Posted by Paul Malo on October 03, 2002 at 07:49:18:
In Reply to: ADDENDUM posted by Cuneyt Budak on October 03, 2002 at 06:24:05:
Wonderful, thoughtful statement.
We've discussed the star system in other threads, but you add to the discussion by seeing it in a global context. In truth, the coterie of international stars is provincial (just as some of us say that New York City is the most provincial city in the world--in the sense of being self-referential, regarding anything east of the Atlantic or west of the Hudson River as being alien).
The star system is a product of the media culture, and the media seeks not what is relevant, necessarily, but what is "interesting."
What's interesting is what is exceptional hence, per se, the LEAST relevant to the larger world. Buildings by Gehry are excessivly extravagant in cost, so say nothing of cultural relevance, to people of, say, Bangladesh. Even more architecturally relevant (in my view) works of Piano or Calatrava are distinctive for high-tech gadgetry only affordable by the richest segments of the richest nations of the world. This is real fantasy stuff, in truth, when modern media serves it up as global fare.
I don't fault the media, which has its own mission. but moreso the faculty of schools of architecture that are duped by the media, supposing that journalists' recognition of stars ceritifies relevance of their work. Students may be blamed less than their teachers, if the faculty accepts what appears cultural significant as determined by media exposure. I certainly agree that the academy is derelict if it conveys to students goal a goal of becoming a star by producing irrelevant work that will "interest' and titillate journalists.
That ambition is petty and self-serving. The world deserves and needs better.
Free 3D Models