President Barack Obama is appointing a known critic of the planned Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial design to serve on the federal commission that oversees the project.
The White House announced Obama’s intent to appoint former National Endowment for the Humanities chairman Bruce Cole last month, but it drew little attention while Congress was in recess. Cole led the humanities endowment under former President George W. Bush.
— washingtonpost.com
45 Comments
"If the design is approved, “the nation will wind up with a monumental farce,” Cole wrote in The Washington Examiner in February 2012. He called the design “a cross between an amusement park and a golf course, which thumbs its nose at the neo-classical style of the great presidential monuments to Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.” In The Weekly Standard, Cole wrote that the Gehry design is “unintelligible” and “more about his ego than about Ike.” That's what the Washington Post said about Mr. Cole's opinions. But isn't that the main issue with Modernism? That at it's best it tends to be more about itself than it's built context, assuming it has one?
When done right, modernism can be breathtakingly beautiful, like Gehry's Bilbao. The Ike Memorial site unfortunatly isn't separated from the traditional city but rather embedded within. And I say traditional city becasue that's what a good pedestrian city is, as opposed to an automobile dominated city. This monument can be compared to another breathtakingly beautiful memorial nearby, the abstract Viet Nam War memorial, which again, is in a park and not surrounded on four sides by buildings. The issue isn't about the abstraction but rather the negation of the surrounding context. Shielding the surrounding buildings, no matter how ugly, with large metal screens attached to gigantic pilotis will make a mockary of both the city and the man it intends to memorialize.
Don't know if Mr. Cole will make a difference, but it would be nice to think that his appointment signals another step in the maturation of America's urban revival.
If Cole insists on something NeoClassical instead of Gehry, it won't be a step towards maturity, it will be a toddler stomping his feet about the necessity of growing up.
I'm not convinced that everything about Gehry's design is good, but many of the arguments against it are just reactionary and silly, and I do think urbanistically - for an urban monument - it deals with an odd site very well.
But the article also says the committee has several supporters on it, so let's hope they can discuss things rationally and progressively. This is not the Vietnam Memorial OR the WW2 memorial, it's a specific site and for a specific person.
responding to context doesn't only mean looking like the context.
I can applaud Cole's work at the NEH and be very much less than enthusiastic about his taste in art and even less interested in his views on urbanism.
and he thinks 9//11 was about people hating america's freedoms.
oh dear.
anyone read his book on Titian?
I might even think his opinions about art are bad for art.
I wuz watching this. art for kids, right? whats not to love. total Pavlov response. as I was dipping my quill in the inkwell, it didst occur to me in my inside quiet voice that wtf? Laminated posters? Office of Digital Humanities and we get laminated posters? Thanks, Bruce. dickwad's probably gonna take our Frank Gehry too. What's next? our guns? This guy is a total Hitler.
Don't let this happen, people.
HITLER? Good lord, what are you talking about?? :eyeroll:
I pray Cole brings some sanity to this whole discussion before they end up actually building Gehry's drive-in movie / driving range fence enclosure. Many of the reactions to the Gehry scheme HAVE been reactionary and silly, agreed - as have many of the arguments for it. But there have been many excellent arguments against it: Lack of scale, questions about long term durability and maintenance, reliance on television-like iconography instead of symbolic content. Beside, it's all kind of ....ugly, isn't it?
I'd be very pleased to see the whole thing scrapped. DC will be better for it. I agree with everything Cole wrote, quoted in Thayer-D's post above. And I agree with Thayer-D as well.
Does this mean that Barack Obama's a classicist? :) He did hire Michael Smith to redecorate the White House. No matter what you think of his politics, he has excellent taste. Or Michelle does.
the guns and hitler bit was a joke - you know, internet and all. . . I thought we were required to just add that every now and then. Aren't we?
the 9//11 bit is true. its in the interview, after he gives his nice bead on living in dc. I've just always found that 'they hate us for our freedom' line truly deserving of the :eyeroll:
and I'm seriouth about the laminated posters bit - is that really the best we can do?
Looove Michael Smith.
I think the criticism of the scale of the columns and screens is warranted. But the non-traditional ways of memorializing someone are, IMO, excellent, and the ground plane organization is also excellent for the site.
