architecture

[diego7david]

thanks Mini you have a lot of good points. some of them can be narrowed down and focused on a particular building say just one of gehrys or one of calatravas bridges without a need to think of their whole body of works. otherwise you are really judging an architect or a movement, not so much a building.

im also not an expert. i just think creativity is something to study, and something to strive towards. michael millkin, the junk bond trader, once asked me to try to help him create a museum about the process of creativity instead of making a museum showing the products of creativity. he was trying to justify his eccentricity i believe. anyway, i decided that it was too difficult a project to do as i had already given up on trying to teach design. most of ones talent i believe you are born with or without. living can refine it, but not create it.

 

[Bianca]

most of ones talent i believe you are born with or without. living can refine it, but not create it.

I agree with this and I think teaching design would be a very difficult and sometimes frustrating job. I asked that same question to a teacher once, if he thought the ability to design (aesthetically speaking) was inherent in a person or if it could be learned. He was a wonderful teacher, very encouraging and in touch with his students, but he agreed that it was something inherent. Like any art probably... not just anybody can sing or dance or paint. It's a God-given talent. But all of us can like or dislike, we are all experts when it comes to our own opinions! I know I'm not a designer nor ever will be one, but fortunately the job of an architect is so multi-faceted and one's strength will be another's weakness. Not many are gifted with the left- and right-brained talents needed to get the entire job done right. And while one architect's name indicates ownership of the work, it is an entire team that made the project successful. This is a whole different topic though, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Bianca]

Context.
I love Gehry's work. His buildings are just amazing, hypnotizing & yes, I would say great architecture. But, if they don't fit within the context they are being put, we have a problem. The Stata comes to mind. You can't just decide you want a Gehry building and stick it anywhere.

I wonder... is deconstructivist architecture ever contextual? Is part of the statement of the building meant to break the mold and the norms of what traditional architecture is?

 

[mini]

I wonder... is deconstructionist architecture ever contextual? Is part of the statement of the building meant to break the mold and the norms of what traditional architecture is?

I'm not sure I'm using the concept of "contextual" properly or 'descontructed'. I probably just mean 'modern'. But yes, I do believe deconstructionist buildings can work in otherwise traditional environments & still break the mold, like the Pompideu Center in Paris, the cathedral in Sao Paulo, the Lake house on Lake Geneva, the NY Guggenhiem, Gaudi's buildings, the Hunderwasser buildings. (I'm sure there are many many many more.)

Others work because the landscape around them is not so dense and allows the very special building to be seen like a sculpture, ie the Bilbao Guggenhiem, a couple of Frank Lloyd Wright's houses I can think of & Brasilia (as a whole?). In the case specifically of Brasilia, it is the job of new structures to work themselves into the already "deconstructed" environment.

As I mentioned above, the Botta casino probably would have worked if the scale were more appropriate. I mean the building is wild, but just wrong where it is. If only it didn't completly overpower & overwhelm the rest of the landscape. The MIT Stata building also doesn't work in the context. It just looks wrong, really wrong. (And of course it has issues with my other point, it has construction issues).

As for creativitiy, I believe you can learn creativity, or rather, you can learn to think in a way that allows for creativity or free thinking or whatever, not just in the arts. This doesn't mean everyone will be the next Picasso. & let's not forget that technique is something that you learn, you must learn it. If you don't master the technique you won't be able to express your creativive vision. Sure you might make something beautiful by accident, not design, or you might have amazingly creative ideas that you don't have the skills to realize.

I love to take classes, all kinds of classes. A few years ago I took a pottery class, on the wheel. I wasn't very good at it. But the teach would say "but it's creative". That used to make me crazy. Becuase it wasn't creative, it was an mistake, an accident. There has to be some intention in the thing that is created. There is merit to being encouraging. But let's be real! It was a pretty accident.

Then I beleive there is a progression from amature to craftsmen to master, with progressive mastery of the technique that allows for greater creativity. Not all amatures will become craftsmen and not all craftsmen will become masters. If you know what I mean.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[Bianca]

I think a modern building can (and absolutely should) fit in contextually, but all modern buildings aren't deconstructivist and I personally think that most deconstructivist buildings do not compliment their surroundings or have cohesiveness with its environment. Yes, the rolling curves of a Gehry building can mimic the terrain, but I'm not convinced that makes it contextual. Deconstructivist buildings seem to be more about making a statement and being bold, more about setting itself apart from it's surroundings. I still haven't decided if I like this style or not! I like them as stand-alone buildings (as sculptures), but I value contextual design and cohesiveness and a building that works for the greater good and not just itself.

Probably one of my favorite examples of a modern building set in a historical site and fitting contextually is the Cultural Center in Nimes designed by Norman Foster. This modern, glass structure sits directly across from a Roman temple (the Maison Carree). His building is modern, it has edge, but it is completely respectful of it's surroundings.

As for creativitiy, I believe you can learn creativity, or rather, you can learn to think in a way that allows for creativity or free thinking or whatever, not just in the arts. This doesn't mean everyone will be the next Picasso. & let's not forget that technique is something that you learn, you must learn it. If you don't master the technique you won't be able to express your creativive vision.

Very good point. Maybe I've been missing the step in the middle... learning to think in a way that allows for creativity. Also, I think passion is key, if you don't have passion (for whatever) then you'll never develop to become your best in that aspect. Can you learn passion, or is passion inherent? Another thing that may be more difficult to learn (related to architectural design) is the ability of spatial visualization. It is hard to imagine and design a good building if you aren't able to really picture it and walk through it in your mind. I guess that's what all of these fancy 3D programs are for nowadays!

 

[mini]

I think a modern building can (and absolutely should) fit in contextually, but all modern buildings aren't deconstructivist and I personally think that most deconstructivist buildings do not compliment their surroundings or have cohesiveness with its environment. Yes, the rolling curves of a Gehry building can mimic the terrain, but I'm not convinced that makes it contextual. Deconstructivist buildings seem to be more about making a statement and being bold, more about setting itself apart from it's surroundings. I still haven't decided if I like this style or not! I like them as stand-alone buildings (as sculptures), but I value contextual design and cohesiveness and a building that works for the greater good and not just itself.

You are probably right. I don't know enough about "deconstructionism" as opposed to plain run of the mill "modern"...

Very good point. Maybe I've been missing the step in the middle... learning to think in a way that allows for creativity. Also, I think passion is key, if you don't have passion (for whatever) then you'll never develop to become your best in that aspect. Can you learn passion, or is passion inherent? Another thing that may be more difficult to learn (related to architectural design) is the ability of spatial visualization. It is hard to imagine and design a good building if you aren't able to really picture it and walk through it in your mind. I guess that's what all of these fancy 3D programs are for nowadays!

I have a really difficult time with the whole visualization thing. I can't "see" it. People who have those skills really amaze me.

But you certainly can develop your creativity. One thing I think is important is to "do it". Be creative, everyday. It can be difficult with everything else going on in our lives. I'm certainly guilty of neglecting my creativity.

 

[diego7david]

Architecture - Kisho Kurokawa’s Future Vision, Banished to Past - NYTimes.com

interesting ny times article discussing some of the issues mentioned in this thread.

 

[diego7david]

Inside the Exteriors of the Architect Toyo Ito - NYTimes.com