The Difference Between “Cool” and “Great” Architecture
Disclaimer: this post does not reflect my opinions. It is the opinion of a professor at my school, and I’m seeking your opinions as I form my own.
When you look at the avant-garde architecture of today, do you see insightful meaning of it or do you just think it looks cool?
When you see Gehry, do you see a meaning behind the wild curves? or do you see simply a style that looks pretty nifty and is eye-catching?
Do you think that maybe contemporary architecture uses the techniques that modern advertising uses to deceive and captivate and mind-wash consumer society?
The current trends in advertising are:
In other words, brainwashing and deceit.
And creativity is based on:
- New is always better than old
- Breaking the rules = independence
- Order = repression
- Change is good
- Bigger is better
- Difference = individuality
- Never-seen-before = innovation
- Similarity = conformity
- Exaggeration is better than restraint
- Speed + excitement = being alive
- Slow + poignant = being dead
So… is there something wrong with buildings like these?
My professor claims that the avant-garde style of architecture is deceitful, and lacks no meaning or values. For instance, the infamous “Bird’s Nest” of the summer Olympics in China, why is it a nest? Does it have any connection to the actual events happening in the building? Or is it just to look “cool” and eye catching?
And the Jewish Museum:
Which is actually beautiful in the way it displays the horror and violence of the Holocaust. In this building, the violent cuts have meaning. But it doesn’t in these:
Is this avant garde style of architecture really deceitful? Does it really mimic the strategies of advertising? Is it shallow and lacking in meaning and harmony? Does that matter?
It’s an interesting issue.
I’m not sure your professor has it wrong. I think it is definitely true that most architects of today seek differentiation by trying to revolutionize architecture into something that has never been seen before. (which if you look at the thousands of years of architectural evolution, is a relatively new goal). Gehry, Zaha, MVRDV, even BIG to a certain extent, all want to be the source of surprising the viewer with some shock-and-awe value. Is this “wrong”? Well we work in a profession that rarely allows for the designation of right and wrong when it comes to aesthetics, but I think it certainly has repercussions.
This isn’t really a new concept though. Modernism was born from people like Mies and Gropius being champions of the idea that modern society could not be adequately represented through an evolution of historical paradigms.
There are plenty of architects that bemoan the fact that our profession isn’t very well understood and probably the least respected in the process of actually making a building. Most homes built in this country don’t use architects. There are plenty of reasons for that, but at least some of it is because we are an inverted group that describes our work with an esoteric dialogue that no one outside our profession can understand. In a way, architecture like this only strengthens that divide between us and everyone else.
There are two schools of thought here. One is that the general public will never possess a heightened enough knowledge of design and will be ever-constrained to the realm of the vernacular. As a result, we, as designers, cannot pander to a group that as no hope of recognizing the nuances of our profession by dumbing down the language or the message. In short, if people walking by “don’t get it” then so what, we’re designing at a higher level.
The other side of the coin is a group that recognizes that the vast majority of people who utilize and occupy our creations are NOT architects. Given that we try to craft space with the goal of enhancing or enriching society, it would only make sense that the people using it can begin to decipher the method and mantra used to help us make our decisions, fostering a connection (and dare I say placing of value) between the spaces we create and those that use them.
For the former, the likes of Libeskind exist as part of an elevated dialogue pushing the discourse forward. To the latter, it’s a representation of a language that most people don’t speak and perhaps perpetuates a lack of desire for them to ever try to. I consider myself part of the latter contingent, but to each their own.
That’s a very interesting point of view. I agree that the general public doesn’t perceive the deeper meanings or causes for certain design decisions, so that does bring up an interesting topic for whether those decisions even really matter? Will the public notice how we manipulated light to land at a certain place? If they don’t see it, or if they think it’s only coincidental, is architecture still art?
I think I would argue the decisions themselves definitely matter. In the end they craft the outcome of our efforts. How much the public notices is partly up to them (how interested or educated they want to become) but it’s also partly up to us and how interested we are in having a conversation rather than just making a statement.
