Architecture of the people, by the people, for the people
So I’m becoming more and more ok with the idea that I’m a
socio-political Marxist. And, seriously,
this topic is one that I will get heated about.
(I promised myself I wouldn’t bring up Lee III at all in this blog.)
I’ve never heard the term “Starchitect” before yesterday and
1. I love it because it’s so appropriate, 2. there seems to be a lot of worship
of these figures, and 3. there is nothing that I have hated more in the three
years I’ve been learning architectural history.
“Ooooh, Le Corbusier this” and “Ohhh, Mies van de Rohe that” and “Oh Richard
Meyer” and “Oh Frank Gehry” and blah blah blah bullshit.
There’s so much freaking ego around the starchitect. “It’s my building” “I don’t have to
pay any attention to anything that goes on my lot” “Context?? Fuck context. Context doesn’t affect me.” If there’s anyone who’s the poster child for
starchitect, it’s fucking Frank Gehry. I mean, look at this shit:
Context? Da fuq is context?
We watched a video for Silance’s (frankly useless) class
about Richard Meyer and the development of the Getty Center and as far as I'm concerned Richard Meyer ties
for gold in the Douchebag Starchitect Olympics.
It was “his” building and when he saw the staff starting to move
into the offices, he was on record saying that the personal touches they were bringing to the spaces where they would work were “hideous” and shouldn’t be
allowed.
Look dude, you can’t control what goes on in the fucking
building after it's built. You just
designed it—what goes on inside once it’s built is not your fucking concern. Get your fucking dick out of it.
Why why why is the user considered second or third or
forth or later when thinking about a project? How did we come so far
from Arlo van Eyck and Team X?
I mean, seriously: what the fuck happened? “The refusal to correlate one’s contribution
with the two poles of motivation and control is a typical manifestation of the
idiocy of forced specialization, which also influences the quality of the proposals
and their capacity to resist interference.”
If you don’t keep a handle on your ego and feel you have to have an iron
grip of control on the design—for all parts of the design—then you get
stuck in one place and start hoarding toys in a corner because nobody’s
allowed to play with them except you because they’ll just get them dirty and
fuck them up.
Ok, I get it isn’t feasible to get the entire community in
on a design, but shouldn’t you at least try to think about the outer
community and consider the impact of the project on the larger fabric of society?
Isn’t that what we’re trying to do in
studio? It’s about the community—it isn’t
about what we’re putting there. Nor
should it be. I don’t think that any
architect should be so fucking full of themselves that they think they can
stick out like a sore thumb because it’s “their” building.
“Architecture has become too important to be left to
architects. All barriers between
builders and users must be abolished, so that building and using become two different
parts of the same planning process.”
Architecture isn’t just the purview of the architect
anymore. Yes, we have the design skills
to draw it so it can be constructed, but it doesn’t belong to us. In truth, it’s never belonged to
us. And we need to remember that.
I get your beef, however having worked for an art institution, there is a certain logic behind picking a "starchitect" for a building. These guys are good for making iconic pieces of architecture, that I would argue border sculpture and art, what they bring to the architecture table challenges the rest of the profession, take it or leave it. I recently heard a phrase that I am neither for nor against, "chipboard models beget chipboard architecture" its interesting to think that the way we model our designs affects the way we design our models. Not advocating for blob-itecture, however seeing that way that Gehry generates ideas has inspired me to look at different ways of modeling, for instance, I used burlap in my last project and that impacted the way I approached the design. I think the profession benefits from the avante-garde, though see my post for my argument on why I believe context does matter. I do believe that starchitects are autocrats, and I don't always like their designs, but I appreciate how they propel the discipline forward.
ReplyDeleteI see your point, but they have to let the building go once the design is finished. It isn't theirs... it belongs to everyone at that point. And starchitects seem to forget that. It doesn't belong to the institution or to the community, it's still theirs, and they feel they can dictate what happens in and around it. I also get the "architecture as art" view--I'm totally in favor of that. But a truly beautiful piece of art doesn't need to be thrust in your face. You don't mount a 20-carat diamond in an itty bitty ring setting unless you're just a showoff and just want to stick out for the sake of sticking out.
DeleteI think it's interesting to also note that a lot of clients will commission a "starchitect" solely for the visibility the building will get by being associated with said architect. Branding a building has become a mark of profitability, but we have to ask ourselves, is that really a good use of talent in architecture?
ReplyDelete