American critic and landscape designer Charles Jenks has been living in England for many years. He is best known for the fact that in 1975 he first designated the new architecture advocated by Robert Venturi as postmodern, i.e. pluralist architecture that emerged in the place of the "dead" modernism. The modernist architecture died, according to Jenks, on July 15, 1972 at 3:32 pm, when the Pruitt-Igoe residential complex in St. Louis, Missouri, USA was blown up.
Vladimir Belogolovsky: I would like to talk with you about such a concept as Starchitecture (star architecture). True, historian Kenneth Frampton told me that it is better not to discuss this topic with him, because he tends to see the appearance of architectural stars in a negative light, although he admitted that he was to some extent guilty, in his words, "of creating the illusion of stellar architecture." The critic Aaron Betsky was even more adamant. He said that he would love to discuss any problem, but not Starchitecture. Why is this topic causing such a negative reaction?
Charles Jenks: The concept of Starchitecture came from such phenomena as globalization and the culture of celebrity (celebrity culture), and it seems to other architects to demean their dignity and status of the profession. But there is a classic contradiction here: you are doomed no matter what you do. Architects are doomed if they try to become celebrities, stars, stars, but do not succeed. They are doomed even when they do not try to get prestigious, "star" projects, which reduces their chances of adequate growth and exerting any influence on the culture as a whole. I understand why Frampton speaks negatively about stellar architecture, and Betsky does not want to have anything to do with it. However, this modern phenomenon needs critical assessment, and escaping from it will not help either architects or society.
WB: Oscar Wilde said: "It's bad when they talk about you, but there is only one thing in the world that is even worse: when they don't talk about you." It is the fact that they say about you that leads to orders, and building is the main goal of the architect. Being visible and getting orders are interconnected things, aren't they?
BH: Of course! Even Vitruvius at the beginning of the second book of the treatise "Ten Books on Architecture" writes about what an architect needs to do to get an order: you need to rub the body with oil, dress gracefully, sit next to the emperor and surround him with pleasant flattery. In order to maintain their bureaus and receive the desired orders, architects are forced to play these games. But since the time of the same Vitruvius, they are, in addition, utopians, representatives of an idealistic profession. They believe that they are making life better by both following their ideals and serving the community. Like doctors. The vocation of architects is futuristic art, the creation of a better world, the construction of the future. Many of the early and post-war modernists (from Wallace Garrison to Eero Saarinen) - and modern architects (from David Chipperfield to Rem Koolhaas) - are pragmatic idealists, as reflected in their public designs. It is not for nothing that the theorist Colin Rowe called architecture the profession of "good intentions."
The tradition of creating public goods began with the ancient Romans, when in some large cities the regional governments of today's Tunisia, Libya or Jordan spent 35 to 50 percent of the city budget on it. Architecture was at the very center of this process. There were items of expenditure on art and urban space, and at a level that no one has come close to.
VB: Therefore, architects are extremely negative about Starchitecture, because it has nothing to do with serving society and working on creating public spaces?
BH: Exactly. Starchitecture is most often associated with the so-called iconic buildings, created to glorify governments and large international companies.
VB: Buildings that are often inaccessible to ordinary citizens …
BH: It's not just about access, it's also about motives. Take the Hyatt hotel chain, designed by John Portman, with large open atriums. These impressive public spaces are controlled by private money and, for example, no ideological or political demonstration can take place in such places. They can be visited only at certain times and there is a strict order in them. Architects understand today that governments have no money or desire to create truly open public spaces, so they turn to private clients. But the problem with such private orders is that architects are forced to produce clichés and iconic buildings that would reflect a specific corporate idea or even logos. That is why there are so many buildings with a banal "wow-effect".
VB: But iconic buildings are increasingly being criticized today, especially in light of the fact that the world economy cannot get out of the crisis …
BH: The famous admonition of the surrealists was: "Surprise me", which is almost the same as demanding from a clown: "Make me laugh." Many architects are not trained in such emotional tricks and do them quite mediocre. But perhaps the main reason architects and society at large are fed up with Starchitecture is that it destroys the unified urban fabric and connections between buildings that have developed over the centuries and during the course of historical layers. Many new buildings are hyperactive in relation to their surroundings. One critic called the banks of the Thames in London "Iconic Coast".
