¿Debe continuar el show?

Torre Dubai (foto de Marco Saraceno en FLICKR)

(...) el espectáculo, inseparable de la opulencia, contamina la arquitectura con una exhibición circense de formas insólitas, difíciles de reconciliar con la necesaria permanencia física y simbólica de [las] construcciones (...)
Luis Fernández Galiano, El País 08/03/2010

!The Show must go on¡ es el grito de guerra del mundo del espectáculo para mantener el ánimo. Las contaminaciones entre espectáculo y arquitectura, que han acabado por adulterar a esta última, se pone ahora en entredicho desde los mismos mass-media. Ya comentabamos en posts anteriores que en el New York Times, Ouroussoff, su crítico de arquitectura, fue uno de los primeros en desmarcarse al comenzar la crisis financiera ("era de vulgaridad y ambición", decía).

Ahora en ámbitos españoles empieza a cundir cierto arrepentimiento por las complicidades con los excesos de los felices 1990. Hay arquitectos como Chipperfield que nunca se prestaron al "branding through architecture" ( "Hoy lo icónico se asocia a los excesos del Mercado", dice), y aún así es muy prudente en sus críticas: hace bien, ya que no habrá rectificación, e incluso la arquitectura espectáculo se incrementará en ciertas partes del mundo.

La desglobalización incluirá partes en las que la euforia neoliberal continuará como si nada y su arquitectura seguirá saturando los media. Por lo tanto la respuesta a la pregunta Must the Show go on? es: It's up to you.

Principles against poison

Yes, I know that I have already linked Ouroussoff's article in a recent post. The thing is that I have read the article again (thanks to a reader of the blog from New Zealand) and have decided to give it its own space.

The most "delirious era in architecture" is not going to be over just like that: years, maybe decades will be needed to overcome this "poisonous cocktail of vanity and self-delusion" (Ouroussoff).

By the way, have you notice that there is a consensus about "desintoxication" (see post under this) and "poisons" in the realm of contemporary form creation...?

Paris vaut bien une messe

I was so impressed by Niemeyer's building in Paris that I did not recommend anything but the best in december. But, I have to say that it is one of the cities that offers more if you are really interested in architecture today. Of course there is Le Corbusier, etc., and the city itself, but L'Arsenal and la Cité de l'Architecture are instruments to better understanding and enjoying the city, its architecture and modernity in general. I realized all this reading and watching an excelent article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magazine/14paris-t.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=paris+ouroussoff&st=nyt) and video in the New York Times about Paris plans, by Nicolai Ouroussoff (to read the article copy the address in your browser directly, otherwise it sends you to the video). At L'Arsenal there is a huge exhibition on the new plans reported in the NYT.

The Roaring Nineties in Architecture

In his book The Roaring Nineties professor Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize of Economy 2001, compares current situation (in 2003) to the time that drove the world into the Great Depression. Those days produced excesses in the economy and in architecture. It is true that at the same time the best modern architecture was built then (for example the Barcelona Pavilion and the Villa Savoye). In our times some virtual architecture is going to be considered an example of an "era of vulgarity and ambition" (read this article in the New York Times). Arup, the company that has built almost everyone of the frivolous and scandalous building of the recent “starchitecture” considers a rectification is on its way because of the financial crisis:

“One thing that has slightly disappointed me in the broad architectural world of late, and I think the difficult financial situation we all find ourselves in is going to improve this, is that I think some architecture became quite frivolous, it was doing things that were slightly crazy, just because we could.”

Philip Dilley, Chairman Arup

Nevertheless, there are some other critics who do defend the Star System leaning on a sort of architectural version of the "Trickle-down" theory of the neoliberal economy: Spectacle-Architecture supposedly benefits everybody as "it has opened up possibilities for the young and lesser known". Isn't that interesting?