|Submited on :||Thu, 14th of Mar 2019 - 12:20:41 PM|
|Post ID :||b0zo29|
|Post Name :||t3_b0zo29|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2skim|
I loved the whole city. I went just to see the museum but it turned into so much more. I do like Fondation Louis Vuitton better as a build though.
Bilbao is a wonderful city, came in with no expectations and it's a truly immersive experience
Gehry builds beautiful sculptures, but in my opinion he is not a very good architect. In most cases he doesn‘t give a fuck about the functions of his buildings...
Same school of thought as Daniel Libeskind. Another master of style. Truly great buildings are all about balance. Architecture sits at the intersection of art and other disciplines - it is not simply another form of it.
I don't know, it may not be the most conventional or functional building, but the fact that this type of building even exists, and can still work as a museum is amazing to me
Who cares they are so cool. Plus the experience is worth it to have 30 foot ceiling in a bathroom or wonky curved screen walls
Exactly, I mean really guys, architecture is just a transient thing, this building exists, and that's amazing. Now we've made museums that are more functional, better internally, and that's great. But why would anyone ever wish that this vital, interesting step didn't take place, or that certain architects didn't do what they wanted to do?
If I had the absolute freedom to do whatever I wanted I wouldn't really care what other people thought. But I would hope it could be appreciated for reaching out for something new and trying to break the mold.
Exactly, sometimes it's interesting to break the rules of a field to see what you can do with it.
Disney Hall is good, but I imagine the clients had some extremely specific requests for the design.
I think Zaha Hadid is biggest offender in the "good sculptor, awful architect" class.
Thank you for saying this...
He’s a great architect. Have you even been in a single one of his buildings?
You’re just trying to define “architect” to mean what you want it to mean, as if you know the best definition.
First, we should all agree that diversity of styles is good for everyone. It would be boring if everyone used the same script. Diversity shows us the limits of what is possible.
Second, an architect means different things. It’s so broad. But mostly, the value of the architect depends on the goals of the client. If you want a box that doesn’t leak, you don’t really need an architect. Just get a general contractor. You don’t even need to design, just buy products and install them per manufacturer’s specs. If you want a world famous museum, you’re gonna need an architect.
You are quite right that a variety of styles is important for the general development of architecture. But I find it alarming when a guy like Frank Gehry, who completely neglects the important factor of function in architecture, claims that 95% of all modern architecture is shit.
I have actually been in several of his buildings and of course there are impressive elements and he definitely thinks outside the box, which is great, but in my opinion it is the art of architecture that brings the three principles of Vitruvius „stability, utility and beauty“ into harmony.
And just as you say you do not need an architect to plan a building that just needs to be stable but you do not need an architect to plan a building thats „just“ beautiful either.
And in my opinion a simple box that works great for the user, looks good and ages well can be a better architectur than a world famous museum...
Well he’s right. I think he’s earned the right to say that. Because doing something interesting and new and boundary pushing is difficult. Copying UL assemblies, manufacturers details, and standard 50-year old construction practices is easier.
Architects try to minimize risk exposure. Creating a new type of wall assembly takes hundreds of thousands of dollars in testing for fire rating. Same with anything else new. It takes invention at every level- new joining details, at the edges, windows, doors, ceilings, etc.
Then trying to analyze energy performance, hygrothermal analysis, structural analysis... reinventing the wheel is fucking difficult. On top of that, none of the tradesmen have any experience on this new set of details and practices. This turns even seasoned pros into amateurs with no practice. The very nature of it almost guarantees that you’ll find mistakes and leaks that need patched later.
These risks are necessary for innovation. I’d say only .1% of architects even attempt to design something never before seen. And the other 4.9% is people who have mastered the standard ways of building to make something very refined.
That building is 2/3 empty air volume. I still love it and all of Gehry’s work. I admire 8 spruce st every morning.
I have never liked a single one of Gehry's buildings until I looked up 8 Spruce St right now. Gorgeous! Thanks for the enlightenment.
I took the Frank Gehry Master Class and he says the folds in his buildings are inspired by the way Bernini would carve fabric robes in marble. Critics like to say he takes crumbled paper out of the trash for inspiration. I think we need more art in architecture and sculptural buildings are a good thing.
I'm finishing my masters right now and I'm currently in a history class that is pushing the political and economic purpose behind everything real hard. They're really against anything monumental or sculptural and I hate it. I'm not really a big fan of gehry or this building in general but I definitely agree we need more art and sculpture. There's nothing wrong with a building that's loud and stands out and sometimes it's exactly what's needed.
