EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
In the Documentary they discuss how it seems that really the buildings are just artistic sculptures. Or something along those lines. I would tend to agree.
His house is awful. Just stuff everywhere.. The idea of what he did is interesting, but how it ended up.. really different..
A few interesting parts of the documentary to me, were about how he began. His thoughts on the buildings before and after completion. The how to, and the process.. But the buildings..? Yikes.. Different..
Just my opinion.
I found his buildings to be stunning visually and strangely practical. They do not photograph or film well (as Philip Johnson pointed out in this film) and are really works of art unto themselves. FLLW's true gift was with space, and Gehry is excellent with it as well in a totally different way. When you see his house in Santa Monica, it is very amazing to see and provactive. The hockey rink interior is a masterpiece that cannot be fully appreciated unless you are there. The Disney Hall gives the moving feeling of music and even incorporates its own outdoor theatre and a nice little park (not shown in the film).
Gehry's people have also revolutionized CAD design and, as a result, his buildings come in on budget and time.
I've said elsewhere on this chatboard that what I admire most about Gehry is his unorthodoxy in his appraoch. He is a true original who invented his own genre that is hard to truly catagorize unless its by its own terms, much like our friend Frank Lloyd Wright.
A lot architects I know hate Gehry or snicker at him. My reply to them is..."well, what the hell have you done? Another McMansion or glassed rectangle office building?"
I am not a fan of Gehry but some of the images were off the chart.
The interior and some of the exterior of Bilbao is incredible. However, who is going to notice the artwork? Mercifully, he did design some of the display areas to be devoid of his own artwork. I would imagine for an artist to walk through the space to get to his/her own work would be depressing. As an artist, you would pass through this soaring, amazing intergallactical space and then come to your 3x5 painting. Yikes! Can't be fun. (Huge ego here but I don't think you would pick up on this just by talking with him - much to his credit. He is very selfeffacing.) Did he serve the artists? The Guggenheim was very innovative but I don't think it distracts from the viewing experience.
Great quip about how this is an alien building that was dropped down a hundred years ago...
Several times during the film, he exclaimed "how do they let me do this?" after viewing the finished products. He is even bewildered.
An interesting excercise might be to eliminate much of the melting and twisting and see how some of his projects hold up. Good architect's master's thesis. Its all on cad. Easy fun project and I am sure he would be helpful.
I am not an architecht. But I am handy as he says he was. Get me some construction paper, a pair of scissors, some Scotch tape and I am willing to give it a crack. His design sessions looked like a great time. I will keep all of you posted as to my progress.
He is a great sculptor who has been given license to do his thing with buildings. Archisculpture? Is this the "wave" of the future. The fish sculptures were great by the way.
I do like his stuff much more now after seeing the film. The whole concept is still a headscratcher though.
He and his staff spend all their time manipulating models like clay, and I really believe the works are done more as sculpture than an honest attempt at advancing architecture. Unfortunately, I suppose there is an argument that as long as it covers "space", it is architecture.
My feeling is that there is a disrespect for architecture inherent in the bombastic fantasies of Gehry, Graves, and others who have polluted sites with deconstuctivism, post whateverism, etc., as opposed to the work of Nervi and Calavera, for example. Johnson's comments mean no more today than 60 years ago when he failed to understand Wright.
I never had the reverence for Bilbao those more enlightened than me seem to have. It is just the Experience Music Project with a bigger budget. What could he create without a computer? The answer is the simplistic, amateurish, theoretical buildings of his youth.
I do agree with his flippant remark that if you are going to go back to ancient Greece, you might as well go back to "fish", and he is a much better product designer than architect.
I am not so sure we have to maintain a distance between acrchitecture and sculpture. The interior space is quite interesting with the classroom lecture halls as pods within a larger space. But all in all I can not help thinking of Gehry as a flavor of the month. Everyone wants a Bilboa look to their Gehry. I keep waiting for the evolution of his style.