|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Location: SW Ohio
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:41 am Post subject: Re: what current building will be considered a pivotal point |
    |
|
[quote="francojean23"]what particular building of now will be considered a pivotal point in the field of architecture 50 years from now...100 years from now...500 years from now...excusing the fact that many of these building today probably won't be around in 500 years...but what piece will be studied when our era becomes history...?[/ quote]
Quite honestly I don't think we can answer this question. Only the future will determine this and only the historians who choose to slant the discussion in one manner or the other will have a voice.
If you want to pursue this type of conversation, then I think you need to determine what architect is using new materials/methods to advance the art form either formally or with a social/political agenda. I am making the assumption that we are in the Mannerist phase of Modern Architecture. The classic canon was been set and now we are all playing with the rules. Much like Michelango et al and the High Renanisance before them.
Presently, I have to agree that would be Gehry. His use of the computer to generate forms that in turn are used by the fabricators to construct his buildings is the most progressive at this time. I don't think you can look at a single building, unless you can point at one that marks the high water mark of his efforts. I think that time has passed and he is now running in place. Same ideas, forms, process, new project and new city. There is nothing wrong with that - he is not Corbu, Palladiao, Wright, or anyone else we would universally agree is a genius who changed the entire art form. Gehry will be a chapter in the book, but will not be the dominate figure like Corbu, Wright, Kahn.
While I hate to agree with the pompous frenchman, I think the issue of urban space needs to be looked at as part of this discussion. But name one comtemporary architect who has the influence on his all of his projects to effect the greater urban quesiton. We have all been relegated to a small piece of the pie and city planners purported experts - which I disagree with, but is the reality. There individual cases of architects greating nice urban spaces with their buildings, but it is too far and few between IMHO. I am getting a sense that we are training architects without teaching the relationship of Architecture to its larger Urban context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
francojean23
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 36
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
you are very undereducated if you believe gehry to be at the forefront of the field with computer design and fabrication connections...
i would look into the real non-standard praxis firms...
hani rashid or marc goulthorpe could get you started...but you really want a firm that's ahead of its time, far ahead of gehry in all aspects...and pushing the field of architecture to new heights...there is only one name...
KAS OOSTERHUIS
so i can agree with you about what is pushing architecture in new directions right now...but by no means is gehry doing that...
and as for the topic...of course it depends largely on the spin of future historians...but at least it makes one think ahead about something considered today that might be cherished in the future...
that thought is in the back of every architects mind everytime a creation is realized... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="francojean23"]you are very undereducated if you believe gehry to be at the forefront of the field with computer design and fabrication connections [/quote]
I glad you feel so confident in your education. Your comment is baseless and rude. Of course there are many others, and the whole trend started in manufacturing not architecture.
The question you possed was what building will be considered a pivotal point in 50 years. Many had answered Gehry's Bilboa. I concur that Gehry's work will be considered a pivotal point, BUT is it a single building by him or a group of his buildings. Furthermore, I think it will be as much about his process that allows him to complete his buildings as the buildings themselve.
Will this be the pivotal point? Not a single building or architect, but a process. Then comes your point, rather rudely stated, but who else is pushing the envelop - literally and figuratively - that should be included in that discussion.
It is my opinion that Gehry is the leading architect with the largest projects and portfolio of work using this process. He is getting all or most the popular press. Does that make him him the leader in developing this process - no - but certainly the most noticable.
HIstory is filled with architects who are associated with a particular process, material or method who basically were minor footnotes in the development of the process. Corbu is a prime example. Corbu was clueless about the technology and methods of concrete construction. He demanded control joints where they failed and so on - all for the aesthetic. Men like August Perret and Albert Kahn (actually his brother who patented a reinforced system) were the leaders in developing methods of concrete construciton. But who is considered and studied for his artistic work in concrete (Savoye, Garche, Carpenter Center) - Corbu. You are rudely mixing the notation of who is being considered for artistic acheivement and who is being recognized for technical advancements.
Much like the Sears Tower mentioned above - an important structural advancement recognized by most, but considered devoid of artistic merit by many.
Maybe rudeness is permissable in Boston and the GSD, but if you are trying to start a discourse on a subject, you should be willing to add to the discussion. Your point could have easily been made with pointing out others YOU FEEL are developing the process and their relationship to the overall conversation.