Do people actually hate this? That’s depressing. It’s quite amazing in person.
Yes I hate it...well maybe hates a strong word, but I would prefer a medium sized patch of grass instead of this thing.
Do you mind if I ask why ? I want to hear how the other side thinks
It's kind of hard to explain, but I guess I just see the whole thing as sort of a waste. There's no point to it. The thing is trying so hard to be different and clever, it just wants to deviate so far from what's conventional, now it's just like, so what? It's different, but why should I care? Any other assortment of wave shapes or blocks would be just as aesthetically pleasing or useful. It's like someone trying to be funny by just being random and different without realizing that even random stupid jokes are funny because they have some substance. This building is substanceless, it's a waste of material spent on people patting themselves on the back about how cleaver and original they are. the thing is weird and wonky just for the sake of weird and wonky, it's different but for no good reason, and it's really just not that nice to look at.
But of course I could be wrong, sometimes I wonder if I'm just not capable of understanding the brilliance of these things.
Can I ask if you have been to Bilbao or is this based on the images alone?
I've only seen images, would love to travel to Spain one day.
Just because you are too dumb or too stuck in your own perspective to realize why it’s important doesn’t mean that it sucks. If you want to see a patch of grass then you can find that anywhere.
This happens to me all the time. I’ll be so sure of my opinion and then I’ll realize I was just an idiot with a limited perspective. So I can sympathize. It’s a tough skill to learn, keeping an open mind.
The value of this architecture is exactly the cause of our debate. It pushes the boundaries, causing polarized opinions. This causes deeper thinking, and contributes to the language and philosophical considerations of architecture as a whole. It moves the field forward and adds to the diversity of things we can respond to.
The fact that you’re here talking about it proves that.
IDK, maybe. I can appreciate the building from a construction and engineering view point I suppose. But I think you hit the nail on the head in your third paragraph when you said value of architecture is to push boundaries and contribute to deeper thinking and philosophical considerations. I generally disagree with this statement, although architecture certainly can do those things, it is very rare and takes an act of genius. I don't feel like this structure, or others like it, accomplishes that. They not an act of genius, but are instead the result of what happens when people try to act like geniuses. it's what happens when architects sacrifice everything in pursuit of those lofty principles you listed. The fact that most people think it's ugly, or at best simply interesting, proves this. The real value of architecture is creating useful and beautiful spaces for people to inhabit, not a medium to show how progressive and forward you're thinking is.
It doesn’t take an act of genius. It’s simply finding the edges of what’s been done before. Those edges change as material technology changes.
Like Marcel Duchamp putting a urinal on the wall. And everyone questions 1- is this art and 2- is it good art.
The genius is architects have to sell their visions and get millions or billions of someone else’s money to be spent on it. That creates two major categories of architecture- safe/boring and extreme/interesting. The interesting category is so tiny, I’m baffled why anyone would try to discourage it any further. Let’s not kill creative exploration.
You can argue until you’re blue about whether it’s subjectively pleasing or if the program works or whatever. But you can’t argue the value of having it in the catalogue. It’s now in the design language of humanity and it wasn’t before. On top of that, it’s not an empty building. It’s used and photographed everyday. That’s valuable.
You’ve defined value by “beautiful spaces”. I would argue interesting spaces are equally as valuable. Humanity has spent a long time mastering beauty. But it hasn’t spent enough time mastering “interesting” or “new”.
I get where your coming from, I don't want builders being stuck in old design and construction techniques when new and better ways of doing things exist and just have to be discovered. I just don't see this building, and others like it, as being part of that. To me this isn't real creative exploration, its a facade of creativity, its fake. And it seems that the only people that really like it are other architects that are participating in the pretense, or other people who like the feeling of being 'in the know'. It's a few people sitting around congratulate each other on pushing boundaries and spurring deep thought in the poor pedestrian regular people that have to walk by this damned thing everyday.
Oh yes. I can just imagine their suffering walking by.
Peoples lives are generally pretty dull. Most of them are excited to see something new and different. I bet if you mapped Instagram photos of the area, most of them would surround this building.
You’re just being an elitist about curves. You want either orthogonal geometry, or curves that reflect exact portions of a circular arc. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s not the only way to do a curve. It’s interesting how the deliberately inexact and constantly changing curve elicits such a response from you. I think that says more about you than it does the design.
If I may venture a guess here, I believe we despise things that reflect properties within ourselves that we dislike. Awkward people hate watching other people be awkward, etc. So perhaps you expect a certain professional, rigid, standard of yourself in order to impress those around you. You think “that’s the way to do it”. So when you see success from something doing it in a way antithetical to yours, you feel the need to say “nah that’s shit”. Maybe I’m wrong. Just a theory.
