John Massengale (at "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?") prompted Michael Blowhard to write about Massengale on Modernism which -- following a series of lengthy comments -- prompts me to visit (to start my re-investigation) the web site of the "Genius Architect" Daniel Libeskind to determine whether -- in terms of ideas -- there is any "there, there."
The gist of the lively post & comments at Blowhards (please go read them) was the Blowhards' (I believe unsupportable) assertion that our current crop of anti-urbanist Starchitects (e.g. Koolhaas, Libeskind, Gehry et al) manifest some aspect of Modernism. My position is that this modern crop of Starchitects are divorced from understanding of what makes a good city and are ordinary careerists who have found a niche in creating "Oh! Wow!" architetcture for the gullible masses. They are divorced not because of ideology but because everyone thinks that they are all geniuses so no one has the nerve to tell them to design agood urban building. But the Blowhards think that these guys represent some sort of real ideology --"Modernism" -- with real Ideas and that they don't design humane, urbane buildings because of some ideological framework. At least I think that's the issue.
I could be wrong; and since empiricism trumps dreams, to start my investigation into the ideas-if-any of starchitecture, I went toLibeskind's own site to see if there were any ideas, there.
No dice. What I found was a series of inoffensive words. For example, Libeskind was honored by being given the German Architecture Prize and offered the following (among others) words, (words which I believe were central to his talk):
I believe that architecture is not reducible to any particular climate of opinion. No abstract theory, game of forms, application of technology or pragmatics is sufficient to communicate the fact that architecture is a movement beyond the material. It is length, height and width, but also the depth of aspiration and memory. The living source of architecture is the very substance of the soul and constitutes the structure of culture itself.
I don't disagree, but only because there is not a whole lot with which to disagree. It seems to me a bit vacuuous -- " architecture is a movement beyond the material" -- which I assume (as his words are so poorly composed) that "buildings call forth emotions in people" etc etc...Pretty harmless, conventional stuff...vague adolescent intellectualizing...the sort of thing which I can imagine any New Urbanist saying (though with a bit more oomph! & concreteness, I would hope). I wouldn't call Libeskind's words particularly controversial -- "buildings have significance beyond their material form" -- in fact they are rather ordinary, banal truisms -- unless there are some hidden code words there which escape me.
So if such banalities passe for ideology, the only issue is that many far too many people have a rather attenuated understanding of an idea.
UPDATE: Unfortunately, the great divide in our culture between the "cerebral" world and the "built environment" world is no better illustrated by the fact that no one discusses it. For instance, the "fashionable nonsense" spewed by these folks ought to be a focus of witty Butterflies and Wheels. One of the reason architects are able to get away with so much BS (this is my hypothesis) is because the vast majority of "ordinary intellectuals" are intimidated by architecture (and admittedly it is big) and so are not able to recognize BS when they hear it. Too bad for they are missing the terrific target afforded by the meaningless but humorous jargon of the Libeskinds, Koolhaass and so forth.
So if that is what anyone think passes for ideology, the only issue is that many far too many people have a rather attenuated understanding of an idea.
Wouldn't the ideology be, in large part, the exclusive focus on architecture as being about buildings, not about, say, buildings as one set of elements within a city? Where you say they should be told to "design a good urban building," I can't help but think that "urban" functions to set the kind of context that they're (presumably) ideologically blind to.
Posted by: allen claxton | Mar 21, 2004 at 07:09 PM
Allen, I see where you are going; one could go even farther and say that their ideology is that they have no ideology etc etc . But I simply don't think that "exclusive focus on architecture as being about buildings, not about, say, buildings as one set of elements within a city" stands up as an "ideology."
What's the ideology implied? Certainly it does not fall in line with any currently known political, economic etc etc ideology. It's a thought, certainly, but of what larger whole, what ideology is it a part? Of what larger intellectual system is it a manifestation? Communism? Fascism? Liberalism? Catholicism? Libertarianism? None of them -- except by a gymnastic contortion -- even speaks to urban form in that manner, or any manner, really. (Can anyone find statements in "Modernism?" which suggest the part is more important than the whole? I doubt it it. The sidewalk -- which ties together different buildings into a set by giving the viewer a place from which to see them -- was , I believe, "invented" as a part of public discourse by Jane Jacobs in the 1960s. )
Furthermore, if that's what the Starchitects want to say, then they should say it.
