With the announcement of the formal opening of Sydney’s new
UTS building, Gehry’s work once more makes startling headlines across the
world. The reviews are potentially positive in promoting the hype of the
concept. Only occasionally are they quaintly ambivalent - ‘the design has been
slammed by some’ - noting that ‘some,’ hinted as being a few grumpy,
disenchanted academics or less-talented architects, do not like this
architecture that has real impact for the media in love with extremes and
differences. ‘Man bites dog’ is news, whereas ‘Dog bites man’ is not. The whistle blower syndrome cuts in on the vocal critics and the blame is placed squarely on their shoulders: their problem is their problem. There appears to
be some potential pride, perhaps pure praise, some naive delight in
describing the building, as the Governor-General of Australia did, as "the most beautiful
squashed brown paper bag I've ever seen". The words are seen as ‘jokey-
blokey’ congratulations. No one cringes at this comment or asks if this odd description
has any real cynical side to it. Nor does anyone suggest that it might be touching
a raw nerve of everyday experience, some real concern. Are leaders merely being
overly polite, cleverly avoiding the obvious?
Is this the art of war? Why have we become entranced with
broken buildings? - see: http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/new-gehry-projects-in-aleppo.html Have we forgotten the morality and personal
suffering in the lives behind these ‘interesting’ delights? – see: http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/understanding-place-kobane.html What might a world that thought and sought more of the wholeness of modest wonder be like, even if dealing in ‘paper bags’ that
have not been crumpled, destroyed or distorted? Sadly the media is not
interested in such questions. Only things shallow and immediate, flashy, with
eye-and-attention-catching subjects are of any interest to today’s media that
is always pushing on for the next attracting diversion, the alarming headline,
never pausing to assess in any depth the things that it publicizes, pushes.
Gehry on The Simpsons being inspired by crumpled paper
One might make the parallel with Gaudi’s work, as the media
has done. Surely Gaudi’s work must have looked just as startling to those of his era:
but he was never alone, nor was his architecture random. He was working with issues that others were embracing
and exploring in various fields of endeavour: think of Art Nouveau, the movement. There was something in
the air that permeated the culture, some entrancing intellectual interest and
depth in this work that instilled the integrity of nature, both as pattern and structure. Some of Gaudi’s buildings had
strong political interests embodied in them as latent statements. But what is
there in Gehry’s unique and quirky art? He makes buildings out of crumpled bags
and pieces of paper, and boasts about it as though it was the best ever, better
than all others that don’t. The media describes it as ‘bold,’ etc., positively,
persuasively. It promotes Gehry in its brashly brave almost brainless manner:
as good headlines. Perhaps Gehry’s PR feeds the beast? His office seems to be
very self-conscious about its work and its reputation.
Why is it that one is reluctant to criticize this work? Why
is one considered less because of such a stance? Does success ensure that the
thrust of fashion and its agreeable numbers places all criticism on the other
side of acceptability, to be ridiculed, dismissed; mocked as spiteful: to be
doubted, questioned: “What’s your problem?” How can the Gehry machine be
challenged? How can it be made to reflect, thoughtfully? It seems to be
touching something in our society; something strange and worrying.
Gehry does try to suggest that his is a thinking,
responsible art. He makes all the right noises. As he has stated, he wants to
see the building in use before he can comment on it - but he does comment, and
on others too. He wants to see how people invent ways to use his work. His
response is promoted as being very adaptable, very considerate. The stance
suggests a strategy of caring and responding to ordinary life; incorporating it
and its whims. It imbues empathy; but where does this understanding come in the
primal making and shaping, in the squashing of the bag? Why has the broken,
deformed, wrecked, bombed image become the acceptable, the desirable aesthetic?
Is it just because computers make it possible? Does the love lie in the
technology that makes the apparently impossible achievable? It has been
reported that Gehry sells his technology to others.
The big question is: does this work harden us to the
suffering of others? Does it blind us to the hardships of ruined lives? Does it
make selfish, indulgent monsters of us all? Does this work involve some
narcissistic perversion that is encouraged and enhanced by social media and the
Internet that constantly refer to ME? Have we become mere aesthetes standing
aloof inside our rose garden surveying the world of ‘interesting’ form, wondering
how we might make use of these ad hoc 'innovations'?
There are many questions. The images of bombed, wrecked
buildings tell the story, one that started in Aleppo – see: http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/new-gehry-projects-in-aleppo.html Is this the art that seeks difference in
extremes; diversity in the unexpected: art for the artist’s sake? Is this the
art of war, the art that is the opposite of Paul Nash’s work that reveals the
great horrors of war, its awful truths? Has the last century of great wars
turned us into hollow, careless, unresponsive, unfeeling shells that look at
outcomes visually, analytically, without ever contemplating the emotions and
sufferings of others? Gehry may not be very helpful here. Where is the
sympathy; compassion? Where is the love other than in the idea; the cheek; the
surprise; the boldness eulogized by the media in its grabbing at alarming
difference expressed in the multi-million dollar construction of bombed ruins? In its praise of managed chaos hyping the alarm of organised mess, all as
seen in the adjacent reports on the latest war, does Gehry's work train us to overlook disasters and the horrors of war? Does it desensitize us?
