.jpg)
One cannot find sufficient expletives to express one’s dismay!
This exercise highlights every concern one might have about an AI future.
.jpg)
This Email was forwarded to colleagues after opening the site displaying versions of the Sydney Opera House by ‘10 iconic architects.’
One, truly, can only be dismayed. The exercise promotes architecture as a personal style, believing that this whimsy can be applied to anything, anyhow, to create a bespoke outcome of architectural quality, even ‘genius’ given the claimed ‘iconic’ result. What is ignored, or is just not ever realised, is that architecture has rigour and substance; perhaps one should say ‘some architecture,’ or maybe ‘real’ architecture, if ‘architecture’ itself requires any qualification, as it seems to need in our era that is happy to manipulate appearances for the sake of extreme difference and popular admiration; just as ‘selfies’ are, and for the same reasons too.
The ad hoc, almost casual approach to architecture as a random application of style - as ‘styling’ is in a hairdressing saloon, or a car designer’s studio (see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2015/09/zahas-architectural-car-design-strategy.html) - might be an approach promoted by some offices today, but its flippancy needs to be highlighted. The ZHA office boasts that it uses AI for the development of ideas and forms; and one can see the results of this approach published daily in the architectural media where style is a meaningless shaping for the sake of a notable, quirky difference.
That anyone might think that the Sydney Opera House could be ‘restyled’ to order, using ‘iconic’ names as references for different approaches, borders on an insult to the Opera House architect, Jørn Utzon, and to others in the list who based their works on stated ambitions, intents, and theories, a rigour essential to the final outcome, its structure, materials, and form.
Offices that embrace AI might be happy with this exercise, but one fails to see how it could be anything but another put-down for Utzon on the project’s 50th anniversary; there is no respect for anything or anyone shown in these interpretations. The idea simply ignores everything Utzon struggled for, suggesting that the building is merely a randomly inspired scribble in the Utzon ‘style.’ The first expression of the project might have been a sketch of a vision, but the effort to transform this idea into the beautiful building we have today involves whole new level of engagement. The Opera House has never been a matter of a name and an appearance.
It is in this ‘measurable’ phase of the project that one sees the effort, the rigour of Utzon as he implements his feeling for form, structure, and detail to achieve an integrated whole that glows with its careful resolution. Louis Kahn described the process as: A great building must begin with the unmeasurable, must go through measurable means when it is being designed and in the end must be unmeasurable. The Opera House is not some random shape propped up with a clutter of steel clobbered together as needed to hold the preferred shape in place. One could reference the ZHA Olympic Swimming Pool in London that had the steel close to the weight of a battleship to hold up its specially shaped, ‘wave-like’ roof, as determined by the inspired sketch: see – https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/search?q=london+olympic+pool.
Louis Sullivan would be more than outraged with this silliness, having coined the term, ‘Form follows function,’ and written about his theory of architecture in his books, including Kindergarten Chats and Other Writings, (Wittenborn, 1947; originally published 1901), a publication that needs to be read by architects today just as an example of theoretical writing that is simple and clear. Texts and concepts do not have to be obscure to hold any importance and significance. The concern with old texts being dismissed is that we implement the same idea of a style being applied to writings that get classified as being ‘old fashioned,’ hence ‘irrelevant,’ in an era that struggles to write with any rigour in spelling, grammar, and punctuation, let alone ideas.
Frank Lloyd Wright would be furious with this blatant indulgence that believes that his work could be anticipated as a style. The irony here is that after his death, his office did just this, but at least it had roots in some substance, unlike those playing these stupid parlour games that are the same as dressing up as ‘X’ in cosplay, and just as meaningless.
While one might say that this is all a playful silliness, a light-hearted bit of fun - "You spoilsport!" - it does have a serious impact that has to be called out. The whole exercise needs to be disparaged, as even the suggestion that it might hold just a glimmer of sense, leaves the door open to legitimise the idea that architecture can be styled as an arbitrary, personal expression with an arrogant guile, to anyone’s whim. It is a position that must be noted as unacceptable, irrational, and indulgent.
