Why on earth would these nobodies think that they can mess with the vision of a recognized great artist? Do they really think that they 'know better'?
Frank Gehry is not an artist. He is an architect, which is an entirely different role to play.
Unless you like the idea of an "artist" architect who "sculpts" whatever he wants and ends up with a building like this which will *inevitably* (mark my words) have some serious building envelope issues.
Yes, architecture has a huge creative and aesthetic aspect to it, but to refer to an architect as an artist is a complete misnomer and misunderstanding of what architects really do. Architects, unlike artists, are bound to the conventions of physics and have to juggle a number of competing realities and functions in their designs. Unfortunately, people listen far too intently to Gehry / Zaha Hadid-style schtick about how architects are artists and sculptors and grand visionaries and it does a disservice to architecture as a whole / the public's understanding of what architectural design involves.
Nobody in this thread is evaluating the design on anything other than renderings and physical models, which is very concerning to me. "It's too beautiful not to build", etc... Yes, the model is gorgeous. I think the design is stunning, and I've admitted a few pages back that there are some really great ideas at work here. But aesthetics are only one piece of an architectural design, and to evaluate it solely based on an aesthetic viewpoint is problematic.
Many of us won't be remotely surprised when these beautiful "sculptures" have serious moisture barrier problems, leaks, and various other real-world issues that no "artists" will ever need to concern themselves with...
I guess I'll have to learn to accept that to the public, buildings are just what the eye sees, and serve as a piece of art. But to anybody within the profession, this is incredibly frustrating. Yes, Toronto architecture has been stubborn to become less conservative, but at least our more renowned local architects work within real-world budgets to create buildings that (generally) work, and serve their end users well. Starchitects, on the other hand, are given exorbitant budgets and still manage to f&@# up the basics of a building (vapour barrier, leaks, indoor environment) on a regular basis. But it's "art", so who cares, right?
p.s. Here is a review of a recent piece of "art" from another famed international starchitect. It looks good from the outside from a distance, so who cares about how the building actually functions, right?
http://larryspeck.com/2012/08/16/top-architectural-record-award-for-guangzhou-opera-house-really/ Much like the Renaissance ROM, a project pushed through to construction not backed by architects or those who work in building operations, but by the marketing/press folks.
