kunstlercast.com
THE KUNSTLERCAST BOOK
NOW SHIPPING (U.S. Only)
$13 + tax, shipping and handling
Also at Amazon
Or Shop Indie Bookstores*
*(price varies)
For Canada, Buy Here
For all else, check online.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 10, 2016, 07:48:27 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
73346 Posts in 6361 Topics by 13712 Members
Latest Member: mariamake005
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  kunstlercast.com
|-+  General Category
| |-+  Eyesores (Moderator: carstars)
| | |-+  Recycled "Innovation"
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Recycled "Innovation"  (Read 579 times)
marcszar
Guest
« on: January 08, 2012, 07:40:56 PM »

Libeskind's latest proposal for an addition to the Military Museum in Dresden, Germany:


The bullshit intellectual rationale behind the addition:
Quote
The new façade’s openness and transparency contrast with the opacity and rigidity of the existing building. The latter represents the severity of the authoritarian past while the former reflects the openness of the democratic society in which it has been reimagined.

There is no transparency. There is no openness. If the addition is supposedly so "democratic," why does it exude hostility and despotism?

Didn't Libeskind pull a similar stunt in Toronto a couple years back? Where's the "innovation" in repeating the same stunt? When do we get to "deconstruct" these stupid stunts?

I suppose most of the addition pops out in the back of the building, because from the front it's hard to see how this tumor could even qualify as an "addition." Where's the usable space? Like all of Libeskind's (and most starchitects') work, this is just another fantastically-unusable and impractical sculpture that fails to serve any real purpose. So much for "form follows function." So it's morally wrong to add a decorative gargoyle or pilaster onto a building, but it's perfectly OK to create totally decorative, useless building-sculptures?  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 07:52:05 PM by marcszar » Logged
billonions
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3529



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2012, 08:12:08 PM »

  Completely out of context, as war can be to life.  Imposed, sharp and painful, ultimately destructive and senseless.

  Other than that, it looks kinda dumb.
Logged

What now!
marcszar
Guest
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2012, 08:29:07 PM »

Completely out of context, as war can be to life.  Imposed, sharp and painful, ultimately destructive and senseless.

I would argue: who cares if it accurately reflects the "chaos and contradiction" of war? I don't think it's a good idea to make our streetscapes and civic spaces feel just as psychologically damaging and oppressive as a real war, all for the sake of making a grand intellectual statement. Yes, war is hell. Do we have to make our cities hell too? (And then wonder why people continue fleeing to the more peaceable "green spaces" of suburbia?)

BTW, Libeskind asserted that his wedge is "democratic" and that the old neoclassical building was the despotic, warlike one. It's interesting how you read the situation as the exact opposite: the wedge as warlike, the neoclassical building as the peaceable civilization suffering under the painful imposition of war. I suspect this is the way many other non-architects will see it, and it was the way I saw it too (quite contrary to Libeskind's mystical intentions).

Still, there's no reason to destroy a streetscape to make a painfully obvious point: "war is hell, and I will make you feel like you're constantly living in hell by forcing you to walk by this all the time." Wars are horrible, so why would an architect ever want to bring the pain and sharpness of war into every aspect of normal life? (Believe me, they don't save these stunts only for the military museums.) Is every place and every thing supposed to be equally dismal, all for the sake of making grand intellectual "statements?" We've suffered under relativism and cultural Marxism long enough.

Yes, this addition is very dumb.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 08:35:20 PM by marcszar » Logged
faraway
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3661



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2012, 11:30:24 PM »

The new façade’s openness and transparency contrast with the opacity and rigidity of the existing building. The latter represents the severity of the authoritarian past while the former reflects the openness of the democratic society in which it has been reimagined.

You know, even the BS is not top rate BS.
I came up with better BS than that to justify projects when I was a sophamore.
I'm shocked, I really expected better BS.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 11:32:01 PM by faraway » Logged

You can have my Cheezedoodles ® when you pry them from my bright orange fingers.
marcszar
Guest
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2012, 12:17:59 AM »

^
What more can we expect from a cult?

I'm not particularly religious myself, but I do think humans are inherently spiritual. We used to use religion as a crutch for our spiritual expressions, but religion supposedly fell out of favor in the postwar "secular age." I think religion was merely replaced with other, secular cults: Some people adhere to architectural cults like Modernism or Postmodernism. Some adhere to "green" cults like Earth Rights, Gaia Theory, environmentalism, etc. Some build their entire spiritual worldviews around race, class, gender, and associated "sociopolitical dialectics." Some are slaves to the machine aesthetic and its related technothrills. (Almost everyone worships digital technology, and if Apple built a church I bet the pews would fill up immediately.) Don't forget the intense religiosity of many atheists - Dawkins froths as much as Falwell did! Hell, we even have militant vegans! We're just as religious as ever; we've merely become polytheists again (relativist polytheists).

In some ways I think this building is the product of a lost, wandering soul, of a guy looking for spirituality. Esoteric intellectual notions intend to serve as a substitute for the "filthy [spiritual] claptrap of human history," but the guy never really gets there. The resulting building is dishonest and rather pathetic.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 12:39:15 AM by marcszar » Logged
billonions
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3529



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2012, 03:51:10 AM »

 For sure Marcszar.  Looks like a giant piece of shrapnel.

  It's not even original.  It's derivative.


  Belief, faith is okay, insofar as it goes.  I have faiths...polytheist, that's me.  I think a bunch of faiths in more or less balance, with a few incongruities and quandraponderables to keep the circle of reason somewhat wobbly is a good metaphysical state to be in. 

  The resulting building is dishonest and rather pathetic.  Twenty minutes on the computer, and how many grand for fee's?
Logged

What now!
GCrites80s
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 411



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2012, 06:41:33 PM »

This makes me think of the Pentagon on Sept. 11th, except with spaceships.
Logged
The St.Paulite
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 900



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2012, 01:10:09 AM »

This proposal is such a piece of shit.
Logged

"insert witty quote" - person
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 :: SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!