-
Waving, Not Drowning
August 6, 2012 | 117 comments
-
P Is for Poison
June 25, 2012 | 34 comments
-
Made in Heaven
May 11, 2012 | 23 comments
-
Facing Up to Darwin
February 29, 2012 | 187 comments
-
Paying the Price
December 14, 2011 | 22 comments
The Pursuit of Knowledge
Monumental Egos
“Starchitects” like Frank Gehry do not build for people — they build to shock.
The controversy over Frank Gehry’s design for a “memorial park” to President Eisenhower—a vast array of hideous metal walls, covered with reflections on the President’s humble origins, and mutilating (should it be built) an important public area of the capital city—has alerted Americans to the difficulty, in modern conditions, of obtaining an appropriate monument. Simple gravestones commemorate private people, and are inscribed with words of love from the few who will seriously miss them. Monuments, however, do not only commemorate public figures who have deserved well of the nation. They commemorate the nation, raise it above the land on which it is planted, and express an idea of public duty and public achievement in which everyone can share. Their meaning is not “he” or “she” but “we.” And the successful monument does not stand out as a defiance of the surrounding order, but endorses it and adds to its grace and dignity.
Washington has many such monuments. But they belong (for the most part) to another era, when architects and sculptors were prepared humbly to retire behind their own creations, so as to respect the city and its meaning. In proposing Gehry as the architect of the Eisenhower memorial, however, Washington has opted for another and newer conception of the architect’s role, and it is important to understand this if we are to grasp the extent and seriousness of their mistake. The Eisenhower family has objected to the plans on the grounds that the resulting collection of screens and narratives seem designed to belittle the former president, to cut him down to size, to redesign him as the barefoot boy who looked in wonder on the high office that miraculously came his way. But this belittling of the subject is exactly what the monument intends. By belittling the President the memorial would exalt its architect. And the true subject of his memorial park, like the true subject of every building that Gehry has ever built, would be Gehry.
This, it seems to me, shows us the reason why monuments are these days so hard to commission, and so invariably disappointing. Architects, who once were servants of the people who employed them, and conscious contributors to a shared public space, have rebranded themselves as self-expressive artists, whose works are not designed to fit in to a prior urban fabric, but to stand out as tributes to the creative urge that gave rise to them. Their meaning is not “we” but “I,” and the “I” in question gets bigger with every new design.
Gehry belongs to a small and exclusive club of “starchitects,” who specialize in designing buildings that stand out from their surroundings, so as to shock the passerby and become causes célèbres. They thrive on controversy, since it enables them to posture as original artists in a world of ignorant philistines. And their contempt for ordinary opinion is amplified by all attempts to prevent them from achieving their primary purpose, which is to scatter our cities with blemishes that bear their unmistakable trademark. Most of these starchitects—Daniel Libeskind, Richard Rogers, Norman Foster, Peter Eisenman, Rem Koolhaas—have equipped themselves with a store of pretentious gobbledygook, with which to explain their genius to those who are otherwise unable to perceive it. And when people are spending public money they will be easily influenced by gobbledygook that flatters them into believing that they are spending it on some original and world-changing masterpiece.
The most important feature of a Gehry “masterpiece,” like the absurdly costly Guggenheim museum in Bilbao, is that it “challenges” the surrounding order. Gehry does not build for people, but sculpts a space for his own expressive ends. You see this clearly in his Stata Center at MIT, a building that takes the old ideas of wall and window and holds them up to ridicule, to create a kind of collapsed caricature of a building, which is already springing leaks and cracking at the joints. In a striking monograph, Architecture of the Absurd, John Silber, former president of Boston University, details all the faults of the building, including its enormous cost overrun, and the expense of maintaining it.
But by far the most telling criticism is one that can be leveled at all the starchitects, who adopt the same a priori approach to construction as Gehry, and also the same self-image of themselves as revolutionary geniuses. Gehry decided that, since the Stata building was to house the high-powered researchers that MIT collects, and bring them together in a single space, he should design an interior that encouraged them to interact, to share their ideas, to amplify each other’s creativity by throwing concepts like footballs from room to room. So he got rid of inner walls, made all boundaries transparent, opened everything out in spaces that are made stark and bleak by the childish supermarket colors that shout from the open corridors.
This kind of a priori thinking, by an architect who has never troubled to observe another member of his species, recalls Le Corbusier’s plan for a hospital in Venice, in which there would be no windows, and all doors would open inward, since this would further the utter tranquility from which (according to the architect) convalescence springs. In fact researchers need walls, privacy, solitude if they are ever to produce the ideas that they can then bounce off their colleagues, just as invalids need light, air, and a view of the life outside, if ever they are to be motivated to get better. The Stata Center therefore fulfils no function as well as its primary one, which is to draw attention to the person who created it.
