Practitioners create visually dazzling and unexpected forms that’re seemingly unrelated to anything as prosaic as function or context. They exploit advances in design and construction technology to build ever more visually arresting and extraordinary buildings.
The future of this movement is likely to be limited because the law of diminishing returns inevitably applies to the search for ever-newer and ever-more unexpected architectural forms.
— INDAILY
6 Comments
Stupidity. Yeah, old buildings are so great, and yet some stood out as innovators: Palladio, Michelangelo, etc. There will always be those progressive and monumentalists and vernacular, everyday (many times echoing the innovators).
This is another liberal fantasy; no exceptions, everybody the same. Until someone stands out, of course, and pushes culture forward.
It's not the starchitect, it's "the search for ever-newer and ever-more unexpected architectural forms" that's played out. As for equating Rem Koolhas or Zaha Hadid to Palladio or Michelangelo, that's laughable. They didn't search for novelty for novelty's sake, they strove for beauty, and if it was done by novel means and methods, so be it. And context actually mattered. The sum of parts and all that. It's a different set of priorities.
"Architecture Is Sculpture; a movement popularly associated with essentially modernist “starchitects” like Frank Gehry." Modernist being the key word. Novelty for novelty's sake.
I kinda agree Thayer, but michealangelo didn't have access to the amount/ diversity of visual information that we have this day and age. Creativity is limited to what we see/know. His pallet was narrower. I do agree though that his goal was to achieve beauty rather than to do something new. He did new things to achieve beauty but his goal was not novelty alone as it seems to be for some this day and age.
The article raises a valid point but misses the most critical issues, instead reverting to essentially empty stylistic arguments.
Starchitecture is a global brand in that it often ignores local culture in preference for showcasing wealth. Many of these buildings - aside from being hugely expensive - are often largely dysfunctional, and fail to meet local code, ignore sustainability issues, have performance problems, etc., etc.
In the end it is simply an expression of the kind of values that are mining the planet for profit. I heartily agree that starchitecture should be over, or at the very least transformed (Pritzker's recognition of Ban is a good start) into appreciation for performance over outlandishness and sculptural style and absurdist philosophy (are you listening, Schumaker?).
Thayer, I bet people said the same about Palladio or Michelangelo when they were doing their thing, its not that we say that "they were striving for beauty"
sameolddoctor, either you read the article or are mis-informed on the actual history of modernism and it's intentions, but your comment doesn't make sense. This topic goes back to the post about 'Why architects don't build what people want' which garnered over 1500 comments. Many here say this whole debate is played out, trying to will it so, but it's clearly alive in many parts of the globe, and not going anywhere.
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.