His work is badly constructed, ravey-balls hair metal, a C.C. DeVille guitar solo that cannot—will not—end until the billionaire clients who keep paying for this shit can be stopped. — gizmodo.com
I guess this is what you get when you put a decent writer in charge of driving traffic.
CPM = 1 / Journalism = 0
80 Comments
You're supposed to be getting non-designers to appreciate work like this, since it's so hard to do by looking at it. They need to be intellectually convinced
Intellectually convinced that the leaky, difficult to maintain and functionally deficient building they overpaid for is a work of art?
Buildings are designed for non-designers, and non-designers are quite often far more astute about the function and performance of buildings because they are the ones dealing with them. Funny how architects lose sight of that. Most wash their hands, take some photos and try to get published before it all falls into ruin.
Well intentioned, thoughtful critics don't have to defend their lack of built work (their care speaks for itself), but bullshit ones do.
It's a lot tougher to be a critic when you have a real body of work behind you. Sort of like the Nuremberg trials, be careful not to accuse someone of doing the same thing you did.
Geoff, have you read; Commodification And Spectacle in Architecture: A Harvard Design Magazine Reader, specifically Thomas Frank's essay, "Rocking For The Clampdown"? Pretty cutting essay.
Miles, that was my point. Intellectually convinced is a quote from another charlatan, Rem Koolhaas when asked about beauty. I saw an interview of Gehry where he spoke of how he came upon his whole fish schtick... Apparently he was up in arms about some of his friends going for the postmodernism that was ascendant at the time. So per his talmudic training, he looked at a fish and asked..."why not?" Now that's the stuff of genius.
Thayer, if you could look past your distaste for a second, you'd see that he was actually making a pretty funny joke about historicism in that story.
"fish schtick" LOL.
My understanding of Gehry is that he really considers himself an artist foremost, not an architect foremost. His work should be viewed with that bias in mind. I imagine that most of the so-called starchitects consider themselves architects first and foremost. To me this is a distinction that matters.
I don't care how Gehry views himself. If he is designing buildings, they damn well better perform. If they don't he has no business doing it and can't be considered aynthing but a bad architect.
Darkman's Lester Bangs quote summed it up perffectly.
My dear wife (whos not an architect, mind you) worked in Downtown LA for 4 years. In her words the "Walt Disney Concert Hall put a smile on her face every time she passed it in the morning, and after a hard day at work". I have not heard her say this about any building.
Are these buildings actually underperforming and structurally troubled or are all of these assumptions based on the building's aesthetic? The only building of Gehry's that I've heard having structural issues was MIT's Stata Center. We are not talking about Calatrava here.
gehry's clients have a certain amount of leeway in deciding for themselves how to manage their priorities. people hire gehry. those people likely know there is a reasonable possibility he might go over budget, or the building might leak, or it might look like a box on the inside, or any of the other concerns voiced here. gehry and his clients share similar priorities; essentially that they are looking for art first and architecture second.
if a gehry building performs bad, sure you could say that the gehry building performs bad. that doesn't necessarily make him a bad architect, it just makes him an architect that has a different set of priorities, and that different set of priorities is apparently why people hire him.
Last thing I'll say is that if someone tried to tear down Bilbao or LA Concert Hall I bet that would be protested?
Gehry is the next endangered building type of the future!
"sure you could say that the gehry building performs bad. that doesn't necessarily make him a bad architect, it just makes him an architect that has a different set of priorities..."
I didn't realize all you had to do was personalize your priorities...what a deal!
so should I be all academic and respond to all the different ways in which I thought that was terrible criticism or should I be all internetty and just say that that was really the most disappointing bit of drivel ive come across in the last decade? it really was a disappointing piece of shit, but hey, the author responded to peoples' comments! so cool!
