Sketches Of Frank Gehry

[Logitek]

crazy genious!!

 

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/sketchesoffrankgehry/trailer/

[mbowers]

i agree. i do however acknowlege that sketching is a lost art. I, myself, sometimes forget that it's easier to sketch a design on paper and then go to the computer and finalize it, but too many times we design with the computer and have lost the ability to reiterate, redesign, rethink, or just plain throw away.

[RODRI]

gehry is an artist and pollack too!!. thanks for information about the website. i´m still belive in the combination between hand and the computer.

[Geoffc]

Gehry is an overrated artist.

 

At least his current stuff is looks better than his inane post-modernist works from previous decades.

[bricklyne]

Gehry is an overrated artist.

 

At least his current stuff is looks better than his inane post-modernist works from previous decades.

 

 

Well, I guess as long as you explained so extensively on why it is, you think that way.

[Christopher Nichols]

Gehry is an overrated artist.

 

At least his current stuff is looks better than his inane post-modernist works from previous decades.

 

Thank you for saying it. But I think the opposite. Frank Gehry is getting too much hype... he really is not that good of an architect anymore and people seem to think he is a genius. He makes a few random squiggles on a piece of paper, crumples a few pieces of paper and tells people in his office to turn it in to a building. You could replace him with a baboon, and you would get the same result thanks to the people in his office that actually do the work. I am tired of the popular press he is getting. He should have been getting that press 25 years ago when I was actually good, when I was making building with giant binoculars, chain link, and huge fish, and actually designed things. I swear if Frank Gehry dropped his pants and pooed in the the middle of the street people would try and find a way of turning that into a building, and call him a genius. When it comes to good decon architects, you still can't beat Morphosis, or Eric Owen Moss, or Zaha... Thom Mayne's office actually use computers the right way to come up with interesting ideas.

[Brian Smith]

I agree with you Chris, and would like to add that at least in my area, a good architect is one that can overcome our insane local governmental style constraints, meet hurricane resistance codes, save the client money, and still provide an unique and pleasing look to a building. Anyone with enough money thrown into a project and card blanche for style can build something that wows the typical viewer. Architects in my area don't have it so lucky and their real work comes with solving problems - not coming up with the wildest looking design.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Thank you for saying it. But I think the opposite. Frank Gehry is getting too much hype... he really is not that good of an architect anymore and people seem to think he is a genius. He makes a few random squiggles on a piece of paper, crumples a few pieces of paper and tells people in his office to turn it in to a building. You could replace him with a baboon, and you would get the same result thanks to the people in his office that actually do the work. I am tired of the popular press he is getting. He should have been getting that press 25 years ago when I was actually good, when I was making building with giant binoculars, chain link, and huge fish, and actually designed things. I swear if Frank Gehry dropped his pants and pooed in the the middle of the street people would try and find a way of turning that into a building, and call him a genius. When it comes to good decon architects, you still can't beat Morphosis, or Eric Owen Moss, or Zaha... Thom Mayne's office actually use computers the right way to come up with interesting ideas.

 

there are a lot of designers in the world who can do amazing work, but will never get the chance. i feel it's more about your personality, ...how influential your personality is, and how good your connections are, etc. the design you produce is important, but you have to be able to convince other people that it is both good, and what they want.

 

the good thing that Gehry does is bring design into discussion, but if people only see his work, then they have a skewed concept of what good design. ....or that good design means soemthing beyond having a funky shape.

[Christopher Nichols]

I agree with you Chris, and would like to add that at least in my area, a good architect is one that can overcome our insane local governmental style constraints, meet hurricane resistance codes, save the client money, and still provide an unique and pleasing look to a building. Anyone with enough money thrown into a project and card blanche for style can build something that wows the typical viewer. Architects in my area don't have it so lucky and their real work comes with solving problems - not coming up with the wildest looking design.

 

I would agree with you in the sense that having to overcome those issues is part of the dues you pay on your way to being a great architect. Frank did that with cool design and cheap materials back in the 80s. He paid his dues. Once you are given the carte blanche, as you put it, then you are responsible to create something interesting... I swear he actually put 10 times more thought in this:

 

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Venice_Beach_House.html

 

than he did in the concert hall.

