Continued from Fallacy of Form - Economics of Creativity I
The second trend is a direct manifestation of the hailed celebrities of the design community – the starchitects. Ostentatious and utterly solipsistic, the typical form that envelope their visions is an abject extension of a pregnant ego reflective of these self-imposed and self-professed visionaries. They have made a whole industry out of asserting a supposed avant garde-ness to their work, churning out a defined proclivity towards the iconic and shocking. Subscribing to the tenet of object rather than fabric architecture, their work is usually so stylized and esthetically-specific to warrant a whole demographic of clientele – those who have the money and a bloated ego, and those whose primary objective is to make a statement. Art for art’s sake; if indeed architecture is purely an artistic expression (which, consequently, it isn’t).
There are two primary categories of architecture, object and fabric architecture. The former intends to assert itself against its environment, a sort of antithesis to the existing urban fabric. It is meant to exclude, elitist and somewhat anti-paradigm, and often design leaning on this objective appears selfish, removed or condescending against the backdrop of its predecessors, even when the form itself borrows from either the present terrain or nature. The latter, fabric architecture, is design meant to meld and cooperate with its environment. A mix of elements that although novel at best, still remains to be respectful of the urban character that predates its conception.
An example of object architecture would be Frank Owen Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. It sits on a site at Spain’s Basque countryside that seems to negate all the rich culture and vernacular of the history that surrounds it. Its titanium petals blossom into an amalgamated futurist morphology that echoes nothing that is inherently Basque or Spanish. An example of fabric architecture would be the Crawford School by Tanner Architects at Canberra, Australia. The form is respectful of the existing campus buildings, yet does not fail to offer something new in terms of efficiency and interest. The design is informed and transformed by the site, in which it sits upon, as well as the history and flavor of the urban fabric by which it aims to be integrally a part of, from the imagery of form to the palette of materials it employed.
Basque Country, Spain
Architect: Frank Owen Gehry
The National University of Australia, Canberra
Architect: Tanner Architects
Both categories possess positive and negative connotations, as most things in the design industry lack the purely Boolean and extreme differences of one over another. Object architecture is a purist form, an expression and translation of an inherent and sometimes inane inveterate need to create spaces reflective of a vision that negates logic, a ubiquitous edifice complex that feeds on man’s need to differentiate himself from his primal nature as a being capable of going beyond logic and utilitarian expression. Fabric architecture is, on the other end, an answer to man’s need and longing to impose on an otherwise anarchical and chaotic urban fabric his conception of order. It is this sense of belongingness, cohesive and coherent in the translation, that imparts fabric architecture completeness and relatability, regardless of chronological and stylistic parameters.
Original image of header is from here.
Other images, from various sources online.
The first Fallacy of Form is here.
Fallacy of Form - Verdant Voice is here.
Fallacy of Form - Esthetica is here.
2 redmarks:
And you know me, I'd prefer something that leads to harmony. Another example of object architecture, I think, is the Louvre Pyramid. Ugh.
@Mugen It is object architecture, and fabric at the same time. Because, the intent was really for the glass to reflect The Louvre, celebrating its aged elegance, and visually disappear. This objective is more effectively achieved at night, when the two forms, modern and Baroque, seem to coexist respectfully. I.M. Pei seems to be a purist geometrician.
Post a Comment