• Arnór BogasonArnór Bogason, over 5 years ago

    1) Caleb, you should try and learn more about architecture and design if you're really interested. Your grasp of design at this point is only superficial. Critique like this is borderline arrogant. Don't be "that" guy.

    2) People, be nice. He's only 17.

    23 points
  • Eduard GiménezEduard Giménez, over 5 years ago (edited over 5 years ago )

    Much of Gehry's work falls within the style of Deconstructivism [...]. Deconstructivist structures are not required to reflect specific social or universal ideas, such as speed or universality of form, and they do not reflect a belief that form follows function.

    Wikipedia, Frank Gehry Architectural Style

    21 points
  • Edwin de JonghEdwin de Jongh, over 5 years ago

    I'm having a really hard time getting the point of this article. You state that Frank Gehry isn't an architect yet fail to accurately define what makes someone an architect. All I honestly learn through this article is that you have a strong dislike towards Frank's work and you don't think he fits in your (rather narrow) vision of a designer? That's not an argument at all.

    Also, you're a 17 year old student, and you state at the beginning of your article that your knowledge of architecture is limited to begin with. Maybe invest time in learning more about architecture and design before blatantly writing off an established architect who's been doing so for more than twice as long as you've lived.

    Basicly: You don't like his buildings, that's fine. Your wholy entitled to your opinion and everyone has a different taste. But to state that that doesn't make him an architect makes NO sense at all. That's like saying Picasso isn't an artist because you think his paintings are too simplistic.

    10 points
    • Caleb Habos, over 5 years ago

      Thanks. I'd definitely try delving more into architecture and especially design but I don't exactly have all the time in the world right now. High school is unforgiving.

      0 points
      • Grigoriy KoganGrigoriy Kogan, over 5 years ago

        High school is unforgiving.

        Oh, to be in high school again. :)

        Caleb, we're all secretly jealous, because things only get more "unforgiving" from there on.

        0 points
  • Grigoriy KoganGrigoriy Kogan, over 5 years ago (edited over 5 years ago )

    Nice strawman argument. Make a baseless claim in the intro paragraph that architecture = design, then argue why Frank Gehry is not a "designer" (by author's definition).

    Well, maybe he isn't. He's an architect, and architect does not = design.

    It's funny that the author suggests that consideration of "the work engineers have to do to make this a physically viable structure to construct" is part of what makes a good architect (or was it designer?). Those buildings are standing, aren't they?

    Also, Frank Lloyd Wright was notoriously bad with this... The Falling Water house -- ironically portrayed here as an example of good architecture (or design?) -- has needed extensive construction work to reinforce the concrete and prevent it from collapsing.

    9 points
    • Caleb Habos, over 5 years ago

      Thanks. Didn't know that last bit.

      Also, how would you define architecture? How would you define design?

      1 point
  • John LeschinskiJohn Leschinski, over 5 years ago

    Is this a joke?

    9 points
  • Laurens SpangenbergLaurens Spangenberg, over 5 years ago

    I've started some readings on the history of design. So far I read on the history of Dutch and Swiss design. We may praise "Art is not design," and "Design is (more about) how something works, and not just about how it looks and feels like." The fact is that Modernism, which is responsible for most designs today, came from precisely the opposite. Modernism design in Switzerland was started from a group of artists.

    Modernism, meaning everything from Art Deco to Bauhaus to De Stijl, came from the arts, radical political ideologies, and new abstract ideas (aka "feelings.") The strangest thing I came to realize is that even the 10 Principles of Good Design we know and love today isn't a hard fact of how design should be, but only a specific viewpoint of a design philosophy. Designers weren't even always called designers. They were once called something along the lines of "industrial artists."

    Read more about design history, preferably as books, and also on architecture in general, where art and design can sometimes blend.

    I'm also a 17 year old High School student BTW.

    4 points
  • Catalin CimpanuCatalin Cimpanu, over 5 years ago

    This is what happens when you don't study enough art history.

    4 points
  • Ryan MurphyRyan Murphy, over 5 years ago

    What. An. Idiot.

    4 points
  • Michael ElliottMichael Elliott, over 5 years ago

    What an arrogant and ignorant kid.

    3 points
  • Anthony WingfieldAnthony Wingfield, over 5 years ago

    Kanye is over there like what do I have to do with this.

    Regardless of how you feel about Kanye's personality, his musical talent is undeniable.

    Low blow.

    2 points
  • Oscar von HauskeOscar von Hauske, over 5 years ago (edited over 5 years ago )

    Does Caleb care about what we have to say? Probably not, but I'll say it anyway I was probably as ignorant and opinionated when I decided I wanted to be a designer.

    Anyway Caleb, if you want to make strong arguments you have to at least define what it is you're arguing against, I don't understand what you mean by design or architecture at all, and you probably don't know either, you might just think that what you like is what design is and what you dislike is something else.