If one wishes to discover what architecture is about, and how architects think about their projects - perhaps one should say ‘Some architects?’ - one needs to look at the writings of some of these ‘icons’ and realise the rigour behind the shaping and making of their much-admired works.
Read Wright, Sullivan, Kahn, Zumthor, et.al. One can only cringe with a tortured agony when one considers the rich and vital sensitivity in the works of these architects that has been dismissed as an ad hoc appearance that can be applied to anything as a decorative remodelling, even to another building made with an equivalent commitment. This is not ‘intelligent’ in any way, artificial or otherwise; it is not ‘AI,’ just ‘RS’ - not the colloquial, barroom put-down, just ‘really stupid.’
.jpg)
.jpg)
NOTE:
Louis Sullivan applied decoration to his buildings, but, like the buildings themselves, this embellishment was nothing random, flippant, or personal:
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Likewise, Antoni Gaudi’s projects held a commitment and rigour, and were not based on random, personal, stylistic preferences:
According to him, his God created Nature and everything in it as perfect – this became his design principle. Thus, everything he designed from furniture to chapels, aims to reach the ideal of natural creation.
.jpg)
Inspired by his strong faith and love for nature, architect Antoni Gaudí developed new techniques to construct his visionary buildings.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/antoni-gaudi-life-and-architecture
.jpg)
.jpg)
It is simply crude and rude to consider Peter Zumthor’s work a ‘style’:
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
The text accompanying the 'Zumthor AI version' of the Opera House is as alarming as it is astonishing – as are all the other explanatory texts:
Switzerland-based Peter Zumthor is lauded for his minimalist and poetic approach to architecture. His style is characterized by a strong emphasis on materials, craftsmanship, and the sensory experience of space. Zumthor’s buildings often feature simple, clean lines and restrained use of ornamentation – features that can all be seen in this rendition of the Opera House. There’s beauty in this redesign’s form, but the beauty comes from how Zumthor (or the AI) chooses to reinterpret the original design. The entire form’s cleaned up, given a much more minimal makeover but still retains the Opera House’s character.
THE OTHERS
Frank Lloyd Wright:
Probably one of the most famous architects of the 20th century, Frank Lloyd Wright is credited with pioneering the Prairie architectural style, where Wright believed that buildings should be in harmony with their natural surroundings and that architecture should be a reflection of the environment. Wright’s designs often featured low, horizontal lines, open floor plans, and integration of indoor and outdoor spaces. He also incorporated natural materials such as wood and stone and emphasized the use of natural light. Reinterpreting the Opera House in a Prairie style involved slightly modifying its character to change its overall expression. The resulting design has a simplistic appeal that feels like a combination of practicality and beauty. Sure, it doesn’t feel as wild as Utzon’s original design, but there’s an almost calming quality to it that goes well with the calming effect of good opera music!
Gaudi:
If Wright’s Opera House was calming, Gaudi’s is the complete opposite. This rendition takes on an absolutely wild Art Noveau flavor that’s well in line with the Spanish Architect’s design sensibilities. The Opera House is hyper-organic, bordering on kitsch, with the rejection of the laws of geometry. There’s not a single straight line here or even a geometric one – everything about this AI-generated redesign feels incredibly organic to the extent of looking unnerving. Unlike Wright, Gaudi aimed to make his art evoke a strong reaction – either positive or negative. I’d say this redesigned Opera House definitely nails that.
Zaha Hadid (ZHA):
While we’re on the topic of organic, there’s no ignoring Zaha Hadid, the “Queen of the Curve”. Hadid’s style can be described as futuristic, dynamic, and sculptural. She often incorporated fluid lines, curves, and organic shapes into her designs, creating buildings that appeared to be in constant motion. This rendition of the Opera House borrows from Hadid’s work on the Heydar Aliyev Center in Azerbaijan. The Opera House’s ‘fins’ get a curvaceous makeover, with the end result looking organic, bordering on alien!
