It was as inevitable as night turning into day that jya would post the Times
article about Modern Gothic. I'm surprised it didn't come with more
commentary than the new title (which according to the story is not accurate).
But it provides the opportunity for some comments and questions.
Back when Corb and his friends didn't have enough work to do, they founded
CIAM and issued all sorts of proclamations intended to make the world want
more open to their work. One was an historic preservation standard that said
all additions to historic buildings should be "of their time."
This was from the man, remember, who wanted to tear down the right bank of
Paris -- genius, yes, preservationist, no. Nevertheless, the standard was
adopted by the UN and then by US, in the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Historic Preservation. In practice, it often means that
historic buildings get additions that must make the original architects roll
over in their graves. By that I don't mean that they are Modern, which is
fine, but that they are often of a character completely out of keeping with
the original, thereby substantially altering the character of the original
and its surroundings.
Interestingly, the principal of this standard doesn't seem to apply to Modern
buildings. Kevin Roche's addition to the Jewish museum on Fifth Avenue in New
York is usually mocked by architects (including jya, judging by a comment he
made last week), because it is too close in spirit to the turn-of-the-century
mansion that houses the museum. But two more or less contemporary additions
to Modern museums in the same city are also held in disdain by architects --
because they are not respectful enough of the original buildings.
The two, of course, are Michael Graves's addition to Marcel Breuer's Whitney
Museum and Gwathmey Siegel's addition to FLW's Guggenheim. Graves's work, for
better or for worse, was completely of its Post-Modern time, which is
probably a large part of the reason why the older generation that came out in
force against the addition (Pei, Barnes, et al) hated it so much. And
certainly the strength of Breuer's original was that it didn't respect its
context at all.
That was also part of the appeal of the Guggenheim, while Gwathmey's Siegel's
addition was quite deferential to Wright's work, drawing much of its parti
from a sketch by Wright for an addition and adding Gwathmey Siegel type
details. But it too, as jya can attest, took a lot of criticism.
Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Now the shoe's on the other foot, and all the same old comments come out.
Including this one: "What it's saying about Britain is that it's a country
that's culturally timid, trying to recapture its 19th-century history AND NOT
LOOKING FORWARD TO THE TWENTIETH CENTURY" said Jeremy Melvin, a senior
lecturer in architecture at South Bank University. "When the castle was built
it was built in the manner of its time..."
Mr. Malvin seems to forget that we are only 5 years from the 21st century,
and that he is parroting ideas that have been around for at least 80 years
now. In other words, is it really the spirit of OUR time that architecture
can not continue historical traditions? Or is this the idea of a past time?
And how many architects today do work that is not Historical Modernism --
like Gwathmey Siegel, for example, who work with the ideas and vocabularies
of Corb, or Kevin Roche, who normally works with the ideas of his old boss,
Eero Saarinen, who was building back in the 1940s.
Are we all suppose to invent our own languages, like Corb? (Mies and Gropius
said no, right from the start.) Or is that an outmoded idea? How come I can't
distinguish Zaha's pupils from Zaha? Any reasonable look at the history of
Modernism shows that most of its practioners were not very original, even
though that became its mantra (taught to them by their teachers, who were
taught by their teachers...again, Mies and Gropius always disagreed.)
I would agree that there was a time when the ideas of Modernism were much of
the Zeitgeist, and 100% of the artistic Zeitgeist. But is the spirit of the
21st Century really the same as that of the 20th?
SP, we know, has all sort of ideas that he thinks he should inform
architecture today -- but what if those ideas don't mean anything to us? Or
if we don't like the architecture it produces? Are we supposed to do produce
work we find inherently difficult and abrasive because abstruse theories say
so? (Which is not to deny sp's right to do so, just to question it's
universality.)
And speaking of universality, why, according to Gallup polls, do 93% of the
British public support Prince Charles's ideas, while 71% of British
architects (and probably more American - see "HRH Design") oppose it, and the
President of RIBA feels compelled to write a book opposing him?
Are 93% of the British public just stupid? I always though architects were
supposed to be socially conscious.