    A quick look in Wikipedia will help you realize very quickly that you're not alone most definitions are sloppy and don't really define it very well and that's probably because it's hard to define these things, or because no one has bothered, or because most designers are too opinionated and or superficial (I don't know I'm speculating)

    Anyway before you critique something you MUST have the full picture and really know about history, the dialectic that led to this and what Gehry is responding to (maybe those bland designs you showed us... )

    What I'm saying is keep an open mind, and read up. Saying something is bad (period) is the easy way out

    2 points
    • Caleb Habos, over 5 years ago

      I'm not trying to make an educated argument at all, hence the premise. I'm just trying to ask a lot of "why?" questions rather than "how?".

      So far, from my uneducated perspective, I don't understand why someone like Gehry or Hadid would be given so much power to construct as many buildings as they have. Sure, they may look great and arguably have artistic integrity, but I just think that their work should belong in a museum. I could probably give his museums and performance centers a pass since they're made for artistic appreciation to begin with, but academic and commerce centers?

      Thanks for the comment

      0 points
      • Andrew LiebchenAndrew Liebchen, over 5 years ago

        Frank Gehry has made a huge positive impact on how architecture is actually produced in ways that you might not realize.

        His process seems pretty footloose in the "Sketches of Frank Gehry" but he's an old man now, and he's been refining his style for decades. In short, Gehry is a master of the practice of architecture...I think his personality tends to be kind of glib about his own process and design intention (at least when the camera's rolling). He's earned the right to be that way because he's incredibly rigorous.

        Anyway, back to how Gehry has changed architecture. Back in the day, all of Gehry's buildings were drafted by hand on paper (the "Fred and Ginger" building was), so he and his associates had to really understand how to physically construct the crumpled forms he was making. He doesn't crumple the model and pawn it off on an engineering firm...his team and he work out how it translates to rigid materials.

        They found that they weren't able to figure out how to DRAW some of the forms Gehry wanted to make, so they brought in software from the aircraft design industry (CATIA) along with all kinds of other physical-to-digital mapping tools, and adopted them to architecture. Gehry's firm pioneered the use of parametric design software which collapsed the massive documentation problem between design architects, engineers, fabricators, and onsite production.

        For instance, the once the forms were in the the program and the parameters were figured out, they could more easily figure out what size and shape steel beams were needed. The beam fabricator would receive a digital model of the beams in the building that he or she could use to cut, label, and ship on time to worksite, etc.

        All this had the result of a) making his interesting forms possible b) ensuring they won't fall down and all the while c) cutting costs and material waste with the bonus of d) opening the door to this new world of software to architects everywhere.

        Anyway, I don't like a lot of Gehry's buildings (but I like quite a few, particularly the new Louis Vuitton Foundation in Paris), but you've got to respect the man, his process, and his RIGOR.

        Can't believe no one's posted this picture yet...

        I have a degree in architecture, but I'm a digital product designer now :)

        5 points
  • Bryce DriesengaBryce Driesenga, over 5 years ago (edited over 5 years ago )

    I find it odd that you write about how similar Gehry's buildings are. I personally like the fact that they are so different than every other flat, rectangular building out there.

    1 point
  • James Young, over 5 years ago

    Am I right in thinking this article is just basically the author saying they're not that keen on his buildings but nothing more?

    1 point
  • Jodi WarrenJodi Warren, over 5 years ago

    Caleb, this stinks of bending the facts to fit a premise. You have strong opinions, but you need to hold them more weakly.

    0 points
  • Jason YehJason Yeh, over 5 years ago

    "Hey, let's all think inside the box for a moment."

    0 points
  • Diego LafuenteDiego Lafuente, over 5 years ago

    There is no mathematical way to name someone as something. Hence, no need to do criticism like this. I respect Frank Gehry as Wright as Mies Van der Rohe. I don't care is a group of people call Gehry "the architect of all times", it's just people opinion.

    BTW: artists often extend their style, like Dalí and others.

    0 points
  • Account deleted over 5 years ago (edited over 5 years ago )

    You may not like his buildings but, his work is more famous and permanent than any of the deezigns we may ever make in our own careers. Respect.

    0 points
    • Andreas Ubbe Dall, over 5 years ago

      Brilliant argument...

      You may not like Rebecca Black's "Friday" but, her work is more famous and permanent than any deezigns we may ever make in our own careers. Respect.

      1 point
      • Account deleted over 5 years ago (edited over 5 years ago )

        Didn't say that. Gherry is not the Rebecca Black of architecture. But, respect to RB for cashing out on that song. ;-)

        0 points
      • Oscar von HauskeOscar von Hauske, over 5 years ago

        Yes, you are right, his argument was flawed. But give him a break, I think what he is trying to say is that Frank Gehry is a renowned architect, he is famous!

        He is not infamous like Rebecca Black, and we might judge her anyway we like, but honestly she is no Frank Gehry.

        Gehry is renowned as an architect, not only by popular media but by his peers and artists of stature, that has to mean something.

        0 points
  • Sjors TimmerSjors Timmer, over 5 years ago

    If you want to deep dive into this topic, this is a good start: http://www.amazon.com/Derrida-Architects-Thinkers-Richard-Coyne/dp/0415591791

    0 points