Mr. William J.R. Curtis seems to hold something against Architect Steven Holl. Where he could have comprehensively assessed the design and pointed out what he saw as real shortcomings in the design, his critique comes across as a sad tirade. As an architectural historian he is not a layman with limited architectural vocabulary to convey his misgivings about the design. To the undiscerning ear, his criticisms may come across as fact and hence a deeper sensible understanding of the design may be affected. It is hard to understand Mr Curtis’ criticism of the drawings released by Mr Holl. Surely the people responsible for the competition would not have based there decisions on “a series of crude sketches”. Perhaps these drawings were intended for the public as they may have little need for detailed design drawings with technical jargon all over them. Criticising Mr Holl, an experienced and internationally recognised architect of designing a light well that may “turn into dim wells in the winter” is a refusal to give Mr Holl the intelligence of designing a light well without duly considering the sun and climate of Glasgow. In Mr Curtis’ commentary he describes Mr Holls work as not being known for its subtlety. Unfortunately with this ill considered tirade Mr Curtis does not either.
50 word on the suitability of Spectacle Frames on People's Faces.
Spectacle Frames speak volumes about the person wearing them. For the people conscious about their appearance or the image they project in society, they are a powerful asset. A large nosed person may use an equally large spectacle frame to draw attention away from his nose. A person with a wide face-type may either chose a thin frame to accentuate the face or a taller frame to draw balance. In the end the suitability has to be decided by the person wearing it.
Only time will tell. In January 1934, the initial drawings of the notorious Glass pyramid at Louvre were presented by Architect I.M.Pei to the French government. An offended and agitated public raised slogans like “No pyramid for Paris” and “Hands off the Louvre”. The pyramid was called “a tacky diamond” and “a gigantic, ruinous gadget” amongst other things. In December 2009, Steven Holl’s winning entry for the 121,094-square-foot extension of the Glasgow School of Art was announced to the public. A scathing review by Critic William Curtis appeared in Architectural Record. Curtis also sent a plea to the Glasgow council to repeal the design for the new wing.
The analogy suggested may not be entirely on equal grounds but most definitely points to one fact; an opinion is just that and nothing more. By no means is it a judgement or even the basis for one. Curtis, in his critique of the new addition to the Glasgow School of Art is heavily opinionated and has cut no corners in being unfair. The arguments raised by him appear baseless. Vague statements like “the tilted tubes are likely to turn into dim wells in the winter” are not supported by any factual data. While the building itself may have its own flaws, William has clearly not identified nor understood them. As a critique he should have debated his own concerns before publishing them in a public forum. The simple matte-glass facade of the building can be looked upon as a silent ode to original structure. Questions raised about “ its vast glass surfaces...cancelling out the subtle Japanese-lantern effects of Mackintosh’s apertures across the street” have been answered satisfactorily by Steven Holl in his response to the commentary. William has only picked upon characteristics or “flaws” that are highly debatable and more a matter of form/aesthetics rather than function and this makes his argument look like a motive-based tirade rather than an intelligent, informed critique.
The Glass pyramid today is the third most popular work at Louvre today following the Mona Lisa and the Venus De Milo statue. Perhaps in due course of time, Steven Holl’s addition to the school may well reach its own success. Only time will tell.
This is a building, that doesn’t exist in reality yet, not even in the finality of a plan (at least a publicized one) but through a couple of 3D renders, a section and a few model pictures. May be too little for someone to make sound judgments by appropriation, but it is unlikely that it was merely an advertisement exercise. The school really wanted a new art school building. And Steven Holl delivered just that. An interesting introverted building, that on deeper digging, could easily be anywhere in the world. This is an extension per se, but it actually is a new building across the block. Still, the challenge in the project was not the art school but the response to Macintosh that Holl doesn’t really prove through his visuals in the media at least. The connections that he did attempt to make with Mac, for example the use of daylighting, etc. to me, seem too weak to notice; the sections do not appear interpreted. The fine tuning from a conceptual idea to an actual built work seems to have been overlooked. May it has all been figured out in the heads of the firm and gone on their drawing board, but the world audience has clearly been deprived of the information.
