BIG Controversy
Bjarke Ingels has become a prominent figure in modern architecture. Through his simplistic yet evocative designs he has drawn the eyes of many round the world. His approach and salesmanship of design is something that is shaping how the rest of the world views architecture; both in present and the future of the profession due to the platform he has.
In Bjarke's lecture, Formgiving, he says that the key to his work making the ordinary more extraordinary and reacting to change in the world. Many people on one side of the spectrum applaud him for acknowledging these changing and and developing innovative design while utilizing ordinary methods and materials in new ways. The designs have an inherent familiarity that provides opportunity for the public to understand the design and its purpose at a glance. This simplicity is thoughtful and with good intentions which ultimately pulls many people in.
On the other side of the spectrum, it is apparent that BIG's efforts and simplistic yet grandiose structures are lacking the context of the places they're placed. In the lecture he speaks about the Lego and Google offices they designed. Each one is a stark white building, out of context with the surrounding environment and buildings. Some might see it as an object in a field as if they don't think they have to play by the same rules. Another example could be the power plant that houses a ski slope on the roof. The nearby mountains and ski slopes were no close enough to the city so they designed their own mountain right in the city itself. It is often this dumbed down architecture, simplistic approach, and carelessness for surrounding that creates a lot of controversy in their work.
However one feels about BIG, it can be noted that they are making waves throughout the architecture world, for better or for worse. They are becoming a dominant figure, a household name, that has some influence on the direction architecture may take in the future. Is this much like the utopian views of the 60's and 70's? Is this this the beginning of architecture becoming more proactive instead of reactionary?
Going through undergrad, BIG was my favorite firm. I loved how they were able to maintain such purity in form while keeping the program. Now as a graduate student at a different university, I have understood site in a whole new way. Bjarke and many other designers in the present have taken this simplistic architecture and ran with it. While the public cherishes it, it makes me question what good this architecture will do for us in 50 years. Will this still be the way we design? Will we be designing, or can computers do simple concepts like BIG? Or will we view this theory the same way many people view post modern architecture?
ReplyDeleteWhat makes BIG's projects so intriguing? Their consumers gravitate to designs that are understood and simple. BIG has found success delivering these types of projects by enticing the public to admire only what they can understand. It is a concern when we are not forced to think about the space we occupy and what we consider "good" architecture.
ReplyDeleteI think what makes BIG so popular as a firm is not completely for their designs, but their success in marketing. Designing for these BIG and corporate companies like Lego and Google only enhance and reiterate this capitalist idea. However, I believe the ability to explain their designs through simple diagrams takes away any possible connections of these buildings' time and place, a reaction.
ReplyDeleteBIG has expanded far beyond the market of architecture with their designs. They are extremely well at crossing the boundary between the designer and the user and that is not always so easy. I personally think that some of their designs are extremely provocative(Integrated Sciences Center at Claremon Mckenna COllege) while other seem to take zero care into what is going on(Birdhouse House).
ReplyDeleteI also used to love BIG in my first and second year of undergrad but the more I learned about good design, the less I was impressed with them. I think of course the lack of conscientious context to their projects is a major turn-off for me but also the lack of human scale and experience in much of their designs. They are the new le Corbusier and Brazilla in large-scale designs that are trash for the everyday user.
ReplyDelete