point of boredom, or we can tell the flinstones to crack the books and go in for updates. They say the same lazy things over and over "can we slow down?" "you crazy kids, in the past things we're 'better', oh wait don't hurt me, we can all errr…..get along, until I steal you project and erect a faux-old edifice,, hehheh sucker" It is pure backwardness and completely invalid in the long run.
In the 80's, the questions raised by the faux-old spiraled to nowhere. They somewhat are, architecture's PTSD. Their thesis ultimately distracts architecture from moving on. They do need help and should be included, but such therapy could be self-conducted by going to the library, thinking, and making. Not by proclaiming the stone age as the height of human evolution.
And now for some antiques from TD,
Where I part company (civilly) is that culture must or should be moved forward (mummies and hoarding habits included!). It's like a relationship with another person where one determines progress through tangible goalposts when the emotional reality might be completely different. I personally prefer to let future historians sort out the final significance of what we are doing (architecturally) and think that the more we focus on the here and now, the more we will accuratley reflect the spirit of the times, not the other way around where one needs to determine a zeigheist before designing with-in it.
That being said, there's no invalid approach to designing because the ultimate arbiter of a building's quality is the affection and attention it engenders once built.
A real faux-old twist of words. Ladies and gentleman, that right there is why architects are not paid well and bear little impact on the built environment. When they reference pop psychology and believe there are no invalid approaches to designing because the think design can be measured to "intangible" goalposts like "human emotion", that is when architecture becomes pure bull.
Emotions to faux-old baggage expire. We surely can live on without the dinosaurs. Y'all are about evolution right?
Thank you for clearing that up.
Well opinions aside, at the end of the day it's just a building. A museum at that. If it were a ritzy condo I think I would think more negatively about it.
Your welcome citizen, hopefully inattentive visits can digest all that.
.
*you're
spell check off..
"the vacuous flamboyancy that passes for intellectual rigor has been exposed here"
Ditto. So many starchitects have to theoretically explain their parti to architects who may or may not get it. Well, maybe if they can peruse it , employing great thought, in their expensive coffee table book, the light bulb might come on. And if the archinerds (myself included) don't get it, how will the general public get it? A couple of sweeping forms and a nice choice of cladding are its merits. The general organization and that rectangle that harkens to "de-con" are not cool, though. When I first took a look at it, I sighed that, at least, it didn't look like a space station that fell into the Australian Outback. You know, the "look" that made for design magazine cover shit in the mid 1990s or so.
you don't 'get' it?
for reals?
object on a plinth is a pretty standard parti. yeah mayne's writing may be word-y but it's not that hard to 'get' the concept (even by the general public).
No Fric, or is it Frac ... it's the stupid articulation of the sculpture ... I mean building.
it's FRaC you fuck
So many starchitects have to theoretically explain their parti to architects who may or may not get it. Well, maybe if they can peruse it , employing great thought, in their expensive coffee table book, the light bulb might come on. And if the archinerds (myself included) don't get it, how will the general public get it?
No ... it's the stupid articulation of the sculpture ... I mean building.
as an archinerd you should know that 'articulation of the sculpture' is not a building's 'parti'. and you really really should be able to read mayne's project description and understand the parti. for one so observant, it should be obvious.
Parti and articulation are different things. Most people know that. Parti is the overall concept, scheme, or logo type preliminary expression of a building. Articulation is its texture and detailing. I wasn't looking for its parti. It's not evident from one view. I need the coffee table book. However, I've never bought any artist's coffee table book - not even Ansel Adams or Georgia O'Keefe, so why an start with architects? However, the articulation is palpable. It get's an "eh." The dude from the LA Times evidently didn't like it. I say we all drink up and "let's parti." We all got a rise out of that word in school the first time we heard it, especially when delivered in highbrow mode. I guess you had to have been there.
This Hawthorne dude writes beautifully. He conveys the building's unsuccessful pissy attempt to be more than it is.
Like the recent debate about Brutalism, the word automatically comes with its own connotations.
I didn't know what Brutalism was until a-school. Then, I reflected on the Brutalistic office buildings I've visited or libraries I've studied in, and they suck the soul out of you. I've often wondered if there have been psychological studies by architectural faculty members, not psychologists, which evaluate the relationship between certain proportions, building materials, and ways of detailing things ... and how a human being feels in that space. Looking back, every piece of Brutalistic architecture I've visited (including Yale SOA) borders on depressing - the proportions, the inherent color, the lack of finish, and how foreboding they are to humans and their activities. It has been noted that the movement almost harkened to tacked on testosterone. The heavy, cumbersome post-modern buildings (some Graves, some KPF) brought on the exact same emotions. They are foreboding from the outside (Humana HQ in Louisville et. al.), and don't invite one inside. About architecture in disadvantaged neighborhoods, it's a mixed bag - it's good in that it attempts to revitalize an area and it's bad in that it's an art piece meant to call attention to itself. With this, I refer to the slew of elementary schools in poorer areas of Los Angeles that had the trademark combination of ingredients - pistachio, orange, or mustard coloration, arbitrary jagged edges, chain link ingredients (and I don't mean in the perimeter fence), structural metal elements that stuck out like cowlicks, etc. Notice that these fads were NOT enduring. If I'm 9 years old, how does such a schlocky environment nurture my well-being and sense of serenity in a school setting? It wouldn't. But it would stroke the starchitect's ego for whom that small grammar school got press coverage. Which is more important? Designing for the user, naturally.
You're pontificating over Mayne's parti and articulation? LOL
Notice that these fads were NOT enduring.
Complete BS
at least, it didn't look like a space station that fell into the Australian Outback.
Be silent now simpleton, there are greater things to dedicate walls of text to.
You're pontificating over Mayne's parti and articulation? LOL
Notice that these fads were NOT enduring.
Complete BS
No. And yes. No, not pontificating over Mayne. Just don't think it's good work. Just like Moshe Safdie usually does nice work, his hotel Marina Sands in Southeast Asia looks hideous with that canoe stretched across the top of 3 buildings. Maybe another geometry would have worked better.
The elementary schools done in LA in mid 90s LA vernacular painted as if they were colors borrowed from an ice cream case look idiotic today. I am not alone in this belief.
Just because someone is a star does not make for 100% credibility. Since architecture is a lot like acting (Pritzker ~ Oscar), we all know some Hollywood stalwarts who have turned in lame performances. That's reality.
The general reader here seems to spooge a little at the mere mention of starchitects. How about candidly admitting that you like some, and not all, of their work?
These types of discussions are generally pointless and bear no fruit in the tree of progress. It is architectural pontificating.
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.