“Hang
on. Did you know that Hadid had died? It was just on the news. . . .
No. Of course you wouldn’t have. It would be too early.” That’s
how the news came. News of death always strikes like the proverbial
bolt out of the blue. One can always remember when and how. A chasm,
a void, opens up in the continuum of life for one to ponder: ‘there
but for . . .’ - history begins a new chapter.
I
was talking to a family member in the UK. I had got up early so as to
not disturb her later in the evening. It was 4:30am here in
Australia; 7:30pm there. Her eye caught the story as it flashed up on
the television as we had just started talking - Hadid is dead: but
life goes on.
I
was right to have risen early to catch her, as her day had been busy
and she was tired. Her plans were to retire soon, shortly after a
light snack for dinner: so we did not talk for long.
After
getting up early, it is difficult to go back to sleep, so I made a
cup of tea to have with a biscuit and settled down in front of the
television news channel as the eastern sky lightened. The kookaburras
celebrated this change, as Muslim worship does more quietly, with a raucous
cackling cacophony that we call laughing. Is it not reverence? Al
Jazeera news was on. An overhead road under construction had
collapsed in Calcutta. It was a truely terrible scene of chaos. Next
was the news of Hadid’s death complete with descriptions of her
unique ‘curving’ architecture that has changed the world. It was
explained that she had been admitted into hospital with bronchitis,
but had died of a heart attack. This report was followed by the news
of Ronnie Corbett’s death, aged 85, of gall bladder complications:
the news always seems keen to give as many details as possible. Do
not the dead deserve privacy?
The
Al Jazeera news finished, and the ABC News 24 Breakfast programme
started. This beginning had never been seen before – 5:00am is not
a usual time for watching television. The presenters looked jaded,
bland. It seemed that they needed time to warm up, like a good motor;
and indeed, they did settle into the easy chatty, relaxed banter that
can be so annoying, but only after about twenty minutes or more. Was
it the coffee sipped in between the recorded items that made the
difference to these early risers? Headline news was Calcutta, with
extended coverage of this catastrophe that included the strange
report that the contractor has called the failure ‘an act of God;’
corruption was suggested as one likely cause that would be
investigated. Then there was the news of Ronnie Corbett’s death.
This too, was given extended coverage, complete with catchy clips of
his appearances with Cleese and Barker. The news quickly moved off
into sport, cricket and basket ball. There was nothing on Hadid’s
passing.
So
the tablet was picked up. Maybe this news had not yet had time to to
be included in the programme. The ABC News app was opened, ‘JUST
IN’ was clicked, and the list was perused: nothing! So I flicked
across to the BBC World News app. Surely this would have some
coverage? No. Strange. One was reminded of the lack of reporting in
Australia of one of 2014’s great disasters, the fire in MacIntosh’s
Glasgow School of Art: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/glasgow-school-of-art-burns.html
Was Hadid’s death to be ignored too? What does this say about
Australia? Is it an ignorant backwater rather than the ‘world
class’ country that it thinks it is; tries to be?
In
Britain, one sees quality reviews and reports on architectural issues as a matter of course in some media. In Australia, one
sees nothing of this unless there is some extreme drama of the ‘man
eat dog’ type that can make quirky or provocative headlines, in the
way that the Sydney Opera House saga had money and personality
problems, and the architect’s resignation. Such events stimulate
sufficient curiosity to encourage folk to purchase the papers, an
event that seems to be on the decline: but this demise seems to have made the headlines get only more cryptically dramatic. Britain’s media also runs the
annual ‘Worst Ten Buildings of the Year’ competition, if one can
consider this a competitive phenomenon. Maybe it can be seen as the
race to the bottom? This listing would be an impossibility in
Australia with its colonial libel laws. Australia fills its news up
with a few major clips gleaned from the rest of the world; some blurb
about the local politicians playing about with words, time and money;
and sport; and more sport. The commitment, enthusiasm and time is
given over to reporting on sport, especially when Australia ‘kills,
thrashes, or wallops’ the opposition. Matters to do with
architecture are totally irrelevant. The ‘Arts’ get some coverage
on the ABC TV specialist shows, but these are very few and far
between. Architecture appears in the news more in its cliché usage
than as a reference to the ‘art of building’ as the dictionary
broadly describes it. One frequently hears about the ‘architecture
of the economy; the architecture of terror; the architecture . . .’
of just about anything: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/the-architecture-of-architecture.html
One never, well, very rarely, discovers anything in the media about
architecture either locally or internationally other than in the hype
of some Grand Designs copycat show, or the show itself.