VB: It seems to me that, whether architects like it or not, the demand for iconic buildings is likely to continue
BH: Undoubtedly, the same duality manifests itself in this. Unless you receive a large prestigious order, you cannot count on the true creative freedom that projects like this bring. This is why Rem Koolhaas, Daniel Libeskind, Norman Foster, Richard Rogers and other "usual suspects", about three dozen star architects or Starchitects, whose names can be found on Wikipedia, will continue to compete for iconic projects. … And those who are not included in this thirty will strive to enter it. This is just one of the reasons why the creation of iconic buildings will continue.
WB: History has always known famous architects - from Donato Bramante, Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier and Jorn Utson to our contemporaries such as Zaha Hadid and Frank Gehry. But it seems to me that Starchitecture is a recent phenomenon. I could even name the exact time when this phenomenon originated - on December 18, 2002, during the presentation of plans for the new World Trade Center by seven teams of famous architects. These presentations were broadcast live and caught the attention of the whole world with lightning speed, turning the finalist architects into media stars, whose names have become known far beyond the professional circles
BH: It is necessary to determine where and when this phenomenon originated. However, historians could point to several other key events. After all, the phenomenon has been forming slowly, parallel to the development of celebrity culture, since the sixties. The Soviet Union had a resurgence of iconic buildings in the seventies; the space theme was especially popular then. Then - globalization, the power of the media, the decline of the influence of the church, which I wrote about in my book "Iconic Building" (2005) … In any case, the competition for the new World Trade Center was the most important moment. For example, journalists suddenly noticed the design of the contestants' glasses or shoes. In a completely absurd struggle, Libeskind's glasses beat his rival Rafael Vignoli's glasses in style! The mention of such details in the press when talking about architecture has become a new phenomenon. The power of the media is directly related to the popularization of iconic buildings. Our society demands them, they are a natural manifestation of late capitalism. International companies are competing in the construction of ever larger and more fantastic projects. The irony is that we feel the need to create icons without realizing the significance of iconography. While the popularity of this genre is growing, there is a real shortage of iconography.
For example, after the September 11 attacks, which centered on death and pain, architects had to rethink a whole range of concepts: pluralism, the image of the enemy, the role of nature and cosmic symbolism - and, in general, the values that are meant to unite. After all, icons have been attracting iconoclasts since the time of Ancient Rome, and if you are restoring the global symbol of the World Trade Center, which meant “New York dominates the world”, it is necessary to understand the semantic message that architecture carries. British cultural scientist Marina Warner compared the image of the twin towers with a dollar sign: two vertical stripes or columns with an imaginary serpent in the shape of the letter S. It cannot be said that this symbol was welcomed by the Muslim world and, as we know, they tried to blow up the towers back in 1993. Every time a global dominant icon sign emerges, it will provoke an iconoclastic reaction; no one wants to live by someone else's principles.
My criticism of many iconic buildings, in our agnostic, confusing and pluralistic age, is that architects and their clients are unwilling to deal with iconographic issues. But she was an important factor for the customer and the people in the past. But the abstract modernism of the mid-20th century led to an iconographic scarcity, dominated by pure aesthetics and technological progress. The choice of iconography and style are two of the most important points in which the architect's creative freedom is manifested. They need to be discussed publicly, but architects often shy away from this. James Sterling (British architect, modernist at the beginning of his career, and later - one of the pioneers of postmodernism - VB) emphasized: “If you talk about style or some meanings with the client, you will lose the order, as you will be considered too expensive an architect ". The result of this silence is the dominance of star architects and the "wow factor" that has replaced debate and debate.
VB: And yet I never cease to be amazed at the creative richness of modern architecture. It is amazing that in our pragmatic age it is possible to implement so many unusual projects. Today, such fantastic buildings are being built that could not have been built five years ago. Apparently the architects have learned to choose the right words for their customers. But how big is the influence of architects in today's society?
BH: Several years ago, Norman Foster stated: "Architects have too little influence to get what they want." At the same time, Rem Koolhaas said the same, but in other words: “Architects experience schizophrenia about their influence, because sometimes it is huge, but mostly it is not at all. The picture is constantly changing … We cannot initiate buildings and complete them according to the original design, so in this sense we become powerless. " If the world's two most influential architects feel powerless, what about the rest?