The Korean War Memorial uses photographic images screen printed or etched or something similar on a wall, combined with figurative sculptures that are slightly larger than life scale. It's weirdly other-worldly and moving and wonderful.
I just don't agree. To me, all of the digital imagery is like television, leaving no alternate ways to interpret the aesthetics. Little or no symbolic content.
And of course, I disagree with the suggestion that favoring a return to a classical design consistent with most of the other monuments, and respectful of the L'Enfant plan for DC is somehow infantile.
Here's another way to look at it. What if the Vietnam Memorial looked just like it does now, but instead had laser-etched images of Nixon, napalm strikes and VietCong prison camps superimposed over the names of the dead. Or what if the Ground Zero memorial fountains had giant tapestries surrounding them, with images of the airliner crashes, and burning towers? Would they seem as poignant and powerful? In my opinion, no. Because a symbol has a way of resonating in a deep and lasting way with people in a way that a literal image cannot. This is what Gehry doesn't understand.
Its amusing that a warmongering president who started his presidency by pretending to be a dove is building a memorial for a warmongering president who ended his with a similar pretence. Large parts of the world won't be duped by idiotic memorials if your cretinous or ignorant or nonchalant public will.
napalm strikes and prison camps?
its pictures of trees! its a thin filigree of trees floating over a series of monumental columns.
wish my tv could do that.
tammuz, what are you 16 years old?
"Because a symbol has a way of resonating in a deep and lasting way with people in a way that a literal image cannot."
Sorry, EKE, but I disagree. Especially in a world where we see images of events practically the moment they happen.
I have to agree with EKE and disagree with Donna. Having lived very close to the monumental core for many years and visited the memorials regularly I can say without hesitations the Korean War Memorial is what you get from design by committee, a completely bastardized sophomoric effort to communicate to the lowest common denominator. The same with the Roosevelt Memorial…pure pandering. The Eisenhower Memorial will only add to the crass duo.
Memorials, no matter the stylistic fashion applied to them are abstractions that need an understanding of what they are memorializing…they are not history lessons. If you come to them.expecting a history lesson you’ve lost the opportunity to be moved.
Where the Vietnam Memorial is quiet, contemplative and thought provoking in its simplicity the Koran War Memorial is overwrought with its Disnified wall looking like an advertisement for a propaganda film. If the Korean War Memorial had simply been that beautiful sculpture of those cold tired soldiers walking through that grove of trees up that hill it would have been profound, especially in the winter, it regularly brought tears to my eyes.
One must also look at the larger context of memorials on the Mall. The Washington Monument is really a monument about the forming of the Republic, the Lincoln about the preservation of the Republic, the WWII about the impact of America entering the global stage…Ike was part of that as was Roosevelt. Their memorials if to commemorate the men should be quieter than the WWII Memorial.
Above all memorials are contemplative places…not spectacles.
Donna, why does a critic of this design have to be a classicist? This is the kind of blind ideoligical thinking that has paralized our government, and it seems real architectural debate. You and I (and many others) agree that those columns are crazy, although we disagree about the screens. Not the idea or the abstraction of the screens, simply the scale and how they litterally screen the context. Both literal and abstract (and a mix) can be well done, as I've mentioned, but what's troubling about this whole debate is how any criticism is thought to be a vote for classicism, as if the two couldn't co-exist.
I think this is largly due to the unwritten rule held by many architects that classicism is obsolete, as if any kind of music, writting, or fine arts style were to be declared obsolete. Besides being totally unmodern, this thinking impovrishes the creative process while turning many parts of our city into museums from a different planet. Certainly there are rules about how best to compose and build, but to discredit a whole style, especially one that plays such a major role in Washington DC is absolutly bonkers. It's so 1930's Germany!
Boy in a Well. You may not be aware but the context is orthodox modernism of the most banal, so no, it hopefully won't mimic the context, but in traditional urbanism the public space is more important than the actual styles of the buildings forming the enclosure. That's why this design is such a disaster, it's a meglomaniacs memorial.
