I feel that this post might somehow mention Ayn Rand, and this is making me nervous already.
As a liberal modern woman moving about the world, making occasional forays to Europe, Manhattan, and the coast opposite my own, I always assume I like modern buildings. When one sees one or another pointy, swooping, soaring structure, a library or museum or office building, one perfunctorily lets out a little “ooh.” As in: “Ooh, that building does not look like a building but rather a half-constructed paper airplane hurriedly abandoned and dropped into a trash can.” That said building exists is somehow a measure of how far we have evolved as a species.
Reading James Kunstler’s “Eyesore of the Month”, my vague distrust of such buildings finally coalesced into something blog-worthy: modern buildings hate women!
Do I sound like I’m making fun of my own political beliefs? I kind of am, because I kind of want to have it both ways: I’m perfectly aware of how shrill that sounds, but I really do believe that the fact that we’re supposed to worship these ridiculously masculinist structures says something important about us right now. They seem to represent a further devaluing of such historically women-identified values as, say, coziness (and I guess I should make a stupid disclaimer like: though I do not believe in the “essentialist” idea that women and men “are” certain ways “naturally,” I do believe that those qualities that have historically been seen as girly – kindness and showing emotion and kittens and pink and not starting wars – should be more highly valued than they are now.).
These buildings are not sized for humans doing human things. Sometimes maybe that’s ok – they do make you catch your breath a little. I think there is a place for them in our culture, but I also think they raise some issues worth thinking about.
So I’m just going to copy and paste Kunstler’s post about the Hunter Museum of American Art in Chattanooga, Tennessee:
“…Notice, too, the utter absence of any human feminine attributes in the elevations — no ornaments or curves, no openings, no vocabulary. Nothing but an uptight, shut-in, sightless male box. This hatred for the feminine in current architectural practice has gone unremarked by anyone in the Feminist camp, by the way — with the possible exception of Elaine Scarry in her book On Beauty and Being Just.
The architects’ own propaganda states: “Re-establishing the primacy of the mansion and its garden setting at the center of the complex, the project brings balance to the overall facility and site composition.Drawing from the natural setting of the site, the architects developed a building design that embodies a contemporary interpretation of the rock outcroppings and strata within the cliff below, while the undulating forms of the roof reflect the dynamic movements of the neighboring river.”
In other words, forget about urbanism, forget about the civic relations between a monumental building and the context of the city, forget about urban landscape typology.”
You know I am in your camp and won’t leave without a direct invitation, but I also like to place whoopy cushions on the chairs.
Now then, I think Kunstler sometimes says interesting and important things, but he often tries too hard. Here, he isn’t trying hard enough. A building isn’t a single elevation. One still image of a building is a quote taken out of context. The public loves a good quote, though, and an ugly quote more, so how about that quote? The view Kunstler shares speaks loudly, looking like a mechanized sand crab, ready to eat visiting children one by one as buses are emptied. Probably part of what the museum wanted. This face says “be alert!” Take almost any other view, however, and things change. Curves, glass and space appear. See http://www.stoutarc.com/.
What about the purpose? The original building elicits yawns today, reminding us of the only slightly smaller McMansions gobbling up crop space at the edge of every town. Museums should not look like McMansions. The new wing changes the image of the museum, and I suspect attendance is up. A good result.
Perhaps it matters that one of the small team of architects is a woman. Maybe the curves and glass and space came from her pen. Look at the other museums this group designed. With luck and justice (and more women architects), the next wave of museum design may involve more nurturing elements. The Brooklyn Museum has given a permanent home to the vagina within its walls. Maybe the walls will be next.
Sign me up.
Randy! Yeah, I’m not 100% anti-spiky buildings. I totally see your point. And I do think the original building is stuffy and all that. But something still irks me…
It’s not “the utter absence of any human feminine attributes” that bites me, it is the faceless unhumaness of the architecture. Architecture as object may be an art form and therefore deserving polite discussion, but I wouldn’t want to live in it.
Go wash some dish’s bitch!
Dude, do you even know that you spelled “dishes” wrong? How are us pathetic feminists going to see the error of our ways if you can’t even properly explain them to us?
sorry about dale’s comment. usually he is kept inside of his cage all day, but somehow he got out. we feed him chicken bones and small penis complex pills, but he is just not getting healthier, and he still blames women for his lack of a soul.
dale’s mother
What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this blog is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
A few things to point out, since you chastised me for incoherency:
1) Were you even chastising me, or someone else, since you called the post a “response”? Rather incoherent.
2) “Everyone in this blog” makes no sense. Incoherent.
3) There is no god, so your last sentence is completely incoherent.
4) The statement “I award you no points” is, as you might put it, “one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.”
5) You are an idiot.
It’s a popular quote from a movie.
Jesus is lord and he still loves you!
I agree these are inhumane pieces and frequently out of context, but that is their point. They are representing the fast-paced, chaotic, digital world of globalization. They are supposed to jar you into looking at the world and society personified through architecture.
Do I think that ALL architecture should be like this? No. These pieces are cornerstones, anchors to the contemporary city to be used in proper servings. The put a face and identity to our era and our institutions while serving an important function of drawing attention to cultural organizations (museums, libraries, etc) that are all too commonly grasping for life today. And they are doing this successfully.
I don’t disagree that they lack feminine attention, but I think that you have ignored half of the contemporary architecture that does provide that. Look at Zaha Hadid’s work (one of the strongest contemporary architects that happens to be a woman) her buildings are dynamic and composed of nothing but curves. Not to mention the all too well known Frank Gehry creating sinuous curves and even embellishing most of his structures with warm, welcoming wood (imagine, wood in architecture!)
As far as ignoring the urban context, I can agree and disagree with that. Some architects know what they are doing with urban design, and some don’t. Many times these pieces are able to enliven and rejuvenate entire areas of cities and commonly provide plazas and green space for pedestrians (despite strong urges from clients and developers not to waste land).
So I would give these buildings another chance. They might not be “pretty” or “nice” but they have an important position in society that may not be able to be filled with something more soothing.
Heya Tyler,
Thanks so much for the thoughtful comment. I think you’re right – I do need to give this whole issue another thought.
In truth, what you’ve written has kind of blown my mind and made me think about the whole issue in a new way. Thanks!
The building complements the feminine landscape.
[...] status update” are by far the terms people use most to get here. I don’t get why this admittedly rather silly post on modern buildings is constantly being read—I fear some architecture professor talks about it in class and [...]