To me it's sort of like seeing an ugly lady in an expensive dress. Lacks golden ratio, proper proportions, and symmetry. I don't mind that the shape is organic but it should resemble the beauty of nature more.
I don't hate it, no negative feeling or anything like that, but I think it's pretty bland/boring/uninspiring. Just don't care at all really. Quirky? Yes, and I certainly noticed it when I walked by, but not particularly pretty or anything.
Can't speak for what it's like inside of course.
Not sure why I'm getting downvoted for an opinion. I'm happy other people like it, it just does nothing for me personally.
If this is bland, boring and uninspired, then I'm curious to see what you'd consider bold, exciting, and inspired, if you don't mind. I respect your opinion but I'm curious about everyone's tastes here.
I thought this was a different angle of the Walt Disney concert wall when I wrote I walked by it, that's how bland it is too me. Also seen the stage in Chicago FWIW, which I definitely think looks worse than the other two. I actually really liked the pedestrian bridge though. That's what I remembered most about it. I had to check pictures online to remember what the Chicago one actually looked like too.
Think of the first 3d movie? Do you know what it is? First color picture? Movie? How about when the first LCD display came out. Sure it was thin and all, doesn't mean the picture looked nicer than CRTs at the time. Best way I can describe is, just because a vast world of possibilities is unlocked, it doesn't mean the first thing that comes along and tries to use it is particularly good. We've spent 1000s of years making boxes look good, then someone comes around and makes something that isn't a box. Interesting? Initially, perhaps, but that doesn't mean it'll be a good example of what a building-that-isn't-a-box should look like.
Very much like "Oh I can make things any shape now, so here's a random assortment of curved shapes!" To be clear, it's certainly nowhere near "I can now choose my font instead of having to use the typewrite font so I'll use comic-sans"-bad. It's more just like a 100x scale model of a sculpture I wouldn't particularly care for. Like, yes it's a hundred times bigger now. But no, that still won't make me change my opinion of it, still just a random sculpture I don't care about.
Do keep in mind I am strictly talking about the exterior. I do actually like the interior.
On the other hand I do enjoy some of Gehry's other designs, like dancing house is absolutely fantastic.
Edit: I kinda totally didn't answer your question at all. I'm an idiot. I love most of Zaha Hadid's stuff. Most are brilliant. I also love what they did with the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, but a lot of people hate that. Can't please everyone I guess.
It's ugly. Of course I hate it.
It confuses me how can someone just hate a building like this. I'm not gonna speak about architectural values, but at the minimum its brought millions of visitors to Bilbao, many of them just wanting to see the building. Hate is such a strong word. The fact that someone here, who probably doesn't live anywhere near Bilbao, would prefer a patch of grass to be there instead. It's just hard to wrap my head around.
What everyone misses is that he was able to build this. The biggest contribution Gehry had toward architecture wasn’t his buildings but rather the introduction of Boeing, aerospace software to the discipline.
Hey question for OP -how accessible is the Guggenheim I hear it has blind tours and audio tours and it’s full of ramps is this true?
I don't remember there being any Ramps on the inside of the building, but entering it there is. And yes I saw quite alot of audio guides going around :)
I went to the university right across the river. Was a great view to have on the regs
Deusto University has some really nice views
Hate it, I'm afraid.
My first time visiting this was also the first time I saw the work of Richard Serra, "A Matter of Time." It blew me away!
Is that the spider from that weird movie with jake gillinhal?
Amazing to see it in picture. Read all about it in Dan Brown's "Origins".
Is that slenderman in the corner
I love it, and not just because it’s in the Basque Country!!!!
I need to see this building for myself, the rippling titanium effect looks really nice.
We have one of those in chicago, it's an outdoor theatre. I've seen a few orchestras played there.
You can see the same thing in LA
I’m another who did not know that this building is controversial. After all, I live in Toronto where we have the ROM’s “crystal” which looks like a piece of space junk crashed to earth and makes about as much sense as that inside of it. https://www.google.ca/search?q=rom+crystal&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-ca&client=safari#imgrc=tcwzDPUlHZhvfM:
There is the BIM manager of ghery who teach in my school he says that there is no real thinking about the inside spaces, it's just a realy big sculpture, friendly reminder....we are not artists but spacemakers.
I think I saw this on the Simpsons
Gehry is the Kim k of architects...amazing to look at, but then you look closer and think...why tf are you famous...?