As an architecture student, with a justifiable paucity of time, seldom does one come across (unless ofcourse having been referred, as in my case) a publication as interesting as William J. Curtis's- a comment on Steven Holl's design for the proposed extension of the Glasgow School of Art. What is even more interesting is that the comment (or rather the scathing review) of the building, combined with what may be perceived as the journalistic 'weight' of the reviewer's experience in architectural critique, managed to incite a response from the architect, or rather the 'starchitect' (in keeping with popular perception...ahem).
To an amateur in the field this was akin to drawing the architect out of the shell of his stature to defend his design for its true worth- a feat achievable only by a parallel 'great' in architectural journalism.
By way of his writing, Curtis seems to almost exude pride- not unlike a sense of ‘ownership’ over the existing building as he highlights its architectural positives.
That being said, one senses that Curtis has a slightly polarized opinion of not only the building, but the architect himself, as can be seen from the way he first criticizes the proposed design, and then proceeds to make barbed references to elements of some of Holl's previous designs- leaving ample room for questions on journalistic intent.
Holl, in response, goes all-out in his own defence, something he needn’t necessarily have done, fabulous design or otherwise, seeing as all designs are essentially open to public critique, and each viewpoint needn’t be catered to, neither each critic pandered to.
No comments:
Post a Comment