a thoughtful web.
Share good ideas and conversation.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by user-inactivated
user-inactivated  ·  1144 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Contra contemporary architecture

in a way there are two conversations happening here. eisenman has never made what i would call architecture. he makes giant "modern art." this helps resolve the curiosity that no one really likes giant ugly buildings (eg the parisian domino building) but they've won out. there's a prevailing idea that we need giant works of modern art in cities, either for individuality or whatever else.

as someone on the ssc subreddit pointed out, it's all very well to fundamentally hate piss christ, because you don't have to think about it. but if you drive by soldier field on the way to work every day... (and in case anyone thinks giant functional stadia can't be attractive, at least concede that minute maid, fenway, etc do a better job of fitting in)

interesting links. i think a lot of postwar architecture boils down to an ego trip.

PTR  ·  1141 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    i think a lot of postwar architecture boils down to an ego trip

I mean...kind of? The theory behind these "modern art" pieces is wild. Eisenman's collection pulled upon broad depths of theory. People who understand the basis of thought will understand the ego and appreciate the work.

I think a clearer distinction is that architects in the modern age are finding a stronger expressive link in their work rather than to the client. That's the distinction I made above between Alexander and Eisenman RE: Eishin vs. House VI. It's also the dynamic of public opinion that KB got at above - in short, public opinion barely matters to whether something gets built or not. In the case of public-facing architecture, the weakening of the non-paying, only-observing client link appears as (and is!) a strengthening of the architect's ego. With public/client opinion backseated, any artist will create with and from what they know, which will always be an ego-expression. There's no way around it.

kleinbl00  ·  1144 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I think the basic problem is that when we argue architecture should blend into the background, we make it invisible from ourselves.

Here's Chicago "then and now." The only people who know the names of a handful of these buildings are the true nerds. Everyone else just notices that a new building went up maybe. Put up something hideous, though? Everyone knows its name.