Alright. So I've been done with my undergrad for a couple weeks now, and even though the semester is over and I shouldn't really care about it anymore, I've been think a lot about my final paper in my 20th Century Architecture class. See, the paper was about Buckminster Fuller (Engineer, Architect, Dome-Enthusiast, and Wannabe-Revolutionary) and his failed Dymaxion pet-project. Dymaxion is a concept that Fuller developed first in the 1920's as a housing concept that embraced universality, maximum efficiency of materials, portability, and environmental harmony. Though he debuted his first Dymaxion House concept in 1927, he continued to tinker with the idea until the late 1970s. During those 50 year, the Dymaxion house underwent countless design changes, and resulted in only two functional prototypes, most notably the Wichita House of 1945. The intention of my paper was to figure out why Dymaxion concept, which was initially met with critical acclaim, failed so epically. My hypothesis at the onset of my research, was that Fuller, who was a self-proclaimed perfectionist, let his obsessive perfectionism prevent him from ever authorizing a design for mass-production; that he always found something wrong with the design until one day, he no longer wanted to pursue the concept. What I found, was that this was only half of the story: True, Fuller was obsessed with perfection to a fault. However, the reason for this obsession is what I found most fascinating. Fuller, hadn't always been an architect. In fact, in the early 1920's, Fuller was unemployed and incredibly dissatisfied with his life accomplishments. Even though he emphasized throughout his career that Dymaxion was intended to revolutionize and improve the human experience for the good of humanity, his auto-biography reveals that Dymaxion was actually “an experiment to discover what the little, penniless, unknown individual might be able to do effectively on behalf of all humanity.” I was sort of taken aback by the selfishness of the statement. For somebody who built their career on ideas of preserving "spaceship earth" and living efficiently with the environment, it became suddenly clear that Fuller ultimately intended on securing his own legacy.... And THAT is why Dymaxion failed. Just because you mask a house for yourself as a house for everyone doesn't mean that everyone will want it. Incredibly long paper synopsis aside, this has gotten me thinking about the relationship between an architect's vanity/selfish motivations and resulting structures. A book that I've, admittedly, never read (but DO have on my Amazon.com wish list, and have read a lot about) is John Stiller's "Architecture of the Absurd," which focuses on contemporary architects who place more importance on their own artist vision than on the functionality of their creations or the satisfaction of their clients. Stiller uses "Star-chitect" Frank Gehry as his primary examples of an architect who clearly considers himself an artists producing large-scale sculptures, rather than a builder tasked with creating functional space. Gehry's Disney Concert Hall and Stata Center for MIT are now infamous examples of buildings that went over budget, past-deadline, and were concepts that Gehry all but shoved down the client's throat.
The Disney Concert Hall, though stunning, required sandblasting weeks after construction finished. The iconic, dancing waves of stainless steel were reflecting sunlight into neighboring apartment buildings; blinding residents and causing cooling costs to skyrocket. What's hilarious, is that the building was intended to be clad in sandstone...however, due to the popularity of Gehry's Bilbao Guggenheim (which was clad in titanium), Disney requested a similar metallic finish. Not surprisingly, Gehry was clearly more interested in stroking his own ego and building his artistic reputation than in preventing a surge in retinal burns in downtown Los Angeles... at least the near perfect acoustics of the building make up for the numerous (and expensive) mistakes on the exterior.
Sandstone v. Titanium
Stata Center at MIT was an even bigger disaster for Gehry. Though the building is a much better "neighbor" than the Disney Concert hall, Gehry's design selfishness resulted in glass-walled cubicles that the resident scientists hated for not allowing for enough privacy, and undulating ceilings that leaked. Gehry's dominating artistic vision is most appalling here, because it all but completely destroys the functionality of the building. This is a lab building. . . Functional office space, and preventing contamination from leaky roofs are basic requirements... Producing this monstrosity at triple the cost and a year over schedule is embarrassing to the profession...MIT was incredibly unhappy with the building, for obvious reasons. Gehry's inner-artist came out when he shrugged off the poor reception of this project, but again, he is an architect...not an artist. His responsibility to his own vision is secondary to his client's, especially if it could potentially hurt chances of receiving future large scale commissions.
Stata Center, MIT
Fuller, Stiller, and Gehry make me think that designing for oneself is what makes a building unsuccessful... especially when the architect claims to be changing the world for the better. Fuller wanted to save the world with Dymaxion. Gehry, seeks to abolish universality and foster creativity in design, even if that means doing away with LEED certification.... but neither really seeks to benefit humanity... they're looking out for themselves; their own legacies... Which makes me reconsider how history approaches the study of the Modernist Style. Mies van der Rohe, Le CorbusierPruit-Igoe Housing block in St. Louis proved that Modernism was incapable of solving the problems it intended to fix. The buildings were the epitome of Modern design, won numerous design awards upon completion, and yet, quickly became slums that were eventually demolished at the request of its residents.
Le Corbusier's Plan for Paris. a.k.a. Utopia?
Pruit-Igoe from Air.
Modernism Dies
As with any art form, the what inspires an artist to make art a certain way is fascinating. But a ill-conceived painting, and an ill-conceived building are worlds apart. Architects fancy themselves as artist, but I think the failures of Fuller and Gehry illustrate that an architect must negotiate their client's needs with their own ideas. It's easy to ignore a piece of art that you don't like... such is not the case with a building. Art is crucially important, but Architecture holds so much more responsibility because we live our lives in it. I don't really understand why an Architect would lessen his role.. especially if it results in bad work. Which I guess sounds a little vain in itself. Am I just making stuff up?! Probably. Thanks for joining us on our maiden voyage. Stay Tuned! . .
Entries
No comments:
Post a Comment