Landmarks and Meaning

A landmark is always a statement. The fact that it was built is a statement, the fact that it is held to a certain esteem to be preserved, or cared for is a statement, and the fact that there are activist criticism on landmarks is a statement. Even when landmarks are being criticized for being void of meaning, that just means there’s another statement being made there, that maybe not everyone wants to hear or to be heard.

            In the readings, we learned about Riegl’s 5-values by which to critique a landmark, we read about the incredible benefits landmarks can bring to a city with Millennium Park in Chicago as the centerpiece of discussion, and we were introduced to the Mega-event structure with it’s successes and failures to it’s community. What peaked my interest was the question, if the landmark’s statement is not of value to the community (global or local) is it worth preserving or creating? As a follow-up to that question, can the statement of the landmark change over time? Is it possible for a landmark to hold onto it’s statement, or is the statement a creation of the times?

            I want to investigate these questions through three landmarks – Cloud Gate in Millennium Park, The Millennium Dome in London, and OAKA in Greece.

Cloud Gate, AKA The Bean, in Chicago’s Millennium Park - Here’s a structure that pretty much fulfills only two out of Riegl’s five values of a landmark – Newness and artistry. The landmark is not only apart of the park responsible for an astounding surge of real estate development around the park (as well as tourism and money ), but it is also “selfie central” – It’s loved because it’s iconic, it’s iconic because it’s loved. Cloud Gate has contributed to it’s community, and the community loves it, to me, this landmark represents one which has proven itself worth creating, and worth preserving. The questions it leaves me with, as previously discussed in last week’s class, is what was Anish Kapoor’s intent? Why did he make it? Did he envision it as the landmark it is today?  And, as a sculpture, is it architecture?  When is that line crossed? It is arguable to say that it has a form and it has a function, on top of that, it is clearly a landmark, so is it architecture? (I’ll admit this is a digression from my previously outlined thoughts, but endlessly intriguing).

My argument to anyone who says, ‘Absolutely not!’  would be, OAKA. Here is something the general public could probably agree constitutes as architecture, but today it lies neglected in disrepair with the occasional sporting event. Here is a structure that had meaning, was making one statement – strength, prosperity, globalized – and now currently makes an entirely different one – lack of funds, desperation, neglect. If this structure can change it’s implications so drastically so quickly, part of it as illustrated in Diana’s blog as forgotten relics swallowed up by overgrown grasses, depleting itself of any contribution to Greece or the global community, is that a landmark? Is that worth saving?

The Bean illustrates a structure which is making a statement and is an active participant in the life of it’s community. OAKA is the polar opposite – a structure which has completely lost it’s implications on it’s community and is not making the statement of it’s original intention.

The Millennium Dome in London is the most fascinating structure for me because it the perfect example of “forcing it”.  When I was a stylist although it was not always easy to identify the perfect combination of material goods, it was blatantly clear when things were not right.  The Dome, to me, is “forcing it”.  As outlined in the Daily Mail, it is the epitome of style over substance, the very essence of the Blair administration. The problem people have with it is its lack of definitive use, (One of Riegl’s values) and ghastly cost. It’s a large arena, but for what purpose was it erected?  On the surface if someone were to ask the question, “What statement is this structure making? “ I would say, it’s void of any meaningful statement because from what I’ve read, it doesn’t seem to be valued, adored, or of importance to the community. But, the Daily Mail is articulating a more subversive statement of a disregard for what the people want. I have enough faith in humanity to believe Blair, and the architects involved had noble intentions with this design, but this example shows that if you force something, it usually does not work out the way you want it to.  

To sum things up, statements absolutely change, context is everything, and a landmark now may not be a landmark later, and vice versa, something mundane now might become a landmark later.  I do not think meaning can be forced or conjured, but meaning is more like a living entity – It changes, it is new at one point, ages, it is interpreted differently by different people, and can end or die. One important note to make, is I do not think you can strip a structure of meaning either – just as you cannot force one upon it, you cannot take one away. OAKA will always be an Olympic site. Maybe that’s why, in it’s current state of dilapidation, it still remains.