Le Corbusier:
The Opera House gets a modern brutalist makeover with this AI interpretation of lauded Swiss-French architect and designer Le Corbusier. He developed a unique architectural style that emphasized functionality, rationality, and the use of modern materials and techniques. This unique reinterpretation of the Opera House feels the most similar to the original, but opts for concrete facades and running horizontal ‘ribbon’ windows along the base and sides to provide ample light and a panoramic view to the people inside. The curved concrete facade is a unique touch because it doesn’t fall completely in line with brutalist functionality-driven principles. Instead, it has a sense of rawness emerging from the inherent artistry, creating a rather novel aesthetic.
Frank Gehry:
If the Opera House and the Bilbao Guggenheim had a baby, this is precisely what you’d get. A rather literal interpretation of Frank Gehry’s styles, the AI decided to give this Opera House redesign a curved metal facade quite similar to Gehry’s work on the Walt Disney Concert Hall, the Vitra Museum, and the Guggenheim Museum. The building gets clad with curved metal sheets, creating a unique appearance that reflects light and its surroundings in a variety of ways. Gehry’s post-modernist work was probably the inspiration for this AI, which is why this particular redesign feels as iconic and eye-catching as the original.
Oscar Niemeyer:
Known for his modernist take on architecture, Brazil-based Oscar Niemeyer’s designs were characterized by flowing curves, bold forms, and the use of reinforced concrete. Niemeyer believed in the social and political potential of architecture and aimed to create buildings that were not only functional but also visually striking and symbolic… and this image above does just that. The facade is given a soft, almost sea-glass-like redesign that feels calming because of the visual continuity. Layered elements pay tribute to the original, with the use of white on the exterior in classic Niemeyer style.
Vlado Milunić:
Although Milunić is best known for his collaborative work on the Dancing House with Frank Gehry, the Czech architect (who sadly passed last year) is known for his contemporary and innovative architectural style. Milunić’s work is a part of the deconstructivist movement, which emphasizes unconventional forms and fragmented geometries, featuring bold and expressive shapes, asymmetry, and a sense of movement – all features that already are highlights of the current Opera House. It’s no wonder that this AI image looks the closest to the original because it immortalizes those very ideas of fragmented geometries and unconventional forms that come together to create something uniquely appealing.
Rem Koolhaas:
Renowned Dutch architect and urban designer, Rem Koolhaas is known for his avant-garde and innovative architectural style. His architectural approach is characterized by a combination of bold and unconventional design elements, in lockstep with the deconstructivist style. It does feel like this particular AI image is the least like his past works because of its bulbous forms as opposed to Koolhaas’ love for impossible geometries… however, the building does take some amount of inspiration from another similar establishment in Taiwan – the Taipei Performing Arts Center which Koolhaas worked on too. The TPAC building’s iconic element was a hovering sphere emanating from the center of a building, and for what it’s worth, the uniqueness of this Opera House feels not too dissimilar!
Louis Sullivan:
Probably the only architect on this list with their own style, America-based Louis Sullivan is best known as the father of modernism in architecture, with his work referred to as following the “Sullivanesque style”. One of Sullivan’s key principles was the idea of “form follows function,” which meant that the design of a building should be based on its intended purpose and function. He believed that the exterior of a building should express its internal structure and function, and that ornamentation should be used sparingly and only when it served a purpose. Sullivan’s work can be seen all across the streets of Chicago, with their bold architectural masses that had intricate detailing that borrowed from classical architecture. The combination of classical and modernist can be seen here with this Opera House that looks like a grand old building from the turn of the 20th century – as iconic as a massive railway station or a big museum or government building.
The concern is that AI is taken so seriously, rather than as a bit of nonsense.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.