News
March 10, 2010
Architecture Food for Thought
.jpg)
Our first entry, from Telegraph.co.uk dares to say that architects should please the public, not spite them. Simon Heffer looks at a Daniel Liebeskind project in Dresden. “I cannot decide whether Liebeskind has been brilliant or utterly appalling.” And he points out the importance of context in the matter of Zaha Hadid’s design for a proposed extension to St. Antony’s College, Oxford. The “cross netween a 1970’s telephone receiver (in white) and a beached whale…might have been feasible in the Arabian Desert,…but this planned building would be surrounded by the Victorian villas of north Oxford.” What’s your take? How much do architects owe their clients? Us? Themselves?
And let’s cast our gaze back on these critics who have a platform to praise or criticize architects and their work. Alexandra Lange explains “Why Nicolas Ourossoff Is Not Good Enough.” Lange challenges The New York Times critic on several fronts and how he “is not making a case for keeping the breed.” Nancy Levinson continues and extends the conversation, worrying that architecture reviews as arts criticism is missing a critical point. It’s not about how a building LOOKS, but how it fulfills its need. It’s an interesting thought when applied to the Dallas architecture that has been getting so much ink these days. Whether or not you like the Winspear or Wyly or Cowboys Stadium, how do they “work”? Hmmm……..