Comment from John Leeke
Time: February 3, 2008, 9:14 pm

>>What happened to Frank Gehry?<<

Well, for one thing, he’s being sued because his buildings don’t perform their basic functions of keeping the weather out, and providing a health space for the occupants, and for being impossible to maintain:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/06/mit_sues_gehry_citing_leaks_in_300m_complex/

The man should be condemned to fix every problem all of his buildings have caused their owners, at his own expense and with his own hands.

John (just about had it with architects who think they can produce poor “designs” and excuse themselves by calling it “art”) Leeke

Comment from Urbanist
Time: February 3, 2008, 10:37 pm

Honestly, Frank Gehry is also not well-loved by the architectural community at large either. All the same, there’s no question that he was and remains one of the most influential architects of our time, even if his designs perform poorly and bleed from the realm of architecture poorly into the realm of art. You also have to keep in mind: that’s what his clients pay him for. They want a building that will stand out, not necessarily one that will stand the test of time.

Comment from G
Time: February 4, 2008, 8:57 am

Yeah, It looks something a wanna be arts angst ridden teen would make.

Comment from Alex
Time: February 4, 2008, 8:58 am

John Leeke sounds a little jealous of the originality and uniqueness that Frank Gehry has become famous for.

Comment from Klahanistan
Time: February 4, 2008, 9:07 am

Despite the basic problems you need to admit that Gehry’s Deconstructivist buildings do change the view of what can be done with integrating modern art and modern architecture

Comment from Ann
Time: February 4, 2008, 9:14 am

Gehry’s own house is really ugly but it has that whisper of a design mind that wants to quit being traditional. If you have one of his “leaky” houses or buildings well, that’s the price for beauty. People didn’t marry Marlyn Monroe or Elisabeth Taylor because they could cook. From my point of view, that view being one of a one-time remodeler whose finished house made the front page of the Washington Post, all advice was that I was doomed to failure and “it wouldn’t work”. My house is stunning, simple and imaginative. Gehry’s work is the same. Wherever discliplines over-lap, in this case architecture and art, the proponents of one will disparage the other not realizing that they are in danger of breaking the golden egg. Once I started my project I never listened to another soul, nay sayers all. When the project was finished I was in my glory. I’ll bet Gehry is too. The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.

Comment from Zachary
Time: February 4, 2008, 9:16 am

I think the guys designs are crock-pot at best. The angst ridden teen comment is most accurate. If art imitates life and it does his “art” is imitating what in life? It lack functionality, reliability, or usefulness to the owners after damages are incurred. As for the what you can do integrating things? Shit I knew when I was five you could stick a wire fence on top of a house but I also knew it would look retarded and be pointless back then too. Now on a tree house that would friggin rock.

Comment from yttrx
Time: February 4, 2008, 9:39 am

Gehry has the state of mind that all-too many architects since Wright had…they believe that they’re artists, and not designers. It is possible to bridge the two and come up with something unique and beautiful that doesn’t leak (Wright rarely succeeded in this either), but to do so one has to believe that _form follows function_.

If you do not believe that, you are not designing a building, you are designing a sculpture.

Gehry is a good artist, but a horrible architect.

Comment from wow
Time: February 4, 2008, 9:55 am

Hmmm, seems that this guy is pushing architecture forward. His designs leak? well, guess some youngen gets to make their name making crazy designs that don’t leak. Opinions are like assholes, but you have to push the boundaries forward. And frank’s done that.

Comment from theartofdime
Time: February 4, 2008, 9:55 am

Well, from a Firefighters point of view, these buildings would definatly be a pain in the ass to fight a fire in

Comment from theartofdime
Time: February 4, 2008, 9:55 am

Well, from a Firefighters point of view, these buildings would definatly be a pain in the ass to fight a fire in

Comment from Shini
Time: February 4, 2008, 9:55 am

I agree with Leek sorry, I think that house is pure crap! It looks like a junkyard. I dont care if you want to call it art I had hated art since this whole “modern age” has come about. Art is now nothing more the being able to bull***t pompus rich folks in to buying your attempts. I want the old days back when a piece of art actually looks like it took six months to do. If I see one more piece from some wanna be college artist that looks similiar to what my nephew did I might set it on fire.