VB: As a critic, I naturally want the awareness of architecture in society to increase, so that people are more aware of what is happening in the profession - culturally, historically, technologically, aesthetically. As a curator, I want to expand my potential audience. It's terrible if architecture is a marginal art form that no one follows. Nonetheless, there are more and more claims that Starchitecture and the need to create iconic buildings ended with the onset of the economic crisis in 2007 …
BH: Even before the 2007 crisis, articles and books appeared predicting the end of iconic buildings. Perhaps when the competition for a new World Trade Center failed to create a compelling iconic solution, such sentiment prevailed, and the economic crisis only exacerbated it. But iconic art and architecture will never end. With the loss of the meaning of the traditional monument, the desire to create new iconic buildings will only grow.
VB: Can you give the most convincing examples of this growth?
BH: As much as you like! Along the entire oil route - from the Middle East to Kazakhstan, from Southeast Asia to China and even to conservative London, the most prestigious buildings are outright icons. On the multibillion-dollar Saadiyat Island in Abu Dhabi, five future iconic cultural centers are being built at once based on the projects of star architects, very carefully selected from the same list of stars that I mentioned: Zaha Hadid, Frank Gehry, Jean Nouvel, Tadao Ando, Skidmore Owings and Merrill ". Or take a look at London with iconic skyscrapers under construction: Voki Toki by Rafael Vignoli, Cheese Grater by Richard Rogers, Top by Cohn Pedersen Fox in New York, the already completed Shard by Renzo Piano. The iconic building is the heir to the traditional monument, and it will not disappear for one simple reason - the growing concentration of capital in the hands of international corporations, wealthy governments, sovereign wealth funds and the global elite. When planning its new building in 2002, CCTV (China Central Television) literally set a condition for the contestants - to create an icon building, which Koolhaas did best; I know about it first-hand, because I was then on the jury. Herzog and de Meuron unequivocally called their Olympic stadium in Beijing, nicknamed "The Nest," an iconic building long before construction was completed. See the newly built projects in China by Stephen Hall, Tom Maine, Wolf Prix and many more - all of which are iconic buildings.
We live in one of the most favorable periods in history for this type of construction, which does not necessarily lead to an improvement in the quality of architecture. And even the economic crisis in the West does not threaten this genre in any way. And in ten years, there will be incomparably more such buildings, so architects should take this problem more seriously and find more organic ways in solving iconic projects from the point of view of urbanism and iconography.
VB: But many young architects deliberately reject iconic images as goals. Architects such as Greg Lynn, Gregg Pasquarelli (SHoP), Bjarke Ingels (BIG) sell their designs as performative solutions based on what their customers demand: better views, rational layout, positive working conditions, more productivity, more efficient use of resources and materials and so on. These architects never talk about meanings and symbolism, metaphors, even aesthetics. They adhere to the opinion of Sterling you mentioned and, knowing what the customer wants to hear, do not impose their aesthetic preferences on him … They sincerely believe in the social mission of their projects and strive to find a rational grain in each of their actions. They work with computer programs, algorithms, graphs, tables and parameters. They never know what shape a building will take until they interview each member of their team and explore hundreds of options based on an infinite amount of data. Only then will something formless appear as if by itself, but justified by the most pragmatic attitudes; the final decision will be determined as the most objective, differing only slightly from many similar options. This design is more often based on cold calculation rather than inspiration. I am sympathetic to many buildings designed with similar methods, but don't expect Ronshan Chapel, Einstein Tower, or TWA terminal from these architects. Those masterpieces were created as artistic and intuitive works. And nowadays there are less and less opportunities for this, and even fewer desires … Young architects are trying to find excuses for each of their curls … It seems as if they are afraid of being accused of "excesses", "artistry". See what happens to the reputation of Santiago Calatrava, who builds his works solely on positioning himself as an artist-creator. Artistry seems to be forgiven only by Gehry, but he belongs to rare and happy exceptions, although he also has failures …
BH: This is what we are talking about! Many iconic buildings have failed. For every convincing piece, ten terrible ones are created. Such projects need to be criticized, even if they are created by excellent architects. Starchitecture is inevitable, but this does not mean that one should not resist its purely commercial and materialistic aspects. Check out the CityCenter in Las Vegas, where Foster, Libeskind, Vignoli, Helmut Jan and Cesar Pelly have designed some of their worst buildings, clichés of their own designs. The complex was conceived just before the crisis and went bankrupt. It was first rescued by Dubai, and when the crisis escalated, it was bought by investors from Abu Dhabi. The irony is that the Harmon Hotel, built according to Foster's design, was initially shortened by almost half due to design errors, and then completely declared unusable. They decided to demolish it, moreover, when the building was already finished. If the creation of iconic buildings continues, architects should be prepared to discuss them openly and critics should have discussions on topics such as urbanism, iconography, style, metaphors, so-called cryptic images, and so on. I have been insisting on this for many years, starting with the book Significance in Architecture (1969) and ending with my own History of Postmodern Architecture (2011).
