[Traynor]

This was a point I wanted to make as well. Just because something is not beautiful on its face does not mean that it lacks legitimate artistic merit or substance. Often an artist is trying to express something beyond "this is beauty". Though it may not be pretty, a tower of twisted metal is certainly an interesting expression that would evoke a lot of different interpretations.

Completely true. Art for art's sake is fine in a museum when you want to make your viewers think or re-evaluate their priorities. I give you Chris Ofili, Holy Virgin Mary 1996. An image of the Virgin Mary made from feces.

It makes you think. But I don't want a skyscraper made of shit in my city. Just to make me think.

And what exactly IS the statement that Gehry is artistically making? Is he asking me to re-evaluate my crumbling consumerism lifestyle and pointless striving to out-do the Jones' next door buy purchasing an overpriced box in the sky?

(Image found HERE )

 

[Ramako]

The difference is I don't need everyone else to hate it to justify my dislike for it. I just know I don't like it and I am secure in that preference even if I am the only one... Whereas most defenders of something like this need to convince the others that it is good, in order to feel secure in liking it themselves. Sound familiar... you know who you are Adma

For someone so secure in their preference, you're sure going out of your way to explain why your preference is somehow objectively better or more legitimate than those who have the opposite preference. Saying "look how secure I am compared to the rest of you" doesn't really scream security to me.

Go ahead and love these buildings. Good for you. I am only telling you why I find these designs repetitive, unsophisticated, kitschy and one dimensional.

To be fair, you're not simply telling us why you don't like them; you're also telling us all why if we do like them, that we like them for illegitimate reasons and that our ability to appreciate architecture is inferior to yours.

 

[Ramako]

And what exactly IS the statement that Gehry is artistically making? Is he asking me to re-evaluate my crumbling consumerism lifestyle and pointless striving to out-do the Jones' next door buy purchasing an overpriced box in the sky?

Isn't that for you to decide? How often to artists actively explain the meaning of their works? The debate itself has value.

 

[Lenser]

I didn't realize that Gehry proposes a trio of towers made of excrement. This is indeed news.

__________________________

Ramako is right, methinks. It's not Gehry's obligation to explain his 'statement' to the satisfaction of one and all. That would be a somewhat pointless exercise, since you can't please 'em all anyway.

 

[E.B.]

haha, it all makes sense now. I didn't reply to the original point you made, because I thought it was a good point. I also liked the French-German-Chinese-English translated quote.

I like having a little fun. oh, who am I kidding, I like to have a lot fun on the different threads.

I just looked at the renders again and they're amazing. The city would be making a big mistake to ruin this.

Hey, AlvinofDiaspar, why don't we take a poll on this?

 

[Traynor]

Isn't that for you to decide? How often to artists actively explain the meaning of their works? The debate itself has value.

Perfect!

I would then ask that all supporters of this style offer their interpretation of what crumbling, melting buildings means to them and how it speaks to them artistically and personally.

With no hint of sarcasm, this would be very interesting.

 

[Traynor]

If for one second, I thought that Gehry's intentions were to hold a mirror up to the general public and make them question their Hyper-consumerism, their fruitless attempt to attain material goods and the eventual crumbling of ALL civilizations, then I would be all over this design aesthetic.

But that would be giving that tired old hack WAAAAAAY too much credit.

 

[Lansdude]

Don't think anyone is gonna get through to anyone else here. Personally, the warrant I accept for building them is simply their uniqueness. Not that these ideas haven't been on display in Gehry's ideas elsewhere, but their uniqueness for the city, especially in our sky of aquamarine-pricked monotony.

Though, from reading through the past few pages and Traynor's passionate denunciations of Gehry, I get the sense that he's really raging against a caricature of a post-modern emperor's-clothes elitist theorist, architecture's equivalent of a Derrida-worshipping literary theory grad student. Try not to get caught up in the fawning silliness of other people's subjectivity and instead think through the idea asocially, phenomenologically. As to how posterity would judge such a project, we have no no way of knowing until we get there.

