The Telegraph's Simon Heffer says, "architects should please the public, not spite them", in reference to recent projects by Daniel Libeskind and Zaha Hadid.
The Telegraph's Simon Heffer says, "architects should please the public, not spite them", in reference to recent projects by Daniel Libeskind and Zaha Hadid. On Libeskind's extension to the Dresden Military History Museum Heffer notes...
On his website, Libeskind says that he is creating “a space for reflection about organised violence” and that he “opens up vistas to central anthropological questioning”. If you know what that second point means, please tell me, as I haven’t a clue. I cannot decide whether Libeskind has been brilliant or utterly appalling. I suspect he is the latter, though the mock-ups on his website of how the finished product will look are rather incredible: and there is a poetic justice about taking the only undamaged building from that night and allowing it to share in the proceeds of destruction in this way. - Telegraph
24 Comments
In the name of art, they ignore the cost, functional and most of all the constructionability factors.
I know, because I have been a structural engineer since early 1960's.
Remember the crazy lady from Slackers? "I should know...I'm a medical doctor."
But seriously, this comment is what concerns me about a lot of contemporary work. Libeskind and Zaha and all the other super-slick renderings by stars are what the public perceives as status quo work form "architects". The well-designed, humble, contemporary work that the vast majority of architects actually do isn't even on the radar of the cast majority of the public.
Our profession needs a serious public image overhaul, in every Western country. In the meantime, does anyone fantasize about seeing that shardy-thing in the image above smashed like a champagne glass in a fireplace? I do.
It looks like an 80's video game starship crashed through a museum.
I love when starchitects create the same design over and over, and slather each 'new creation' in enough archibabble that, as stated above, no one is left able to decide if they are witnessing genius or well presented bovine feces.
It is so easy to make fun of Daniel Libesind, but it is much more amusing to let the clown do it for himself. Here’s the man at his own sophmoric and pretentious best:
“Who do I build for? I think every building is addressed to someone who is not here. Every building that is good is not addressed to the public, that they walk around and find themselves to be comfortable. It is addressed to those who are unborn, in both senses: of the past and in the future. I think that is who they address and that is what makes them important. To that extent, every human being is really unborn.” -
Quote from Daniel, “I am a genius”, Libeskind
hm. it looks very sketchupy.
To call Daniel Libesind an architect is to devalue the craft of architecture. Some people just dont have "it" and he is one who doesnt.
Come on guys, he's just giving Superman a new home....
http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com/thrillrides/superman/photos/superman1.jpg
http://www.dylancolestudio.com/Matte/Superman/images/LF_047_033_MPsketch_v02.jpg
If people want to study, critique and interpret Derrida, or apply deconstruction to things, let them do it in theory and leave the building up to people who care to address those who are here. Deconstruction is very interesting to think about, but at some point you need to cut the bullshit and contribute something. Furthermore, the blatant grammatical errors in that quote from Libeskind prove to me that he is no genius. I think the best architecture is that which is conceptually (and even theoretically) rigorous, but which requires no explanation and can be appreciated by the majority of people are there; relying on verbosity and theoretical ramblings, and building for "those who are not there" is a cop out.
bitch bitch bitch.. that's all some of you do.. really, grow up. Liebeskind is an architect, trying to argue he isn't is petty, immature, jealous and shows how unreasonably unintelligent you are about the discipline. But I guess when you spend your day wishing your were important, and continually have to recognize that you aren't, it helps your ego to debase his work on the internet.
Congrats.
bigbear is a lover. everything from libeskind to SOM. bigbear would you stick up for michael graves?
bigbear I'm not sure your point. Of course Libeskind is an architect, and his writings and work have been significant in the discipline. I also know people who have interned in his office and learned a lot.
None of that means his work is any good. Personally, I can't stand it, I think it's self-indulgent and relies too much on words that shouldn't be needed to explain intent. I've heard, from various sources, that it's generally not well-constructed. To me this adds up to poor architecture. I'm sure he thinks the residential remodel work I do isn't good architecture, either - to each his own.
I certainly don't aspire to do what he does, so it's not "jealousy" that causes me to criticize his work. I criticize it because 26 years in the field has given me the critical faculties and experience to do so. Are we not allowed to criticize him out of professional courtesy?
Oops, 18x32, your links aren't working. I'd like to see the house you like.
And you're right: my concern is sloppy criticism like the Telegraph article, which implies that this kind of work is the only thing architects do, when the vast majority of architecture is more like the pleasant, functional, back- or middle-ground building the author wants.
18x32, I think your point is good about most of the posters (myself certainly included) haven't exercised critical faculties or professional courtesy in critiquing this project. I didn't mean to dismiss Libeskind so out of hand as I did--I think some of his projects are quite nice and successful, and I think his theoretical writings are rigorous and thorough, and I didn't mean to say that he was full of bullshit. As much as I don't understand the "anthropological questioning" bit, I think most of us are guilty of indulging in such speak, and I think we often mean it if we don't always believe it.
Still, my concern is the persistent prevalence of this type of highly theoretical work in big projects (often as part of a fundraising/hype goal), and both how that impacts the profession and how the profession is viewed by people at large. Honestly, I think the degree to which we need deconstructivist architecture, and more importantly the instances where it is appropriate, is quite limited. The "bullshit" I spoke of is not what Libeskind provides, not what he thinks or how he has designed this project, but the rather elitist notion that the purpose of buildings is always (or even often) "questioning", deconstructing, being intertextual, all these things. I think that's rarely the purpose of buildings (you could make a pretty good case that it is in a war museum), and while I wish I was usually more eloquent in expressing that view, I still don't think good buildings should require a philosophy course to appreciate.