 

Given that Carte Blanche is a privilege and he did pay his dues. But he is taking advantage of it in the wrong way. I think the reason he is so popular with the layman is that his concept is so easy to digest.... squiggle = building. "Here is $500 million... can you draw a squiggle for me?" Idiots.... Trying to explain why Thom Mayne or Zaha do what they do is a little more challenging.

[alexandre]

When it comes to sketching, Zaha's paintings (the first ones especially) are much more interesting imho; I think she even exhibited and sold them per se once

[Geoffc]

Very well said Chris, although I must add that I'm really not a fan of that beachhouse, ie, I can't really stand the post modern stuff.

 

But it's the rockstar statusthat the public has somehow given him

that bothers me most.

 

Like I said on another forum, who should be truely praised most are the guys that take the squiggles and make working drawings out of them. I've seen the docs from disney hall, very impressive tech work.

 

OR, the japanese audio specialist that designed the actual performance hall. Genius.

 

I actually had a studio in school taught by an old but great curmudgeon that had worked behind the scenes with Gehry for most of his career. Now this guy was good. He knew and appreciated the crazy design philosophies, and how to make spaces work and build them.

 

I also had a similar class with a guy that did the same for Moss. I actually appreciated his insights more than the stuff from Moss.

[bricklyne]

Thank you for saying it. But I think the opposite. Frank Gehry is getting too much hype... he really is not that good of an architect anymore and people seem to think he is a genius. He makes a few random squiggles on a piece of paper, crumples a few pieces of paper and tells people in his office to turn it in to a building. You could replace him with a baboon, and you would get the same result thanks to the people in his office that actually do the work. I am tired of the popular press he is getting. He should have been getting that press 25 years ago when I was actually good, when I was making building with giant binoculars, chain link, and huge fish, and actually designed things. I swear if Frank Gehry dropped his pants and pooed in the the middle of the street people would try and find a way of turning that into a building, and call him a genius. When it comes to good decon architects, you still can't beat Morphosis, or Eric Owen Moss, or Zaha... Thom Mayne's office actually use computers the right way to come up with interesting ideas.

 

 

When you say (in reference to Gehry) that "he really is not that good of an architect", what exactly do you mean? That's a rather broad, vague and dismissive sentiment without regards to what entails a successful, or at least "good" architect in the eyes of their peers and in the profession in general.

 

For example: Do you mean that the buildings he designs, tend not to hold up very well over time (i.e. are not durable, stable or solid), or do you mean that from a functional programmatic perspective they just don't work, and serve the users well? Do you mean that he's perpetually going over budget, and over schedule with his designs and in the construction process, or do you mean that his buildings simple lack any public appeal.

Or perhaps you're referring to the notion that Gehry, as an architectect has contributed close to nothing to the advancement of architecture, the practice of archtiecture and architectural desigin?

 

My guess would be that it's none of the above, seeing as he has excelled in all the aforementioned areas. His buildings, given their unusual structural configurations, have held up remarkably well in the sense of their durability, and firmness ( despite the fact that that may also be in large part to using equally well-skilled contractors and engineers). His buildings, also serve the clients' programmatic and functional requirements, otherwise he would never get a lot of the other less-than-high profile commissions he still does. And thanks to his firm's hybrid CATIA-based parametric design process, his designs almost always come in under budget and on schedule. And as for public appeal; well, the fact that out of all the currently practising well-known "starchitects", he is the one that a Pollack would choose to do a documentary on, or the fact that every other car, cellphone or insurance Ad is done with the the Walt Disney Theatre acting as a backdrop, speaks to how much his design sense appeals to public interest in our profession.

As for his contributions to the architectural profession, more on that in a bit......