I suppose whats interesting about the whole debacle for me is 1: wondering what my reaction might have been if I didn't like gehry and 2: looking at this episode as a moment of anti-object architectural criticism, which has had a flowering in recent years. As to the first point, im kinda indifferent to gehry, but you really have to recognize him as a California artist or you have no way to engage him. as to pt 2, seeing bldg.blog as a more subtle advocate of an architecture which is disinterested in architecture as an object has potential and recasts the whole endeavor of the blog, which is pretty interesting, but not interesting enough to make this bit of pseudojournalism worth anyone's time. it was a really disappointing bit of writing. but hey! if that's where whats his name wants to go, so be it. im done paying him any mind. he'll find plenty of fans in the land of Thayer-d, where the dictionary is king and no one remembers bataille's dictionary.
honestly, how do any of you get past the first paragraph of this shit? if its someone's job to call out gehry, its the job for the rest of us to call out Geoff. seriously, guy, what a shitty piece of drivel. be who you need to be, but fuck, that shit is stupid.
Comeone, boy in a well, you should be "all academic", that's what you excell in, that and frat boy sneering. This is a "debacle"? Don't you think that's a little dramatic from someone who says they're "indiferent to gehry? Maybe he's he the Brutus to your Caesar. He even covers his bases by saying it was "a deliberately absurd 20-minute rant written by a blogger on Gizmodo" Not exactly profiles in courage, but at least he tried to have it both ways.
"looking at this episode as a moment of anti-object architectural criticism, which has had a flowering in recent years."
Ever wonder if that anti-object architectural criticism has anything to do with how object buildings tend to destroy the urban fabric? This isn't an episode.
"but you really have to recognize him as a California artist or you have no way to engage him." Whatever you say kemosabe. You say, we follow...
" he'll find plenty of fans in the land of Thayer-d, where the dictionary is king and no one remembers bataille's dictionary." Yeah, that danmed dictionary, from which we all agree on the basic means of communication. I hate not being able to hide behind my "academic" shield! With absolutely no hint of irony what so ever. Amazing!
a last thought before passing out: it easy not to like gehry. shit looks like a fish!! etc. What year was his show at the Guggenheim? 2001? I remember walking down the ramp, looking at the models and drawings and having no choice but to recognize the architectural intelligence of the work, of the plans and sections, and the models. decades worth of work. if someone cant recognize the quality of that work, while disagreeing with it in some fashion, intelligibly stated, then they are bereft as a critic and not worth the paper they aren't printed on.
sorry, jeff. we all have too much shit to wade through on the information super trashway. You've really added to the wrong side of the pile. But at least we know where you stand! That's worth something.
FG's work is mainstream in a way. Its complexity is obvious enough for the everyday person to appreciate. It takes a certain level of knowledge and exposure to appreciate a less in your face work.
The Disney concert hall is also very well designed for sound. It has amazing sound quality. I would say much of FG's late work is a bit thoughtless, but he certainly has some winners in there. Overall, is the world better with or without? Its clear to me that its better and richer with FG whether the buildings leak or not. This is not something that we can say for the majority of the crap that litters the built world. While I dislike much of his work from a standpoint of preference, I completely appreciate its importance as a piece of architectural history.
Hi Thayer!
How are you?
You must have some shit set to ping you for replies and what not, etc. etc.
You're hard to respond to because you don't really make any sense and your arguments are strung together like Halloween decorations. Forgive me, im slow and I think writing is hard and worth the time when worthwhile. But I find it not to be worthwhile to respond to you most of the time. Most of your writing is vapid rhetoric, which is funny since you claim not to know the difference between "baggage" and definitions. you use it so well ....
I think Geoff's piece is a debacle and im indifferent to gehry. Can you put those pieces together in your brain? give it a go. Why should I care about the time it took someone to write and publish something? and I don't know anything about fratboys . . . .
