journalistic essay: Guggenheim NYC

Bethany Giblin

ICONS

Journalistic essay

4.6.15

The Guggenheim in New York City is an icon of icons.  This museum pops out of it’s surroundings defining itself within a city bursting with landmarks, history, culture, and icons of all types. It is an icon of Frank Lloyd Wright, an icon of New York, an icon of the Guggenheim Foundation, an icon of museum design, and an icon of arts culture globally. It is an iconic trifecta- Iconic of designer, discipline, and destination. What is most intriguing about this particular structure is that the interior is equally as iconic as it’s exterior.

As a work of Frank Lloyd Wright, the Guggenheim is an icon of his body of work. Maybe because it was one of his last works, and it naturally takes on the identity of capstone to his portfolio of work, but the Guggenheim also seems to encompass Wright’s spirit and philosophy as well. Wright lived a live of many loves, and often strayed from a traditional trajectory in his personal life and opted for the more interesting, more romantic pursuits, even if that were more difficult, or less widely accepted. Such sentiments are reflected in his departure from the standard “white box” design of fine arts museums.

As a form, the Guggenheim is a museum before it’s time. Its contemporary architecture is unmistakable.  While it’s curves differentiate it from the square, organized rectangles of city blocks, the curves also seem to echo the organic forms found across the street in Central Park. Although the Guggenheim exterior is undeniably impressive and iconic in it’s own right, Wright’s design was more focused on the experience of the interior of the museum. The interior concept was “one great space on a continuous floor”. The design was based upon a ziggurat, a tapered building where the space narrows as it rises. Conversely though, Wright wanted the space to widen as it rises to reflect an eternal optimism. 

But, it is interesting to note that although this sentiment is very poetic, there were also functional reasons why Wright wanted the space to widen as it ascends. In his original concepts, Wright designed the building to be experienced from the top down. Visitors would go up, enjoy a rooftop garden, and stroll their way down through the museum. Due to budget and code restrictions, the garden was nixed, but the intended experience of the museum still remains top to bottom. In order to accommodate a descent within the museum, Wright did design for a small elevator, but time has proven the elevator an inefficient mechanism due to the great volume of visitors. 

In addition to the shape of the building, the continuous spiraling walkway was also instrumental in the museum design. As the atrium rises to ninety-two feet to a glass dome ceiling, the walkway swirls around the space to create a continuous, uninterrupted viewing experience for the art creating a sort of timeline of experience. A visitor is more aware of their surroundings, what they have already seen, and what they will see, thus creating a sense of passing of time. The integrity of the time continuum is also enhanced by the lack of distractions. Wright was purposeful to minimize the applications of finishes to simplify the space, and presumably allow for more attention to be put on the art being housed. While this concept was definitely different and new for it’s time, which inevitably comes with a level a criticism purely for being different, this was not the architect’s biggest criticism.

The curved walls of the interior meant artist’s works, mostly paintings, needed to be hung at an angle. While many were outraged by this at the time of design, including many artists, Wright stood by his design explaining the angle was much like that of an artist’s easel. To this day, not many museums implement this kind of curating, presumably because it is a lighting and perspective nightmare, but again, Wright never promised every choice he made would be correct or perfectly successful. He only set out to be a revolutionary in design, whether that meant success, failure, or somewhere in between.

As a museum, The Guggenheim is an icon among icons. Museums are notoriously built to be iconic forms and iconic landmarks of cities. The Guggenheim is both, and then some. The Guggenheim represents the early beginnings of “blob” architecture. It’s form equaled and possibly even superseded it’s function, although Wright would not attest to that. The “blob” architecture known for its juxtaposition to its surroundings, contemporary aesthetic, and organic forms, would not become popular for many years, but Wright’s design absolutely foreshadowed a movement to come.  

As a landmark, the museum is an undeniable moment on the streets of New York. Today, many travel websites and reviewers note the building as the attraction rather than the exhibits inside of it.  Although Wright’s intention was to provide a new kind of backdrop for the art, it seems as if his design itself is the impetus for the majority of visitors these days. The twenty nine million dollar restoration of the Guggenheim exterior is another telling sign that this building is still considered today an integral part of New York.

The Guggenheim lives on as an iconic form of an iconic architect, each title feeding off of and raising up the other. Although not the flashiest of the Guggenheims, New York’s has history and antiquity, which set it apart from the other Guggenheim museums. Considering architect, time, location, and design, it is fair to say the Guggenheim in New York is truly a one of a kind.

