Liebeskind skyscraper Milan, (Archinet)The politicy of “putting cities in the map” through iconic buildings (gherkins) has finally bumped into an awkward subject for urbanism and architecture: sex. The problem starts when politicians think of architecture as a source of meanings (individual and collective), and not as a chance of constructing artistically.
The polemic on the “impotent” (Berlusconi) skyscraper of Daniel Liebeskind in Milan is the result of forcing architecture to represent almost literally what the public should see: “the meaning of the Holocaust” in the Jewish Museum in Berlin, the “globe shattered into fragments” in the Imperial War Museum in Manchester, an “open book” in the Bar-Ilan University in Israel and “the Orion Constellation” in the London Metropolitan University.
The paradox is that the impulse of being represented by buildings is precisely what keeps architecture alive. Alejandro de la Sota was a expert in doing architecture while people only asked him to do a house, a school or a Council Hall. Konrad Fiedler used to say that "the form, which is the content, does not represent but itself": every architect should remember that when taking the briefing form politicians. This link opens the article "Not manly enough" Berlusconi´s verdict on Libeskind work, by Arifa Akbar in The Independent.
Posts
2 comments:
When Libeskind published his biography he wrote about his wife Nina that "she was so beautiful she must be stupid." Later his wife Nina hired another architect to design the Libeskind's own home. I guess Libeskind feels impotent now!ahunl
Actually I also felt impotent once thanks to Libeskind. This was when I felt dizzy in the Jewish Museum in Berlin and had to be helped. When realized it was because of the floor design I felt really impotent, and to make users feel that way is not a very good policy for a designer, I can tell you.
Post a Comment