So
it seems that Hadid’s sad passing will be for other countries to
report; for other people to mourn. It appears that Australians are
too engrossed in their sport to even be bothered with art or
architecture. Britain is totally committed to sport too, but it has a
broader scope of public interest than Australians: Melvyn Bragg, John
Humphrys and others of this ilk - see:
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/architectural-language-problem-of-hype.html
- are frequently on radio and television raising significant matters
for discussion, offering an alternative to the laughs, and the
reading of listener’s tweets and E-mails in between the music and
chat. Australians seem content with the truly careless “She’ll be
right, mate” banter that holds the crude and rude belief that all
architects are ‘wankers.’ It is sad because even within the
profession, discussion, debate and critiques on architecture are
close to non-existent. There is little like voussoirs that
seeks out issues and ideas to develop and review. Most of the
material published in the journals and coffee table books looks like
hagiographic, self-promotion: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/ronchamp-rest-areas-and-meaning.html
One local firm of architects has had its Wikipedia site removed for
unspecified reasons included in a list of possibilities in the
Wikipedia policy document: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/tensegrity-bridge.html
One can only guess, but it seems likely to have been commercial
propaganda that has caused the problem. Was it?
It appears that architects just cannot help themselves. In a way, one
can understand the frustration that the public must have with the
profession’s indulgent palaver, and the only too frequent occasions
where budgets are blown and time-frames are ignored all for the glory
of personal expression: MY work - “I wanted to use reinforced
concrete on this house. I had not done one before.”
The
Al Jazeera news report on Hadid’s death did have some good
coverage. With no one knowing how to classify her work, it gets
called ‘curving building,’ ‘a chaos that represents the modern
dilemma,’ ‘spaces with various points of perspective,’ and
other gobbledygook guesses. It is not helped by Hadid herself. There
was a clip on the news of her receiving the RIBA Gold Medal this
year, 2016. The portion of her speech that was replayed showed her
trying to describe her work, noting that her efforts have been to
create a meaningful, sinuous, malleable architecture, with an urban
quality, etc. It sounded as though she herself was struggling to
place her own very self-consciously different work in the mainstream of
life and being, when it really does stand alone, remote and unique,
as icons might – no, this denigrates icons. Her work is like a
series of performance pieces shaped to be observed, as if on
permanent exhibition.
One
of the interesting series of occasions that have been captured for
YouTube was the set of four presentations made to the client for the
prestigious project in New York – the development of 425 Park
Avenue. Rogers, Hadid, Koolhaus and Foster had been short-listed to
develop schemes. Someone had the inspiration to record the actual
presentations and put them on YouTube, unedited. They are very revealing with their ordinariness. These four architectural firms
that have generated such a name for themselves can be seen working in
a real situation. It is excellent documentary material. The
presentations are real eye-openers. Rogers looks sloppy, chatty and
leaves most of the effort to his offsider who is free with clumsy
clichés. Koolhaus seems
too involved in his own sculptural ideas, but does at least do all
the talking himself. Hadid starts off with what seems like a strange
rambling that is stepped into by her helper who proceeds to complete
the banter with repeated jargon words. Foster was impressive,
thorough and committed, professional, confidently presenting the
scheme by himself with a silent assistant efficiently and effectively
helping with panels and other graphic illustrations. Foster got the
job. His was a beautiful scheme.
425 Park Avenue proposal
Hadid’s
presentation was concerning. She seemed a little dazed, almost
elsewhere as she leaned heavily at the table, looking unconcerned
about everything, as though she was there as a silent figurehead to
mark the brand. Her words appeared rambling, garbled. She was selling
her scheme using the argument that there would be nothing else like
it in New York, or the world. Her work, well, that of her office, had
a boldly curvaceous tower form: it was an ‘Hadid’ building.
As she babbled on, the assistant cleverly spoke over her fading,
uncertain phrases and began his own detailed rationale for the
proposal that was strangely unexpected. Well, let’s say that one
expected more and better. Hadid just sat there for the rest of the
chat looking a little bemused.
Ironically,
it was in this unusual situation that Hadid categorised her work most
clearly, as something different and unique, nothing else. Her
attempts to use other descriptive terms that appear to try too
rationally to include her work in the genre of the day when it doesn’t really fit anywhere other than in exhibition space,
sound inept and self-consciously selected, having nothing
substantial to do with the work as experienced. The catchphrases
tumble out as a collection of loose, irrelevant architectural clichés
that seem to have been sourced from the more general architectural debate.
