The idea's development for my pitch has been slow. I have been experiencing the artist's equivalent of writer's block for the previous three weeks. Playing to my strengths, I decided to read as many books on Postmodernist architecture as possible.
Twelve books in, I realise that my initial ideas on Postmodernism were a little naive. Buildings are not simply about aesthetics - they are about how they interact with their setting. Do they blend in? Do they stick out? What do people prefer? To put it into context, here are examples of both:
A building that blends:
The Sun Valley House by Bart Prince almost looks like part of the landscape with it's organic appearance and earthy colours. It provides privacy for the owners whilst giving them views of the landscape.
A building that sticks out:
In complete contrast, you could spot the Guggenheim Bilbao (by Frank Gehry) from a proverbial mile off. It is sculptural, pleasing to the eye and an icon of Deconstructivism. But according to a website that I've become accustomed to (Project for Public Spaces), the scale, proportions and confusing layout of the Gugenheim make it an unwelcome addition to the city of Bilbao. It detracts attention from the landscape - which I agree with and it apparently offers little in the way of comfortable outside space. http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_place_id=827
The PPS argument against the Bilbao put me off the Guggenheim completely. My own views on Deconstructivism are starting to change. I went to Daniel Libeskind's Imperial War Museum last summer. It's beautiful to look at from afar and the museum space and the eating spaces inside are well-proportioned and quite simple to navigate once you get over the size of it. My qualm was with the entrance: it was not signposted and the sharp angles of the building made it difficult for us to find it.
No comments:
Post a Comment