Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Quinlan Terry is the Canute-like British equivalent in this footnote-to-architectural-history sweepstakes. I'm not sure who the Canadian entry is: some cheddingtonista architect maybe?
|
|
|
Bogtrotter
Senior Member
"... but belies deeper passions about where the art and craft of architecure should be pointed."
I don't disagree in theory. However that speaks 'nothing' to the fact that there are many who find his work very appealing, afterall it is the job of architect to build buildings that people want to live in. Art is inhererently different from architecture. I would also put forward that many of his proponents have a significant background in art and design, and whole heartedly support many of his efforts. One has to wonder that some of his critics are narrow minded in their views as well. I personally appreciate all manner of ideologies with regard to architectural forms, I don't subscribe to jsut one canon. I can appreciate that Stern does some quite exquisite work in that genre while acknowleding that others such as the Chedington are crapola. I can also admire the simplicity of the international style yet I fuuly believe that buildings such as CondoX don't offer anything more than any of Sterns efforts, nor do the efforts of contemporaries as Clewes who beat their tiresome canon over our heads. One does not have to reinvent the wheel to produce good sound architecture that is appealing, Clewes proves that and so does Stern in his own designs.
I don't disagree in theory. However that speaks 'nothing' to the fact that there are many who find his work very appealing, afterall it is the job of architect to build buildings that people want to live in. Art is inhererently different from architecture. I would also put forward that many of his proponents have a significant background in art and design, and whole heartedly support many of his efforts. One has to wonder that some of his critics are narrow minded in their views as well. I personally appreciate all manner of ideologies with regard to architectural forms, I don't subscribe to jsut one canon. I can appreciate that Stern does some quite exquisite work in that genre while acknowleding that others such as the Chedington are crapola. I can also admire the simplicity of the international style yet I fuuly believe that buildings such as CondoX don't offer anything more than any of Sterns efforts, nor do the efforts of contemporaries as Clewes who beat their tiresome canon over our heads. One does not have to reinvent the wheel to produce good sound architecture that is appealing, Clewes proves that and so does Stern in his own designs.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
If we were getting innovative modern architecture in this city, maybe I wouldn't support something like 1 St. Thomas, but we're getting mostly standard issue glass boxes, so we might as well have some decent looking buildings thrown in with the boring ones. "Toronto Style" is not innovative.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Though the latest winners of the OAA, RAIC and Governor General's Awards would doubtless be even more bored by the "I don't care much about contemporary architecture but I know what I like" defence of the faux, which we've all heard before ad nauseum - and which is the basis for buildup's Johnny One Note claim since this thread began that 1 St Thomas is, as he puts it "very good design".
Pep'rJack
Active Member
adma
Superstar
Though the funny thing is that compared to Terry, or the Kriers, or Polyzoides and a lot of the arch-traditionalists along the Postmodern/New Urbanist axis, Robert Stern *isn't* terribly ideologically puristic--indeed, he's the sort to go to bat on behalf of a good modern building when he needs to. (Comes w/being a well-connected scholar by training, I guess.)
Somehow, I feel that if he were half a century younger, Eric Arthur might be a mite Robert Stern-esque in his approach...
Zephyr
Active Member
When in active disagreement, I have tried to word my posts carefully, but this effort seems to have failed based on what I have read. First off, there are genuine points of departure over Stern’s work, but neither I, nor many of his critics (can’t speak for them all), are dismissing his execution of the craft, or proposing that his adherents know nothing or little about art or design. As to bad or mediocre modern design, not only do I acknowledge it, but also in the very posts that I have left, I have specifically stated it. (I am also delighted that the same has been done for those supporting Stern's One St. Thomas.)
Let me address a few of the genuine disagreements:
“Art is inherently different from architecture.” The greatest architects have often aspired to create art through their work, and if they do their level best, it will show in that work. Santiago Calatrava, who began his life aspiring to be an artist – a painter as it were - still says that art is a key goal in his smallest work as well as his most intricate. It is not a coincidence that Mies van der Rohe spent so much time in looking at proportion and balance in the details for what look to some as nothing more than a simple glass box. Architecture critics often describe Frank Gehry’s metallic flourishes as sculptural statements. Frank Lloyd Wright’s progressive architecture in a previous time have been described by many an architect as the “artistry” of Wright: from the spiraling of the Guggenheim in New York, back to the “Prairie Style” homes in the heartland of that country. Art is not just found in paintings and statues, nor is architecture just a craft. I guess I don’t see what is inherently different in achitecture that excludes art.