Hi Brittany…beware of cloistered intellectuals. In their desire to impress with their brilliant insights, far too many professors intimidate through obfuscation and confusion. The above critique, to me, is obfuscating and confusing. One’s natural curiosity and creativity are the victims.
All architecture is a kind of conversation, but the underlying motive is more often, I think, the need to give shape to what one thinks is worth experiencing.
But, transposing what exists in the mind to external reality is always a big challenge. Some excel at it, others struggle with it. Yes, there is much eyewash and shallowness out there covering up ones inability to have and/or match ones vision. But that’s more of an issue of the limits of talent than of one’s motives. Besides, who is it really that’s being deceived? Our responses to any work of art, no matter its merit, are personal and therefore legitimate. We’re all responsible for and own our choices, and our responses to those choices.
Also, given the wide reach of architecture, it’s a huge mistake to attempt shoehorning all of it into a neat theory regarding motives. Yes, there may be deception with some contemporary work, but lumping it all together for what seems to be more of a personal subjective bias against tampering with the envelope, provides an interesting glimpse into the critics personal motives.
And, by the way, what does the professor think is a good option to contemporary? Avoiding breakthrough solutions that might offend those more conservative? Holding onto borrowing as a virtue rather than creating?
Yes, there’s a lot out there that’s in your face, many with flimsy public rationales. and there’s so much that falls below the radar of what’s worth noticing.
There will always be a gradient from good to bad in architecture. Learning how to distinguish between good, bad and in-between is important. But all of it comes from a mind or group of minds that make individual choices according to standards each have chosen as guides. There will always be a seemingly chaotic spectrum of choices made that will each affect us differently.
The real world of architecture is a tough world to stay alive in. Staying true to ones vision of what may be possible can be a near heroic act. And because of that, criticism of the kind mentioned above can serve no real useful purpose other than to discourage creativity.
I think I agree with you, although it is frustrating to not be able to judge whether it is good or bad architecture from some of the aesthetic design decisions. This era of architecture does seem to be all about change and playing with the perceptions of the users. Whether or not that is good architecture, I don’t know. I think it is good in the fact that it is memorable and provokes emotion and awe from viewers that probably don’t pay much attention to architecture.
As for my professor, I would say that he is a lover of modernism. He likes harmony, balance and boxes. Compared to this crazy architecture, it’s much more peaceful, but not as memorable for the general public. However, for me, I appreciate and love both styles
“But that’s more of an issue of the limits of talent than of one’s motives.”
That sounds like a disclaimer of convenience. I think my words are less about questioning the talent of designers or their freedom of creativity and more about talking about the goals that we, as architects, are trying to actually accomplish. Who is being engaged (or not) and why? Like I said, there is no right or wrong answer.
I also don’t think that “contemporary” has to be “shoehorned” into the manifestation of design that’s being discussed here. There are plenty of contemporary architects that are doing work not similar to the pictures above but are also not historically constrained conservatively driven.
As long as you’re using terms like “good” and “bad”, I think it’s fair to say that just because an act is heroic doesn’t make it successful. Just because something is innovative does not mean it is progressive or constructive. Pushing the envelope is great, but the results deserves critique and response just as much as not pushing the envelope enough.
T.Caine, Your last post suggests you are countering my comments. My comments were a response to Brittany’s post, not yours. When I wrote my comments I hadn’t yet seen yours. If your find yourself aligned with the professor and disagree with me, that’s o.k. I find that I agree with most of your original post, but my emphasis was different.
Warren, my mistake, I thought I was being referred to as a cloistered intellectual–which struck me as odd because I don’t think I have the patience to ever teach. I agree, I think that the professor’s comments actually seem remarkably similar to the kind advertising/marketing that he likens to a certain area of design, and as a result is trying to lobby against.
-Tyler