SOURCES:

http://www.archdaily.com/60392/ad-classics-solomon-r-guggenheim-museum-frank-lloyd-wright/

Guggenheim.org

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-triumph-of-frank-lloyd-wright-132535844/?page=3

Journalistic Essay - The Shard

The Shard is an instantly recognizable architectural icon in London’s skyline. When viewing the building’s structure in isolation or juxtaposed next to the city’s historic buildings, a common reaction is that The Shard’s modern architecture does not fit in with historic London’s landscape; it seemingly has no connection to the city. In fact, the building’s name came from a criticism of the design from English Heritage, an organization which seeks to protect and promote England’s historic environment. The group complained that the design looked like “a shard of glass through the heart of historic London.” This critique did not seem to faze the architect Renzo Piano, as he opted to use the complaint as inspiration for the building’s name.

When one considers the influx of skyscrapers and modern architecture into London (and other major cities) in recent years, however, The Shard doesn’t seem quite so out of place. Consider Norman Foster’s Gherkin and London City Hall, and Viñoly’s Walkie Talkie building, to name a few, and it is clear that there is a shift happening and as a result, London’s skyline is changing.

Located in Southwark, one of the oldest districts of London with over two thousand years of history, The Shard is a sharp contrast to the city’s best known historic buildings. The new modern spired structure is juxtaposed with the notable Tower of London, the old and the new. Despite its location in one of the oldest neighborhoods of one of the world’s most famous cities, The Shard is surrounded by similar modern architecture as well. It is just blocks away from London City Hall, which has also been criticized for its lack of connection to its location. The point should be made, however, that if London is choosing a modern glass structure such as Foster’s City Hall building for its government’s headquarters, the city is sending a strong message as to how it wants to be viewed. So with that in mind, maybe The Shard isn’t as out of place as it may seem at first glance. Renzo Piano was quoted as saying, “what matters, as architects, is that we try our best to make new buildings, for a new reality,” and that is exactly what he has done with The Shard.

The London skyline prominently featuring The Shard

In order to attract this much attention, it is clear that the Shard must be something special. It is the largest building in the European Union, standing at over one thousand feet tall with 95 floors, 72 of which are habitable. Piano took inspiration for The Shard from the masts of ships represented by a Venetian painter named Canaletto, as well as from the spires of London’s churches. As a result, The Shard is spired structure situated right on the Thames.  The Shard has a transparent quality due to Piano’s innovative use of glass. The structure is comprised of 11,000 glass panels, and Piano was particular in using extra white glass, which helps reflect back the building’s surroundings. As a result, The Shard’s color is constantly changing along with the city’s weather. Whereas its unique shape makes the structure stand out in the city skyline, this lightness and reflective quality balance out its stark contrast to the rest of the cityscape.

The concept behind the building of The Shard was for it to be a vertical city, the anchor of the fast growing London Bridge Quarter, where Londoners could “live, work and relax.” The structure remained true to its concept as The Shard now stands as a mixed use building, which holds private residences on twelve floors equipped with views from all sides, three of the city’s finest restaurants, the Al Jazeera studio and offices, the Warwick Business School, the five star Shangri-La Hotel & a viewing gallery known as The View from The Shard, with sweeping 40 mile views, in addition to some supplementary retail & office spaces. Irvine Stellar, the developer and part owner of The Shard has hailed the building as “a living, dynamic building, full of energy, and a beacon for modern London.”

Despite the controversy surrounding the building, after opening in February 2013, The View from the Shard welcomed over one million guests in its first year. The city even touts its popular modern architecture as a main attraction on its website, devoting an entire section under Things to Do to Modern Architecture.  With the completion of The Shard and its clear success as both a mixed use building and tourist attraction, it seems as though London is adapting to and embracing its “new reality.”

Vernacular vs. Modernity

In this week’s readings, I found the article with the interview with Rem Koolhaas particularly interesting.  There are two things that came to my mind while reading this article.  Firstly, I thought about the role of the architect in architecture today and how their work is perceived.  Secondly, I found myself thinking about modern architecture and if it is truly reflecting the cultures in which it is built. 

While reading this article, I found it interesting when Koolhaas said, “it is always slightly disconcerting to hear my former collaborators describe the projects.  I have to say that one thing that is rarely discussed is how big the influence of forces other than the architect is on the architectural project”.  It got me thinking about the way the public views architecture.  Oftentimes, we don’t take things such as economy into account when we are critiquing a building.  We look at the building and either praise or criticize the architect for their work.  We don’t consider what influenced the architect or the circumstances he had to deal with when designing the building.  He goes on to say, “the profession has an investment in the idea of the architect having superhuman powers.  It is totally counter-productive, because it cuts off any real communication between the architect and the public”.  I think the architect and the public should be able to communicate the ideas of a new building better with one another and try to create a united front on what they want the building to look like.  

