A daily blog on architecture in Chicago, and other topics cultural, political and mineral.
Click on the COMMENTS link under each post to join the discussion.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Have you heard the one about SANAA winning the Pritzker?
Unless you've been on the dark side of the moon all day (and probably even there, unless you've got AT&T), you've no doubt heard by now that Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa, the duo who make up SANAA, have been awarded the 2010 Pritzker Prize. Apparently, despite what Joe Rosa and Bob Somol told you, Europeans don't have a monopoly on path breaking architecture. (And if you compare SANAA's Serpentine Pavilion from last year to the wildly dysfunctional Hadid Burnham Pavilion in Millennium Park, you can see the kind of quality we could have insisted on, but didn't.)
In an interview with designboom, Sejima resisted citing specific architectural influences, while Nishizawa named the holy trinity of Mies, Le Corbu and Neimeyer, "These are an unforgettable 'trio' for me." Seijima talks about "our interest now is more how to organise ‘a program’ within a building - the layout of rooms and how people move inside. but also how to keep a relationship between the ‘program’ and the outside and then how the outside fits to the surroundings. in each project we have different requirements and the site is different, we try to find our way.," and this appears to be very clear in their recent projects.
There will be an orgy of pontification now that the award has been announced. As I'm seldom let out of the house, I've yet to experience any of SANAA's work firsthand, so I'll restrict myself to couple of cursory observations. . .
The first thing that strikes me about Sejima and Nishizawa's work is how, at the same time, they embrace and subvert that Miesian legacy. (Apologies in advance for the music in these videos - turn down your volume now.)
At roofline and plinth of the Glass Pavilion at the Toledo Museum of Art, the building is a rounded square that defines the basic container, but in between, there doesn't appear to be a single right angle. SANAA addresses individual programs in a series of mostly discrete spaces that can be rectangular, circular or elliptical,. They float within a thin - as little as a meter - ether of separation, and a long snaking foyer and forking exhibition space. The use of glass walls both for the perimeter and the interior, combined with several open air galleries, mediate between transparent, reflective, and opaque. In place of Miesian universal space, you have the specificity of full partitioning, but with an "almost nothing" twist.
thanks so much for being able to reveal with only three words of empty sarcasm what all the admirers of this building have been totally blind to. I think I can pare down your word count even further. commentaries of this ilk require and merit only one: meh.
I'm sorry for sounding so sarcastic. It just felt good at the time. Seriously though. I know that neighborhood and the description of "contextual" is really not appropriate. If you want to say the building speaks to you in a special way, then ok, we are all entitled to our opinions. But until architects can truly design infill structures in older cities that are forward-looking yet good neighbors, I will continue to be disappointed. If you explore European cities where architects have been "infilling" for centuries with a wide variety of styles, you find more often than not a family of buildings that are harmonious, not jarring. One easy example is Guimard's Parisian projects that fit comfortably in between more traditional buildings, but still are exquisitely modern and idiosyncratic.
6 comments:
Bravo, Lynn -- cross-posting this with abandon starting . . . NOW!
New Museum of Contemporary Art, witty? Contextual? Really?
thanks so much for being able to reveal with only three words of empty sarcasm what all the admirers of this building have been totally blind to. I think I can pare down your word count even further. commentaries of this ilk require and merit only one: meh.
I'm sorry for sounding so sarcastic. It just felt good at the time. Seriously though. I know that neighborhood and the description of "contextual" is really not appropriate. If you want to say the building speaks to you in a special way, then ok, we are all entitled to our opinions. But until architects can truly design infill structures in older cities that are forward-looking yet good neighbors, I will continue to be disappointed. If you explore European cities where architects have been "infilling" for centuries with a wide variety of styles, you find more often than not a family of buildings that are harmonious, not jarring. One easy example is Guimard's Parisian projects that fit comfortably in between more traditional buildings, but still are exquisitely modern and idiosyncratic.
Lynn, I'm waiting for a reply. Besides "meh"
sorry, I've been kind of swamped. I do appreciate your expanded comments greatly and I hope to response this evening. Thanks again.
Post a Comment