If you are new to WebUrbanist, click here to sign up for the RSS feed and take a look through our archives and galleries
What happened to Frank Gehry? Some call it a midlife crises, others chalk it up to a moment of revelation. Whatever occurred, this rather conventional middle-aged architect changed virtually overnight into an avante garde designer and created what is arguably the most influential residence of the 20th Century. Deconstructivism now pervades the field of architecture and has influenced virtually every contemporary all-star architect in the world. Gehry is perhaps best known for his curvy, metalic wave-form museums in Bilbao, Seattle, Los Angeles and Minneapolis, but it all started with strange impulses applied to his own traditional little Santa Monica house in the late 1970s.
Frank Gehry’s house in Santa Monica came before its time as a harbinger of the Deconstructivist movement. The first recognizedpublic Deconconstructivist architectural project came almost a decade later. Gehry took his seemingly ordinary house in Santa Monica and began changing things incredibly strange ways. He took a step beyond the playful reworkings of Postmodern architecture, where traditional design symbols were reinterpreted, and instead starting using materials and strategies few applied to architectural projects.
Gehry started by tearing the drywall off of interior walls to expose structural studs buried in the old house, then subtracted and added architectural elements seemingly without a coherent plan throughout the building. He added chain link and plywood to the exterior. His iterative transformations were responses to various impulses and were allowed to coexist without a clear rhyme or reason, flying in the face of both Modernism and Postmodernism - designs from which were typically justified in terms of some kind of central concept.
Since this small house came into being, the idea of deconstructing traditional elements and reassembling them according to obscure and abstract comments has become the norm in the industry, particularly for major public buildings. Gehry’s subsequent work (shown above) took this to new levels each time. World architects like Daniel Libeskind, Rem Koolhaas, Peter Eisenman, Zaha Hadid, Coop Himmelblau, and Bernard Tschumi have all created critical works in the subsequent decades that have been influenced by Gehry’s little house. There is considerable controversy surrounding his work and the current state of Deconstructivism, though the influence of Gehry’s approach to design is unquestionably felt throughout the practice of global architecture today.
Check Out These Great Related Articles:
7 Submerged (Underwater) Wonders of the World
Some have even caused scientists to question the history of human civilization.
The Making of 5 Modern Engineering Marvels
Each of the five projects listed here took their toll financially and were paid for in part with human lives.
5 Modern Secret Room with Hidden Doors and Passages
In some cases the discovery of a secret room is a wonderful find but it can also be a twisted nightmare.
43 Comments
February 3rd, 2008 at 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/loc.....m_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
February 3rd, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Yeah, It looks something a wanna be arts angst ridden teen would make.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:58 am
John Leeke sounds a little jealous of the originality and uniqueness that Frank Gehry has become famous for.
February 4th, 2008 at 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
February 4th, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 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
February 4th, 2008 at 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
February 4th, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Those are definitely .. errm.. avant garde?
February 4th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Deconstructivist = Unfinished
Emperor < Clothes
February 4th, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Seriously — Doesn’t Dennis Hopper live in this house?
February 4th, 2008 at 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
February 4th, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 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?
February 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Really interesting article and some beautiful observations. Deconstructivism can be surprisingly inspiring despite it’s sometimes inherent nihilism.
February 4th, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 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.
February 4th, 2008 at 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.]
February 5th, 2008 at 2:02 am
i think the most important thing about Gehry and often forget.
VIETNAM!
February 7th, 2008 at 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!
February 7th, 2008 at 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.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Amazing design, but yep as people have said, a pain to fire fight!
February 11th, 2008 at 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.
February 11th, 2008 at 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.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
It’s very unique. I like it.
September 22nd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
architecture is about DESIGN, engineers are the ones that are supposed to be worrying abotu whether it’s structurally sound.
quit saying architects aren’t artist because they are. they work with engineers so that the design will be function and stable and sound. if his buildings aren’t doing that, and they’re not up to code, then dont’ be mad at him, be mad at the team of engineers that he worked with.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
hello
i hope to joint to you
October 28th, 2008 at 6:03 am
the comment about public space and gehry’s house not fitting is completely flawed, it is actually much more reflective of public space than most houses, all one has to do is get out and walk through ones city. Not just residential neighborhoods but industrial sites. Along train tracks, here you will find the chain link fence, often damaged or cut to allow the passage of public. Not the type of public you imagine though. People may say that his house is unlivable, ugly etc, what i find interesting about it is it plays with ideas of the homebuilt and available material. The only real criticism i have about architecture i have is the idea that after it is built it should be left alone. This completely destroys the idea of the living house, it has to respond to the inhabitants, as it fails in this people have always adapted building.
Trackbacks
What do you think? Leave a comment!