Frank O. Gehry | Tectonic Genius or Pure Sh*t?
Don Giovanni, Act II, Commendatore et Finale, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
Performed by The Metropolitan Opera of New York, 1990.
The Ghost of Architecture Past
Frank O. Gehry a cenar tecore
m’invitasti e son venuto!
Altre cure piu gravi di queste
altra brama quaggiu mi guido!
Pentiti, cangia vita,
e l’ultimo momento!
Pentiti, scellerato!
Pentiti,
Pentiti,
Ah! Tempo piu non v’e!
[ The stage is consumed in flame as darkness descends and drags the commander and Don Giovanni into hell. ]
Frank O. Gehry, I dine with you here
You Invited me and I have come!
Other more serious considerations
Have called me down to Earth!
Repent, and change your ways,
For this is your final hour!
Repent, you soundrel!
Repent,
Repent,
Ah! Your time is up!
It is perhaps fitting that in 2012, starchitect Frank O. Gehry designed the abstract white stage set for Christopher Alden’s abstract and sublime production of Mozart’s Don Giovanni by the Los Angeles Philharmonic. I certainly would not be surprised by the many clients, builders and even fellow architects who wouldn’t wish to see Gehry consigned to flames of hell, dragged into its depths for his unapologetic architecture and obsession with moving fish. Indeed even I at times, even when looking at his latest ‘crumpled paper bag’ (as it is ‘affectionately’ known) creation in my home of Sydney must look up and quizzically enquire, “Mr. Gehry, what do you think you are doing?”
It is I think quite apparent that the wider community has often been swift to condemn Gehry as the immoral and wastefully decadent Don Giovanni of architecture, that his work has no place in our societies. There has of course debate on his works, with online reporter Gizmodo having been the primary populist source for promulgating Gehry’s outburst that “in this world we are living in, 98 percent of everything that is built and designed today is pure shit.” (Gehry in Walker, 2014). Online response was swift and cutting, with comments all ranging along the lines of “he scribbles shit down on a piece of paper and throws it away…” and that “his ‘work’ is ugly as sin.” (Walker, 2014). Without descending into the realm of Martin Heidegger’s Aesthetics however, it is quite evident to note that such commentary is obviously not enough for us to disregard Gehry’s work so quickly. Were architecture determined solely as ‘beautiful’ or ‘ugly’, who would determine this? Taste, is after all scarcely a universally accepted principle.
"98 percent of everything that is built and designed today is pure shit" (Dezeen, 2014).
Whatever we may think of Gehry’s less than pleased attitude at his most recent interview in Spain however, I must quote theorist Gevork Hartoonian in defence because Gehry is a man who “without theorising his work…[nevertheless] speaks for the present problematic state of architecture; the long-standing relation of architecture to sculpture and other forms of artistic creativity; architecture’s relation to its own history; the impact of telecommunication technologies on architecture; and the aesthetic implications of the commodity fetishism for architecture.” (Hartoonian, 2002, p. 1). Many would at this point be prepared to reject this, to walk away but if I may be bold enough to crave your indulgences, using the work of Hartoonian as a basis, I wish to examine Gehry’s Guggenheim Bilbao and his 2012 stage set for the Los Angeles Philharmonic’s production of Don Giovanni, held inside the theatre of his own work, the Walt Disney Concert Hall. By examining both the context and theories behind his architecture and the tectonics of Gehry’s stage set, I hope to breathe something new into our opinion of Gehry, before we are so readily prepared to banish him to the gates of Hades.
