AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
All caps is never acceptable in an online setting. Please rectify the issue.
MoD
MoD
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
Imo it will enhance Mirvish for the opposite reason, standing out far above and beyond the crowd.
The quality of the workmanship is not exactly the architect's fault.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Yes but designing buildings that are little more than stage sets, intended to be seen from one or two angles, is.
buildup
Senior Member
Can you expand on your point. I like to documents innovative criticisms of the world's greatest living architect, according to his peers, relating to his Toronto effort. I suspect you have an original criticism to document. Are you suggesting his existing works are stage sets, that's good please continue...
MetroMan
Senior Member
Actually, he hit the nail on the head. I couldn't have described it better in such a short description: Frank Gehry's work often looks like stage sets. I love his work but after having visited so many of his buildings, whenever they have large flourishes, they look like propped up stage sets, beautiful on one side, exposed back framing on the other.
The Pritzker Pavillion demonstrates this perfectly:
It's also seen on his most well known piece, the Guggenheim in Bilbao
I've had an opportunity to visit both. They're beautiful buildings no doubt but Gehry's lac of attention to detail up close has begun to come across as lazy to me. I still consider his work to be some of the most creative of any architect, but I now know to temper my expectations for buildings with a lot of flourishes.
Check out the Cleveland Clinic:
Those are just fake walls propped up like a stage set. Note that the backing of these walls isn't exactly hidden from view. They often see as much traffic as the nice sides. The Guggenheim for example has a very narrow sightline where you don't see the backing on one of the pieces.
Attachments
Last edited:
junctionist
Senior Member
The structural framing reminds me of high-tech architecture--it's obviously meant to be seen. But Gehry's work isn't in the high-tech style. He's making a point about architecture by separating the ornamental curved facade from the functional. Form doesn't have to follow function for a building to have great architecture. Architecture is about the ornamental facade. There's no need to pretend it isn't by minimizing ornamentation the way the Modernists did. I think it's a good point since his designs are spectacular; however, Modernist architecture can achieve impressive results with less apparent design effort, lower costs and simpler and more functional spaces.
scamander24
Active Member
His buildings are undoubtedly more about aesthetics rather than function. There's a reason why his clients are mostly people that want to make a statement rather than something that functions well. He's basically a gimmick. He'll produce something that will require many engineering feats to accomplish, dramatically increasing the costs of your projects. His buildings would not have simple rectangular corners, which would mean lots of wasted space.
Not to say that's a bad thing, because he's definitely great at what he does, which is deconstructivism. But to call him one of the world's greatest architects is a bit of a stretch. He's more of an artist than an architect.
Relevant Simpsons episode featuring Frank Gehry.
rankman
New Member
buildup
Senior Member
Many buildings around the world could have been built cheaper by dropping design elements. What's your point? Advocating 'function', the Modernist box, the strip Mall, etc. Round and round we go.
I'd counter argue that "calling him one of the world's greatest architects is a bit of a stretch" is itself a huger stretch. You don't think he's one of the world's greatest architects? LOL.
As I review your first paragraph, it occurs to me Gehry himself wouldn't change a word since you are describing every famous architectural masterpiece of the last 5,000 years.
Cityplace for you.
Ayan
Active Member
"The World Architecture Survey was conducted in 2010 by Vanity Fair, to determine the most important works of contemporary architecture. 52 leading architects, teachers, and critics, including several Pritzker Prize winners and deans of major architecture schools were asked for their opinion...Counted by architect, works by Frank Gehry received the most votes, followed by those of Rem Koolhaas."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Architecture_Survey
buildup
Senior Member
"He's more of an artist than an architect"
Do you separate the two? Many (perhaps most) of the greatest have been accomplished artists of some type as well.
btw the Homer Simpson link was funny, thanks.
Do you separate the two? Many (perhaps most) of the greatest have been accomplished artists of some type as well.
btw the Homer Simpson link was funny, thanks.
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
Your entitled to disagree with him being labeled as such, but to call it a "bit of a stretch" as if to suggest he's not even in the discussion? C'mon, that's laughable. Especially considering how highly regarded by not only the general public, but within the industry itself.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
That's all completely on purpose and one of the elements of his postmodernist oeuvre. Say you don't like it, but don't call it an oversight, when it is the intended point. It reminds me a little of the High Tech movement, where everything remains exposed, as opposed to covering them up (which, as it turns out, is far more complex and expensive to do actually).
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Don't get too excited....what the city rejected was far better. This is the compromise.
