Quote:
Originally Posted by natelox
I have yet to be impressed by Holl's work, but that aside, this building looks okay. Much of Holl's work seems messy and unorganized (not in a Gehry or Mayne manner BTW) and the interior picture is an example of this. The issue I have with energetic and visionary architects is that they often look past purpose in a search for style or creativity for the sake of creativity (the most dangerous form of it). For instance, why did Holl choose the translucent panels? I realise you said that they "capture a very exciting opalescence and change constantly in appearance with the light of the day. Keep in mind that Holl wanted to achieve both an interesting relationship between building and landscape and a very good quality of natural light on the interior for the viewing of art." This however does not explain why he wanted that affect. What does it have to do with anything? The quality of light on the inside comes close to an acceptable reason, but there are many different ways to achieve such lighting. And why the "fragments" connected by a "sinewy thread of passages?"
Another point that struck me was your second sentence. The general public should not have to interpret or try to understand architecture. If it requires an explanation, it doesn't work. Secondly, the general public should not be lambasted for not having an interest in architecture. I don't have a particular interest in classical paintings or ballet, but I'm sure art curators and ballet choreographers scold me for my inability to comprehend their work. It becomes a matter of acceptance: not everyone cares about architecture. Whether they should or not is a different question as architecture's affect on people is inherent in the practice. My suggestion: if you're really tired of the general public's words concerning architecture, design a building that leaves them speechless.
|
I'm not trying to dictate anyone's impressions here. I'm merely offering a bit of an informed opinion on the subject of this building and asking people to open their minds a bit. I think a museum curator or a director would only ask the same.
Holl designs through a very highly conceptual and creative process of watercolors, model iterations and material explorations. He tends to start with an idea about light or space. Then he builds a 'spatial narrative' around these themes. So in this case the visitor follows one main arterial passage (the sinewy threads) and 'happens' upon individual galleries (the fragments). It's merely a conceptual way of thinking about architectural procession.
As for Gehry, well he acts as a sculptor with architecture as his medium. And Thom Mayne works very iteratively in a manner not too dissimilar to Holl's. In the offices of all three of these architects you will undoubtedly find dozens of models for each project. Compare that to most normative practices where you get a couple sketch models and then a presentation model at most. It's an entirely different method of working, but both are equally valid.
And for your argument that the public shouldn't have to interpret architecture, think about architecture as a refined form of building, much like literature is to speech. Architecture critic Colin Rowe had this to say on the subject. I hope you'll read it if it doesn't bore you :
"For, the requirements of professional empire building apart, the demand that all buildings should become works of architecture (or the reverse) is strictly offensive to common sense. If it is possible to define the existential predicament of the art or architecture, one might possibly stipulate that architecture is a social institution related to building in much the same way that literature is to speech. Its technical medium is public property and, if the notion that all speech should approximate literature is (undoubtedly) absurd and would, in practice, be intolerable, much the same may be said about building and architecture. There is no need and no purpose served in insisting that they be identical. Like literature, architecture is a discriminatory concept which can, but need not, enjoy a lively commerce with its vernacular. And if it should be apparent that nobody is, in any way, seriously the loser by the existence of refined and passionate modes of concatenating words, the value of a parallel activity should scarcely require to be excused."