Monday, February 16, 2015

Written Critiques in an Image-Filled World

Lange and Maffei’s focus on the skyscraper and its symbolic representation within American architecture provided varying points of view on how architectural criticism can be applied to the same work. Having been unfamiliar with the Lever House prior to this week’s readings, I enjoyed getting to know the structure through the eyes of the critics. It was definitely tempting to pull up photographs of the building before and during the readings, but I am glad I didn’t. Reading about the building before seeing an image of it forced me to take each of Mumford’s descriptive details to heart. I had to build the structure from the ground up in my mind. In a world where 360° building tours can be Googled and HD images are right at our fingertips, I think the importance of written description and critique is oftentimes overlooked or seen as unnecessary. (Admittedly, I have found them somewhat of a drag and took the easy way out of simply looking at an image.) However, I found that by reading before seeing, I was able to imagine the importance of written critiques both in a time before the Internet and today, as well.

There are so many important buildings that are no longer in existence, in their most pristine condition or likely impossible for me to ever see in person. I’ve assumed in the past that pictures will likely do the trick to gain a decently full understanding of the structures. Ann Sobiech Munson’s elaboration on the New Yorker alone changed that for me. The description of the New Yorker’s audience and the world Lewis Mumford wrote in gave so much life to the Lever House that just can’t be passed along through a picture or virtual tour. Mumford’s detailed walk-through and Goldberger’s architect-focused point of view gave the Lever House a much more robust description and truly brought it to life.

I also found it interesting how the Lever House, in the sense of iconic architecture, was the impetus of a more human-centered design school. Light, open space and quality over quantity were the true focus for the architects and designers – as opposed to the ever-popular ‘taller is better mindset’. I’ve always thought of these as much more modern-day thinking – with a somewhat recent surge in research on things like sick building syndrome, optimum work environments, etc. In addition, I think this proves that one successful project can completely change the landscape of architecture.


On a somewhat separate note, I think it’s worth noting the seemingly drastic difference of focus of the Skidmore, Owing and Merrill group’s design approach. The Lever House proved to be thoughtful beyond its time. The focus was equally on form and function – and both innovatively impactful. I was shocked to read that SOM was also responsible for the Burj Khalifa. The idea of the building as a whole seems completely antiquated, albeit outrageous. From the descriptions in both articles, the structure and thought process around it feels lazy and loose – nothing like the SOM from the days of the Lever House. Perhaps I’ve been too swayed by the tone of the articles but to me, the overall purpose, spirit and outcome of the structure is artificial and theme-park-like. It reminds me of the discussion in our second class – can something be considered iconic simply because it’s part of history/sets a record (I think we were talking about iconic Presidents)?

No comments:

Post a Comment