Here's an interesting comparison - Sydney Smirke and Lord Norman Foster at the British Museum.
Both were at the top of their profession when comissioned to work on the British Museum's courtyard.
Both have had illustrious awards bestowed upon them. Smirke won the RIBA Gold Medal in 1860 and Foster in 1983.
Foster's 1994 apointment to design the British Museum courtyard was not much different than the government appointed services of Sydney Smirke in the 1850s. The argument that the "international competition" was not a predetermined selection among the six or seven usual suspects still maintains a naive view of architectural politics.
Sydney Smirke has been labeled by architectural historian J M Cook in Seven Victorian Architects as "a first-rate second-rate architect" (1976, 65). Norman Foster is, however, a highly-praised comtemporary architect know for futuristic designs. He is by no means considered "second rate" today. But, then again, we do not have the convinient lens of time in which to evaluate his entire work.
Smirke's intervention was a sturctural triumph. In three years he designed and built a domed space that was second only to the Pantheon in Rome in span. The Round Reading Room was one of the earliest applications of cast iron in a public building. (train stations and factories, I believe, were the earliest) Unfortunately, Smirke's classical architectural tendencies led him to clad all his innovation with Victorian detailing - like false books in front of columns, Lombardian windows that defy the iron frame's logic, and a list of classical cladding details unassociated with the true construction techniques.
Foster's intervention is a structural triump. In 33 months, the courtyard space was cleared of its clutter and an irregular CAD designed glass roof enveloped the space for the first time. Unfortunately, Foster's image-based design made many concessions to focus attention on the iconic roof - like a reproduction of a classical greak facade (poorly adapted and obviously a product of the 21st century), an old-fashioned freize with shout-outs to Queen Elizabeth, and an overall clinical design aesthetic that results in a space that is more virtual than poetic.
Both architect's compromised their art for image.
Other ideas like environmental treatment, relationship to the museum experience, the idea of commodity or learning to be at the center of the institution, and other things are worth pursuing. What is worth asking is, will Foster's intervention be a vital element of the future of the museum, or will his architectural efforts be replaced as the novelty wears off?
SOURCES:
J. Mordaunt Crook. “Sydney Smirke: the architecture of compromise.” (pg. 50-65) in Fawcett, Jane Ed. Seven Victorian Architects. Thames and Hudson; London, 1976.
среда, 19 июля 2006 г.
среда, 5 июля 2006 г.
Tafuri's Chance
Tafuri's writing is extremely thick. I find it difficult to read more than a short passage at a time in order to absorb and understand exactly what he is talking about. A section that I came across today, though, struck me as rather clear and interesting.
"The Crisis of Utopia: Le Corbusier at Algiers""To absorb that multiplicity, to temper the improbable with the certainty of the plan, to reconcile organic structure and disorganized by exacerbating the dialectical relationship between them, to demonstrate that the highest level of productive planning coincides with the maximum "productivity of spirit": such were the objectives that Le Corbusier delineated, with a lucidity unparalleled within progressive European architectural culture at the time, ever aware of the triple front on which modern architecture had to fight. If architecture was now anonymous with organization of production, it was also true that distribution and use were also determinate factors of the cycle, in addition to production itself. The architect as organizer, not a designer of objects. This statement of Le Corbusier's was not a slogan, but an imperative linking intellectual initiative and la civilisation machiniste" (Hays 1998, 25).
"To encompass Le Corbusier and Breton," as Benjamin once wrote, would be to string a bow that could shoot an arrow into the heart of contemporary France. My paraphrase of this quote is laziness, but I think the essence remains. Le Corbusier was the most illusive of the "modernists" because his work defies strict classification and his theory is not embedded in reason alone. The artist values that Corb maintained in his work allow it to still communicate and intrigue, while other attempts at utopia have failed. I would say that Corbusier never sought Utopia, but more of a synthetic blend of forms. These may not have been past and future, but they definitely allowed variance and change. If Corb's practical dreams could be blended with Bretons serious fantasies, then a synthesis could be achieved between two quite opposite, but contemporary intellectual giants. Tafuri, who heroically deconstructs modernist efforts, describes Corbusier's methodology as the "most advanced and formally elevated hypothesis of bourgeois culture in the field of design and urban planning to its day" (Hayes 1998, 28).
Source: Hays, Michael. Ed. Architectural Theory Since 1968. MIT: Cambridge, 1998.
"The Crisis of Utopia: Le Corbusier at Algiers""To absorb that multiplicity, to temper the improbable with the certainty of the plan, to reconcile organic structure and disorganized by exacerbating the dialectical relationship between them, to demonstrate that the highest level of productive planning coincides with the maximum "productivity of spirit": such were the objectives that Le Corbusier delineated, with a lucidity unparalleled within progressive European architectural culture at the time, ever aware of the triple front on which modern architecture had to fight. If architecture was now anonymous with organization of production, it was also true that distribution and use were also determinate factors of the cycle, in addition to production itself. The architect as organizer, not a designer of objects. This statement of Le Corbusier's was not a slogan, but an imperative linking intellectual initiative and la civilisation machiniste" (Hays 1998, 25).
"To encompass Le Corbusier and Breton," as Benjamin once wrote, would be to string a bow that could shoot an arrow into the heart of contemporary France. My paraphrase of this quote is laziness, but I think the essence remains. Le Corbusier was the most illusive of the "modernists" because his work defies strict classification and his theory is not embedded in reason alone. The artist values that Corb maintained in his work allow it to still communicate and intrigue, while other attempts at utopia have failed. I would say that Corbusier never sought Utopia, but more of a synthetic blend of forms. These may not have been past and future, but they definitely allowed variance and change. If Corb's practical dreams could be blended with Bretons serious fantasies, then a synthesis could be achieved between two quite opposite, but contemporary intellectual giants. Tafuri, who heroically deconstructs modernist efforts, describes Corbusier's methodology as the "most advanced and formally elevated hypothesis of bourgeois culture in the field of design and urban planning to its day" (Hayes 1998, 28).
Source: Hays, Michael. Ed. Architectural Theory Since 1968. MIT: Cambridge, 1998.
понедельник, 3 июля 2006 г.
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)