You're right, 18x32, the scale of a house makes the shards seem much more palatable. And, in the context of a single family home, one feels confident that if the Owner didn't want the shards s/he would say so. In the case of a big public project, when building committee members can all be afraid to speak their true mind, one feels less confident.
I engaged with one of Libeskind's shard shapes (in drywall with vinyl adhesive graphics) at the CAC. A pointy acute angled object at eye level, out of any material, just isn't something I enjoy encountering in the built world. But I also am not a fan of aggressive structural gymnastics. Again, to each their own.
The funniest thing about that house design to me is the traditional running bond in the fireplace. Looks so out of place. I imagine they might have come up with something more considered in the final implementation.
To the question of whether any work by Libeskind or any architect "devalues" the title of architect - I'd be happy to deal with a public screaming their dislike of Libeskind's shards if they would equally loudly spurn the latest dryvit strip mall despoiling a former greenfield. Architects' real value to society is somewhere between those extremes, I'd say, and yet that's the work we do that garners the least attention.
As this isn't an article in a little architectural journal, to fault it for sloppy criticism doesn't make much sense. It's aim is to write well, or at least persuasively, for the non-architect public.
And it is a well-written and persuasive, coy and apologetic defense of the work of Danny Libeskind, as a preamble to a book review for some chap Malcolm Millais, who seems to be rehashing the ol' Silber Absurdity line and hitting the perpetual hot-buttons of appropriateness and function - which is where the real sloppy criticism lies - as those phrases are the 'death panels' and 'abortion' of all those who hate it when a window doesn't look like a window.
As said above, not next to my Victorian Villas!
LibertyBell,
18x32 is correct in that my response was to the posters who feel the need to dismiss people who quite demonstrable ARE architects (by intellectual, academic and construction metrics).
I'd stick up for Michael Graves.
wait a minute.
look at the design/render at the top.
read the Libeskind quotes.
and you can't see the humor in all of it?
lets not take the starchitects too seriously now.
I like Michael Graves too by the way, without him all my kitchen utensils would have painfully square edges.
...ok, continue your serious discourse.
bigbear is really a lover. and thinks anyone who criticizes bad design (and in the case above, also REPETITIVE) is in fact jealous and an unimportant architect. SOM and late Lib's work are good? yeah, sure... blah. where's Lib's head? did he just deliver the same drawing set of his Toronto's ROM museum by mistake to these poor Dresden people? I understand an architect should be keeping some consistency, but... man, it looks EXACTLY the same, with different materials! hello???
the "sketchupy" image from the article really gives off the wrong impression. the rendering above looks like the typical 'photochop- something-together-and-bam-you-have-a-design'. it looks much better as a model or plan...
there must've been some sort of public hearing in the process that made the design available for the public to critique and oppose, right?. curious to know what the approval process was like for this project...??
the construction photos are amazing. needless to say, the amount of construction skill and knowledge for the builders to pull off something like this is pretty unreal.
completely different massing from the rom. or are you just reacting to one view of the building?
Completely different massing, indeed, but equally crappy massing in both!
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I just don't like his work, though I know a lot of people who do, and I respect a lot of those people, so they just must be getting something I'm not.
lol, you mean sh*tty
i agree, the rom addition seems clumsy and the quality of constuction (based on photographs, i haven't visited) i'm noticing doesn't seem as refined as the jewish museum. i'm not digging the window details on the rom. i prefer the rom unclad.
but i like the more elegant v-shaped addition of the dresden building. i totally buy the whole 'providing of vistas'. i was trying to imagine the plan of the original building without the addition and sorry to say, i consider it boring by itself. it's nothing but a u-shaped building with too many columns, not enough natural light, and a facade that is pretty dead. same goes for the existing rom building: the facade to me looks dead. i guess part of the appeal for me is in the disruption of the facade. i tend to like his additions more than the completely new construction.
I think Libeskind is a fraud. firstly, all he does is come up with the napkin sketch and the pretentious bullshit that goes with it. He always has to team up with another firm of knowledgable architects in order to execute the design. His own office (I've been there), is full of students and interns who might as well be designing sets for a James Cameron movie for all the "reality" that they bring to a design. I don't think there is a single staffer who would recognize a window section if it was the only thing on their screen.
The clincher for me was when Daniel's wife (who works in the office), hired another architect to design their home. She knows and sees the bullshit that goes on in their own office on a daily basis (and presumably knows about all the leaks and design screwups at their Museums in Denver and Toronto), so she decided to get someone competent to do it. In any other practice, even if the principal was busy on a major project, the house design would be handed over to a junior architect. Libeskind's whole office are just a bunch of diagram makers so they had to shop it elsewhere. They couldn't even select a light fixture to save their lives.
Final point - I read subsequently that Libeskind lied to the New York Times and said he designed his house himself when it was in fact Alexander Gorlin who did it. Which brings me back to my first point, namely that Libeskind is a bullshitter and a fraud.
Well, without commenting directly on what you're saying in your post, Callicrates, I'll state that though I live in a house of my own design, I've also just hired a group of architecture students to design a part of my house. I was interested in their specific abilities, and I was ready to get a different view. Also, it's fun to be a client for a change!
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.