DAISY AMES

ouroussoff writes about the triumphs in architecture in 2009, unavoidably picking those of similar typology. the quality of morphosis’ cooper union and hadid’s maxxi museum run juxtapose to the gehry and nouvel structures which rely on glitzy external perceptions. gehry’s “glistens,” and nouvels is “emblazoned with fragmented images of performers that float dreamily across its surface.”  for more “razzle-dazzle you” jargon, see also my december 2, 2009 post re: nouvel’s 1100 avenue of americas building.

powerful architectural writing, both literal and phenomenally, lacks attention to detail. instead, critics have increasingly relied on overly expressive words to describe its subject. the architectural vocabulary is composed of words that do not describe, but add. see a theme?

just how popular architects design, popular critics write. flashy words define this generation’s architectural lexicon, with aim to be understood by the masses. what happen to the day when architecture was dissected for not only its literal, cultural and material impact, but its theoretical and intellectual? when was the last time frank gehry’s intellect was challenged?

instead of being impressed by what’s added to the exterior of a building, let’s challenge their formation of space. let’s examine the details of the building with an intellectual agenda… and not be afraid to lose people (including myself) along the way. after all, effective learning relies on exposure to phenomena that have yet been experienced - ie. enlightenment.

paul goldberger claims that  jean nouvel’s new building on the west side highway “hits you with razzle-dazzle but also backs it up by getting you to think about architecture in a more serious way.” yet, i do not find much that is serious or profound about 1100 eleventh avenue, nor was i enlightened about an intellectual approach to design. i live in close proximity, and witnessed the construction of the classic condominium floor plan, and then the slow application of the window scheme - only proving to be merely a sparkly wrapping paper of sorts. an apparent fascination of nouvel’s was to “blur the boundary between inside and outside” through the use of facade (and texture). actually, this is much more so the case in meier’s perry and charles street (ie. transparency - both literal and phenomenal) which goldberger seems to critique as notions of the past. i suppose he is implying that the past is bad, or passé, as they say en française…

ps. “randomly assembling” windows does not mean that architecture was thought about in a more serious way. randomness, particularly in architecture, is one succumbing to mental conquest.