Who are we to judge?
As a wise man once said, "I'm just 'bout that action, boss" (Marshawn Lynch, 2015.) I'm not going to waste my time taking a stance on the work of Peter Eisenman. I'd rather be drawing a parapet detail.
I'm going to worry about myself and let the legends like Eisenman do their thing. He is one of the best to ever do it, and you have to respect his game. Sure, the Wexner Center isn't the greatest looking building, and his assortment of private residences leave a lot to be desired in the area of detail, but Eisenman's body of work as a whole is commendable. I previously stated on this blog that some postmodern buildings were "objectively ugly" which is a hot take, but I'll stand by it. This doesn't mean that I discount all subsequent and previous work of the architects who designed them. Even the big dogs have screw-ups. Who are we to judge to work of these guys? I'd rather be drawing a parapet detail because, as boring as it sounds, it is real-world architecture that is going to advance my career more than being a nobody hiding behind a keyboard critiquing legendary architects.
It's not exactly a beautiful building, but who am I to judge?
An incredibly powerful monument.
I get what you're saying but we have to be critical of not just Peter Eisenman but all architects. No architect is above reproach no matter how famous they are. It is more for our benefit that we do approach their work with a critical eye because there is a lot that we can learn from them whether we agree with them or not.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree there is much to be learned from successes and failures of architects big and small. I just would rather not take a big theoretical stance on stuff when I have zero clout to back up my opinion.
DeleteTyler is right, in my opinion. "Who are we to judge?" We are architecture students. The next generation. It is our place and our duty to criticize the work of those who came before us and extract the good and bad in order to progress our profession. Simply sticking our heads in the sand because it's too much effort to ask the big questions is how architecture as a profession becomes entirely irrelevant in today's society and economy.
ReplyDeleteI say "who are we to judge" regarding Eisenman's projects because in the case of say, House VI, we are not the client, not part of the user group, not an investor, not the engineer. It is a private residence that Eisenman designed for the Frank family. The Frank family was satisfied with the product, so it can be deemed successful.
DeletePeople forget that buildings by Eisenman, the rest of the New York Five, and high-profile architects like them constitute less than 1% of the built environment. They are far removed from the real world of architecture.
The world of academia pushes this idea of "architecture with a capital A" and throws the 99% of buildings (ones that we engage on a daily basis, i.e. Core Campus, Lee Hall, Cooper Library, a typical apartment building) aside. There is a lot to be learned from the functionality (or lack thereof) of these buildings. The critique of buildings like these will be relevant to us as students going into the real-world practice of architecture, and will "advance our profession."
For example, Jess's critique of the building at Cincinnati is very much warranted as she spent time as part of the user group of it. She has the right to critique it.
DeleteWe as a class are able to take a stance on Lee Hall as we have experienced it for several years. We can't judge the work of Peter Eisenman from behind a keyboard, simply from a cursory glance. We can only look to the Frank family, or the user groups of the Wexner center, to truly determine if works like these are successful architecture.
You make a very good point that "starchitecture" is really only 1% of the built environment. However, we have to keep in mind that although that is the literal statistic, the percentage of the mental and cultural "built environment" they occupy is much greater. When average people think of "architecture," they think of Gehry or Hadid, they don't think about Douthit Hills or Cooper Library. Therefore in academia, where we often focus on the big picture and "architecture with a capital A" because we have the rest of our professional lives to be occupied with bathroom details, we spend most of our time talking about these works because they are the essence of what laypeople perceive our profession to be.
DeleteI think your point of the work of starchitects being "far removed from the real world of architecture" is true at surface level, but on closer observation is somewhat untrue. You mentioned many Clemson campus buildings in your example of the architecture "we engage on a daily basis." Clemson's campus also contains an example that disproves your assertion. When designing the new campus chapel, the university presented the architect with images of E. Fay Jones's Thorncrown Chapel and said "we want this." So a regular, average, ordinary, everyday Southern firm was forced to create a facsimile of Thorncrown Chapel for Clemson's campus and that is what is being built. Therefore, we cannot say that starchitecture is far removed from our reality when we might one day be forced to create a clone of it by the "client, user group, investor" that you mentioned. Better to critique it now and try to affect change than be forced to recreate a poor piece of starchitecture in future, right? We have to have these discussions because starchitecture is, in fact, a part of our reality.
I agree with you that we can also learn much from critiquing buildings within our immediate experience, like Douthit Hills, Lee Hall, etc. We as architects are products of our environments and experiences and we should not discount those, no matter how poorly they seem to be as works of design. I do not think that we "throw" them "aside" like you say. We spent 4 hours just the other week touring Douthit in an attempt to critique it and learn its lessons. I would hardly call that throwing it aside.
And who is to say that starchitecture is removed from our everyday reality of practice? A student in our classroom could very well go on to create starchitecture one day. You yourself contributed to the creation of starchitecture this past summer. How can you say it is far removed from our world? Another of our classmates, Rachel, is still at the same office assisting in the creation of starchitecture. It seems to me that this caliber of work, although it is "the 1%" is just as real to us as the "99%" that comprises everyday practice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete^i tried to edit this comment, not sure why it says "this comment has been removed by the author"
Deletesaying post-modern buildings are ugly is a very cold take
ReplyDeleteYou see, if you acknowledge that all your takes are hot, then you cover your tracks
DeleteI'm a self-aware hottakesman, unlike our friend Walt
Delete