If you want to insult and be rude to people, quit architecture and go work for FOX News. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francojean23
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 36
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
right now you're confusing who will be studied in the future as far as the architecture world goes and who will be studied by lay persons...
the range is quite different...
obviously by posing the question of who will be studied for their work in the future...it applies to architecture only...the architects we study now, studied before and will study in the future will always vary from the architecture popular by the public...
take a look at some of the most influential architects that we study...and take a look at how they were viewed during their lifetime...
so to say that because gehry is so popular now and has such a huge portfolio of work that he is leading the way for architecture is speaking from the public eye...not the architecture world...
i don't care who is currently winning the popularity contest with the world...there are architects that are further ahead of gehry...even in this process as you say...
on a sidenote...if you consider the carpenter center a great work of corbu...you are not well versed on the life of corbu...
and you say corbu is celebrated for this process...again only in the public eye...not in the architecture world...
you need to separate these... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not confusing the lay and professional worlds. Your are interpreting that into our conversation. The lay person does not know who LeCorbusier is nor do most of them even know Frank Gehry. The only lay people who know architects are those deeply interested in architecture.
You may be showing some youth here or your metropolitan exposure. Until Cesar Pelli built our performing arts centre, only a handful of Daytonians knew who he was. Boston will have more knowledgable lay people than most cities. It is the hidden architectural showcase - IMHO. Take that as a compliment - it is meant as one.
The Carppenter Center is a nice design and that is all. It does not rank in my book as his best pieces. Picking out strong pieces of Corbu's can be difficult. The clean, cubic early work or the scuptural later work. It is amazing that the work is from the same man. And probably why he is considered a genius. How can Savoye and Ronchamp and Tourette come from this one person. I sure we can agree on that point. You really need to stop being rude and snobbish. If you want to continue to being patronizing, let me know and I will get out my big stick.
There is a Frank Lloyd Wirght building up the street from me. It is Ho Hum in relationship to his best work. If you have not seen Robie, Unity Temple, Johnson Wax, Fallingwater, even the house and studio, you have not expereinced Wright. Other than his Guggenheim, there is not a major work of his in the NE you can see. Let's face it. The Carpenter Center gets discussed because it is LeCorbusier only North American building.
I think you are absoultely right and you agree with much of my earlier point. Only history will be able to tell us what the pivotal building is today. And it will not be the most popular architect. I think we both know that Wright was hated and cast-off from about 1914 until Fallingwater.
But for discussion point, we can consider Gehry. And if he remains as a pivotal point, will it be a single building or a group of buildings or the electronic process.
I have this horrible feeling that in 10 years there will be a history book on Modern Architecture with a whole chapter on Electronic Generated Design and it will completely miss the artistic point of the architects involved.
Just saw Gehry's building at MIT this summer. Interesting. We will have to see how it works over time. It is interesting to know that of all the dorms designed by "star architects" it is Aalto's that is the most popular by students. (According to MIT)
I have separated the popular world and architectural world. Maybe it is how each of us define it.
I should note that I am interpreting the popular press as Architecture and Archtietural Record. Not Vanity Fair, Wall Street Journal, New York Time and others such as that. I think the Journals and collected essays of writers such as Frampton, Greg Lynn, et al out of Academia are more of the "Architectural" press. While not read by the average architect, they affect the future of design and younger architects who are exposed to that work. IMHO.
The popular press (my definition) is more Fashion for the moment kind of stuff. Much like GQ or Cosmo. I know that is harsh. I miss Inland Architect, a great publication out of Chicago that had a lot of critical essays as well as featuring good regional projects. Let's face it - alot of good architecture does not get press. I have always like the work of Fred Koetter, Michael Dennis, and Warren Swartz (Swartz/Silver in Boston), but they aren't getting alot of press these days.