 

 

From your statements ( and I admit I could be wrong, although with lines like, ".....He makes a few random squiggles on a piece of paper, crumples a few pieces of paper and tells people in his office to turn it in to a building....", I highly doubt it and shows just how little you actually know of the design process), it would seem to me that you have a greater and legitimate bone to pick with his stylistic design sense (the free-flowing curvilinear motif that has become the trademark of his designs), more than you have any with his actual ability, skills and capacity as a practising architect. Which is fine, since that's a subjective criterion, and on that basis, everyone is allowed their personal opinion, and their likes and dislikes are valid when it comes to creativity and artistic design style. However, (aside from the fact that it is indeed subjective), this isn't a valid benchmark upon which to decide whether an architetect, or even artitistic professional for that matter, is successful, "good" or even passably competent.

 

The equivalent scenario in this field, would be someone disliking a certain CG Archvizer's work because he always has a bloom and reddish-sunset hue feel to all his renders which has become his trademark and is ultimately loved by some in the profession and hated by others. And then using that fact in deciding that he's not being a very good CG artist, while disregarding all the other technical skills and capacities that this Archvizer has, in the process.

Fortunately, the architectural profession does not use this degree of subjectivity as a touchstone in recognizing its most important practitioners. Otherwise people like Zaha Hadid, Thom Mayne, Sir Norman Foster, Herzog and De Meuron, and yes, even Frank Gehry, would never have won Pritzkers, and would never be considered the leaders in the profession.

 

The bottomline is, while we're all allowed our personal and subjective opinions when it comes to imaginative and artistic creativity, and design sense and style; in a profession such as architecture, which is just as much technical and engineering as it is an Art, that alone can never be the basis upon which to determine whether a particular architect is competent, successful, or even "good". Gehry, is considered a genius by his peers and his profession for far more different reasons than those which the public may love or hate him. And most of that has to do with his contributions to the profession, overall, in the sense of pushing the boundaries of design and construction, as well as considerably reducing the gap between what we can imagine and conveive and what can actually get built from a technical and financial feasibility standpoint. A lot of the innovations and processes that his firm developed during the design of Bilbao Guggenheim and in the integration of CATIA, have since filtered into the rest of the profession, most notably through the advancement of BIM, and the Virtual Building design process and schedule managment. It's stuff like this that may not make it into the public realm or the silver screen, but it's the stuff that his profession greatly bnenefits from and duly recognizes him for.

 

But I do agree with the "Starchitect" phenomena fatigue that yourself and a few others on this topic have alluded to and seem to be expressing, whereby the Media, particularly, and influential sections of the archtiectural profession, shower certain architects of repute, with inordinate amounts of acclamation, accolades and attention and much to the detriment of perhaps less recognized, younger and less experienced architects, who would stand to contribute greatly to the field if they were to break the mould. A lot of architects have already began to point this out, as being unhealthy for the development of the profession as a whole. Particularly when high-profile commissions now only seem to be offered to an elite and limited cliche of about 8-10 well known architects (the same 8-10 all the time) world-wide.

 

Incidentally, I didn't realize that there was a "right" way, as you put it, or a wrong way to actually come up with interesting ideas using computers, in architectural design.

[Christopher Nichols]

Well... I guess it is time to defend my opinion as well as myself...

 

My credentials are that I worked in architecture for a long time. I went to one of the top rated architecture schools that is best known for its design. I know many people that work at Frank's office as many of my classmates went there.... and left... usual stay there is one to two years.

 

Frank hates computers, and has little to do with the transformation of his crumbles piece of paper into the actual building. Do I praise the men and women that are able to take crap and turn it into a building... a nice one at that? No doubt… They are good. But he has little to do with it. He doesn't know how they do it, and has no finesse in the process.

 

What I mean about Morphosis using computers "the right way" is that they explore geometry virtually. They even have a Z-printer that makes parts for their models.

 

BTW... He DOES go over budget. They had been designing it FOREVER…. Also, the Disney concert hall was supposed to be made of stone but custom cutting each piece of stone was to expensive... so stainless steal was the "cheaper" option... then guess what, the reflection of the building on the nearly buildings from the sun caused their internal temperature to raise 30 degrees. I know that everyone faces those types of problems, but that just made me laugh...

 

Listen if you like him, great... I just think he is far from genius... I may no longer be practicing architecture, but I still can have an educated opinion on the subject.

