Thursday, August 21, 2008
But Is It Art?
There is no amazement here, but it is surprising it doesn't happen all the time with much highly touted modern architecture — the buildings may not be sound structures. These are the buildings designed by high profile (whatz hot) “conceptual” architects which cry “wannabe sculpture”. Many such buildings are not only poor aesthetically, they may also be poorly engineered; designed for the ego of client and architect rather than the public that will use them. Buildings are of a craft — they are functional first and foremost.
The clients are willing to go along with the self-indulgence because they themselves want “signature” buildings. That is, it just has to look different and clients are happy, even if the building might spring leaks. This sort of building is a species of institutional status bling commissioned by clueless committees.
…soon after its completion in spring 2004, the center's outdoor amphitheater began to crack due to drainage problems, the suit says. Snow and ice cascaded dangerously from window boxes and other projecting roof areas, blocking emergency exits and damaging other parts of the building, according to the suit. Mold grew on the center's brick exterior, the suit says, and there were persistent leaks throughout the building…The suit says it cost MIT more than $1.5 million to hire another company to rebuild the amphitheater, with new bricks, seats, and a new drainage system.
This goes not only for university structures, but business and museum structures as well — in fact, especially the latter. Many museums are terrible showplaces for art — take a walk through the Guggenheim; Frank Lloyd Wright's apotheosis of himself — art, public, urban context, be damned.
Former Boston University president John Silber wrote a book called, “Architecture of the Absurd: How 'Genius' Disfigured a Practical Art.”