Those who reject Stern, implicitly subscribe to one canon, and are narrow minded in not accepting Stern’s contributions. I hope this is an accurate restatement. I remind you that I have used the broadest of labels to describe what might be called the Stern opposition – “the modernist wing”. Underneath this wing are many different styles and ultimately canons. Read what Stern wrote and said during the period when he was a “Postmodernist”. He was in active negation of the modernist work, and he expressed quite strongly his desire that architecture go in another direction. Time has mellowed his apparent intolerance, and at Yale he has many of these “modernists” on staff, at his behest. One of those architects on staff is modernist Peter Eisenman, once a member of the New York Five that Stern debated as part of a team back in the 1970s at UCLA. This is often cited as one of the few public forums where outsiders could experience firsthand what they may have only read about. In addition, Reed Kroloff was not the only Yalie that objected to Stern, back when he was first hired, many of the students in that Yale architecture school initially reacted by staging protests, some of whom reportedly transferred from University within weeks of that hire. But having said all that, Stern and many of his advocates - such as Thomas Beeby, Gabriel Brewer, etc - are not being criticized, primarily, for the bad buildings that they have built, but rather for what I have stated elsewhere, and don’t care to repeat ad nauseam.
Let me address a few of the genuine disagreements:
“Art is inherently different from architecture.” The greatest architects have often aspired to create art through their work, and if they do their level best, it will show in that work. Santiago Calatrava, who began his life aspiring to be an artist – a painter as it were - still says that art is a key goal in his smallest work as well as his most intricate. It is not a coincidence that Mies van der Rohe spent so much time in looking at proportion and balance in the details for what look to some as nothing more than a simple glass box. Architecture critics often describe Frank Gehry’s metallic flourishes as sculptural statements. Frank Lloyd Wright’s progressive architecture in a previous time have been described by many an architect as the “artistry” of Wright: from the spiraling of the Guggenheim in New York, back to the “Prairie Style” homes in the heartland of that country. Art is not just found in paintings and statues, nor is architecture just a craft. I guess I don’t see what is inherently different in achitecture that excludes art.
Those who reject Stern, implicitly subscribe to one canon, and are narrow minded in not accepting Stern’s contributions. I hope this is an accurate restatement. I remind you that I have used the broadest of labels to describe what might be called the Stern opposition – “the modernist wing”. Underneath this wing are many different styles and ultimately canons. Read what Stern wrote and said during the period when he was a “Postmodernist”. He was in active negation of the modernist work, and he expressed quite strongly his desire that architecture go in another direction. Time has mellowed his apparent intolerance, and at Yale he has many of these “modernists” on staff, at his behest. One of those architects on staff is modernist Peter Eisenman, once a member of the New York Five that Stern debated as part of a team back in the 1970s at UCLA. This is often cited as one of the few public forums where outsiders could experience firsthand what they may have only read about. In addition, Reed Kroloff was not the only Yalie that objected to Stern, back when he was first hired, many of the students in that Yale architecture school initially reacted by staging protests, some of whom reportedly transferred from University within weeks of that hire. But having said all that, Stern and many of his advocates - such as Thomas Beeby, Gabriel Brewer, etc - are not being criticized, primarily, for the bad buildings that they have built, but rather for what I have stated elsewhere, and don’t care to repeat ad nauseam.
Sir Novelty Fashion
Senior Member
I don't know how anyone can accuse anyone else of pretending to be something that they're not on an anonymous Internet forum.
Interesting points, Zephyr, thanks.
Interesting points, Zephyr, thanks.
alklay
Senior Member
Zephyr, your contributions are welcomed and enjoyed and they bring up many interesting points. Ignore childish remarks.
I find myself caught between respecting Stern's skill in pulling off these 'faux' designs so well, and lamenting the lost opportunity for something that is more reflective of our time. If it does not represent contemporary design, I think there is something inherently dishonest about it, and thus I have a harder time enjoying and appreciating the work.
Your point about Clewes just being a "Stern" basically doing faux modernism (with a condo like "X"), is an interesting point and certainly makes it clear that this is hardly a black and white (faux and authentic, historical and modern) issue.
I find myself caught between respecting Stern's skill in pulling off these 'faux' designs so well, and lamenting the lost opportunity for something that is more reflective of our time. If it does not represent contemporary design, I think there is something inherently dishonest about it, and thus I have a harder time enjoying and appreciating the work.
