Posted by  Manuel Oliveros on April 01, 2003 at 10:44:40:

In Reply to:  What style of architecture would guuggenheim bilbao be??? posted by Akegata on March 30, 2003 at 05:13:40:

Just for the progress of language, that no Architecture...

... because Le Corbusier worked hard to show us all that architecture shouldn't be considered mainly on style ... even if recognizable.

I frankly think that as with fashion, people gets bored of things and well, both designers and people try to use the currently availably tools to provide a change more suitable to their taste and mood.

International style was by the early 70's quite worn, and 5 Architect's revamping may now be seen -too schematically- as the same but with a white and clean jacket. Others were already by then diverging in whatever their minds drove them, say metabolists, maybe brutalists, and light international (hard inside) post modernism.

Demiurge-architects also need a professional career and shouting aloud (architecturally) proves be useful to this purpose ... Let's Make Some Contraptions That No Eye Will Fail To Notice ... well, that's deconstructivism, and Gehry, by the way. But the essence is to use a boutade to make oneself noticed ... boutadism? A mockup of a fighter on a block of concrete or something so maybe highly significant of the current times but when you compare it with more serious establishment's architecture looks as a boutade. Yet establishment views -seeing on what they are established- may also be a lacerating and sustained as cynic a boutade.

Then comes taste and one can see Guggenheim's Bilbao as whatever insulting words you may want to apply if you have the lesser classical stance, heh.

It is then that I remember what Le Corbusier did about style and I'd rather think of the thing as The House (er, Museum) that Gehry Built than fall in whatever labelism.

Post a Response -