There is no verb in your phrase, which takes the sting out of it.
If you add a verb such as "architecture should be (or is) about an exclusive focus on architecture as being about buildings, not about, say, buildings as one set of elements within a city" .... then even as an stand-alone idea is so self-evidently stupid and out of line with the way people want their cities that even such great geniuses as Gehry, Koolhaas etc etc wouldn't have the nerve to say it, even if they believed it.
Posted by: David Sucher | Mar 21, 2004 at 07:53 PM
I am disappointed that critics of Libeskind's type of architecture do not refer to my article with Brian Hanson entitled "Death, Life, and Libeskind", published in the Architectural Record:
http://archrecord.construction.com/inTheCause/0203Libeskind/libeskind-1.asp
Not that we need references, but we did undertake a serious theoretical analysis of what his architecture means. Our analysis would save others from wasted effort, and, more importantly, from getting distracted by seductive rhetoric.
We certainly don't expect everyone to agree with our analysis, but we would be surprized if, in the long run, architectural history doesn't validate at least a few of the points we made. We feel that our conclusions are straightforward, unless one is surrounded by fog and thus prevented from seeing what is obvious.
Posted by: Nikos Salingaros | Mar 22, 2004 at 07:52 AM
David:
You've got it exactly right. I've checked out the website, too, and there's no there there. (For what it's worth, I got lost in the Blowhards piece, too.)
Libeskind's ideology, such as it is, is simply the product of two things: the need to be publicly recognized as Avant-Garde, and the misguided conception of architecture as pure Design, as computer-aided Sculpture.
I would love to see Libeskind make a statement about what he thinks the good city is and how it works. I bet you that would be pretty vacuous, too.
Posted by: Haystack | Mar 22, 2004 at 02:33 PM
I forgot to add that Libeskind's type of ideology isn't really an ideology at all.
One thing that confused me about the Blowhards piece was the casual connection between the High Modernists and the Starchitects of today. Something seemed really "off" about the entire piece — I think it was the way the terms weren't defined very well. I suppose I should read it again and blog about it.
Finally, I maintain, as I've said here, that the trouble with Libeskind isn't ideology, it's that he's arrogant and often sloppy.
Posted by: Haystack | Mar 22, 2004 at 02:50 PM
Haystack's right; the disagreement comes from a terminology problem. Considering that an ideology is a body of ideas from a particular group, then, no, the current crop of celebritects doesn't represent any ideology. But yes, they do have ideas behind their work (even if the ideas they present are afterthoughts to explain their often bizarre design decisions).
I'm going to guess that Zaha Hadid chose the Towers-In-the-Park format not because she shares Le Corbusier's ideals of Modernism as all that is right and good, but because she saw it as the best way to display her 40-story sculptures.
Posted by: Dave P. | Mar 23, 2004 at 09:53 AM
That's an interesting point, David. I have read a little, and thought quite a bit (as a 'consumer') about the built environment, but it's not a subject we've taken on, is it. But then again, B&W is an on-going process; there are a lot of subjects we just haven't gotten to yet. They're Not There not on principle, not because we've decided not to examine them, but simply because we haven't yet.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | Mar 24, 2004 at 10:56 AM
Well Ophelia, I hope you understand that my little crit was meant in only the most constructive manner; you have a great blog.
The essence of my point is that there is a vast other areana of "fashionable nonsense" in much of contemporary writing about architecture, particularly from the so-called "architectural theorists" who capture much public attention. These folks need de-bunking.
I am only sorry that so many of the people whom I feel are compatriots (e.g. you, Norm, CT, etc) seem to ignore the BS -- (in favor of so much other BS.) And you could such have a field day with it! There is so much low-lying fruit waiting to be plucked in the architectural press!
Posted by: David Sucher | Mar 24, 2004 at 05:41 PM