Your point about Clewes just being a "Stern" basically doing faux modernism (with a condo like "X"), is an interesting point and certainly makes it clear that this is hardly a black and white (faux and authentic, historical and modern) issue.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Stern rehashes past styles willy nilly, whereas Clewes works consistently in the post-WW2 vernacular that our brief local flirtation with PoMo barely interrupted, and to which we are directly connected.
buildup
Senior Member
I only regret the earlier nastiness wasn't directed at Urban Shocker who I think is equally dissapointed because he/she is so eager for it.
"I find myself caught between respecting Stern's skill in pulling off these 'faux' designs so well, and lamenting the lost opportunity for something that is more reflective of our time. If it does not represent contemporary design, I think there is something inherently dishonest about it, and thus I have a harder time enjoying and appreciating the work."
Why is it the responsibility of THIS particular building among hundreds to "reflect our time"? There are many other architects - Liebskind's L Tower for example - attempting to reflect our time. Its like going to a French restaurant and requesting Chinese.
Also is the gap between Deco/Neo Classical and Stern narrower than between Louis Sullivan and other modernists?
There's nothing wrong with variety and when you force everyone to push the envelope of creativity you can end up with a lot of junk. Genuis is rare after all.
"I find myself caught between respecting Stern's skill in pulling off these 'faux' designs so well, and lamenting the lost opportunity for something that is more reflective of our time. If it does not represent contemporary design, I think there is something inherently dishonest about it, and thus I have a harder time enjoying and appreciating the work."
Why is it the responsibility of THIS particular building among hundreds to "reflect our time"? There are many other architects - Liebskind's L Tower for example - attempting to reflect our time. Its like going to a French restaurant and requesting Chinese.
Also is the gap between Deco/Neo Classical and Stern narrower than between Louis Sullivan and other modernists?
There's nothing wrong with variety and when you force everyone to push the envelope of creativity you can end up with a lot of junk. Genuis is rare after all.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Nobody is forcing Stern to do anything. We're merely discussing the position of faux in the hierarchy of what has lasting value, something that your posts have consistently shown you are unable to grasp.
alklay
Senior Member
"Why is it the responsibility of THIS particular building among hundreds to "reflect our time"? There are many other architects - Liebskind's L Tower for example - attempting to reflect our time. Its like going to a French restaurant and requesting Chinese."
Good point but I would argue that architecture, in order to properly qualify as 'art.' the building perhaps has a responsibility to reflect our time and contribute to a dialogue about contemporary design and values. Having a building look like a 1930's art deco apartment building, in 2007, is like getting Chinese at a French restaurant.
Good point but I would argue that architecture, in order to properly qualify as 'art.' the building perhaps has a responsibility to reflect our time and contribute to a dialogue about contemporary design and values. Having a building look like a 1930's art deco apartment building, in 2007, is like getting Chinese at a French restaurant.
Dane
Active Member
and of course Michaelangelo's David is a knock-off off the early greek statues, so that wouldn't be included in defining the renaissance..
Toronto is full of different styles of architecture, and One St. Thomas fits in beautifully. Some may argue that Peter Clewes-Style modern glass cubes are the only thing that should be put up... (which is ridiculous) but when I'm paying upwards of 3 million dollars for my condo, I want the limestone front, the details around the windows, the Herringbone hardwood floors, and lets face it... this is one of the ONLY developments that has gone up in recent Toronto history with that level of "luxury"
every building that goes up these days is just another 18 Yorkville... glass, metal, stucco. whether you like it or not, One St. Thomas is different.
and I happen to adore it. and If you don't like it..... Then go buy a condo somewhere else.
yyzer
Senior Member
Zephyr, welcome to the forum.
Some of the comments in this thread are a sad commentary on the maturity of a few of the forumers here.
As for Stern, I think this building ranks as one of the better projects we have seen in Toronto, ever. To suggest that it is 'false' anything is just ignorant. To suggest that all architecture must follow modernist lines, or be irrelevent, is ridiculous.
By this line of reasoning, is the Arc de Triomphe 'faux'? Fucking Nonsense.
The quality of the Stern project just blows away most of the other projects downtown right now.
Some of the comments in this thread are a sad commentary on the maturity of a few of the forumers here.
As for Stern, I think this building ranks as one of the better projects we have seen in Toronto, ever. To suggest that it is 'false' anything is just ignorant. To suggest that all architecture must follow modernist lines, or be irrelevent, is ridiculous.
By this line of reasoning, is the Arc de Triomphe 'faux'? Fucking Nonsense.
The quality of the Stern project just blows away most of the other projects downtown right now.