What has been gained and what has been lost by the explosion of international cultural institutions like Zaha Hadid's new opera house in Guangzhou? What is the role of emerging architects in this type of architecture?

Certainly one of the benefits of the expansion of a cultural institution has been the acceptance of the arts as a focal point for a specific community, though whether this also implies a homogenisation of a particular kind of culture for a particular kind of community is also a question. Take, for example, the kunsthalle or contemporary art museum; is the organisation defined by the culture of the audience/community that it serves or, more narrowly, vice versa? If the latter is the case (or, at least, more the case than the former) there provides little room for manoeuvre for emerging artists to develop and grow their practice. The economy being as it is, and the emergence and growing reliance on pop-up spaces, the practice of the emerging architect is already being marginalised in favour of the planner. A very contemporary line of questioning is on urban planning and the utilisation of existing spaces, it would be interesting to hear a practitioner’s take.

Monday, April 11 at 11:58am

The scale of growth in China, but also in Middle East is offering architects a moment of unprecedented freedom. Giving architects like Frank Gerhy or Zaha Hadid the opportunity to display their sculptural sctructures. We can observe all around the globe the flourishment of spectacular architectures particularly through cultural institutions and public buildings. But in this context where a few of western or western based architects are designing the figure of the world new centers what happened to the expression of cultural diversity? Is there an emerging generation of architects who are merging their own cultural heritage and the lessons of todays masters. And when it comes to museum, is there alternatives to our contemporary way of conceiving display of art and patrimonial material?

Monday, April 11 at 2:37pm

Curiously these expensive and all too often brazen buildings speak little of what goes on in them. As architectural objects, they probably for full the remit of the commissioning bodies and architects but once the fashion has passed over the citizens are left with these buildings that poorly define their intended purpose, soon reports of massive cleaning, heating and maintenance bills become the press reports of these high flying super star buildings. This isn’t to say that many of them aren’t a wonder to gaze upon but as cities compete for the services of these types of buildings, they do so at the peril of ignoring the very elements which makes these cities interesting and impressionable. Suddenly these cities all start to look alike, feel alike and pretend to be alike, reducing the experience of these very same super star buildings

Monday, April 11 at 4:52pm

MAS Context shared some interesting comments via Twitter yesterday, looking at the topic from an urbanism and transformation perspective, and I thought it would be great to bring them into the discussion (hopefully they will join in the convo as well!):

“Being from Bilbao and seeing the complexity of its transformation, using the term “Bilbao effect” is simply wrong @glasshouseconvo”

“The Guggenheim Bilbao was part of a much bigger metropolitan intervention that addressed the city at many levels @glasshouseconvo”

“@wpachicago @glasshouseconvo The Guggenheim has been a huge success and the face of the transformation, but not the transformation itself.”

“Rough numbers from a recent lecture in Chicago on the topic: Guggenheim $200 million; transformation of Bilbao $10 billion @glasshouseconvo”

“Most of the cost being infrastructure projects (new subway, relocating port facilities, covering train tracks …) @glasshouseconvo”

MAS Context is a journal about “the urban context” which many Glass House Conversations participants have contributed to / http://www.mascontext.com / http://twitter.com/MASContext

Thursday, April 14 at 9:33am

Adding to some of the tweets that I posted yesterday through MAS Context, buildings like the Guggenheim Bilbao and other high-profile institutions can act as the public face of a bigger urban transformation. If the building is the urban transformation itself, I doubt it can be successful. In the case of Bilbao, the efforts to transform the city started 14 years before the opening of the Guggenheim (after the 1983 flood of the city) and continue today, 14 years after its completion. I think the simplification in understanding (and explaining) the efforts in Bilbao has probably misguided other cities that saw the Guggenheim as the only piece that changed a city.

Speaking at the architectural level, after the success and media attention to the Guggenheim, many other good buildings have been built in the city, some by known international architects and others by young architects from Spain. In a way, the door was opened by the Guggenheim and through open architectural competitions (for the public buildings) young architects had the opportunity to submit their projects, either individually or as part of a bigger team.

Thursday, April 14 at 2:28pm

To be franck, I can’t fathom trying to answer questions without first doing a little research.

To begin with, the role of architects in international cultural institutions follows a well established model starting in 1959 with the opening of the Guggenheim in New York with Frank Lloyd Wright as its star architect.

Since then, the phenomena has been repeated as older museums modernized their buildings, added extensions or as new institutions were created. Several exceptions emerge creating ripple-effects internationally, such as the Pomidou Center with a « Beaubourg effect » where the architectural vision of Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano prioritized an openness towards the public and a preference for contemporaneity.

Examples abound about the phenomena of cities engaging architects to create museums during the 1980-90’s, initially in the United States and in Germany.

The Guggenheim Museoa in Bilbao entrusted to Frank O. Gehry, the Tate Gallery of Modern Art entrusted to Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron, are just two examples of how cities and municipalities decided to promote or re-promote cultural institutions as symbols of national, regional or local image. Some of them acquired identity roles and others became memorial sites. In a great number of cases, renovation and design of a new institution, creates an « event ».

But the transformation of space, introduced opportunities for new functions and new services. New types of museums emerged ; the reconverted monument, the open museum, the traditional museum and the sculptural museum.

What has been gained ? Despite much criticism, an archetype has emerged. An architectural archetype can be readily recognized by the public, and one that engenders new, complex, cultural programs. New forms of museums have emerged, without permanent collections, with very diverse themes and specializations, with co-existant private-public caracteristics. Cultural institutions require creative work from a new groups of professionals. Temporary exhibitions allow deeper explorations of themes and subjects.

What has been lost ? In as much as museums are dedicated toward obtaining ever greater numbers of visitors, the more individual notions of interest, taste, and curiosity have become decreasingly important. There is a tendancy towards the reductive in relations between cultural institutions and visitors. In the effort to « reach out » toward different groups of visitors, museums have adopted various commercial strategies – products, services, advertising, co-production of events, branch locations, websites – to the point where their original purposes seem secondary.

Apparently, new models are in the process of being formed in the United States and Europe that confront various financial opportunities and constraints. Conservative, entrepreneurial, commercial and management based models now compete.

But in the world at large – the older archetype still prevails forwarding democratic and educational ideals through culture that becomes « accessible ». It is a leap-frog step, in a long process, that would normally span several hundred years, and one that emerging architects help bring to form with great talent.

Backround research for this contribution was made from Musées en Europe, Une mutation inachevée, Catherine Ballé & Dominique Poulot, La documentation Francaise, 2004

Tuesday, April 19 at 11:46am