[i read this yesterday about GZ going's on and could not
accept that the architects have not had every chance in
the world to change the circumstances and to offer public
involvement, etc. it is being framed as if the architects
have not had their way and their superior knowledge is now
being held back by bureaucracies, when what has happened
since the beginning is that the architects became the main
focus, an architect as commercial, not the architecture.
if there is an opportunity, why give the same architects
who fouled up the process with their own selfish ambitions
another chance to ruin it the site even further? it is odd
how Libeskind's role is glossed over as if everyone is a
complete and total idiot. and the new critic is suspect,
to me, in their judgment because they wrote about the new
Walker Art Center addition here as being a 'tower' when
the building is clearly a modernist steel and glass 'box.'
thus ends an era of fictitious architectural 'greatness.']
CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK
At Ground Zero, Disarray Reigns, and an Opportunity Awaits
By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF
Published: May 2, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/arts/design/02note.html
'These [delays] are not simply errors in judgment. They are byproducts of the mix of secrecy, self-interest and paranoia that have enveloped the site from the outset - a climate that favors political expediency and empty symbolic gestures over thoughtful urban planning discussions. And that climate has essentially prevented the architects involved from openly addressing problems with the master plan even as its weaknesses have become more glaring.'
// article about architecture and development...
// artsjournal.com abstracts the article as:
// commerce + art = architecture
// it may also be considered:
// commerce + art = commercial art
Commerce Joins Art to Train Yale Architects
By ROBIN POGREBIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/arts/design/04arch.html?
accept that the architects have not had every chance in
the world to change the circumstances and to offer public
involvement, etc. it is being framed as if the architects
have not had their way and their superior knowledge is now
being held back by bureaucracies, when what has happened
since the beginning is that the architects became the main
focus, an architect as commercial, not the architecture.
if there is an opportunity, why give the same architects
who fouled up the process with their own selfish ambitions
another chance to ruin it the site even further? it is odd
how Libeskind's role is glossed over as if everyone is a
complete and total idiot. and the new critic is suspect,
to me, in their judgment because they wrote about the new
Walker Art Center addition here as being a 'tower' when
the building is clearly a modernist steel and glass 'box.'
thus ends an era of fictitious architectural 'greatness.']
CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK
At Ground Zero, Disarray Reigns, and an Opportunity Awaits
By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF
Published: May 2, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/arts/design/02note.html
'These [delays] are not simply errors in judgment. They are byproducts of the mix of secrecy, self-interest and paranoia that have enveloped the site from the outset - a climate that favors political expediency and empty symbolic gestures over thoughtful urban planning discussions. And that climate has essentially prevented the architects involved from openly addressing problems with the master plan even as its weaknesses have become more glaring.'
// article about architecture and development...
// artsjournal.com abstracts the article as:
// commerce + art = architecture
// it may also be considered:
// commerce + art = commercial art
Commerce Joins Art to Train Yale Architects
By ROBIN POGREBIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/arts/design/04arch.html?