The two designers, products of SCI-ARC and Frank Gehry's practice, presented a series of temporary installations, each composed of cheap, yet imaginative materials, each by-products of concise mechanical + fabrications processes, and each laden with aspects of the spectacular, rather than and in opposition to the sublime. The installations were designed and then fabricated by the two architects, who displayed an affinity for aesthetically-pleasing forms, an appreciation and respect for craft, and, unfortunately, a notional or intellectual vacuity that could critically situate the rather intriguing work.
Now this vacuity can be the result of either a lack of interest in situating their design agenda, or represent the unsteady legs of a young practice that possesses a shallow portfolio, still groping for an intellectual strain that may simulataneously ground and propel the future work. BOTC will grant Ball-Nogues the benefit of the doubt.
However, as we sat through lecutre, we could not dismiss our gut-reaction that the temporary installations were derivative and devolved from the work of Frank Gehry. The systems that were deployed to create the different installations were rudimentary processes that simulate the structural and cladding systems that consitute much of Gerhy's built work, albeit in plywood and corrugated cardboard, rather than steel and titanium. If these systems are devolving and not evolving, where is the emergence of the "New Face of Architecture?"
Where does this work lead? Ball + Nogues were asked this question by the moderator and an audience member, questioning how this work would inform the creation of permanent architectures. Suprisingly, they did not answer this question, and somewhat dodged the question, not even offering a suggestion for a procedural enagement with permanent building. BOTC finds this a bit troubling since the designers seem very much interested in pursuing "traditional building," and hence the concern about a rhetorical vacuity.
Our concerns aside, BOTC is pleased that MOCA in engaging in such a lecture series to import talent from other parts of the country to heighten the rather lacking architectural dialogue locally. However, BOTC was distraught that the MOCA glitteratti and patrons at the lecture seemed to be so intigued with the dynamic work that could also be produced by local talent, again, if only given a chance and the freedom to pursue such work. Instead of importing content for architectural discussion, we could be exporting Cleveland-manufactured content.
2 comments:
However, BOTC was distraught that the MOCA glitteratti and patrons at the lecture seemed to be so intigued with the dynamic work that could also be produced by local talent, again, if only given a chance and the freedom to pursue such work. Instead of importing content for architectural discussion, we could be exporting Cleveland-manufactured content.
I've read this complaint fairly often on this weblog, and I often wonder the following:
-Is it really the responsibility of MOCA and others to "export" contect from Cleveland architects?
-Why use the "this can be produced by local talent" argument at all? It seems fairly disingenuous, since the argument could be applied to any structure or installation created in the last century.
-If BOTC (plural or singular?) is so set on highlighting what Cleveland architects can do, why not highlight what we have accomplished elsewhere to show how under appreciated we are in our own town?
I suspect that the answer is that we are not under appreciated as a whole, but rather that there are relatively few truly imaginative and talented architects throughout the globe (including Cleveland), and so any exhibition will inevitably dip into this shallow pool.
There seems to be an endless stream of elaborate formal unbuilt work by designers of the Ball-Nogues generation that is propped up by equally elaborate rhetorical exegeses to support it. The "vacuity" mentioned here made that talk seem remarkably fresh and provocative. Given that they didn't react to the questions about how these systems might inform or be expanded to "actual" buildings was not addressed - it just doesn't necessarily pertain. And why should it? Installation seems to be gaining traction without respect to whether it might inform "actual buildings". The work I saw was in a from a variety of venues outside the traditional architectural realm - many of them "art" venues. Affective work of this sort is intended to be perceived (and I wouldn't agree that it is just spectacle) - it could be seen as experiments in this realm. That work was also built and seemed to actually engage the body. Affective work can't be communicated through drawing, models, and is has only recently begun to theorized. Clearly, it has to be built. It seems to represent a resistance to the byzantine rhetoric of the aging Eisenmans of the world. They cited a quote about that silly Black Hole movie that supported this point in a charmingly oblique manner.
Bravo!!
Post a Comment