Personally - I am more interested in architecture that is more regionally responsive (Sam Mockbee comes to mind - with its distinctive southern agarian references). I think Gehry is praticing a new international style. His work can be placed in any city. Do not get me wrong - nice stuff - but not what interests me. I did think his approach to the site at MIT was interesting, where the building recedes back from the street edge to create an entry - off a parking lot but.... It does try to hold the street edge and has a different expression to the campus side (I tried to attach a photo I took of the building but failed - I am calling the "back side" - away from the street the campus side - so forgive me if this is confussing) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francojean23
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 36
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well i suppose i can't argue with you about the knowledge of lay persons about architecture in the city environment and in the rural...
myself i guess would be a bit biased as i've lived in metropolis all my life, from miami to new york to paris to boston...
further boston is home to more design professionals than any other city in the country...so it should be the most knowledgeable city on the design world...
as far as concerning corbu...i would have to say his early work is his best...isn't that always the case with architects...i only say that because coming off his purist paintings, his early work holds truest to his concepts and theories on purism...temples bottles...know where i'm going...
of course the major work won't be the star architect...just like wright and sullivan...and even kahn...don't forget about...
wright and sullivan who both died workless and pennyless...as no names in architecture...damn the beaux arts...i say...
i wouldn't pass off all electronic generated architecture as non artistic...it depends on the firm...and how they use the technologies at their disposal...
the problem is just that...we don't need international style...there never was one, and there shouldn't be one...
international theories and ideas...yes, but styles...no
and i think we can agree that gehry offers nothing beyond forms with retrospective theory...
gehry's new building at MIT...having been inside many times and talked to with many people i can say is hated by those who use it...there is a maintenance crew constantly fixing the place...coming apart from poorly designed architectural elements to the scientists...who require designing their own space...which gehry of course did not allow...
take a look at the 2004 graduate MIT ring and you will see a pile of garbage in the corner...resembling very closely the new gehry building...quite funny...
i would also put up holl's dorm as loved by students...it is not merely aalto's...
and finally as pei would say...i don't read architecture periodicals...just look at them...(for the pretty pictures)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| francojean23 wrote: | | as far as concerning corbu...i would have to say his early work is his best...isn't that always the case with architects...i only say that because coming off his purist paintings, his early work holds truest to his concepts and theories on purism...temples bottles...know where i'm going.... |
I prefer his earlier work also. From Savoye, Garches, Salvation Army...... I think for the ideal future they spoke of as well as the formal qualities......I also like Pessac. Have you read "Lived-in Architecture" by Philippe Boudon ? Very Interesting. Did you get to see Pessac during your traveling scholarship? (yes I have been to your website - nice model of Savoye - I still have my ink drawings of Savoye and analysis from Graduate School). There was also an excellant issue of Oppositions (#15/16 - Winter/Spring 1979) entitled Le Corbusier 1905-1933. Essays by Frampton, Eisenman, and Forster - to name a few. If you have not read it, you might find it at one of the University libraries in town.
I just took delivery this afternoon of two Le Corbusier Basculant Armchairs for my renovated front room. I got them in the cowhide. Maybe I will re-read "Towards a New Architecture" while sitting in them. All this talk of Corbu!!
| francojean23 wrote: | | i would also put up holl's dorm as loved by students...it is not merely aalto's... |
I was inside of Gehry's building in July - I would like to see it while it is being used by faculty and students to get a real read. I did not get into Holl dorm - I was under the impression that many students find it cold and the furniture less than friendly. This from an article in Metropolis. So who knows.
One final and quick question. Are you still a student or are you working in the profession now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| When people speak of Corbu, I think of the social issues that he was addressing , new ways of living, seeing, mass-production and the rebuilding of cities after the war from a single house to whole blocks to entire cities. Ghery's work lacks this social concience, its excessive and self centered. I dont think that the architecture itself makes any substantial contribution to humanity except to distinguish himself from others. As folly, it serves a purpose, artistically its self serving in its eye-catching forms, but no more striking than the height of a great tower. Architecture can serve a higher purpose than to merely draw attention to itself. Ghery buildings already look dated but he will have his place in history similar to that of the archietcts of landmark buildings such as The empire state building, Sears tower, and so on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LeCorbusier wrote: | | When people speak of Corbu, I think of the social issues that he was addressing , new ways of living, seeing, mass-production and the rebuilding of cities after the war from a single house to whole blocks to entire cities. |
I could not agree more. But then again most of the important architects we study from the period were doing the same. I like what Neutra was doing with the Diatom Series houses, the VDL Research Houses, Rush City Reformed, and Channel Heights.
| LeCorbusier wrote: | | Ghery's work lacks this social concience, its excessive and self centered. |
That can be said of a lot of current architects. But these are different times. As you inferred, an entire continent does not need to be rebuilt - Twice. I am not supporting the detached approach, just agreeing with your comment.