Leaving the artistic considerations aside, can anyone really argue it wouldn't be a boon for the city's prestige, and therefore the city's economy?

 

[Traynor]

...Though, from reading through the past few pages and Traynor's passionate denunciations of Gehry, I get the sense that he's really raging against a caricature of a post-modern emperor's-clothes elitist theorist, architecture's equivalent of a Derrida-worshipping literary theory grad student. Try not to get caught up in the fawning silliness of other people's subjectivity and instead think through the idea asocially, phenomenologically. As to how posterity would judge such a project, we have no no way of knowing until we get there.

BINGO!

Someone who gets it.

It doesn't mean you agree with me, but at least you understand the point I am making.

The architect has no clothes!!! He is NAKED!!!!!!

Try not to get caught up in the fawning silliness of other people's subjectivity and instead think through the idea asocially, phenomenologically.

Perfect statement... could not be expressed any better. Everything I was trying to say boiled down to one sentence.

Thank You

 

[Ramako]

BINGO!

Someone who gets it.

It doesn't mean you agree with me, but at least you understand the point I am making.

The architect has no clothes!!! He is NAKED!!!!!!



Perfect statement... could not be expressed any better. Everything I was trying to say boiled down to one sentence.

Thank You

I thought your point was that these buildings only appealed to people who thought that the high-level engineering and outlandish forms was fanboyish "cool" rather than "beautiful" and that such a mentality lacked sophistication. Now your argument is that these buildings appeal to elitist, grad-school types who fawn over some contrived profound theoretical meaning. Which is it?

It seems that nobody is allowed to like these buildings without inviting your self-righteous derision. You seem to have a really hard time believing that other people could appreciate these buildings for legitimate reasons, and that your personal preference isn't some superior objective truth.

 

[buildup]

I agree. If these towers are told to be chopped by 30 stories, i would hope Mirvish & Gehry tell them to blow smoke, we'll take them to a city that wants them. I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem. Toronto would then be looked upon in awe for all the wrong reasons.

In fact they have already said as much.

 

[buildup]

I would rather Mirvish scale the project way back, fix up and restore the existing structures, enhance their usages and if need be incorporate some highrise component. That is real city building.

You'd still be willing to incorporate some high rise providing he did all that?

 

[Traynor]

You are not the brightest if you don't get Lansdude's point and how it correlates to my opinion of Gehry.

Fanboys like this because everyone else does. As in no one wants to be the one who says they don't see the emperor's clothes because only the elite and intelligent people can see them... Then along comes a young boy and speaks the truth. Forcing all the citizens to admit they were just following along because it was cool to do so and didn't want to look lame.

Is that simple enough for you to get?

Sorry for coming across so condescending but I thought the comparison was painfully obvious.

You seem to have a really hard time believing that other people could appreciate these buildings for legitimate reasons

I do not care if you like it for legitimate reasons but as of yet I have not heard any. So far everyone has said they like it because they do. I have given reasons for the opposite view, but just liking it "because" is not a reason.

 

[Traynor]

Here, I will play devil's advocate to my own viewpoint and give a fictional example of why I like this building:

I love the way the walls seem to melt into one another because that reminds me of chocolate icing dripping off a giant cake... and chocolate and cake make me feel good so I like the feeling these buildings give me.

In your own words (not something regurgitated from an architectural magazine about Gehry) ,please, explain why you appreciate this design aesthetic other than "it looks cool" and "wow how did they do that" and maybe THEN you could posit a convincing argument I could wrap my brain around.

 

[buildup]

Go ahead and love these buildings. Good for you. I am only telling you why I find these designs repetitive, unsophisticated, kitschy and one dimensional.

How does your argument hold up if you substitute "organic" for "crumpled"? I ask because I sometimes think of Gaudi. His NY condos look like redwood trees.
And the notion that Ghery's work is repetitive is sort of laughable. There are recurring themes - obviously - but compared to most other architects he's probably shown the most diversity.