DUTCH DESIGN WEEK 2009
PRAGUE DESIGN DAYS 2009
LONDON DESIGN FESTIVAL 2009
GIZMODO GALLERY 2009
EUROBIKE 2009
MAKER FAIRE AFRICA
NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL GIFT FAIR
ISTANBUL DESIGN WEEKEND 2009
BAUHAUS SUMMER SCHOOL 2009
Posted by Jeannie Choe | 15 Nov 2007
|
Comments (7)
John Maeda has shared his thoughts of reason regarding the MIT/Gehry scuffle and describes his own leaky office situation (in a different MIT building) over at Simplicity.
...as my alma mater and employer MIT engages in suing an architectural legend and icon, I can't help but feel it's sort of like suing Picasso for a bad painting or else like suing Paul Rand for a bad logo design. It's sort of embarrassing from my perspective as a creative really. Sure I get the whole business perspective and all ... but there isn't a single day when I see people photographing the Stata Center due to its incredibly interesting and innovative forms/moments. Innovation is by nature a risky business -- it's something I learned from MIT.
Dutch Design Week
Prague Design Days
1 Hour Design Challenge Winners!
Coroflot Salary Survey Results
Comments
"a creative really"?
What's a creative really?
'Creative' is NOT a noun!
I'm going to have to disagree with John. Architects are not plumbers just as industrial designers are not engineers. However, both must take other factors into account besides their main job so that the finished product is of the highest quality. To just throw aside the issue of a leakage (which can cause damage other than a wet shirt) because said building was designed by an "icon" is just foolish. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Besides, anybody could've designed that excuse of a building. Just give me 300M and I'll design something out of this world. I'll make it quirky and asymmetrical, with random spots of primary colors just in case people didn't get that my masterpiece is supposed to be post modern. Perhaps my building will have plumbing and structural problems, but who cares? By then I'll be a legend, and people will love every minute being inside of my water drenched, possibly hazardous building.
From what I've read so far, the argument has to do with Gehry's office supposedly ignoring advice from a separate firm regarding a concrete amphitheater. It sounds like an argument about construction details, and nothing really to do with the building's "innovative" design. (Personally I love the building)
A painting or logo doesn't need to 'function' on the side. At most, a logo can always be tweaked or redesigned at far less cost than razing a building and building a new one.
Maeda forgets Gehry is not an artist. Indeed he is a creative, but not an artist. Gehry is an architect, he should make buildings in which people should be able to LIVE. Shielding his flaws behind the creativity screen is simply denying your duties.
If Mr. Maeda is more interested in existing in a piece of art than a building, then he should have his office in a "fort" made of canvas paintings. The sign and function of a building are equals in the design, one cannot be without the other. So what we have now is a beautiful building that doesn't function... why is this difficult to understand?
What's most embarrassing is defending or justifying bad design. It's shameful for John to say 'innovation is a risky business' when he isn't the client suffering the consequences of those risks. What a terrible abdication of concern and responsiveness.