I do think there are some people trying to address larger issues, but they seem to be in the minority. I am thinking of the anti-sprawl folks like Sim Van der Ryn and Peter Calthorpe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francojean23
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 36
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what does everyone think about this comparison...
mies and gehry...
compare early mies with early gehry...excellent architecture, for both of them...
look at from when mies leaves germany and when gehry designs the gugg...both attempt to create an international architecture, the building with no regard to culture, time, climate, or function...
we see how mies went downhill when he came to the states...and so also we can say the same for gehry, after he designed the gugg...
international architecture just doesn't work...comments? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| francojean23 wrote: | what does everyone think about this comparison...
mies and gehry...
compare early mies with early gehry...excellent architecture, for both of them...
look at from when mies leaves germany and when gehry designs the gugg...both attempt to create an international architecture, the building with no regard to culture, time, climate, or function...
we see how mies went downhill when he came to the states...and so also we can say the same for gehry, after he designed the gugg...
international architecture just doesn't work...comments? |
Well, since I wrote my thesis on Mies - I think I can take a stab at this.
Mies was not trying to create an international style nor was Corbu. Forget what Hitchcock and Johnson called International Style. IMHO -International Style came to represent an architecture that was self-referential and did not address local climate, culture and/or tradition. Which I think you are stating. Therefore, you could place any building in any town in any climate and it would be the same. This can probably be generally stated, except for the best architects. Corbu's work in India - Mies work in the American Midwest. The Farnswoth House has more to do with Nature and the Fox River site, then the machine aesthic.
I don't think Mies went downhill upon arrviing to America. Mies best post-1936 work is in Chicago (Crown Hall and the IIT Campus Buildings) and Detriot (Lafayette Park). His use of the gird, steel, and brick are very much about Chicago. Whether it translates to other places like Berlin - I would have to personally see it. I have not. You HAVE to see Crown Hall at night with the first floor lights on. It floats in mid-air. I am not a big fan of the high-rise stuff.
If you are referring to how Mies designs go from using plans to capture space and reaching into the landscape, (Brick Farmhouse, Berlin Housing Expo, and to a lesser degree Barcelona) to the tight boxes of his later work. There is a slow movement to this resulting look that you can find in the courtyard house designs of 1930's, while teaching at the Bauhaus. You have to really study the later work to see that they are still centrifugal in their design. It really is in the details. Mies is boring to most students and architects alike. So it is hard to discuss. They see the minimal approach and think it stops there. You have to look hard at Mies to appreciate him.
Mies' work is dark and foreboding. Most people do not understand the influence of Oswald Spengler's writing and even the Dadaist had on Mies. His personal experiences in WWI and the flight from the Nazi's certainly find a place in his work. Unlike Corbu who foresaw a bright, modern future, Mies felt the opposite. The best a young man could hope for was to find a job as a technocrat to fullfill the basic needs of society. Very grim outlook on life.
I recommend reading "Mies van der Rohe" By Franz Schulze (the best biography to date), "Mies van der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses" ByWolf Tefethoff (an excellant review of the subject matter), "Mies: Reconsidered" Essays By Frampton, Francesco Dal Co, Peter Eisenman, and Stanley Tigerman.(great for post analysis and interpretation by present day historians/teachers/practitioners)
Do not under any circumstance read that fluff piece by Philip Johnson. Mies had harsh opinions of Johnson and Johnson displays his own igorance of Mies work in his Glass Pavilion.
Concerning Gehry - I think he is so stuck doing his "signature" buildings that he by default is doing an international style of design. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francojean23
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 36
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
right, that's what i'm saying about the international style...but mies was leaning toward that direction...i believe...
i think mies work at IIT was the downfall of his career...especially compared to his early work in germany...particulary the barcelona pavilion...one of the best pieces of architecture in the world for me...and if i were strapped for time in barcelona i would visit it over gaudi's work...
as for crown hall...it's existence now is quite different from it's original state...for instance those shades you speak of that create such a floating building, were not in the original work...
and what about his so called "truth symbols" that we see in IIT...
however outside of all that work i hold the seagram building in high regard besides the few elegant lies with the windows and again the "truth symbols" or ornament as many would say...
i would suggest that mies's mistress in germany had a large effect on his work...as she was an interior designer...as opposed to his american business mistress in the US...