The Bilbao Effect
The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao owes its architectural success from its apparent formal complexity, it is “a three-dimensional space modelled on the exuberant look of a commodity…architecture is not a stage set, around and within which an event could take place, but the event itself.” (Hartoonian, 2002, p.104). Gehry’s work is not about the enclosure of space but the formation of an architectural experience and a process of defragmentation in order to challenge our accepted notions of structure and construction. His fragmented and discorded textures are in fact reminiscent of “The German word wand (wall)…and gewand (dress) [which] derive from a single root…[indicative of ] the woven material that formed the wall [historically].” (Sember, 1989, p. 104). His understanding of materiality and indeed his use of the swirling forms, though in his own words, reminiscent of the “moving fish” (Gehry in Hartoonian, 2002, p. 4) is in fact also a reinterpretation of the primitive house, in which a basic structure, is enclosed and ‘dressed’ in a woven fabric façade, not unlike a camping tent. Gehry’s articulation of the overlapping structures is in fact a return to the “vision of wrapping that is implied in the formal and aesthetic freedom embedded in the frame-structure at work since the inception of the [Le Corbusian] Dom-ino frame.” (Hartoonian, 2002, p. 22).
Architecture & Technology: Behind the forms lies a logical structural grid supporting the external skin. (ArchDaily, 2013)
When we regard the three dimensional structural grid of the Guggenheim Bilbao, it retains a clear and structured logic. On the surfaces however, Gehry is in fact engaged in a deeper architectural conversation, as with Heidegger, Gehry’s architectural thought “conceives of architecture as having the capacity not only of expressing the different materials from which it is made but also of revealing the different instances and modes by which the world comes into being.” (Frampton 1995, p. 23). The different layers of glass, aluminium and stone on the exterior are in some ways an alternate layer, shrouding the actual logic of the structure in a move that would apparently be condemned by the strict imperial Modernists as breaking their most sacred law, that of honesty in expression. Delving deeper logically however, we find that Gehry is in fact at the forefront of pursuing one of Le Corbusier’s most prized desires: the liberation of the wall from structure so that it can be freely articulated as both solid and/or void.
In preparing to let go of the mantra that form must ever follow function, the ‘skin’ of the Bilbao Guggenheim is able to take on a life of its own. Its expressive and free-flowing waves becomes “the architecture of event that has no referral and yet by bringing together the spectacle (the stage) and the spectator, the building itself becomes part of the culture of spectacle.” (Hartoonian, 2002, p. 22). This ‘culture of spectacle’ can be seen as the visitor’s experience of architecture, an alternative way of approaching the age old question of how architecture can also be an artistic installation. In an age where focus is often on the individual experience and “the privatization of modern society, architecture, as opposed to building, tends to favour the space of public appearance” (Frampton, 1995, p. 27) which Gehry achieves by providing a building which is unashamedly and architecturally loud.
From interior to exterior, the Bilbao Guggenheim is an experiment in construction articulation
and the dynamic between skin and structure. (ArchDaily, 2013)
The expression of the structure is still evident in the Guggenheim Bilbao, though not as literal as in the ‘pure’ Modernist works of Mies Van Der Rohe. Through an architecture of tectonics, “the architect may make visible, in a strong statement, that intensified kind of experience of reality which is the artist’s domain – in our case the experience of forces related to forms in a building.” (Sekler, 1965, p. 92). The free flowing forms and the relation between heavy sandstone and light-reflecting aluminium is still a reflection of the building’s structural systems, expressed in a three-dimensional and plastic manner as opposed to our accepted upwards-downwards gravitas scenario. Indeed arguably, our displeasure and dislike of this approach in his subsequent works stems quite likely from “…the discrepancy between the art-form and the structural logic [which] is endemic to the tectonic…” (Hartoonian, 2002, p. 22), as viewers we are confused by the plasticity and apparent chaos of his building.
Whilst it may not be an 'honest' expression of structure, it certainly expresses Le Corbusier's belief in liberating the facade. (ArchDaily, 2013).
Just as abstract expressionist artists such as Rothko and Kandinsky have created works which seek to express the inner psychology of the mind and the chaos of the physical and metaphysical worlds, Gehry’s architecture as a commodity of art appears to stem from a similar tectonic expression beyond an immediately obvious logic and physicality of structure and construction. It is an honest representation, “expressive of a relation of form to force, [and thus] the term tectonic should be reserved.” (Sekler, 1965, p. 89). Hartoonian further identifies for us that in Gehry’s pursuit of expressing the ‘unfinished’ quality of architecture, his “design paradigm is rather similar to that of an artist; no one except the painter for instance, knows why his/her painting is called finished at a particular moment.” (Hartoonian, 2002, p. 11).
