This weeks readings had my thoughts scattered on a controversial roller coaster. I am finding it difficult to put my thoughts to words. I became lost in connection with Michael Sorkin’s “Save the Whitney”. His poetic and humanistic protest encompassed evaluation of Breuer’s building and of Grave’s proposed addition that had me questioning whether this was assigned or a personal selection for leisure reading. In his parting paragraph, Sorkin migrates from critic to advocate. I found his critique to be successful in the sense that his writing was easy to understand. I was not reaching for my dictionary and my focus stayed with the article. He was telling a story as I was envisioning it. The critique gained success because it carried through to the end - Sorkin’s pleading case of advocacy.
Lange later discusses, “To be a good critic is to make the best possible argument for why the oddballs should be saved or built in the first place; to be a good citizen is to know them when you see them.” (89) I interpreted this in two ways. In applying this to Sorkin’s critique, I noted the importance of including society in decisions regarding architecture, landmarks, and preservation by means of architectural critique. On the other hand, is it realistic to expect all citizens to recognize landmarks? I tend to place authority on these types of subjects to experts in the field; I know nothing about the stock market and therefore I seek financial services to maintain my 401 K stock shares. I also don't expect my boyfriend to recognize or appreciate architecture or design elements that I reference or point out.
Another theme that I recognized throughout the readings is the influence of politics, greed, and recognition on public architecture and development. Recognition was sought out for the expansion of the Whitney, with proposals from Graves, Koolhas, and Piano. Britain sought out political and global recognition through the Millennium Dome, however, their efforts fell short of displaying Englishness. Jones’ excerpt in The Sociology of Architecture explains “the Millennium Dome project was intended as a celebration of Britishness at the Millennium, but proved both difficult and expensive to deliver, and hard to legitimate with reference to any coherent national identity.” (79) Millennium Park in Chicago - a combination of the three.
Expanding on Millennium Park, from my point of view based on the readings, it appeared to me that the success of the park was heavily based on private donations and features designed by famous artists and starchitects. Furthermore, I can’t help but wonder if the intent of the park was to benefit the citizens of Chicago, place Chicago on the world map, or to kickstart a massive commercial development boom that benefits the economy. I asked the same question to myself when applied to the parks 2009 installation of two temporary pavilions; designed by starchitects. The pavilions were commissioned as a representation of “new ways to look at Chicago today and bew visions for the Chicago of tomorrow”, from Khalili and Maymind’s Urban Follies: Technology and The Apolitical. Regardless of Chicago’s intent, it appeared to me that the pavilions reflected a new advancement in architecture that society has not yet recognized, adapted to, or accepted. The question raised here is, if society has yet to accept these new architectural advancements, why are they the future we have to look forward to?
This lead me briefly to think about Olympic architecture. The same principles I mentioned before are also translated to these structures as well. Has the world not recognized a trend in Olympic architectural history? The amounts of money spent to build an essentially, temporary structure is outrageous. Are politics and recognition what drives countries and cities to undertake such a lasting burden? And are the decisions revolving Olympic site location considering citizens input, or are these decisions in the hands of political authority?
No comments:
Post a Comment