Unfortunately, because we live in a celebrity culture, this habit of megalomania seems to pay off. City fathers and public bodies everywhere, faced with the need to commission a public monument, will turn to the starchitects, sure that in this way they will not be branded as philistines by the critics, and will be able to fall back on a host of “expert” opinions should the general public express dismay at their choice. And the more important the project, the more likely it is that it will be put in the hands of a starchitect, who will ensure that it stands out from its surroundings and, if possible, reduces them to absurdity, so as the better to draw attention to itself.
Recently I spent a few days in Budapest, a city that is full of monuments. In every park some bearded gentleman stands serenely on a plinth, testifying to the worth of Hungarian poetry, to the beauty of Hungarian music, to the sacrifices made in some great Hungarian cause. The monuments include bas-relief, incorporated into the corner of some building, showing soldiers advancing into war, or patriotic faces against a background flag. They include classical colonnades linking buildings across the edge of a park, and gateways lending dignity to a public street. None stands out, none is designed to draw attention to itself. On the contrary, all attention comes from the monuments, onto the city and the people who live and move within their sight. They are like the eyes of a father, resting on his children at play. They are full of the joy of belonging, and convey a serene acceptance of death in the national cause. Such monuments are the very opposite of the one proposed by Gehry. Their sculptors and architects are forgotten, their forms and materials are the forms and materials from which the city around them is built. And they retire into their corners as though in acknowledgement that their work has been done.
Now I firmly believe that there are architects and sculptors who share that conception of the monument. For it is natural to all patriotic people to wish for their past to be present in the city, but in the way that memories are—as a shared recognition that we owe gratitude to those who went before us, and must incorporate them into our lives while respecting their dignity and acknowledging their part in the national life. We must begin to look for those more modest architects and sculptors, and to reject the celebrity cult on which the great egos rely for their commissions. For monuments should be built by people who have no desire to draw attention to themselves, who are happy to hide behind their creations, and to build things that belong where they stand. It looks increasingly likely that the mistake made in Washington will be rectified by Congress. But let us hope that it will be the occasion to rectify a far greater mistake, which is that of treating architecture as the expression of the architect’s individual vision, rather than a contribution to our collective home.
About the Author
Roger Scruton is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His latest book, How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism, has just been published by Oxford University Press.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (19) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Roger Scruton
More Articles From The Pursuit of Knowledge
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/10/monumental-egos
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Once Upon a Time in the West
- Happy Fourth
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Doctor_X| 4.10.12 @ 8:19AM
He is following in the foot steps of the biggest fraud of all, Frank Lloyd Wright. The Buffalo, NY Darwin Martin house is an example. The sky lights leak, the chairs are unfortiable and to be mean to Mrs. Martin who was almost blind he designed it with half-walls and lots of levels and stairs.
Falling Water is another monster that should be torn down! it cost more to repair and keep than to knowck it down and build it the right way.
The lesson is never let enginerring or function get in the way of building your ego.
tps| 4.10.12 @ 9:40AM
The story with Falling Water is that the contractor, an actual engineer, told Wright that his design would collapse. Wright didn't listen so the contractor added the extra concrete and supports on his own.
They still had to go back later on and do an overhaul of it. Building it over a stream tends to add a little mold to everything.
MikeN| 4.10.12 @ 9:03AM
What building have you shown at the top?
Ken Larson | 4.10.12 @ 9:32AM
Dr. X confuses Wright's innovation and use of materials in new ways [untried in many cases] with Gehry's work and the alliance it necessitates with products like DAP and caulks of all colors to fix the assemblages of his [Gehry's] creation. Philip Johnson did an office building toward the end of his career that had a wall clock hat on it, but at least remembered classic forms. Michael Graves also adhered to classic forms. I think Scuton's article is spot on and if I were David and Julie, I'd fight with all my might to get the design scrapped. Then I'd call Duncan Stroik [The Chapel at Thomas Aquinas College in California] and let him conjure up something fitting for Ike. And I bet he'd do a great job.
Susan Benton| 4.10.12 @ 9:33AM
Thank you so much for this wonderful article. I just returned from my first, last, and only trip to my city's "art museum". I saw little evidence of talent or ability but lots of ego and commentary on just about everything especially society, governement, occupy, the 'evil of capitalism', yada, yada, yada. It was all ego, all the time - I'm furious that this pathetic excuse for a museum is run on taxpayers money. So to with these pretentious architects.
Petronius| 4.10.12 @ 1:20PM
Gehry's buildings all say "hello Dali". So we know what he likes. The bent of modern architects has always been we must like what they offer us. Function doesn't mean squat for those who will occupy it. The import to them is external appearance.
Eisenhower was a middle management martinet who got ahead of himself. As President he was a punter and a "me too" liberal. Congress ate his lunch and all he did was retreat. If I wanted to design his memorial in D.C. I'd dig a trench which would contain a desk with golf balls in the ash tray, (Wilson K28's), and a phone off the hook next to a half empty coffee cup.
pomdter| 4.10.12 @ 2:36PM
Funny, just saw a re-run of "How I Met Your Mother" on TV last night mocking an "architecture collective" called Sven, which designed a building to look like a giant Dragon...