If we accept that architecture extends beyond merely the pragmatic issues of function, it is possible to understand that “…architecture remains suspended between human self-realisation and the maximising thrust of technology…” (Frampton, 1995, p. 23). In Gehry’s approach what we find is the forefront of technological advancement to generate forms which are structurally logical but whose expression is masterfully chaotic, simultaneously challenging and deconstructing traditionally accepted notions of floor, façade and roof. Despite his ignorance occasionally of issues such as waterproofing and functional space, things which we condemn him for, his work must be appreciated for its level of critical engagement and architectural tectonics as experiential and artistic rather than exclusively functional and programmatic.
The Don Giovanni of Architecture
An examination of architecture as extending beyond merely a pragmatic pursuit is arguably more evident in Gehry’s stage set, designed as a metaphysical extension and abstract interpretation of Don Giovanni’s downfall. His design received critical acclaim with Mark Swede of the Los Angeles Times declaring that “Gehry’s sculptural installations are bulky sheets of crumpled white paper. The texture is gorgeous, begging to be touched.” (Swede, 2012). The production’s director shared Gehry’s vision, desiring a stage which was interpretive and would represent “the deeper and under-the-surface levels [of Don Giovanni]” (Los Angelas Philharmonic, 2012), to which Gehry’s stage set obviously and successfully obliged. The space being articulated is therefore not simply what people may condemn in his architecture as a madman grasping at straws, but a physical abstraction by Gehry, a critical thinker, expressing physically and metaphysically a space which explores what the mind of a lustful madman actually would be like. His design philosophy, it could be contended, is a deconstruction of culture and this “Critical culture attempts to compensate, in a fragmentary manner, for the manifest disenchantment of the world.” (Frampton, 1995, p. 25).
A crumpled backdrop alongside moving plinths, casting the orchestra in shadow and emphasising the drama,
the deceit and the downfall in Don Giovanni. (Dezeen & Autumn De Wilde Photography, 2012).
The deprivation of the audience from viewing the orchestra by casting them behind the tangles of white draws them not merely nearer to the action on stage but to the experience of what Don Giovanni is about: a man, who through his callous and libertine behaviour, in a classic tale of the Byronic hero, sets the stage for his own demise (Hamilton, Spring 1963, p. 41). A state of architectural chaos is therefore appropriate, as the opera is a “moral tale about an evil man who attempts to deceive, manipulate, and even violently overpower three innocent women…[in the end] punished by divine forces.” (Curtis, 2000, p. 122). Discarding the usual Baroque embellishments and fanciful sets in favour of a series of white podiums is a reinforcement and expression of Don Giovanni’s mind and the discord he has brought on the lives of the innocent women he preys on.
The work of Gerhy is also in line with the intent of the production’s director, Christopher Alden, who sought for “a less literal direction and I’m happy to let go of the narrative level of the storytelling.” (Los Angeles Philharmonic, 2012). By stepping away from the traditional and literal stage sets, Gehry’s expanse of white becomes “an exciting metaphor for the characters of a complicated plot that ends with the reprobate Don dragged to the underworld.” (Swed, 2012). Gehry’s work is seen to be building on the original intensions of Mozart, who’s composition and stage direction in historical productions of Don Giovanni have been highlighted for “the ‘fourth wall’ between the stage and the audience tumbles; and in several scenes, past and present merge.” (Zeiss, 2001, p. 113). Appreciating the deconstruction of the usual format of opera, Zachary Woolfe of the New York Times, though slightly disappointed by the actual performance, noted clearly that “Mr. Gehry’s rumpled installation and the Mulleavys’ costumes seemed intended for a much more abstract show…” (Woolfe, 2012).
Simplification of the stage into pure forms expresses the mind of Don Giovanni and highlight's Gehry's pursuit of the experience of architecture rather than merely the structure and programmatic composition. (Dezeen & Autumn de Wilde Photography, 2012).