CAVEAT SCRIPTOR: I am NOT, IN ANY WAY, advocating a return to PoMo. Don't
even bother with that sh*t.
article about Modern Gothic. I'm surprised it didn't come with more
commentary than the new title (which according to the story is not accurate).
But it provides the opportunity for some comments and questions.
Back when Corb and his friends didn't have enough work to do, they founded
CIAM and issued all sorts of proclamations intended to make the world want
more open to their work. One was an historic preservation standard that said
all additions to historic buildings should be "of their time."
This was from the man, remember, who wanted to tear down the right bank of
Paris -- genius, yes, preservationist, no. Nevertheless, the standard was
adopted by the UN and then by US, in the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Historic Preservation. In practice, it often means that
historic buildings get additions that must make the original architects roll
over in their graves. By that I don't mean that they are Modern, which is
fine, but that they are often of a character completely out of keeping with
the original, thereby substantially altering the character of the original
and its surroundings.
Interestingly, the principal of this standard doesn't seem to apply to Modern
buildings. Kevin Roche's addition to the Jewish museum on Fifth Avenue in New
York is usually mocked by architects (including jya, judging by a comment he
made last week), because it is too close in spirit to the turn-of-the-century
mansion that houses the museum. But two more or less contemporary additions
to Modern museums in the same city are also held in disdain by architects --
because they are not respectful enough of the original buildings.
The two, of course, are Michael Graves's addition to Marcel Breuer's Whitney
Museum and Gwathmey Siegel's addition to FLW's Guggenheim. Graves's work, for
better or for worse, was completely of its Post-Modern time, which is
probably a large part of the reason why the older generation that came out in
force against the addition (Pei, Barnes, et al) hated it so much. And
certainly the strength of Breuer's original was that it didn't respect its
context at all.
That was also part of the appeal of the Guggenheim, while Gwathmey's Siegel's
addition was quite deferential to Wright's work, drawing much of its parti
from a sketch by Wright for an addition and adding Gwathmey Siegel type
details. But it too, as jya can attest, took a lot of criticism.
Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Now the shoe's on the other foot, and all the same old comments come out.
Including this one: "What it's saying about Britain is that it's a country
that's culturally timid, trying to recapture its 19th-century history AND NOT
LOOKING FORWARD TO THE TWENTIETH CENTURY" said Jeremy Melvin, a senior
lecturer in architecture at South Bank University. "When the castle was built
it was built in the manner of its time..."
Mr. Malvin seems to forget that we are only 5 years from the 21st century,
and that he is parroting ideas that have been around for at least 80 years
now. In other words, is it really the spirit of OUR time that architecture
can not continue historical traditions? Or is this the idea of a past time?
And how many architects today do work that is not Historical Modernism --
like Gwathmey Siegel, for example, who work with the ideas and vocabularies
of Corb, or Kevin Roche, who normally works with the ideas of his old boss,
Eero Saarinen, who was building back in the 1940s.
Are we all suppose to invent our own languages, like Corb? (Mies and Gropius
said no, right from the start.) Or is that an outmoded idea? How come I can't
distinguish Zaha's pupils from Zaha? Any reasonable look at the history of
Modernism shows that most of its practioners were not very original, even
though that became its mantra (taught to them by their teachers, who were
taught by their teachers...again, Mies and Gropius always disagreed.)
I would agree that there was a time when the ideas of Modernism were much of
the Zeitgeist, and 100% of the artistic Zeitgeist. But is the spirit of the
21st Century really the same as that of the 20th?
SP, we know, has all sort of ideas that he thinks he should inform
architecture today -- but what if those ideas don't mean anything to us? Or
if we don't like the architecture it produces? Are we supposed to do produce
work we find inherently difficult and abrasive because abstruse theories say
so? (Which is not to deny sp's right to do so, just to question it's
universality.)
And speaking of universality, why, according to Gallup polls, do 93% of the
British public support Prince Charles's ideas, while 71% of British
architects (and probably more American - see "HRH Design") oppose it, and the
President of RIBA feels compelled to write a book opposing him?
Are 93% of the British public just stupid? I always though architects were
supposed to be socially conscious.
CAVEAT SCRIPTOR: I am NOT, IN ANY WAY, advocating a return to PoMo. Don't
even bother with that sh*t.