Update: More good architecture from FLW via Chris Petrilli.
I was a real architeture student for a couple of years. In the middle of my umpteenth all-nighter getting a drawing acceptable for some reverse-disaffected grad student's criticism, I figured I was never going to make a living making great architecture. Now as it turns out, even the great architects don't make a living making great architecture. What crap is this? Or this? Or this?
Then again there is this, and this, and this. Perhaps this. As in any system, the bigger the badder. Small pieces, loosely joined seems to be a recurring theme. How about this?
3 comments:
I also studied architecture, and came to the same conclusion. Sadly, Gehry is an example of what I call "crumpled paper design" and his work is bland at best, and attrociously insulting at its worst---so let's buy more!
Anyway, you might enjoy my photos from Spring Green and the "original" Taliesin: http://www.amber.org/~petrilli/gallery/springgreen/
Chris
I like Gehry as an artist, but not as an architect. Architects have to use art to make a space more livable, unless there is a specific need to make people uncomfortable. (e.g. a holocost museum should make us uncomfortable, a residence should make us comfortable)
Frank Gehry DOES make his space 'livable'. I'm not entirely sure he designs well for the home, but you have to consider the people you're trying to draw as well. In the case of the Loyola Art facility, Gehry was the perfect choice. In the case of the Guggenheim in Bilbao, he created an amazing interior that's exciting and visually stimulating. Why do we all want to live in a box?
Post a Comment