also contribute most of the info we have on mies to his mistress in germany who preserved most of his work...as we know he wrote and drew very little...
as bad as johnson was...he put mies on the map, leading MOMA for so long... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| francojean23 wrote: | i think mies work at IIT was the downfall of his career...especially compared to his early work in germany...particulary the barcelona pavilion...one of the best pieces of architecture in the world for me...and if i were strapped for time in barcelona i would visit it over gaudi's work...
as for crown hall...it's existence now is quite different from it's original state...for instance those shades you speak of that create such a floating building, were not in the original work... |
I really like the early work also, but I think you have to some degree separate the two phases of his work and realize that the Chicago work is related to the cities rational past (the First Second School and FLW - whom Mies respected and he likewise the only European respected by Wright)
The IIT work is really about detail. And Crown Hall's floating aspect was part of the original design and well-documented.
| francojean23 wrote: | and what about his so called "truth symbols" that we see in IIT...
however outside of all that work i hold the seagram building in high regard besides the few elegant lies with the windows and again the "truth symbols" or ornament as many would say... |
You need to explain by what you mean by the "Truth Symbols". I have never heard this term used in relationship to Mies. Thanks in advance.
| francojean23 wrote: | i would suggest that mies's mistress in germany had a large effect on his work...as she was an interior designer...as opposed to his american business mistress in the US...
also contribute most of the info we have on mies to his mistress in germany who preserved most of his work...as we know he wrote and drew very little... |
Lilly Reich's contributions to his interiors has not been overlooked in any of the readings I completed. In fact, Schultz is very complimentary to her and details her relation and service to him. I think in the end, correct me if I am wrong, she gave died at the hands of the Nazi?
| francojean23 wrote: | | as bad as johnson was...he put mies on the map, leading MOMA for so long... |
I have to disagree in part. Barcelona, Tungendhat, Stuttgart, Wolf, Esters, and Lange brought international notice to Mies, The MOMA show was important and introduced him to America (as did the accompaning book). I think Hitchcock is the real power behind the show and book. History seems to show that Johnson is an "architectural groupie" at best and rode the coat tails of more talented people.
The biography by Johnson is not a contributor to the discussion on Mies. You need to read it and compare it to the better researched and written works that came out in the 1980's and 1990's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francojean23
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 36
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i'm surprised you didn't come across the truth symbols in your thesis work...a term coined by mies himself...
in comment to the use of ornament on his buildings...mies came up with the truth symbols...seen across IIT as vertical ornamental i-beams as well as the custom bronze i-beams which give vertical accent to the seagram building...as mies said he applied these because he was unable to expose the structure because of the code...many critics called this ornamental and simply a contemporary way of beaux arts designing...
i agree with you about johnson as riding coattails...but he introduced mies to america...at that time because he was basically leading MOMA...and as still today it was then...if you exhibited in a MOMA show that put you on the map big time...
--------I think in the end, correct me if I am wrong, she gave died at the hands of the Nazi?--------
did you spell something wrong here...i don't understand...
and i would contend that mies was little known in germany, even on a national level...and that johnson knew about him from barcelona...and brought him over to chicago...a city in desperate need of a bauhaus architect after the gsd got gropius... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| francojean23 wrote: | i'm surprised you didn't come across the truth symbols in your thesis work...a term coined by mies himself...
in comment to the use of ornament on his buildings...mies came up with the truth symbols...seen across IIT as vertical ornamental i-beams as well as the custom bronze i-beams which give vertical accent to the seagram building...as mies said he applied these because he was unable to expose the structure because of the code...many critics called this ornamental and simply a contemporary way of beaux arts designing... |
Thanks - Yes, I know what you are talking about, but just don't recall the term. The Truth Symbols are more real than symbols at IIT. These are the details I was referring to in my earlier posts.
| francojean23 wrote: | --------I think in the end, correct me if I am wrong, she gave died at the hands of the Nazi?--------
did you spell something wrong here...i don't understand... |
Sorry - fat fingers. I think Lilly Reich was killed by the Nazi's. Do you recall if she was killed or survived the war?
| francojean23 wrote: | | and i would contend that mies was little known in germany, even on a national level...and that johnson knew about him from barcelona...and brought him over to chicago...a city in desperate need of a bauhaus architect after the gsd got gropius... |
And Mies was a perfect fit for Chicago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