 

I knew that this would bring up controversy, but I am tired of people calling him a genius... I say... "The Emperor has no Cloths..." I seem to be using that a lot these days.

[Geoffc]

Chris, I bet I know where you went to school.....

 

 

And I must say that I don't think his buildings work very well on the interior. I've found them to be a sort of post-modern theater that simply takes it shape implied from the sculpture on the outside.

 

IMNSHO, many of the well published starchitects (good word) still miss the mark when it comes to designing an amazing experience for the humans that use the buildings. Instead, most architecture is still centered around creating a building that looks "bitchin" from the "money-shot" photo (to quote two previous mentors of mine). Obviously arch-viz is rightfully centered about gettin that money-shot, but architects, good ones at least, must go well beyond that with their design.

 

Ghery's current stuff does look great. As you wander around the exterior, the forms and the spaces they create are very intriguing.

But would his overall concept and solution last 10 minutes under the scrutiny of an architectural school review jury? I think not.

[Christopher Nichols]

Chris, I bet I know where you went to school.....

 

 

And I must say that I don't think his buildings work very well on the interior. I've found them to be a sort of post-modern theater that simply takes it shape implied from the sculpture on the outside.

 

IMNSHO, many of the well published starchitects (good word) still miss the mark when it comes to designing an amazing experience for the humans that use the buildings. Instead, most architecture is still centered around creating a building that looks "bitchin" from the "money-shot" photo (to quote two previous mentors of mine). Obviously arch-viz is rightfully centered about gettin that money-shot, but architects, good ones at least, must go well beyond that with their design.

 

Ghery's current stuff does look great. As you wander around the exterior, the forms and the spaces they create are very intriguing.

But would his overall concept and solution last 10 minutes under the scrutiny of an architectural school review jury? I think not.

 

Well I should say that I am a recovering Ghery fan. I really enjoyed him before his name got known beyond architecture world. While you and I disagree about his earlier work, I still think that he actually put thought into it back then. And I am not a pomo fan at all either. Now a days, I would say he is lazy, but that would be nice a word.

[bricklyne]

Well... I guess it is time to defend my opinion as well as myself...

 

My credentials are that I worked in architecture for a long time. I went to one of the top rated architecture schools that is best known for its design. I know many people that work at Frank's office as many of my classmates went there.... and left... usual stay there is one to two years.

 

Frank hates computers, and has little to do with the transformation of his crumbles piece of paper into the actual building. Do I praise the men and women that are able to take crap and turn it into a building... a nice one at that? No doubt… They are good. But he has little to do with it. He doesn't know how they do it, and has no finesse in the process.

 

What I mean about Morphosis using computers "the right way" is that they explore geometry virtually. They even have a Z-printer that makes parts for their models.

 

BTW... He DOES go over budget. They had been designing it FOREVER…. Also, the Disney concert hall was supposed to be made of stone but custom cutting each piece of stone was to expensive... so stainless steal was the "cheaper" option... then guess what, the reflection of the building on the nearly buildings from the sun caused their internal temperature to raise 30 degrees. I know that everyone faces those types of problems, but that just made me laugh...

 

Listen if you like him, great... I just think he is far from genius... I may no longer be practicing architecture, but I still can have an educated opinion on the subject.

 

I knew that this would bring up controversy, but I am tired of people calling him a genius... I say... "The Emperor has no Cloths..." I seem to be using that a lot these days.

 

 

 

Nobody was actually questioning your credentials, and such it boggles the mind as to why you felt the need to defend or recite them.

 

I merely asked you and others to elaborate on why you felt ""he really is not that good of an architect" beyond the rather uninformative "You could replace him with a baboon, and you would get the same result thanks to the people in his office that actually do the work". Incidentally, the person in his office most responsible for their technical expertise with computers and digital design aspects would be Jim Glymph former Senior Partner at Gehry Partners, and who now heads Gehry Technologies LLC.

 

The bottom line is that the basic design still originates from Gehry's mind, regardless of what process it has to go through to be realized in the construction site. That Gehry was able to find and hire techincally qualified people to allow him to feasibly convert those designs from wood models and tracing paper into the actual brick, mortar, steel, glass, titanium structures, despite his known aversion to computers and anything technical, should be more a testament to his competency, at least, as a builder, than it should be as an indicator that he's not a "good" architect.