VB: It is curious that those who are called Starchitects and those who are spoken about most often within the profession are not always the same people. There is no more popular architect in the profession than Koolhaas, but he is not at all the leader in the list of Starchitects, and many ordinary people have not heard anything about him at all. In any case, his name is much less known than the names of Foster, Gehry or Hadid
BH: It all depends on who you ask: architects, clients, journalists or ordinary people. The list of global players can number up to a hundred names - customers resort to it when they are trying to determine the leading Starchitects for a very large project, say in Hong Kong. It is imperative for an architect looking to get hold of the most interesting projects to be on this list. Norman Foster is usually at the top of these lists. But there are both positive and negative lists. In the early seventies, Philip Johnson was called "the most hated architect in the world" for his blatant forgeries and work in a variety of styles at the same time. Nowadays, many architects, including Peter Eisenman, speak negatively about Calatrava for the "artistry" you mentioned, which many consider insincere. Eisenman himself is respected among architects, they are afraid of him, but he can not be called a favorite. Peter Zumptor is idolized by the young, Stephen Hall is respected by many. Zakha is loved and hated at the same time for her talent and directness; she is also envied and forgiven by everyone for her willful buildings. All of this is interesting and has to do with how people nurture their relationship to iconic buildings by star architects. We know very well how much we hated the Eiffel Tower in the first 20 years of its existence. This happens not so rarely: before turning into a real icon, a building receives a certain portion of hatred.
VB: What do you think about the so-called global architecture? It is now being criticized by many, arguing that it is necessary to return to national schools. And Koolhaas proposes to analyze the current global architecture during the next, 2014, Venice Architecture Biennale, of which he was appointed as the chief curator. He wants to go back to the fundamentals and understand how it came about that over the past hundred years, architecture with national and regional characteristics has become global and buildings no longer correspond to the conditions of place and culture. We know that as an architect he himself bears part of the responsibility for the emergence of the global architect, which he has so successfully implanted all over the world …
BH: As for Koolhaas, his words and deeds, like many other architects, do not always coincide. He himself gives the reason: his aspirations outpace his ability to implement his own projects. I remember how in 2005 he complained to me about how difficult it is to create iconic buildings. "Why is this necessary?" - he said and assured that he would not do this anymore. He always goes against the flow, asserts something opposite to what he just did. Now he has become the curator of the Biennale and is trying to reconsider the importance of regional architecture, which he did not like at all when he wrote his book S, M, L, XL (1995). Then, in the nineties, he promoted common, non-associative buildings … But we appreciate Koolhaas for his ability to call things by their proper names, no matter how unexpected and contradictory it may be. He constantly rushes between the general and the iconic. He believes that now the architecture has become exactly the same in every airport and mall. And today he is struggling with architecture that denies the past, culture, nationality … We know that national architecture can be terrible, but in the current situation of a complete crisis of identity, Koolhaas seeks to protect it to some extent. When everyone finally decided that they were opponents of postmodernism, Rem became a complete postmodernist … But while he invites everyone to explore the regional roots of a particular architecture, he himself is looking for new opportunities in the architecture of common forms. Of all the iconic architects we've talked about, he is the most interesting and inconsistent. He experiments with the language of art and tests the limits of culture. His works are very instructive and to a certain extent
comparable to the influence of Le Corbusier; the only pity is that he is not engaged in painting and sculpture and does not attach due importance to iconography. But let's give him freedom in his search for many meanings in architecture. He is always sensitive to the spirit of the times.
