Iconophobia and the discovery of the Starchitects By Christopher Cooke
What is exactly the value in terms of Iconic buildings in the modern age? What is there purpose and what do they represent?. Modern Iconic architecture has a sense of irrelevance, and are ostentatious in appearance and seem detached as architecture that surley could not stand the test of time for hundreds of years to come. The term Iconic seems to have become a word disjointed, separated from its very origin and its purpose. History has shown us that the term Iconic was a way of determining or identifying architecture that stood out from the crowd, that set itself firmly in society but that also has captivated millions of people throughout history. Today s, Iconic for me has changed and in some cases it has demoralized itself. It has gone from once being used as a compliment and to recognize architecture that was beautiful in form, that served a useful purpose, and created a sense of place by contributing to the public realm, to something far more meaning less. From This To This
Iconic Building in History If you look at the Ancient Egyptian pharaohs, did they intentionally design and build the iconic Pyramids in Giza, or were they just building pyramids? Arguably but of course this could be said for any one of the seven ancient wonders of the world.
Having read The seven ancient wonders of the world-pop Up by Celia Kings i found it interesting that she suggests these architectural wonders had not only been chosen because of their shear grandeur and position in society, but also for their vision and purpose that enabled them to be recognised. With the scale and design of the buildings playing a key part in their position, as well as the craftsmanship of these buildings to ensure that they were in keeping with the architecture at the time. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon The statue of Zeus at Olympia The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus The Colossus of Rhode The Great Lighthouse of Alexandria.
As stated in the Oxford Dictionary Icon is defined as A image, a representation, a symbol resembling or analogous to the thing it represents. During the later periods this would be followed by the works of Andreas Palladio. Who i recognize for his beautiful church of San Giorgio Maggiore 1566 in Venice. and his Villa La Rotonda built in 1570 situated on the outskirts of Vicenza, Italy. Both of these are architectural icons of the Italian Renaissance.
Christopher Wren s Protestant churches, notably St Pauls in London which was built during the 17th century is an Icon although critics would argue that St Pauls was built for Protestants with a Christian eye. Apart from their grandure in the surrounding context, along with well-executed design. All of these managed to be respectful to the immediate environment around them. But again, at least these buildings served a specific purpose.
It is for me at the end of the Italian Renaissance and a small part of the early 17th Century that Iconic architecture ends and the Modern Iconic era begins. Now the world see s contributions to Iconic and are contained in the early 20th century. As technology has evolved during the course of time, so to has the approach to building architecture. Is this to blame? Within the 20th Century period I include Architects like Frank Lloyd Wright and his Prairie houses, notably the The Frederic C. Robie House in Chicago and is considered to be one of the most important buildings in American architectural history. According to the Frank Lloyd Wright Preservation Society the building is both a masterpiece of the Prairie style and renowned as a forerunner of modernism in architecture.
Le Corbusier s designed his Citrohan House, to which the name had evolved from the Citroen cars at the Salon d Automne in 1922. The idea was to embody the ideas that originated from Vers une architecture 1923 and Le Corbusier argued for a house that was mass produced to work as efficiently as a motor car and to function as effectively as a motor car. Which by todays standards surely would still not work especially if you drive a BMW.
Then Mies van der Rohe s Barcelona Pavilion which was again designed for the 1929 Barcelona International Exhibition. Each of these buildings have the term iconic under their belt, however they were not immediately recognized as Iconic at the time of exposure to the world. But is this because they do not represent or symbolize anything? or do these buildings just need a matter of time to become Icons?
In the book of Frank Lloyd Wright: Architecture and Space, by Peter Blake. He too has observed what i would consider to be a key point. Frank Lloyd Wright had been influenced by Louis Sullivan, famous for designing the Wainwright building in St Louis Missouri. He argued that the buildings form should only ever be noted if the function were to be in balance with purpose of the building. The Wainwright Building is an example of a building that I would consider to be well deserving of the term Iconic architecture that fits within the urban context.
Today, i see modernism as if it has stretched the term of form and function far, possibly even is too far. As an architect I look up to other architects, notably to the likes of Jorn Utzon, who designed and built the famous Sydney Opera House in 1957. Having visited this building in the summer of 2009 I was impressed that my expectation of the building had lived up to what I had seen in texts and images. But I was rather confused by the form which it takes, as it dominates the harbor side. I refer to Modern Movements in Architecture by Charles Jencks, who calls the vaults of the opera house shell like, whilst he also finds a naugtical link between the sails of a boat in Sydney harbour. The opera house was heavily criticized initially as the form of the building did not relate to the specific purpose of the acoustic halls. Austrailia is a country with a very native origin, the aboriginal tribe history of the country is not at all represented as a symbol for Austraila in the Sydney Opera House? Surely if you design a building to stand as a symbol it should represent the country?. It was used to become a centre point for an advert for Qantas Airline. Surely it wasn t built with the intention to be a star in an "advert". However Utzon s opera house is an asset to Austrailia, as it transcends a mere utility. People recognise a country like Australia through its most iconic building and it therefore becomes an international destination.
So was this the birth, the start of Post-Modernism, is this the beginning of the so called Signature Architecture?. Post-Modern architecture is a movement that is highly debated and i can understand why. It is because people do not understand what purpose it plays in our global architectural society. Is this the result of our universities teaching us the wrong things or is the blame left with the new revolution in the architecture world.