Betadine[sutures], unfortunately what i said is factual. Your people are generally ignorant when it comes to your country's foreign affairs and its role in dirty wars abroad. There is concrete anti-americanism abroad and with the approaching likelihood of the attack on Syria, this will escalate. Eisenhower was a warmongering president inspire of his last address prior to leaving office and so is Obama. Can we seriously talk of dedicating memorials to the people responsible for deaths whether non american or american and at the same time hold up principles of human rights? Now if you think I'm naive (ergo 16) for not towing the self absolving realpolitik line, then that's your business. For me, the american public is and was being sold lies to sustain a hawkish culture of violence and deceipt to benefit the very very few amongst you. In the long run, this is not a sustainable model for you or for your vassals. But in the meantime, erect your bloodless memorials
Which seek to sanitize a history of needless bloodletting.
Having visited he Korean War Memorial, I can't even remember the wall, but when I see it, it is off putting with those images. Honestly though, I don't think anyone remembers the wall, in fact that it does not resonate, should have told people - although much of the criticism is 20/20 hindsight - that it was superfluous, and should have been left on the cutting room floor.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/15/arts/architects-clash-over-korean-war-memorial.html
"The design by the Washington architectural firm of Cooper-Lecky, which will execute the memorial, dramatically alters the original scheme, relocating the wall, adding a comtemplative grove of trees called "the chapel," and changing a ceremonial plaza to include a large mural depicting the history of the war. The original design visualized the long column of soldiers in a semi-abstract way. In the Cooper-Lecky design, the column of soldiers is under attack and one has been wounded."
The WW II Memorial is absurd, has been widely panned, and not to mention 50 states? Really, when there were only 48?
Iwo Jima? The memorial was based on a staged photograph.
War memorials and Monuments and two different ideas. I believe it's wrong to call it the Eisenhower Memorial, it's not a memorial, it's a monument.
http://blogs.bgsu.edu/eng2070doubler/2011/04/02/monuments-vs-memorials/
"The terms “monument” and “memorial” are used interchangeably in common speech, but they actually define two very different things and should be more differentiated colloquially. People use these terms to identify statues and parks among other public sites to memorialize some event, idea, or person. To understand the true meanings of these words, analyzing the definitions must be addressed first. Merriam-Webster defines a “monument” as “a memorial stone or a building erected in remembrance of a person or event”. Meanwhile, it defines the noun “memorial” as being “something that keeps remembrance alive”."
The other joke about the Roosevelt Memorial, is where it's sited; it's siting is in the shadow of the Japanese Pagoda - a monument - with this inscription "The spirit of friendship between the United States of America manifested in the Treaty of Peace, Amity and Commerce signed at Yokohama on March 31, 1854."
I'll say this, whatever "this" is, given the fact that everyone, and their grandmother, will have input, it will almost assuredly be an unmitigated disaster. The fault lies, not with Gehry - he does what he does - it lies with the selection committee, and the advisory committee.
A camel is a horse designed by committee.
That said, I firmly disagree with the classicists above, memorials and monuments should not be viewed through colored lenses - though often are, but given distance from the events, people, and moments of THAT time, should reflect how they are seen in a culture of the now, reflect who we are as interpreters of the past, reflect the advances of society, people and culture. How can we say we've learned a damn thing, about anything, if our art, culture, history, etc, is doomed to repeat the same tropes, that we've created in the past? What, we've aspired to create the past?
I don't get it.
No tammuz, I think you're naive, because you think America is unique in this regard, and that America invented war and memorialization.
Jason, I think you're forgetting what the Mall, and Lincoln Memorial has functioned as; Spaces for civic representation, and demonstration. So the space between Washington and Lincoln, is for exactly that; Spectacle.
I wish you people would read exactly what was written. Did i say that America was unique in this way? In fact, to a large extent, Britain specifically taught America those dirty tricks of how to breakup states from within and I despise British involvement as much as I do american. The american instance however is unique in hypocritically pedalling the notions of democracy while really seeking to have other people bend over backwards for it to eensure its interests and its energy needs.
Furthermore, it is the US that is the largest hegemonic empire now and therefore fully deserving of contemporary criticism. It is unique in its contemporaneity, I hope you can understand what I mean by that because you are prone to reading something else altogether.