I would like to talk about modernity versus vernacular.  In some ways it feels like modernity is beginning to replace vernacular in term of architecture being built.  Buildings appear to look similar in many different cities and are not really reflecting the ideals of a culture.  However, on the other hand, I think that some architects are beginning to look back at traditional ways of building to see how they lived and designed their buildings.  By embracing regionalism and cultural building traditions, vernacular architecture can adopt many principles that can not only reflect a culture but can also turn out to be green in many ways.  I think by aiming to create more vernacular architecture, the effect will be more harmonious.  I think about the Liyuan Library in China.  It is a library that is a modern addition to this city in China but it also incorporates the vernacular of the city and landscape around it in a way that appears seamless.  I think this library is a great example of how a building can incorporate both modernity and vernacular.  I think more architects should strive to create buildings like the Liyuan Library.  

The Power of Materials

Tim Simpson’s article Scintillant Cities: Glass Architecture, Finance Capital, and the Fictions of Macau’s Enclave Urbanism raised two important questions in my mind, can a simple material like glass be as powerful as Simpson claims and is participating in architecture projects that rely so heavily on credit ethical. 

When glass was introduced as a major material for the facade of Uruguayan ‘starchitect’ Rafael Vinloy’s Vdara Hotel it quickly became hazardous, harnessing the light to create temperature on the nearby pool that were twenty degrees above the already scorching temperatures of the Las Vegas desert. The glass was creating such boiling conditions that it actually melted a cup.  Simpson explores the history of glass and its connotations and goes so far as to present perspectives that will have you believing that it changes us as human beings. Glass is a beautiful and elegant material with a long history for certain but life changing? Can a material in the build environment be so powerful? Simpson writes:

Scheebart and fellow visionaries like his architect friend Bruno Taut imagined this alchemical potential of glass architecture and its crystalline properties; they conceived glass structures that would transform people who passed through them in the same manner that crystal transforms light.

Scheebar and Taut believe whole-heartedly in the powers of glass, a material so deep rooted in history.  It was part of the European civility and refinement during the Renaissance as a material people used to display distinction especially in the form of fine glassware.  Later glass became an important player in the city of light, in Paris’s arcades.

Simpson’s perspective had me wondering if the materials we are using for projects should be researched deeper and given more careful consideration. They are after all, something that potentially millions of people could look at everyday.   When you’re effecting that many people’s senses you are almost obligated to ask the question, is what I’m choosing creating the desired effect?

Glass continues to play an important role in architecture today. Not only does it reflect an entire financial model as Simpson so eloquently dissects through his writing but it is also present in one of the most visited buildings in New England, the Glass House. The use of glass in Philip Johnson’s Glass House in a setting the compete opposite of Las Vegas causes people to pause and marvel. The use of glass in the Glass House is innocent and serves to enhance the views of nature and frame them like a work of art. Glass used in One Central Macau is as convoluted, murky and oppressive as the politics and financial surroundings of its creation. It is interesting to see how the same material, depending upon the setting where it is used, can be either a serene or inspiring choice or a deathly weapon as in the case of the Vdara Hotel.

Simpson makes some intelligent points about the economical impact of these buildings and how their materials are tied up in that scenario. However, I got even more out of his writing by taking them at face value. Materiality is an important concept for us as designers to be aware of. We are directing the use of materials throughout our career; their placement and application. Using discretion and understanding the greater picture is essential.

Photo Essay - Tension between Art & Architecture

Many critics and from last few class discussions, we have complained that the most dramatic art museum design of the 21st century have upstaged or interfere with the art within. Throughout the time we have come across wild and audacious architectural fantasies and which have given rise to the complaints that museum architecture too often becomes the real art work overshadowing what is inside. The primary issue raised by recent art museum design is how to resolve the tension b/w architects desire for an artistic statement of their own and art lovers desire for a building that shows the art to best advantage.

Complaints of this kind makes me think of the primary aims of the primary aims of the museums built in 18th century. It had a variable mix of aims: royal or national prestige, the preservation of the "heritage" providing models for artists and craftsmen, and the enlightenment of the public with an emphasis on art's moral and civic benefits. Moreover, the purpose of art museums have varied enormously over the years and still vary from museums to museums.

The next step in assessing the contemporary museum architecture is to look at some of the examples illustrating different types of museums requires different approach to design. Museum categorizing  in an interesting contrasts are first whether a building is an addition or a completely new structure and secondly cutting across the difference according to whether the museum in question is dedicated to showing a substantial permanent collection or whether it is primary venue for temporary exhibition. this scheme gives three types: (1) New Museum with Permanent Collection (Guggenheim Bilbao, Pulitzer Foundation, MoMA) (2) New Museums as Exhibition Venues ( Contemporary Art Center, Institute of Contemporary Art) (3) Museum Additions (Milwaukee Art Museums, Nelson Atkins Museum, Denver Art Museum)

 New Museums with Permanent Collections

Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao (1997)





Pulitzer Foundation, St. Louis (2001)







Museum of Modern Art, New York (2004)

New Museums as Exhibition Venues

Contemporary Arts Center, Cincinnati (2003) 

Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston (2006)

Museum Additions

Milwaukee Art Museum (2001)

Hamilton Building, Denver Art Museum (2006)

Bloch Building, Nelson-Atkins Museum, Kansas City (2007) 





What we can conclude from this case studies of the tension b/w architecture and art? One lesson is that no matter how radical or even outstanding a museum design may appear on the outside, the real test is whether the spaces within are appropriate to the particular kinds of works the building will shelter.