Following from the physical abstraction of space, the analysis of the opera itself and its compositional construction, what is also found is Mozart’s interest in “collapsing customary temporal boundaries…[and] the sonic mix blurs customary social and musical borders.” (Zeiss, 2001, p. 117). It is therefore fitting and appropriate that the unconventional “icebergs of crumpled paper…[represented] an eerie, elegant study in white, with the strangeness that should permeate ‘Don Giovanni’.” (Woolfe, 2012). Through Gehry’s self-noted “moving still-life on the stage” (Dezeen, 2012), the experience of opera becomes a transition from the physical enjoyment of sight and sound into realisation of the true fear and chaotic world we each harbour within our own minds. Gehry’s work is thus an architectonic expression and amplification of Don Giovanni.
Conclusion - Gehry: The Architect Martyr
It is true, I may not like his fishy approach or to be frank, a great deal of his work, but occasionally, Gehry provides a gem in the hearts of cities like the Guggenheim Bilbao which, despite its waterproofing shortcomings, deserves to withstand the test of time. In believing that architecture “provides the basis for life and culture…[but] is neither high art nor high technology” Frampton has argued that “to the extent that it defies time, it is anachronistic by definition. Duration and durability are its ultimate vales.” (Frampton, 1995, p. 27). Whilst Gehry’s work may not be physically durable, his ideology and his liberation of the façade from structure are ideas which may defy time. Yes he may not be the champion of an architecture of practicality, but it is also equally true that without tectonic architectural experimentation, our cities would not be dynamic spaces of time and change; they would be stagnant, monotonous Orwellian prisons. So all in all, perhaps Frank Gehry is really just another architect, striving to do things in the style of Frank Sinatra…
For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught,
To say the things he truly feels;
And not the words of one who kneels,
The records shows, I took the blows -
And did it my way!
References:
Liane Curtis, “The Sexual Politics of Teaching Mozart’s ‘Don Giovanni’.” NWSA Journal 12, no. 1, (Spring 2000): 119-142.
Dezeen Magazine. “Don Giovanni Set Design by Frank Gehry,” Dezeen Magazine (3 July 2012), from: http://www.dezeen.com/2012/07/03/don-giovanni-set-design-by-frank-gehry/
Kenneth Frampton, Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture (Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1995).
William Hamilton, “Daring to be the enemy of God: Some Reflections on the Life and Death of Mozart’s Don Giovanni.” The Christian Scholar 46, no. 1, (Spring 1963): 40:54.
Gevork Hartoonian, “Frank Gehry: Roofing, Wrapping, and Wrapping the Roof.” The Journal of Architecture 7, no. 1, (2002): 1-31.
Los Angeles Philharmonic. “‘Don Giovanni’ Roundtable with Deborah Borda, Rodarte and Christopher Alden,” published 25 May 2012 from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLtluOVBtdw
Eduard Sekler, "Structure, Construction, and Tectonics," in Structure in Art and Science, by Gyorgy Kepes,. New York: Braziller, 1965.
Gottfried Semper, The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
Mark Swed, “Fit for a ‘Don’,” The Los Angeles Times (21 May 2012), from:http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/21/entertainment/la-et-laphil-don-giovanni-review-20120521
Mark Swed, “‘Don Giovanni’ feels right at home in Disney Hall,” The Los Angeles Times (21 May 2012), from: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/21/entertainment/la-et-laphil-don-giovanni-review-20120521-16
Alissa Walker, “Frank Gehry Says Architecture Today is ‘Pure Shit’,” Gizmodo (23 October 2014), from: http://gizmodo.com/frank-gehry-thinks-architecture-today-is-pure-shit-1649914255/all
Zachary Woolfe, “Mozart’s ‘Don,’ in a Lunar Landscape, Haunts Gehry’s Hall in Los Angeles,” The New York Times (27 May 2012), from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/arts/music/don-giovanni-los-angeles-philharmonic-and-gustavo-dudamel.html
Laurel Elizabeth Zeiss, “Permeable boundaries in Mozart’s Don Giovanni.” Cambridge Opera Journal 13, no. 2, (July 2001): 115-139.
This article was originally written on 30 October 2014 and has been re-published on this website.