And to dig in another nail in the coffin, no matter how wide spread a crime is, its omnipresence does not render it into a law to abide by unless you choose it to be so. it is your complacency and acceptance of being lied to- in a purportedly democratic country- that allows crimes to be commited in your name. But maybe you're too full of sugars, carbs and hhydrogenated fats to be able to muster a self respecting opinion of your place in your country
I think that memorials are one place in the public realm where reflecting the temporal fashion of the zeitgeist (whatever that really means) should not be a high priority. I think that memorials should properly emphasize aspects of humanity that don't change, that are consistent and timeless.
Tammuz, I did read what you typed, did you?
Oh, I'm too worried about vegan or vegetarian to be consumed with hydrogenated fats, trans fats, etc.
I'm all for US isolationism, but then all of Europe would be sucking the teet of National Socialism or Stalinist Communism, and China would be Japanese controlled.
Look, all kidding aside, and you have effectively moved outside the topic, and I'm all too happy to oblige, but I'm against US hegemony, and I'm certainly going to reject the partitioning of territories/states etc, that happened over 60 years ago, between the Allies, included in that were the Soviets. I'm against what's going on with our unquestioning support of Israel, and our not seeing Palestinians issues as fundamental hunan rights issues.
So now what? How do we as a world put the genie back in the bottle? I'm reminded of the letters between Einstein and Freud, Why War, and the discussion the two of them had would seem to resonate today.
The other thing I reject is blind pacisificism, as though the world isn't a complex construct, and where the easiest thing to do is nothing at all. It deliberately avoids the potential ramifications of inaction. Again, this is nothing new either, many Americans wanted nothing to with WW II either.
"... memorials and monuments should not be viewed through colored lenses - though often are, but given distance from the events, people, and moments of THAT time, should reflect how they are seen in a culture of the now, reflect who we are as interpreters of the past, reflect the advances of society, people and culture. How can we say we've learned a damn thing, about anything, if our art, culture, history, etc, is doomed to repeat the same tropes, that we've created in the past? What, we've aspired to create the past?"
This points to one of the inherent contradiction with obsessing over what is of "OUR TIME". First, no one learns a thing without repeating the past, it's how language is learned, how recipies are cooked, and music is played. The difference always comes down to interpretation, and this is true in any style one choses to work in. It could be a slight play on an existing style or it could be such an aglomeration as to be granted a place in the Pantheon of modernist art, the Temple of Originality. Eitherway it in no way decides how succesfull the work is precived, as function cares not for provenance.
Modernists continue to live in an alternate reality where they don't acknowledge the term style when refering to work they declare of "OUR TIME". In fact that's by design, if one looks at the history of modernism where the whole notion of style was discredited, much like the dictator who prohibits the study of anything but their own propaganda. It's interesting that the post which garnered the most comments on this site lately had to do with how an architect should dress.
No you don't read, you follow your train of assumptions. For example, vegetarians may well consume hydrogenated oils whereas knowing omnivores may not.
About relevance, in fact I see my point as the first point of relevance. Why are you building this memorial? To commemorate war mongering? This is the sort of discussion that happened in Britain concerning Margaret Thatcher's funeral because there is a far healthier culture of questioning within Britain than on Planet USA.
As for preescriptions, play diplomatically and not militarily when no one is trespassing your national borders.. respect others' sovereignty. That's the minimum that can be done.
Its funny that you have changed direction of your argument in such a silly insubstantial 'I'm so confused what to do' way, asking me for prescriptions after suggesting that I'm naive. You were unable to talk to me in rerspectful manner from the get go, where you? Its always a pissing contest for you, then?
I would posit that vegetarians, and vegans, are more conscious of what is consumed, than omnivores, and I certainly don't think omnivores are more knowing.
As for the "memorial" cited in this discussion. It was commissioned during Clinton, sited during Bush and award to Gehry in the 3rd month of Obama's term, and likely will be constructed during Clinton's 2nd term.