Fashion & Architecture work together to rebuild an iconic British brand

I am a firm believer that all forms of art inform and enhance one another. Architecture and fashion are incredibly similar, and possibly inseparable – both are based upon the idea of constructing an image, both require layering, finesse, taste, and attention to detail. Most importantly, both serve a higher purpose than their physical, designed output. Fashion and architecture are meant to inspire, push boundaries, test the "new" and "un-heard -of", communicate with their audience, and, of course, make money.

Flagship stores are an intriguing example of how fashion enhances the relevance of architecture, and architecture does the same in return for fashion. The flagship store gives tangible presence of a brand in a city. It acts as an advertisement for the brand, a reminder to the consumers, and a landmark within the city. As a fashion landmark, the flagship helps define a certain location as a “fashion district” thus enhancing that city’s global identity as a fashion destination (and therefore a travel and consumer destination).

 Sometimes, architecture can do even more than just enhance a brand. It can help revive, rebuild, or redefine one. The following photos and short video depict the Burberry flagship store in London, on Regent St. While the building is old, from 1820, Burberry opened this location in 2012, coinciding with a massive re-invention, basically a resuscitation, of their brand. The structure of the building was restored to its classic beauty, while modern technologies were integrated into the space as interactive shopping guides as well as public art installation. In prior years, Burberry was losing it's image as a cutting edge fashion house. Luckily or rather, strategically, with new leadership in the form of Christopher Bailey, the brand quickly jump started itself into the twenty first century with more avant garde designs, while also honing in on the classic pieces and patterns of their brand, and “iconizing” them as staple pieces. The design of the London flagship mirrored this brand transformation perfectly. Burberry, as a British brand, knew the interior, the exterior, the location, and the vibe of the flagship all had to work together to construct a specific image that Burberry wanted to project. This flagship for me, is the epitome of how reliant these industries are upon one another, as well as how powerful they can be together.

Video of Regent St. Flagship: 

chttps://www.youtube.com/watch?t=21&v=pBnz8NBpEDc

Vitreous cities

I never quite realized how much architecture affects our lives. For me, architecture was always something to admire especially when looking at a particular structure’s history. I never quite dissected how much of a part it plays in areas related to our health, the economy, and even government. In this week’s readings, I was intrigued with Simpson’s article and his ideas on glass and its relationship with capitalism. Glass first became a commodity. Venetian artists took this material and created beautiful, fine hand-blown glass to be sold to the richest aristocrats. Only those with money could afford such things. According to Simpson, thus began the role of glass in what he deems capitalist development. With the technological advancements made in during the Industrial Revolution, glass than became a building material, soon replacing brick in newly built buildings. Glass architecture became a metaphor for transparency and honesty. There is no hiding behind glass! Call me cynical, but I find this a bit ironic given that many of the corporations that occupy many transparent buildings have engaged in dishonest deeds that almost destroyed an economy.

Looking at the skyline of some major cities today, it is impossible to not find at least one building wrapped in glass. These buildings reflect the city back to itself, perhaps providing a brutal honest look at its congested streets and its disparate cultures and making it nearly impossible to bear witness to what goes on behind that glass. Yet many of these buildings have helped to rebuild and rebrand cities. As we have seen with Dubai, New York, Shanghai and now Macau, just to name a few, the construction of an iconic building made of glass, and the buzz created, can help create new identities for their cities. This brings capital in the form of rental income from the individuals and corporations, tourism, etc. Yes, architecture builds cities, not only in the sense of the built environment, but also in the economic sense. 

        In the Jones article, we also see how architecture is used to rebrand a government and push its ideology. Sometimes this involves stripping the original identity in order to create a new one. I wonder how feasible and moral this is in a region with many different cultures and steeped in various histories. How do you begin formulating this new identity under the guise of diversity and inclusion? And how honest would it be? Can a single architecture truly reflect a nation of various cultures living together under one flag? We have architects selling us a vision, one that may be dictated by those who hold the purse strings and we are left to accept it without much discourse. As Rem Koolhaas said, “the architect was expected to do things for the public benefit. Now we are expected to broadcast the interests of individuals and corporations.”