Same with this Architecture design a room that gives the feel of more space stop twisting a support beam 2 degrees miss shaping the house and call it a well thought out design till the roof falls down.

Comment from Fili
Time: February 4, 2008, 10:32 am

Those are definitely .. errm.. avant garde?

Comment from Anarchytec
Time: February 4, 2008, 10:40 am

Deconstructivist = Unfinished
Emperor < Clothes

Comment from Voodoo_Pork
Time: February 4, 2008, 10:59 am

This is a house that is extremely confused about its relationship to its community. It is impersonal, jarring, and utterly uninhabitable by anyone except Gehry. I would consider this to be an eyesore if it were in my neighborhood.

Once you get past the oblique novelty of the building, what is it saying really? How does it contribute to the public space? It doesn’t relate to anything around it, or develop a sense of community.

A lot of comments say the building’s “crap,” but don’t make the connection that the building is a projection into the public space, and its “uniqueness” (whatever that means), is ultimately irrelevant when faced with those necessary demands.

Comment from John
Time: February 4, 2008, 11:04 am

Seriously — Doesn’t Dennis Hopper live in this house?

Comment from Shit_Sue
Time: February 4, 2008, 11:09 am

Interesting architecture and a great inspiration to “think outside the box”, but there’s no way in HELL this thing would stand up to a Northern Canada winter! The snow load alone would CRUSH the damned thing… even with modern construction methods and materials. I know. I live AND build here.
~ss

Comment from nerdler
Time: February 4, 2008, 11:32 am

Like most modern architecture, it’s all form and no function. You can thank that idiot Frank Lloyd Wright for the current mess in the architecture world.

Comment from Harris
Time: February 4, 2008, 11:35 am

I live about 4 blocks from this house. It’s ugly– these pictures make it look much nicer then it actually is. It just plain looks bad, despite being semi-historical and innovative for the time.

Gehry’s Disney Hall in downtown LA, on the other hand, is gorgeous. An incredible building.

Comment from the_clar
Time: February 4, 2008, 12:20 pm

Can someone explain to me how Wright is responsible for Gehry’s work? Are you really suggesting that Wright’s buildings are all form and no function?

Comment from Nick
Time: February 4, 2008, 1:38 pm

Really interesting article and some beautiful observations. Deconstructivism can be surprisingly inspiring despite it’s sometimes inherent nihilism.

Comment from Anonymous
Time: February 4, 2008, 1:54 pm

that thing looks like metal scrap recycler from san pedro. nice contribution to the community. I bet he serves a lot of whine with his cheese at his formally functionless art openings.

Comment from David Jennings
Time: February 4, 2008, 1:55 pm

To the comments above…. There IS a certain level of “I could of done that” about modern art and architecture. But progress of any kind is made at the far edge of the bell curve, not in the middle. If your taste yearn for traditional then go buy a McMansion in any U.S. suburb. You will find a host of others that support your need to own design that is safe and familiar.

Frank Gehry is like Frank Lloyd Wright in that he went where the others of his era did not. Gehry and Wrights architecture is important because it drags the middle of the bell curve a different direction.

Two Examples: You won’t find many women wearing Couture fashion from Paris fashion shows to their corporate office. But you will find plenty of designers “borrowing” a few of the Couture details they saw in Paris for their next JCPenney polyester walking suit. The same holds true in politics. The pundits you hear on Sunday mornings taking an extreme political view are doing so in an attempt to sway you, at least partially, toward their point of view.

Admire Wright and Gerhy for what they are not. They were and are great because they’re not normal or predictable. They are not in the middle of the bell curve.

People pay designers and architects a great deal of money for unique designs because any style of art or design that is not innovating, will soon to be out of favor with the masses.