As for Britain having a "far healthier culture of questioning within Britain than on Planet USA." This proves you're naivete. Because you - I don't know if you live in Lebanon, or not - are not privy to the machinations of the American public, and the discourse going on here, let me enlighten you; more Americans favor doing nothing, than favor doing something. There is no forgone conclusion here, Congress might well decide against action. Then Hezbollah, the minority Alawites, and the rest of the arab states can deal with Syria how they choose.
"So now what? How do we as a world put the genie back in the bottle?" <----This is a rhetorical device, not confusion, I'm suggesting that yours, and others gross oversimplification, belies the simple fact that you have no solutions. Believe me, I'd prefer to sit this one out, and I would prefer if Russia would do the same.
I think I'm being quite respectful, and your first comment, if it was a rational one, having to do with the topic, would not have elicited my retort.
When I think of repeating the past, I think of a needle stuck playing Margaritaville over and over.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein
[That could be the USof A motto.]
Again you misread and overshoot. I did not say that omnivored were more knowing by nature but that more knowing omnivores(ie. Qualified by being more knowing) will be far less likely to consume hydrogenated oils than vegetarians ( sincee thatwould includetthe leess knowing amongst the vegetarians who may well consume hydrogenated oils (given proliferation of those oils). Again, you misread and overshoot. I being specific in writing this up, pleese read it specifically. as for vegetarians, I was one for 5 years and I know what I'm talking about. The biggest problem in the western world with meat is both in the processing of meat (vegetables were also processed) and in grain feeding cattle which distorts the proportion of omega 3 to omega 6. The food industry is a farce in the, so much deliberate misinforrmation to sell you bad foods. Thou should only use olive oil, true butter, ghee, unrefined virgin coconut oil, animal fats and sesame oil...eat lots of grass fed cattle cheese aandd meat, organic chicken, fish...am diet veery low in carbs, hig in fats and a animal proteins.
Now, for the naivety part purportedly on my part. I have come across the claim that an 80 % of the american public are against waging a war against Syria and we know that the american admin is putting this as a case of controlled strikes to appear as not waging a full on war. What may not be conveyed to your public is that Syria's allies are ready to take to its full on conclusion, a regional war that may well signal an advent of a larger war. Not one single bullet or bomb from the US or else..this is the counter threat.
Now, if you recall, in my previous post I mentioned a "cretinous or ignorant or nonchalant public". You yourself say that the american public is largely against this unjustified attack and bBlatant lie. The fact that your public isn't outraged and on the streets declaiming this can only lead me to conclude that your public is described by one of those three choices. You may well be against the war but you also may be too nonchalant to make any civil moves against this. The american public is complicit, either through conscious deliberation or conscious nnonchalance.
now you call me naive and simplistic in my outlook. But in fact,it is obvious you have little knowledge of whats going on by wishing that America would step out of this. This, the so called Syrian revolution, has been engineered by the states in cohoots with Saudi Arabia (after the levantine porfolio was given to Bandar bin Sultan) who control and fund foreign and homegrown al Qaeda types in Syria. Had it not been for the explicit US green light, the poor Syrians would not be in this mess now. The US was and is similarly playing their nasty games in Egypt by aligning themselves to fhe fundamentalist Muslim brotherhood who to a large part owe their existence to successive US administrations starting with Eisenhower back in 1953. Yes, Islamic fundamentalism is to a large extent a creation of the US as an affront to their Cold War enemy back then and, now, as an affront to the resistance bloc comprised of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah backed by Russia who form an obstacle to US interests in the n the region (petrol, gas and Israel). There is a larger picture still, one that harkens back to the imperialst geopolitics of Brzezinski and his ilk that continues its work through influential think tanks, congress people, the Zionist lobby and so on. American cannot step out of this because America is the architect of this in the first place.
There is certainly a similarity to what happened back in the Nasserite era, when the extremist/fundamentalist groups were directly subcontracted by Saudi Arabia who were the agents of the US to eliminate NNasser. This was also thee case during Hafez elAssad's reign. The US is the backbone of the malignant force operating in the region now.
As for your disrespect, it is not in your wish to deport but iin suggesting that I were 16yo. Please, maintain a modicum of respect and read exactly what is written. I am not you, I may well not supply you with your own assumptions.
