Last week Patrik Schumacher, director of Zaha Hadid Architects and singer of practice in the field of architectural theory took again Facebook to spread his ideas. - this time claiming that "the denunciation of architectural icons and stars is superficial and ignorant" in the post, Schumacher lamented the default position of the architectural media he believes seen the success and reputation as "a red cloth and occasionally dropping icons," move to expose her beliefs on why the stars and icons are useful mechanisms and even inevitable architectural culture.
Schumacher made headlines via Facebook before, with a position in the last year in which he called for the end of the "politically correct moralizing" has led to the popularity . socially responsible design - a position that drew almost universal indignation architects, critics and users of social media of all stripes However, this last message was a very different atmosphere, many people, including myself, seemed to . find at least partial agreement with Schumacher After all, at the most basic level, he asked drawings each be judged on their individual merits - what's not to love
Patrik Schumacher "the Denunciation of architectural icons and Stars is Superficial and Ignorant"
headline thesis Schumacher, that critics should not prejudge a building just because of who designed it, is perhaps the most easy to accept. These days it is not uncommon for displaying critical opinion in which the author was clearly exposed to a negative conclusion, take photos in the design of their preconceived position, rather than making reasoned judgments to arrive then a fair valuation (although for the record it was perhaps unfair to distinguish Schumacher Ellis Woodman, who said on Twitter that a) "3 largely positive reviews and only 2 ZHA stinkers written."
@ StottR @DLequeu @entschwindet @Furmadamadam it is a bit unusual. I wrote 3 largely positive reviews and only 2 stinkers ZHA
-. Ellis Woodman (@elliswoodman) April 10, 2015
The causes of this overwhelming negativity among critics are not entirely clear, but most, including Schumacher in his Facebook post, suggested that this represents an ideological shift away from trends before the iconic design of recession, with the media now propping the most eye-catching designs with one hand while he rejects the form of superficial icons of a bygone era with the other
. However, as Schumacher rightly points out, some architects never entertain to create iconic designs (and apparently those who are no more "epigones quack"). A Zaha Hadid Architects, he wrote:
"Our methodology involves the use of distortion, curvature and gradients, respectively, to adapt to irregular sites maintain readability in the face of complex interrelations, and articulate the connections and transitions. the result is often surprising and visually stimulating. But we never intended to create an icon. Our buildings become icons temporarily, until that our methodology and style becomes more widespread. "
Schumacher is not the first to express these feelings. In fact, many architects have flatly rejected the labels given to them by the media, with Frank Gehry rejecting the title of "starchitect" and countless other famous names on the grounds that it calls the media their designs "iconic" is effectively for complex and sensitive responses to the program or context. The sheer frequency with which this happens is more than enough to give credibility to the above request of Schumacher.
So if iconicity and fame have nothing to do with their work, where does this adulation (or, depending on your point of view, the prosecution) have? Schumacher is clear in its argument that there is a direct relationship between the "icons", media coverage, and a fascination with the vanguard. In particular:
"The remarkable visual, memorable design avant-garde is an inevitable by-product or side effect of the new approach architect vanguard "
and
" the side effect of pioneering work in. Read the exciting and sometimes strange figurative suggestiveness of avant-garde buildings, becomes a value in itself "
Letter to the editor: the term". Starchitect "has exceeded its shelf life
For Schumacher, the phenomena of icons and stars, but not true representations of ideas to the forefront, come from a necessary simplification ideas as they make their way into the heady world of interior architecture circles to the public. But as he repeatedly emphasizes that the substitution works hard and deserved reputation for icons and stars is valid, Schumacher leaves only one crack in the armor:
"only a few names become visible and therefore these names might be getting an undue share generally work opportunities. creditworthiness remains unexplained, becomes a dogma. therefore, they could stay in the game maybe a little longer than is deserved, young talent remains dark for longer than they should. But these inevitable defects invalidate the essential rationality of the star system as explained above. "
If it is possible that some practices to attract the attention they deserve more, how can we identify it is here that we come to a strange turn: clearly, Schumacher considers himself an architect avant-garde and a worthy recipient of the media coverage that its practice receives (although for the last half-decade, it has been less generous he would like). and now he has given us tools and effectively, an invitation to judge his own self-assessment.
there
Fifteen years ago it was really no doubt that Zaha Hadid Architects was a member of the fore keep. Their structures have pushed the limits of what was physically possible and forms have pushed the limits of what was socially acceptable. More importantly, despite the considerable intrigue in the world of architecture, they had fought for decades to become more than "paper architects" with their barracks Vitra Fire the only major building in their name. They integrate all aspects of the definition of avant-garde, which according to Wikipedia means "push the boundaries of what is accepted as the norm or the status quo."
Fast forward a decade and a half, however, and they are among the most successful practices in the world, with prizes such as Pritzker prize and back -to-back price Stirling prize for architectural design, and many of their customers literally from "creation." In other words, if not a supplier of the status quo, Zaha Hadid Architects is much less of a fringe player he once was.
To be clear, I'm not ready to dismiss Schumacher demand for pioneering the crown for now, not least because there is no obvious contenders for a replacement. But it is interesting to note that while Schumacher believes the change in attitude after the 08 financial crisis that "has led many critics and architects to denounce iconic as frivolous and unnecessary" and rejects their criticism, he seems to forget the only thing that has changed the most. his own practice
Posting Komentar