Comment from MTK
Time: February 4, 2008, 2:17 pm

Hear hear, David Jennings. I have no problems reading actual sensible critiques of Gehry’s style, but most of the anti-Gehry comments here sound like they come from total neanderthals who wouldn’t understand interesting architecture if they fell thirty stories from it. I’m not being elitist, either. Anything different, anything that isn’t the same damn tract house stucco-and-sheetrock that is now blanketing California and much of the rest of the country, is fine by me. And I agree, the Disney Hall is absolutely incredible, inside and out. The Seattle EMP, on the other hand, is a mess. But I’m blaming Gehry’s client, the taste-free Paul Allen, for that.

And frankly, if you’re going to blame anybody for the ugliness of contemporary architecture, blame Ludwig Mies van der Rohe or Walter Gropius, not Frank Lloyd Wright.

Comment from justin
Time: February 4, 2008, 3:50 pm

nerdler: “Like most modern architecture, it’s all form and no function. You can thank that idiot Frank Lloyd Wright for the current mess in the architecture world.”

What are you smoking? Have you ever been in Wright’s buildings and houses?

Even his most famous and non-traditional house, Fallingwater, has an incredible amount of function-oriented design choices. Wright deeply considered a humans relationship to the spaces he created. He often designed the furniture and rooms to work perfectly together.

You should read more about him and by him before spouting off nonsense.

Comment from topdog
Time: February 4, 2008, 9:29 pm

“What are you smoking? Have you ever been in Wright’s buildings and houses?”

Uh, yeah, I’ve been in Barnsdall House. Beautiful. Completely stupid function-wise. And the original residents hated living in it, only lived there 3 months. Wright thought it never rained in LA and designed a roof that didn’t slant with no rainspouts. Kitchen is like a closet, although it is a beautiful closet. What, aren’t rich people’s cooks human too? I love Wright but yeah, I’d have to agree with nerdler on this one.

Comment from Bucky
Time: February 4, 2008, 11:08 pm

“Crumplist”- anticipating the aftermath of the earthquake prior to i.e. “swindler” ORIGIN late 18th cent.: back-formation from swindler, from German Schwindler ‘extravagant maker of schemes, swindler,’ from schwindeln ‘be giddy,’ also [tell lies.]

Comment from paharo
Time: February 5, 2008, 2:02 am

i think the most important thing about Gehry and often forget.

VIETNAM!

Comment from Cherie
Time: February 7, 2008, 11:26 am

One of Gehry’s earliest public buildings was the Goldwyn Hollywood Public Library. I worked in the old building before the fire, and then in the new Gehry library, and there is no comparison. The previous Spanish Monterrey building had so much more room (on the same lot, which included outdoor staff parking), was elegant as a library should be. The new building is like a bunker, without a thought given in its design as to functionality. Reflective pools were drained almost immediately because of leaks; huge windows that didn’t take into account that in the L.A. City system, window washers come around only once every 2 years or so. A tiny corner for the Children’s Room, whereas before the Children’s Room was the entire second floor, with a separate entrance and childrens bathrooms.
Terrible, terrible design from the staff point of view as well as the patrons’.

I admire Gehry’s later work, but this public library is a disaster!

Comment from John Leeke
Time: February 7, 2008, 5:38 pm

I’m as happy as anyone to enjoy Gehry’s unusual architecture. But, still, to design a building that provides poor support for intended programs, will be unhealthy for occupants and create an unnecessary drain on the owner’s finances due to poor maintenance design is beyond unreasonable.

Comment from Jim
Time: February 9, 2008, 2:33 am

Amazing design, but yep as people have said, a pain to fire fight!

Comment from Jason Scott
Time: February 11, 2008, 11:52 am

My experience is there are two kinds of people in the world with relation to Gehry:

People who discuss Gehry’s buildings, and
People who have to live and work in Gehry buildings.

I’m sure it’s great to discuss the way he pushes things forward and shakes stuff up but if you spent a lot of time in one of his houses you are not a happy little panda.

Comment from scott
Time: February 11, 2008, 4:43 pm

@yttrx,

I second your thoughts. Way too many architects have lost their sense of being which is first and foremost, architecture. Form DOES follow function. Architecture CAN be art but it MUST be architecturally sound first. To not do so is just amateurish and egotistical, especially with someone else’s money.

One man’s art is another man’s trash.