Paintings by Paul Nash
GEHRY'S UTS SYDNEY
'Stroke of genius'
Compare the building with the model below
A bombed building; not a Gehry.
The fixed function of stairs is embellished in mirrors like a maze.
The necessary functions of the lecture theatre are hard to distort.
BUILDINGS: BOMBED AND WRECKED
(not by Gehry)
Gehry's UTS Sydney
This has not been bombed! It is a Gehry.
SOME OTHER GEHRY WORK
(not bombed or wrecked)
Model of UTS building
Frank Gehry's UTS Dr Chau Chak Wing Building opened: 'The
most beautiful squashed brown paper bag ever seen'
Date
February 3, 2015 – 6:36AM
Julie Power
Gehry opens UTS
'brown paper bag'
$180-million Frank
Gehry-designed Dr Chau Chak Wing of the University of Technology is officially
opened.
From little squiggles,
big treehouses grow: Australia's first Frank Gehry building featuring many of
the famous architect's signature curves and trademark wizardry has been opened
by the Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove.
The idea for the $180
million Dr Chau Chak Wing Building at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS)
came to Gehry after a 2009 visit to see the old Dairy Farmers site in a grungy
part of Ultimo. After a pizza with the business school's dean, the world famous
architect whose physics defying buildings have turned rundown towns into
tourist meccas scribbled a design for a treehouse shaped building with a
central trunk with branches for learning and reflecting.
Stroke of genius: The
quick sketch that arhitect Frank Gehry drew of the proposed UTS building in
Ultimo.
Photo: Louise Kennerley
"I'm Jewish so I
feel guilty about everything. It takes me about two years to come around and I
see all the things I want to change," Gehry said, reflecting on his work
at the opening.
"I'm pleased
with it but I haven't seen it in operation yet, I haven't seen the kids
here or witnessed the outlet being used. I'm hoping to do that and especially
speak and meet the faculty today about ideas I have and to hear their
thoughts about some of the spaces. It's open-ended and it hopefully gives
them the spirit of invention.
"This building
can and will be manipulated over time and will change as it's being used. People
will invent ways to use it. The tendency to build buildings where
everything is fixed for a fixed program is an obsolete notion."
The brick facade of
the new UTS Gehry building
Photo: Dominic Lorrimer
Over the past five
years Gehry's squiggle has been developed, expanded, tested and modelled in the
architect's Californian headquarters, where as many as 150 wooden and paper
models on different scales were built. The final models' curves and lines were
then turned into 3D designs using software originally developed by aviation
company Dassault Systèmes to build planes.
It has also helped
the architect, who is struggling to overcome a reputation for projects that
come in late and over budget, take on the dual role of architect and master
builder to control costs and the process. Mr Gehry said the new business school
came in on time and on budget. He later told the Herald that he'd promised the
Chancellor Vicki Sara that it would come in within 10 per cent of the forecast.
If it hadn't, he would have been obliged to pay for the cost overruns himself. "What
if I hadn't? I would have had to cough up the remainder."
When the building
appeared to lack something, Mr Gehry famously squeezed its middle, something
that is reflected in the buckled waist of the structure's undulating walls
comprising 320,000 bricks which were each laid by hand. It was this facade that
created the biggest challenges, said Patrick Woods, UTS deputy vice chancellor
(resources).
Frank Gehry's Dr Chau
Chak Wing Building.
Photo: Louise Kennerley
"The glass side
had its challenges, but the bricks, we looked at it, and thought we have no idea
how to do that," said Mr Woods. "It's trademark [Gehry]. He designs
and then we work it out." And making it work took multiple
consulting firms, he said.
Construction began in
November 2012, and by the end of this month more than 1630 business school students
and staff will be bumping into each other in the trunk of the building - the
stairs and other central areas are designed to encourage "water
cooler" moments where students and staff from different disciplines are
forced to cross paths.
Instead of old-fashioned
Harvard-style auditoriums and large offices dominated by faculty, the building
encourages a more egalitarian and collegiate approach to learning. The two new
oval-shaped classrooms encourage the lecturer to become part of the student
body, while the 120-seat style theatre is designed so that two rows of
desks and chairs are on the same level to encourage students to work together
in small groups. Staff's offices are all the same, only 9 square metres.
Organic pod-shaped small meeting areas branch out, encouraging students to meet
on the real Herman Miller furniture (Gehry vetoed imitations) or stretch out on
soft mats or in window nooks.
The Gehry-designed
building.
Photo: Nic Walker
Describing his
vision, Mr Gehry wrote to the dean of the business school Roy Green back in
2009: "Thinking of it as a tree house came tripping out of my head on the
spur of the moment," he wrote. He wanted a growing learning organism with
many branches of thought, some robust and some ephemeral and delicate, he wrote.
The design has been
slammed by some, but the Governor-General described it as "the most
beautiful squashed brown paper bag I've ever seen".
While a young student
said it was a lovely place to be, a builder working on a nearby site wondered
how many student buildings could have been built for the same price.
Frank Gehry's UTS Dr
Chau Chak Wing Building opens
From little
squiggles, big treehouses grow: Australia's first Frank Gehry building
featuring many of the famous architect's signature curves and trademark
wizardry has been opened by the Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove. Photo:
James Brickwood
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.