The introduction of signature architects or as i will call them Starchitects. This way of thinking is a new corner which architecture has not seen before. But should we be calling them architects or should we be calling them celebrities?. I find a few selected architects of the likes of Zaha Hadid and Frank Gehry which don t appear to really relate to what historical genius s like Michealangelo represented. The pain staking hours even years of study and education of Michealangelos life of trying to make things work. But today, these architects are building monumental atrocities that don t address form or function and are un-favourable and harmful additions to their surrounding environments. Is Zaha Hadid creating architecture from the dark side with Daniel Libeskinds. Frank Gehry copying the greats like Jorn Utzon, who is wise and looks on with intrigue.
Iconic is becoming so necessary to include strangely curved structures on buildings, and unusual but complex architectural forms. Frank Gehry Born February 28, 1929 Is a Canadian / American Pritzker Prize-winning architect based in Los Angeles, California. Frank is known for what i would call eleaborate iconic architecture of the modern age. He has a long line of works including The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao Walt Disney Concert Hall in downtown Los Angeles Experience Music Project in Seattle MIT Stata Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts Frank Gehry s style of architecture falls under Deconstructivism. This is post-structuralist in form but not in function. His designs removes themselves from modernism, which unlike early modernist architecture, it is claimed that deconstructivism does not need to reflect specific social or global function and therefore does not reflect a belief that form follows function. But could you suggest that Gehry s style seems almost unfinished?, but then if his work is similar to the California funk art movement which came about in the 1960s, featuring the use of found objects then why does it not need to be finished?
Gehry the apostle ( who is a follower or a student who learns from a teacher ) of chain-link fencing and corrugated metal buildings? But who could Gehry be an apostle to? An iconic building such as St. Peter s Church in the Vatican city, is the greateat house of God in the Christian world. But also it is one of the largest and most majestic creations of man. It rises above the relics of this apostle with a thrilling exultation, a monument of the early Christian world. Rising up into the air it has large letters in the chapel of Michelangelo are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ to Peter, which shall never pass away even if heaven and earth should pass away: Tu es Petrus! Et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam.-thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. Michelangelo was a master in design, repectful and respected. Frank Gehry surley if left up to him would decide to dress the building as beautifully as Michelangelo but you would get a very different picture indeed.
Zaha Hadid Born in 1950 in Baghdad, Iraq Zaha Hadid s architectural design firm - Zaha Hadid Architects in Clerkenwell, London She has a long line of works including; Maxxi, Rome Bridge Pavilion in Zaragoza, Spain University of Seville Library Spain ZAHA HADID what is the building? The dress or the sculpture. OR Surely this is not architecture.
In my opinion it seems, Zaha Hadid is the architecture of most of her buildings. The Maxxi Museum in Rome, Italy. Is a symbol of Zaha Hadid, but is she really that Iconic?. The building does not consist of useful space to hang beautiful paintings to be exhibited inside. It quite simply is a sculpture that has entangled the very dexterity of the beautiful renaissance facades that surround it. So what is the purpose of this building? Is it to be seen as a Iconic sculpture of the 21st Century set within the Italian society or is it as way of saying that you should not come to the museum to look at the beautiful art that is inside because you wont find anything as i have designed the walls so people look at my art instead? Is Zaha Hadid placing herself on the building?
Daniel Libeskind Born in 1946 in Poland Studio Daniel Libeskind in New York He has a long line of works including; The Ascent at Roebling s Bridge London Metropolitan University, London The Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto Having visited Daniel Libeskind s Michael Lee-Chin Crystal in Toronto it became very apparent that he reveals the deficiencies or imperfections that occur when designing with an iconic approach. Plain and simply the issues arise when artists want to display works on the walls.
As seen in Zaha Hadids Maxxi in Rome, it just isn t possible without the aid of a genius curator. As seen interiors of the Maxxi in Rome by Zaha Hadid and the The Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto by Daniel libeskind are usable as a space but not suitable for there purpose.
But when it comes to the new age of Iconic externally Daniel Libeskinds museum is surrounded by beautiful and gracious neighbouring facades which represent Torontos very own architectural heritage. Like the Maxxi in Rome the Royal Ontario Museum has mauled these historical buildings by allowing the crystal s structure to creep its way over the near by buildings. Maxxi Rome Notably even down to the craftsmanship of this so called Icon which has had leaking windows and issues surrounding ice. This would surely never have occurred if greats like Christopher Wren or Andrea Palladio were to have been commissioned to design the building. Ontario Museum
So where does that leave us? perhaps i should set apart the term Iconic from its original purpose. But It seems wrong to name a building 'Iconic' if talking of modern architecture. Maybe we should let it create an opinion for itself. Meaning over time critics may suggest that it is an icon of the time. But we live in a modern age where buildings built with todays technology should be achieving a high level of craftsmanship, finesse to deserve the title "Icon". Sadly for me buildings like the Daniel Libeskind Crystal Museum and Zaha Hadids Maxxi Museum they were both, like many others designed to be "Icons" and this is possibly a down fall as form is overseeing its function in both cases.?
So while the likes of Zaha Hadid and Frank Gehry battle it out over which is mightier, the pen or the sword? I will still claim that Jorn Utzon is the almighty being in this argument. His architecture, elegant and descriptive of a place but has been lost by the likes of Frank Gehry, using the Guggenheim in Bilbao as in my opinon a direct copy of the Sydney Opera House and Zaha Hadid using her computer aided design to sacrifice the beautiful architecture of current cities across the world by sticking and gluing her sculpture, dress, piece of work on top.