 

And the fact that Disney took "FOREVER", as you put it, to design, had as much to do with the client's ( Disney's grand-daughter, Lillian Disney) rather specific requirements and tastes; not to mention a few "minor" along-the-way incidents such as the '92 Rodney King riots and the '94 Northridge earthquake, which led to the building code getting changed and forcing the buidling to have to get retrofits. But I'm sure Gehry had control over all that, or at least could forsee it..........

 

I'm still lost on your point on Morphosis using computers the "right way", seeing as Gehry, among others do virtually the same things (exploring geometry virtually, either through, CATIA and Rhino in Gehry's case, or through Microstation, Maya or other such kinds of software with firms like NBBJ and the like, as well as 3D-printing of digital models and 3D-scanning of physical models), in their own firms. But in light of the fact that this has the potential of opening up a hole new argument over what constitutes design and specifically, digital design, let alone done the "right" or "wrong" way, I'll just presume that there is a valid point that I'm missing in there, leave it at that.

 

At the end of the day, I wasn't attacking your opinion per se as you seem to want to defend it so; I was trying to create a recognition of the fact that there's a difference between disliking him for his specific creative design style (which you perpetually seem to want to characterize as "crap") and dismissing him as a not being a "good" architect regardless of his other merits which actually define him as a competent architect, and which are not necessarily related to the subjective design style. Which would also be the difference, that I was trying to allude to between what the public may like about him (subjective), and what his peers and the architectural profession on the other hand may actually appreciate about him ( to a large extent objective).

 

Nobody says you have to call him a genius if you don't want to. Just don't begrudge others the right to decide for themselves, neither. History will be the ultimate judge.........

[Christopher Nichols]

At the end of the day, I wasn't attacking your opinion per se as you seem to want to defend it so; I was trying to create a recognition of the fact that there's a difference between disliking him for his specific creative design style (which you perpetually seem to want to characterize as "crap") and dismissing him as a not being a "good" architect regardless of his other merits which actually define him as a competent architect, and which are not necessarily related to the subjective design style. Which would also be the difference, that I was trying to allude to between what the public may like about him (subjective), and what his peers and the architectural profession on the other hand may actually appreciate about him ( to a large extent objective).

 

Nobody says you have to call him a genius if you don't want to. Just don't begrudge others the right to decide for themselves, neither. History will be the ultimate judge.........

 

OK first a few side notes... Thank you for debating me on this because I am so tired of debating software. Finally, there is something interesting to talk about, and something that I think needs discussion.

 

You are absolutely right. I am attacking his MO not the resulting building. I don't really mind his buildings at all. In a country filled with horrible spec office buildings, "Mediterranean style" townhouses, and strip malls, it is nice to see something different. What I have a problem with is that he has dumbed down the inspiration of design. How insulting is it that you give this man carte blanch, as you put it, and he comes with a squiggle. "Don't worry, I have some really smart people that have finally figured out how to turn this into a building, a process that I have no part with and hate, but my contribution is this. My genius is the squiggle..." What happens then is that there is that the building now lacks a "reason d'etre," except that client wanted to spend a lot of money. While the design is "pretty" and "interesting to look at." The concept of the design is very very shallow. Now I know that Ghery has stronger design skills... but he has left them far behind. He has become a one-liner. In fact it usually takes people a long time when looking at close up picture to figure out if its the Guggenheim or the concert hall…

 

I think what history will judge is that Ghery may have forced a design process to take place. A design process which is very innovative. But he had no part of that actual process, has no idea how it works, and only came into effect because of his own laziness, and blank checks from his clients.

[Sawyer]

I think what history will judge is that Ghery may have forced a design process to take place. A design process which is very innovative. But he had no part of that actual process, has no idea how it works, and only came into effect because of his own laziness, and blank checks from his clients.

This is Gehry now but at one time I am sure he had to figure out these details. (Maybe that should be a question I haven't studied the man too much I don't know). He is clearly an institution now.