The resurgence if Russia and the emergence of the BRIC countries is healthy for the world at large.
Sorry, retort not deport. You can blame my tablet for the erroneously corrected errors if you were gracious enough though it seems you're not
It is also a testimony of your ignorance that you single out the alawite minority and Hezbollah. The active destructive enzyme on ground is currently the influx of extremist, Arab gulf backed specifically Sunni takfiri groups ( who have very little in common with mainstream Sunnis). Hezbollah is an endemic reaction to a long history of suffer ring at their hands of Israel who backs these very same terrorists. The alawites naturally belong to the larger levantine community. In fact, it is evidence of your ignorance that you choose to fall to the simplifications pedalled by most western media and literature. Many mainstream Sunnis and christians support Bashar alAssad against the revolt of these terrorists. The Syrian regime's army is comprised of a large number of Sunnis naturally reflecting the makeup of the country. Had this been a sectarian war, the Syrian army would have longer dissolved as it did in Lebanon during its civil war.
Thank you.
Tammuz, you're right, I'm ignorant of what is going on in the Middle East, haven't a clue. Your comments have been more than enlightening, which was my point. You have specific knowledge, and you went cheap, so I went cheap, and moreover your point was outside the the topic. Do you have a responsibility to educate us? No, you don't, but just as every American can't know everything about the specific ethnic/religious complexities in the world, doesn't mean they shouldn't ask, or be educated about their ignorance. Myself included.
I will suggest however, that just because you don't see on your news, images of Americans taking to the streets in protest, doesn't mean it isn't happening. In Minneapolis, today, there will be a protest, and on every Wednesday, since I've lived here, and before, there are peace protests on the peace bridge down the street from my house. Every single senator and representative is getting an earful from their constituents; stay out of Syria. I think the days of the 1960's, where the massive protests, and violence, where the norm are gone. Now we have this, and Manning, and Snowden.
i don't think critics of gehry's work here are *necessarily* classicists but - if you look at their records - they sure appear to be so.
eke and thayer - while you've claimed some sympathy for modern in some instances, you can't take a position in this discussion that you haven't been strong proponents for historical design models.
same with this national civic art society. i'm okay with the sharing of opinions, but it can't be claimed to be coming from a position of non-classicist bias.
my position on the gehry memorial is the same as it has been. he's been made a lightning rod in this case, completely unfairly. it may be that the selection process was flawed but gehry was selected to do what gehry does. i think architects should support an architect doing what the client wants - or at least what they *wanted* when the architect was hired...
the fact that the client changed (with the withdrawal of david eisenhower and the ascension of susan eisenhower) is NOT gehry's fault.
at this point, if i were gehry (which is crazily presumptuous, i know), i'd insist that i be fully paid and cut loose. let the new ringleaders build whatever they want, but stop dragging gehry through the mud.
i don't know if gehry's project would be good or bad. it had a chance to be something special, maybe. none of the memorials we've done *since* the wall seem very strong. i agree that the korean is a compromised mess, the wwii is schlocky, the mlk is clunky... it may be that we're in such a negotiated era that the strength of conception we see in our legacy memorials pre-1985 is no longer possible.
that sounds stunning - and frightening - quondam. probably would be pretty effective both as memorial and as war protest!
i didn't forget the statues added to the vietnam memorial. i think it's unfortunate they were felt to be necessary, but i also don't think they reduced the power of the original. it's possible that the wall is so powerful that something a little softer was needed as a sort of mitigating element.
it doesn't seem to be an abstraction/representation issue this time around, gehry having included representation as a layer over relatively mute forms. the forms, in this case, not standing for anything else or being symbolic - at least not that i've heard. since it's NOT abstract in the way that the original wall was, it sounds like primarily a modern/not modern distinction.
there's some commentary about the scale of gehry's project, but from what i can tell the scale was necessary in order to bring a disordered and unwieldy space under control, a problem that would be encountered by any architect no matter the style. i expect that a designer less skilled than gehry may not have been as ambitious, accepting the liabilities of the space as a condition. i'm not sure which would be more successful.
Bruce Cole was my professor in Art History at Indiana University. He is a brilliant scholar and a wonderful human being.
