BIG Mistake
It's easy to get excited about Bjarke Ingels work - as easy to become a fan just by hitting that blue Follow button on your social media platform of choice. "What? You mean my first-year Rhino lofted model can turn into a real building?? All I've gotta draw are these box diagrams with an accent color, and someone else does the rest?" The ease of access created by BIG's global rise becomes dangerous for architectural practice, education, and consumption.
At first glance, BIG's work is as simple as that, as we've watched their recipe for success grow into a global design practice that lands projects everywhere from their local Copenhagen, to Manhattan's skyline, even to other planets. It's not often that an architect develops such a large platform to be featured in a Netflix series, perform at SXSW, or become the architect of choice for right-wing despots.
Commissions aside - BIG's practice exists in a moment that is both incredibly contemporary, while also reflecting a moment we've read about before - as highlighted from Eisenman below. When a firm practices with such a heavy hand, sweeping across the globe, with little hindrance for regional differences, it's easy to make dire mistakes like the link n photo below shows.
"This shift in balance has produced a situation whereby, for the past fifty years, architects have understood design as the product of some oversimplified form-follows-function formula." - Peter Eisenman “Post-Functionalism” Oppositions 6 (Fall 1976)
Diego, I too am not a fan of when 'starchitects' pay no mind to the vernacular found in different regions of the planet. To me, form follows not just function, but also context. It is a common problem for architecture when the designer does not truly understand the culture that they are designing for. Too often does the architect simply find some small piece of the culture and run with it influencing the design, rather than using the culture as a whole for inspiration. The most successful buildings to me are not based on how they look, but how they are used.
ReplyDeleteDiego, I agree completely. I think BIG is DANGEROUS.... We live in a convenience society. Food at the store, car in the driveway, and even our perspectives are borrowed from the easiest outlet. BIG's influence on the world of architecture should not be taken lightly. I wonder how much should be critical however. I think a plug and play model of form and function is gross, just like shown in this picture, but the ideas in some projects are interesting. Why not put a ski slope on the roof? Pros and Cons I guess
DeleteDiego, I agree with your assessment of BIG's heavy hand. They have a way of oversimplifying and removing the nuance of things that need nuance. Personally, I hate the idea of the "international park" that they built in Denmark. I don't think assembling international objects and arraying them in a space captures a sense of diversity or meaning. It feels much more museum-like and "curatorial," rather than diverse. But I have limited knowledge of the park and its effect too. Great Post!
ReplyDelete