Personally I did not like his work until I saw one in person. Then I found it (EMP in Seattle) really moving and not a gimmick (a gimmick is cool but looses its appeal upon closer look) and I loved the interior I really thought it worked as a whole. I don't know how a whole city of them would look. Maybe a city can only afford 1 Gehry in it.

 

I think their is a great point however that one of the main features is how amazing they are that they did get built. So the team that does that does need credit. Utilmatly the design is fascinating but the execution really is remarkable.

[aaron-cds]

OK first a few side notes... Thank you for debating me on this because I am so tired of debating software. Finally, there is something interesting to talk about, and something that I think needs discussion.

 

You are absolutely right. I am attacking his MO not the resulting building. I don't really mind his buildings at all. In a country filled with horrible spec office buildings, "Mediterranean style" townhouses, and strip malls, it is nice to see something different. What I have a problem with is that he has dumbed down the inspiration of design. How insulting is it that you give this man carte blanch, as you put it, and he comes with a squiggle. "Don't worry, I have some really smart people that have finally figured out how to turn this into a building, a process that I have no part with and hate, but my contribution is this. My genius is the squiggle..." What happens then is that there is that the building now lacks a "reason d'etre," except that client wanted to spend a lot of money. While the design is "pretty" and "interesting to look at." The concept of the design is very very shallow. Now I know that Ghery has stronger design skills... but he has left them far behind. He has become a one-liner. In fact it usually takes people a long time when looking at close up picture to figure out if its the Guggenheim or the concert hall…

 

I think what history will judge is that Ghery may have forced a design process to take place. A design process which is very innovative. But he had no part of that actual process, has no idea how it works, and only came into effect because of his own laziness, and blank checks from his clients.

 

All of this sounds very speculatory. Perhaps it isn't. I've never met him or worked with him. I'm just glad you're finally starting to sound constructive. Your baboon and poo comments didn't sound like they were coming from a Rice graduate. They were crass to say the least. Then again, that's not really what this debate is about.

 

I think there is much more to it than Gehry just making a few lines on paper or balling up a piece of paper. Look at all the study models that are built and the amount of sketching. The computer programers and project architects are the means and methods to achieving his vision. Wether you like that vision or not, I feel like he still deserves credit for his role in the process. Saying that his designs are merely about a "squiggle" is like saying a symphony is about a series of notes. Gehry is not a genius but I don't think he should be discounted either.

 

As for Gehry hating computers, he is certainly within his right to do so. I think he fully understands the spacial experiences he creates. To say otherwise seems naive. He may not understand how the software works but he understands the end result of his "squiggles". His role is to create. He works with other people to implement his ideas. He sketches his ideas instead of pushing a mouse. What's wrong with that? Just because Thom Maine explores his ideas on the computer vs. exploring ideas with sketches and models does not make him a better architect. What a simple minded notion. It's a wonder that we had any good architecture before computers. Right? Surely you're not discounting the value of sketching in architecture or that good architecture can be designed through sketching. That would be ludicrous.

[aaron-cds]

Utilmatly the design is fascinating but the execution really is remarkable.

 

Excellent point.

 

There shouldn't be "starchitects". It should be "starchitecture". Individual architects are receiving all of the credit too often on projects that were dependent on the participation of many. I think that's one of the negative aspects of our field that leads to the misperception that most architects are egotistical.

[Christopher Nichols]

All of this sounds very speculatory. Perhaps it isn't. I've never met him or worked with him. I'm just glad you're finally starting to sound constructive. Your baboon and poo comments didn't sound like they were coming from a Rice graduate. They were crass to say the least. Then again, that's not really what this debate is about.

 

crass... hehe... My advisor was Lars Lerup, I have learned from him that strong language can be used for anything. If anything I held back. Either way, I will keep it clean.

 

I think there is much more to it than Gehry just making a few lines on paper or balling up a piece of paper. Look at all the study models that are built and the amount of sketching. The computer programers and project architects are the means and methods to achieving his vision. Wether you like that vision or not, I feel like he still deserves credit for his role in the process. Saying that his designs are merely about a "squiggle" is like saying a symphony is about a series of notes. Gehry is not a genius but I don't think he should be discounted either.