Steven, You seem to have some holes in your logic. Let me point out a few.
"i don't think critics of gehry's work here are *necessarily* classicists but - if you look at their records - they sure appear to be so." That's like saying...
I don't think you're necessarily racist, but your comments make me think you are!
"same with this national civic art society. i'm okay with the sharing of opinions, but it can't be claimed to be coming from a position of non-classicist bias."
So you're cool with hearing their opinion, as long as you can discount it becasue they have the temerity to hold an opposing view point from yours. Everyone has a "bias", so according to your Fox News like guilt by association, everyone's opinion would be suspect. Are you aware of what or how you are saying things?
"it may be that the selection process was flawed but gehry was selected to do what gehry does." so fuck the client and fuck the context and fuck everyone else, becasue you hired me to drop my shit on your property. When you're a great architect, you get a performance by the master, not necessarily a masterful performance.
"the fact that the client changed (with the withdrawal of david eisenhower and the ascension of susan eisenhower) is NOT gehry's fault." Yet the fact that people from every ideological persuasion have spoken against this design IS gehry's fault, becasue it's HIS design. Sorry, even the greats wiff a couple.
"at this point, if i were gehry (which is crazily presumptuous, i know), i'd insist that i be fully paid and cut loose. let the new ringleaders build whatever they want, but stop dragging gehry through the mud." Yeah, becasue he has nothing to do with this mess, he was just a lil'old artist trying to stay true to his integrity!.
"it may be that we're in such a negotiated era that the strength of conception we see in our legacy memorials pre-1985 is no longer possible. " Maybe it's the end of History, or the end times, or the information age, or the whatever Gehry is selling. Who knows. What I do now is that six story (+/- eight foot diameter concrete pylons in this square is overkill and dehumanizing no matter how light the metal "tapestries" are. Allthough did you know they where inspired from the Rennaissance! Not too precidenty.
"there's some commentary about the scale of gehry's project, but from what i can tell the scale was necessary in order to bring a disordered and unwieldy space under control, a problem that would be encountered by any architect no matter the style. i expect that a designer less skilled than gehry may not have been as ambitious, accepting the liabilities of the space as a condition. i'm not sure which would be more successful. "
So a rectangular space with buildings on all sides half a city block large is a disordered and unwieldy space to control? First of all, why is it a monument's function to "control" any space? And why is that a liability? I'm guessing as a confirmed non-classicist, you aren't familiar with the many possible solutions one could draw from rather than a monument better suited to the dictators Eisenhower man faught against.
"i don't know if gehry's project would be good or bad" and I truly believe that since you seem to have abdicated your own bias for your teams', but some of us are able to look beyond the politics of every design choice becasue maybe we realize it ultimatly dosen't matter. Will this be a great memorial in 100 years? I dunno, but the critics all appear to be classicists, so disregard them.
I'm happy to say explicitly that I would be very pleased to see a well conceived classical monument on this site. The language of classicism has so much potential for embedded symbolic content that its especially appropriate for memorials of this type, not to mention that in the contexts of DC and the other great monuments, it seems the natural and correct choice.
Almost more important to me though is respect for the great L'Enfant Plan for Washington. Gehry's scheme pays little mind to the plan, and actually does particular violence to it, which is probably his intention.
I completely agree with EKE. The fact that this possibility is dissmised off hand shows how impoverished so much of our architectural debate has become. Politically correct arcitecture while reflective of our tribal nature does not reflect the modern world with rules as to what is acceptable or not. Open up the market to all ideas regardless of provenance, and let the best ones succeed. Unless you want to control the outcome.
There...that's better.
The plinths look a little bald. Can we throw some garlands on them???
Doing it right
Everybody will agree
And we'll be feeling it right
Everybody fall in line
And be doing it right
Everybody will conform
When we're feeling all right
Everybody will be modern tonight
can't stop copying...HELP!!!
You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have
striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The
hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.
In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on
other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war
machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of
Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well
equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely.
But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of
1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats,
in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their
strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home
Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions
of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men.
The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to
Victory!
I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in
battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!
Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great
and noble undertaking.
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.