Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G
Your post sounds less insightful and more axe-to-grind, and I think you really missed the mark. I don't see evidence of a slavish adherence to Modernism here but the exact opposite: insistence on the same progressive impulses that led to its ascendancy during the past century, which, in Chicago, drew upon a rich tradition of pragmatism and frankness.
|
You've missed the mark if you think calling out Chicago fanatics for their tedious homerism is an axe to grind. Also you've missed the mark when you concluded that Stern's ability to work with both modern and traditional design, and maintain a faculty that includes modernists boils down to pecuniary interests. Along with tedious hometown provincialism, a lot of these posters also have a certain narrow-mindedness on what constitutes real architecture. What is admirable about Stern is that he doesn't engage in such fanatical thinking either in his practice or his academic role. He'll build to suit the location. So he's able to design an angular glass tower in La Defense and a 1930's throwback to sit next to the Woolworth Building. The way some of you talk, you wouldn't be happy unless every building was an attention grabbing Gehry, Hadid, or Mayne. The result would be a disjointed mess.
If you're going to slam a building, criticize it on the design specifically, not on whether "nouveau riches" buy them, not on whether the architect is from another city, not on whether it's in a style not to your taste, and certainly not because you're parroting what you've always read or heard about "real architecture." Otherwise it's just pointless whining and empty-headed snobbery.
And if any of you I'm describing doesn't get my point, the jerk store in Chicago called and they're running out of you.