Mr. William J.R. Curtis seems to hold something against Architect Steven Holl. Where he could have comprehensively assessed the design and pointed out what he saw as real shortcomings in the design, his critique comes across as a sad tirade. As an architectural historian he is not a layman with limited architectural vocabulary to convey his misgivings about the design. To the undiscerning ear, his criticisms may come across as fact and hence a deeper sensible understanding of the design may be affected.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to understand Mr Curtis’ criticism of the drawings released by Mr Holl. Surely the people responsible for the competition would not have based there decisions on “a series of crude sketches”. Perhaps these drawings were intended for the public as they may have little need for detailed design drawings with technical jargon all over them. Criticising Mr Holl, an experienced and internationally recognised architect of designing a light well that may “turn into dim wells in the winter” is a refusal to give Mr Holl the intelligence of designing a light well without duly considering the sun and climate of Glasgow.
In Mr Curtis’ commentary he describes Mr Holls work as not being known for its subtlety. Unfortunately with this ill considered tirade Mr Curtis does not either.
50 word on the suitability of Spectacle Frames on People's Faces.
ReplyDeleteSpectacle Frames speak volumes about the person wearing them. For the people conscious about their appearance or the image they project in society, they are a powerful asset. A large nosed person may use an equally large spectacle frame to draw attention away from his nose. A person with a wide face-type may either chose a thin frame to accentuate the face or a taller frame to draw balance. In the end the suitability has to be decided by the person wearing it.
Navneet, kindly post these as separate posts - easier to reference later
ReplyDeleteOnly time will tell.
ReplyDeleteIn January 1934, the initial drawings of the notorious Glass pyramid at Louvre were presented by Architect I.M.Pei to the French government. An offended and agitated public raised slogans like “No pyramid for Paris” and “Hands off the Louvre”. The pyramid was called “a tacky diamond” and “a gigantic, ruinous gadget” amongst other things.
In December 2009, Steven Holl’s winning entry for the 121,094-square-foot extension of the Glasgow School of Art was announced to the public. A scathing review by Critic William Curtis appeared in Architectural Record. Curtis also sent a plea to the Glasgow council to repeal the design for the new wing.
The analogy suggested may not be entirely on equal grounds but most definitely points to one fact; an opinion is just that and nothing more. By no means is it a judgement or even the basis for one.
Curtis, in his critique of the new addition to the Glasgow School of Art is heavily opinionated and has cut no corners in being unfair. The arguments raised by him appear baseless. Vague statements like “the tilted tubes are likely to turn into dim wells in the winter” are not supported by any factual data.
While the building itself may have its own flaws, William has clearly not identified nor understood them.
As a critique he should have debated his own concerns before publishing them in a public forum. The simple matte-glass facade of the building can be looked upon as a silent ode to original structure. Questions raised about “ its vast glass surfaces...cancelling out the subtle Japanese-lantern effects of Mackintosh’s apertures across the street” have been answered satisfactorily by Steven Holl in his response to the commentary.
William has only picked upon characteristics or “flaws” that are highly debatable and more a matter of form/aesthetics rather than function and this makes his argument look like a motive-based tirade rather than an intelligent, informed critique.
The Glass pyramid today is the third most popular work at Louvre today following the Mona Lisa and the Venus De Milo statue.
Perhaps in due course of time, Steven Holl’s addition to the school may well reach its own success. Only time will tell.
This is a building, that doesn’t exist in reality yet, not even in the finality of a plan (at least a publicized one) but through a couple of 3D renders, a section and a few model pictures. May be too little for someone to make sound judgments by appropriation, but it is unlikely that it was merely an advertisement exercise. The school really wanted a new art school building. And Steven Holl delivered just that. An interesting introverted building, that on deeper digging, could easily be anywhere in the world. This is an extension per se, but it actually is a new building across the block. Still, the challenge in the project was not the art school but the response to Macintosh that Holl doesn’t really prove through his visuals in the media at least. The connections that he did attempt to make with Mac, for example the use of daylighting, etc. to me, seem too weak to notice; the sections do not appear interpreted. The fine tuning from a conceptual idea to an actual built work seems to have been overlooked. May it has all been figured out in the heads of the firm and gone on their drawing board, but the world audience has clearly been deprived of the information.
ReplyDelete