David Brussat| 4.12.12 @ 9:03AM
The old TV show "Wings" had an episode where two newlyweds were promised a house design as a wedding gift from a modern architect who frequented Nantucket. Then they found out it was going to look like a giant "7" and the rest of the episode revolved around how they could tell the famous island guest that they didn't want his "gift." Very funny!
Occam's Tool| 4.10.12 @ 2:38PM
I know a very good artist in New York who could oversee this operation and do it correctly, and with the appropriate reverence. His name is Jon Coffelt, and he's on the net. Not that John would necessarily do it, but he could certainly oversee it and come up with what people would want.
Anthony| 4.10.12 @ 4:54PM
Gehry sees the world through the eyes of a typical leftist, warped and grotesque. I bet Gehry loves Obozo, and I hope he gets commissioned to do the Obozo library, err Vatican.
Gehry and Obozo are a perfect fit, especially if Gehry builds a memorial to Obozo similar to the structure in the photo accompanying this article.
Obozo's warped views of America match this structure's concept to a T.
Patricia Teel| 4.10.12 @ 6:10PM
I am surprised he left off the pink plastic wrap and blue glass bubbles. LOL It is garbage.
mammybee| 4.10.12 @ 6:20PM
He designed the BOK Center in Tulsa. Google it! An ugly monstrosity in the middle of an historic Art Deco city. Shameful!
Mender| 4.11.12 @ 1:52AM
I always find this sad. I love Art Deco and styles from the past, and want to like architects who try to keep these styles alive. But none of their work seems to have that something Gehry and other cutting-edge architects (how is he 83?!) bring. I guess things have just moved on and we need to accept it.
Sara Love | 4.11.12 @ 9:48AM
President Eisenhower was first a soldier and then an American hero of WWII. Therein lies the premise of this architectural monstrosity, in my opinion. It is a monument to the regrettable but necessary destruction caused by the U.S. while defeating the enemy during that war. It is a bombed building. This design is not a monument to President Eisenhower, but a monument against him. A mockery. It's more like a monument to the memory of Hitler.
Tony| 4.14.12 @ 5:19PM
The picture above looks as if a gigantic tin robot has taken a dump.
Eisenhower was more than a mid-level martinet. He was a savvy politician who led the Allies to victory in Europe. The man had brains, and he loved his country, and fought for America with resolution and courage. That is what we remember him for, and not for his human failings, which we all suffer.
Scott| 4.16.12 @ 5:30PM
For as many leaky buildings you can name as examples of how terrible starchitects' egos and buildings are, I can name an equal number of conventional, boring, corporate buildings (even those with vintage "style") with leaky roofs and windows.
Corb's Venice Hospital may have been a miss, but his contribution to architecture and specifically our understanding of steel and concrete are undeniable. Someday we'll probably say the same about Gehry and his methods for digital fabrication.
You may not like the buildings or the egos, but pioneers usually push boundaries. When Adolf Loos built his Looshaus, the critics couldn't have been more cruel with their critiques, but I believe many in commenting on this article would appreciate the "style." The point being, the new thinking in architecture is often misunderstood and too easily dismissable because of the egos surrounding the creation. Instead of quickly dismissing current architects and their buildings for not adhering to safe "styles," understand them in the greater context of architectural history.
Link to Looshaus image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Looshaus.jpg
Also, on a side note, I seriously doubt that Gehry was trying to boost his own status by representing Eisenhower as a child. That's flawed logic.
Greg Blain Architect| 4.17.12 @ 4:09AM
Thank you Roger. Very well said. We need more comments like yours as unfortunately the supporters of genus willy nilly architecture abound.
Keith Mills| 4.23.12 @ 4:55AM
I don't know what the proposed Eisenhower memorial looks like, so I cannot comment on it, and I have visited only one Frank Gehry building in person: The Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles which, since 2003, has been the home of the L.A. Philharmonic Orchestra.
My wife and I are long-time subscribers to the L.A. Phil, and every time we attend a concert we never fail to remark on what a thrill it is to enjoy hearing great music performed by one of the world's finest orchestras in such graceful and beautiful surroundings.
Disney Hall has already become a Los Angeles landmark: an iconic building of which we Southern Californians have all become very proud. (You can see it nightly on the opening credits of the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.)
Inside the hall, the acoustics are second to none, and the view of the performers is unobstructed no matter where you sit.
I'd like to invite Mr. Scruton to come to L.A. and join us at a concert.
Jojo Weber| 5.10.12 @ 3:58PM
This article reminds me a lot of the arguments Ellsworth Toohey gave in 'The Fountainhead'... 70 years ago. The "we" always did and only will generate mediocrity.
Washington's most impressive memorial is probably the Vietnam Memorial by Maya Lin. It's a total "I" project and nobody could have ever foretold it would work this well.
Trust Gehry, he is one of the best ... and for a reason ... the non-compromising "I". Ellsworth Tooheys we had enough already in history.