Lets do talk about the urban fabric, but I think your missing my point about recent turns in architectural criticism. My point isn't about how, say, Bilbao ruined Spain. My point is about how sites like bldgblog are advocating for a type of architecture that is indifferent to a building as an object. Your inflection is elsewhere entirely.
kemosabe or not, gehry is the product of a specific artistic environment, specifically a California environment. if that doesn't mean anything to you, just say so. some of us recognize his "rules be damned" attitude as a product of a specific place, which it is, like it or not, recognizable. enjoy your position as an outsider, because your either see it or you don't. don't follow me, do your own fucking homework. you can start with the ferus gallery.
we can define words or recognize how we use them. its two different things. its semiotics 101. I know you didn't have that class, (its pretty clear), because you don't in fact recognize the basic means of communication that you utilize.Do you know what bataille's dictionary refers to? Lets talk when you've caught up on the last thirty or forty or fifty years worth of theory.
I look forward to working with you, but I have no positive hopes for it. I don't have the time.
best,
biw
sorry, but the article is not a criticism. to criticize, there must be some thoughtful analysis rather than statements of dislike and bias (whether for or against).
also i find the criticism that an architect is de facto a bad architect due to building construction defects (as has been suggested here by some) a one dimentional and stingy one and is evidence of an unbalanced evaluation.
as for banal interiors, we have seen some very nice spatial (rather than cosmetic) work from gehry on the inside when it was so desired. again, case-by-case. it might be due to the budget, client demands...and so on. gehry is certainly no zumthor (and thank goodness for that, i think zumothor's architecture is equivalent to a narcissistic obsessive-compulsive dictator)
gehry has contributed a lot to architectural design and practice. i think the article is, with due respect to its author, rather trivial and superficial. in my opinion,gehry - and his architecture- comes across as least self centric and non pretentious in comparison to other 'star architects'...
but to note, personally, i don't like his towers (i think he deals with horizontal massing in a nicer way than he does extensively vertical ones). so, one doesn't have to like all his projects (i have yet to understand -if there is anything to understand of -his facebook campus project).
finally, i see that the prepackaged attack against 'star architects' has turned into an ad hominem, unfair and rather irrational one that self-justifies itself without recourse to any meaningful discourse - sort of like that now-rendered-useless ubiquitous accusation of being 'conspiracy theorists'.
Overall, is the world better with or without? Its clear to me that its better and richer with FG whether the buildings leak or not. This is not something that we can say for the majority of the crap that litters the built world.
This, jla-x, very well sums up how I ultimately feel about Gehry and others stars for the most part. Life would be boring if there weren't some objects to get us riled up. That said, I'd be happy if every single Libeskind project disappeared simultaneously (though I've heard the Holocaust Museum in Berlin is actually excellent so sure, it can be the exception.)
Also totally agree that judging whether or not a building is "good" based solely on whether or not it leaks is ridiculous. We have much better criteria.
I tend to agree with Donna and jla-x, but I don't think that's the larger point. Like him or not, this kind of object building, regardless of theoretical baggage, isn't the kind of building most architects will build. In our ever urbanizing world, what's needed is a full on revival of good urban architecture, whose values are diametrically opposite to the sculptural model.
Conciously or not, I think more people are starting to realize that the current architectural culture that elevates this kind of work is woefully out of touch with modern realities and necessities. With the negative externalities of technology becoming more apparent by the day, a more circular thinking will become necessary to grab solutions wherever they might be, regardless of their linear "place" in history.
You can't judge starchitecture by its carbon footprint any more than you can judge a 5 star meal by its fat content. Some indulgence is necessary and healthy for society. Its main function is inspiration and novelty. The vast majority of buildings however are not about novelty they are about function. All are important. We need to judge based on the appropriate criteria. And yes, we need to elevate the quality of the "everyday".
I'm not judging his work by its carbon footprint or by the architect's desire for novelty and inspirational qualities. I'm judging the architectural culture that promotes this kind of work and the impact this hero worship has on schools whereby this is the standard that professors and students aspire to. All are important, but some are more important than others. It's about proportion, ironically, but try selling moderation.