So
how might one talk about Hadid’s efforts, for they have truly
changed the world – whether for better or worse is another
question? One can admire the boldness of her approach in the same way
as one can criticise it as being indulgent, concerned with its own
demonstrable display rather than the easy accommodation of
comfortable, unselfconscious living. Her buildings are like clever
toys, things to be played with by the eye; and fair ground rides,
things that play with the experiencing body. There is a reciprocal
interaction in the unique event, the prime function of which seems to
be intrigue and excitement in difference. Her Glasgow Museum of Transport bemuses:
see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/pedestrian-approach.html
and
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/bell-and-fish-two-glasgow-museums-part_04.html
As one moves through it, one is frequently more interested in the
building than the display. This is one of the challenges of museums
and art galleries: the accommodation of the interaction of items and
place to the benefit of the items for which the place has been made.
Hadid seems to have had no qualms about her concentration on the
identity of her vision, its purity.
Her
little travelling art display building for Chanel that has now
settled down permanently outside Nouvel’s Arab Institute in Paris,
is likewise dramatic and eye-catching: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/hadids-art.html
But here a closer inspection reveals crude solutions and scrappy
details in places that are mainly concealed to the passing eye. While
the pure white, perfectly smooth shell astonishes both as a form and
a fabrication, once one stands on tiptoes and looks over the top edge
of the shell form from the entry ramp, a translucent tensile fabric roof for natural lighting is revealed. The
collision comes where the shell and the roof meet at the gutter. Here great globs
of sealant have been ladled over the joint in order, so it seems, to
ensure that it will not leak again, such is the apparent
determination and quantity in the application.
Chanel Building, Paris
It
has been said that architecture can be best evaluated in the unseen
parts; and in the toilet and service areas. We were expelled from the
Chanel building, (no ticket; there was no indication one was needed),
so these toilets were not seen. The toilets at the Glasgow Transport
Museum were. Even here we see Hadid still performing her very
self-conscious articulations. The spaces had the usual ordinary
layouts, but the doors were Corb’s ‘Ronchamp’ full-height pivot
doors with hand grips that grandly spanned from the floor to the
ceiling. There was no recognition of the danger to little fingers in
this arrangement, something that even the Lerwick Tesco toilet block designers had noticed with the installation of a flexible enclosing barrier. It was
still all about display even in these tiny places. There was nothing
there shaped for the unselfconscious hand; for the easy convenience
of the users; or for the protection of little fingers. Things were
arrayed to be admired, as all of her work appears to be: to be
performed in and around. Her architecture is ‘pedestal’ work to
be considered and experienced as an artwork in a museum building,
ironically one that shapes a quiet background to allow the spirit of
the pieces to be revealed. Hadid did not do buildings like this. Her
buildings rely on their difference for their effect. Imagine a city
full of ‘Hadids.’
The
critic of this text might respond with the retort that the owners
love their ‘Hadid’ buildings. All that one can say is that this
is understandable, as it is like owning a Maserati in amongst a sea
of Fords and Toyotas. Hadid’s work is a unique brand that can
promote other unique brands – see:
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/faking-provenance-misuse-of-meaning.html
Little wonder that big corporations love her work. Now, on her
passing, one is left wondering if the brand will be perpetuated as it
was after the death of Frank Lloyd Wright – very unsuccessfully. We
saw Taliesin West reproduce the style stolidly, without invention, to
create more and more poor shadows of Wright’s hopes. Will we get
‘Hadids’ like this in the future?
Hadid’s
legacy - it is too soon? - will likely be her commitment to her
ideal; her enduring and determined spirit. In spite of what one might
think of her work, her achievements are truly astonishing. Yes, one
can acknowledge this and remain concerned with her extreme strategies.
It is always difficult to be dissatisfied with any commitment and
rigour. The world likes the bespoke drama: such seems to be the
essence of our age. One hopes that her example will not generate a
mass of hysterical copyists who think that anything is acceptable if
it can be drawn and built. Rather it is hoped that her efforts can be
replicated: her earnestness and application; her dedication to a vision. One can say that Hadid’s work was amazing, because of
the boldness of its concepts, the skills displayed in its
documentation, and the rigour involved in getting it built. A stroll
through her Glasgow building shows a very self-conscious, deliberate
building, one that is complete in its consideration of every
detail. Hadid will be remembered: her legacy, her body of work, will
remain an inspiration for all.
Later
in the day I picked up the tablet and opened the Guardian app. Here,
on the front page, if tablets can have a front page, was a lengthy
and considered report on Hadid’s death. It takes the Guardian! It
looks like the ABC just does not consider this occasion worth
reporting in Australia. It has still not yet been noted.
Requiescat in pace
1950 - 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.