 

Sure there is more to "IT" than the the few lines on the paper, but there is not much more from HIM. As far as you music analogy, I would say he drops a few notes on the table and tells them what key it is in (IE, material for the skin), and it is the others that make it into a symphony, that give it a structure.

 

As for Gehry hating computers, he is certainly within his right to do so. I think he fully understands the spacial experiences he creates. To say otherwise seems naive. He may not understand how the software works but he understands the end result of his "squiggles". His role is to create. He works with other people to implement his ideas. He sketches his ideas instead of pushing a mouse. What's wrong with that? Just because Thom Maine explores his ideas on the computer vs. exploring ideas with sketches and models does not make him a better architect. What a simple minded notion. It's a wonder that we had any good architecture before computers. Right? Surely you're not discounting the value of sketching in architecture or that good architecture can be designed through sketching. That would be ludicrous.

 

Of course not... but s simple idea should be deep in meaning. A beautiful simple sketch should be rich. The simple line that divides the Salk Institute is so rich and meaningful yet comes from a simple gesture. There is little that inspires the lines that FOG draws except that he is trying to challenge the process that was build around him...

 

Either way, we cannot deny that many have argued FOGs process on his recent buildings, and the legitmacy of his design involvement. And maybe, intellectually that is its success. In the same way that Duchamp presented his urinals... But if I am going to be inspired by innovation, I will look to those that put more thought into it.

 

PS... I love Duchamp and would never equate him Gehry.... just trying to mak a point.

[edub]

THIS is genius:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8lUO8KCts0&search=gehry

[aaron-cds]

crass... hehe... My advisor was Lars Lerup, I have learned from him that strong language can be used for anything. If anything I held back. Either way, I will keep it clean.

 

Either way, we cannot deny that many have argued FOGs process on his recent buildings, and the legitmacy of his design involvement. And maybe, intellectually that is its success. In the same way that Duchamp presented his urinals...

 

Strong language, baboon and poo? Lars must be proud. Anyway.

 

The difference between Duchamp's "Fountain" and Gehry's designs is that I don't think Gehry is trying to put one over on us all like Duchamp was doing. I think that would be an unfair statement. Is he in a rut? Is he resting on his laurels? Wasn't Meier and several other famous architects guilty of that? Does that make them bad architects or just boring and predictable? How many architects out there are reproducing their own work?

 

I'm going to reserve judgement on the documentary, but if they focus mostly on Gehry's sketches and spend a small amount of time on the process I'm going to feel like I wasted my time and money watching it. I do agree that the computer programmers and project architects make these projects possible. But then again, the cart can't come before the horse.

[hockley91]

Wow, Bricklyne and Christopher really had it going on there!

 

Sometimes you feel like a nut....and sometimes you don't. I mean, with Frank Gehry you either like him or hate him you know? I work with an architectural firm, and pretty much everyone here doesn't really care for his work at all. It's hard to find a middle ground with him. His contributions to architectural design are nowhere as near as Frank Lloyd Wright or Le Corbusier....time will tell though.

 

I do want to see the movie because it would be neat to see his thought process and what goes on in his head.

 

Down here in south Texas you should all take a look at Lake Flato's work!

 

I think every city or region has some prominent architecture firm around there eh?

[Sawyer]

I think every city or region has some prominent architecture firm around there eh?

 

 

Yes here we are influenced by the rectolinear box movement best illustrated by the buildings of Sam Walton and BUMI (Butt Ugly Middle America). Actually many of these larger boxes were originally influenced by Gehrys work. The idea came from taking Gery's forms and streching it out as long and flat as possible. You end up with a box.

http://investmentlandforsale.com/images/walmart.JPG

 

This has become known as the UAH (Ugly as Hell) movement and has recenlty been see in other contries as well.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Walmartsupercenterpuertovallarta.jpg

 

By the early 21st century many communities became so enthralled with the BUMI movement all public buildings were required to resemble Monopoly pieces.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Cincinnati-suburbs-tract-housing.jpg