Disagree. A society where the abandonment of sustainability and responsibility is rewarded is a sick society. Every monster-budget building should be pushing the envelope on these critical issues rather than some psuedophilosophical dogma or subjective esoteric aesthetic.
Every day we read about the massive problems facing humanity, then we turn the page and celebrate the very behaviors that are causing these problems. Sheer idiocy. People in the position of Gehry (and Zaha!, Hurts & DeMoron, Coolhouse, Calatravesty, etc., etc., etc) should be leading us towards a better world rather than squandering stupendous quantities of resources on their egos.
Imagine Russell Brand as an architect.
As to inspiration and novelty - these are not particularly high ideals, and when they are widely aspired to the truly necessary qualities are forgotten.
Puhlease. Stop it already. Gehry is to architecture, as the Tea Party is to democracy. Now, having said that, there are two sides to that simile, but I'll hit the not so obvious. Gehry, like the other starchitects, are these bright and shiny supernovas, they get all the attention, get all the really "big" money, but there are whole other systems in play, architects in play, that don't get really big money and they outnumber and are responsible for a helluva lot more "objects" (what a load of shit that word is), spaces, environments, urban language, than any of these others combined. I'm not worried, these starchitects make room for real change.
Having stated that, I think when we demand that only socially responsible, sustainable designs be constructed, we are talking about a whole other beastly bullshit. Barry Lehrman, Teddy Cruz and a whole host of other talented individuals are making the world a better place, and for that I'm grateful, but my interests are not theirs and theirs not wholly mine, although I do support their efforts. I like, and have a deep admiration for Hejduk, Raimund Abraham, Lebbeus Woods, and many others. So do they have value, do I?
As for the construction issues, that falls on the architect and the builder. A lot on the builder, but if Gehry and et al are going to design buildings, where the roofs function as bathtubs, then they should learn how to manage water, or if they are going to build in climates other than California, then they probably should figure out which side the vapor barrier belongs.
The problem with these buildings is that their costs are not just borne by the owners but by society at large. If a building uses vast amounts of energy we all have to suffer the consequences whether it be increased smog and greenhouse gases, nuclear waste and the problems inherent in atomic power generation, etc. The same thinking can be applied to the construction process, choice of materials etc. as well as to the life cycle of the building itself. There are direct and indirect social and economic costs to society.
Sure, we all want to design pretty buildings that grace magazine covers and bring a stream of well-heeled clients. Unfortunately, the well-heeled clients that I have seen are for the most part self-entitled voracious morons whose idea of thinking globally is contemplating the import of marble from a 15th century Italian villa for their master bathroom.
Aside from that, going back to the art vs. architecture thread, if the building doesn't function it is a failure no matter what it looks like. We're not sculptors (the great illusion of architecture), we're technicians responsible for creating complex systems that provide specific functions. If we can do that with some style all the better, but to grossly ignore function for the sake of style is a disservice to the client, the project, the profession and the planet.
Those at the top of the profession have a responsibility to lead, not to follow.
Fine. You win. Let's just mandate that we have one school of architecture, and that we all are required to get MArchs in sustainability. I'm sure we'll have very well conceived buildings, and very little architecture.
One does not preclude the other. That it does is where architects and especially starchitects fail.
Black and white is a distinctly American perception. Most of the world sees that as extreme and recognizes infinite shades of grey.
Of all the starchitects we are familiar with, and most of whom are listed above, only one, one, is a quasi-American. All the others, interestingly enough, are not.
And, for the record none of the architects I listed, ever graced a magazine cover, not even when they died, so I don't care about magazine covers.
Hopefully, buildings get demolished after social destructions they cause become evident. To waste money for an individual exhibitionism is sick. That man needs a shrink and public neglect. So do the investors. Maja Hoffmann. After all she buys stupidity.! Mesmerising favours them both.
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.