seriously though, there are untold thousands of good, competent, original architects with who toil as CAD monkeys. celeb ANYTHING is dumb. too bad people don't realize that access to money, connections, and PR helps to elevate certain architects to starchitect status.
In spite of everyone's seeming abhorrence of "celeb" architects, there are real reasons why those people have risen to the top of their profession.
They have something to say. And they've made compelling arguments for their point of view.
Yes, there are untold thousands of faceless architects who contribute to our environment every day. But let me tell you, as someone who has worked in the trenches of architecture, there are equally valid reasons why many of those architects deserve the oblivion they are consigned to.
What I'm interested in are those architects who really have something to say, but for whatever reason have been ignored by the media. Perhaps because their message is not au courant.
__________________
"Architecture is the art of how to waste space." - Philip Johnson
just like hollywood, or designer jeans, or most every other industry, architecture, especially the small domain of celeb architecture, is not a complete meritocracy?
architects must have talent, knowledge, ambition, people skills, etc. to move up. of course, possession of these traits does not guarantee any sort of recognition beyond that of his/her coworkers. some of my profs, and some of my colleagues possess(ed) basically everything you'd want in an ideal architect. mind you, these people weren't struggling artists surviving on mac 'n cheese. their talent was rewarded, 'cept none of them entered the domain of the hyper rich and famous.
i'm not saying this out of spite. i'm saying this because it's what i've seen. jessica alba and keanu reeves achieved fame and fortune, but are these mega-actors quantifiably better than all their no-name counterparts busing tables?
anyway, to get back to your question; it's hard to pick out just one underrated architect. there's a lot more talent out there than there are opportunities for these architects to express themselves. and if they're stuck working at dorky jobs because they're committed to paying for rent and food and other mundane expenses, they'll have even fewer chances to show their worth.
i can see why you may dislike the spirit of the overrated celeb architect thread, but you do have to wonder why some of these high-dollar projects get chosen.
If one of those talented starving architects ever "makes it," then he or she is usually automatically relegated to the "over-rated starchitect" category by geeky/self-righteous SSP boys.
Ultimately, the starchitects are just that, they're stars with a lot of money and power. Something obviously a lot are envious of and resentful of anyone that gains that title and status.
Oh, so where are the under-rated architects? Anyone? C'mon, the world can't just be filled with over-rated ones. Or is it just not as fun to tear apart someone's reputation as it is to lift it up?
anyway, to get back to your question; it's hard to pick out just one underrated architect. there's a lot more talent out there than there are opportunities for these architects to express themselves. and if they're stuck working at dorky jobs because they're committed to paying for rent and food and other mundane expenses, they'll have even fewer chances to show their worth.
I can believe that. I wouldn't say celeb ANYTHING is always bad though. Some famous architects deserve to be famous, & so do some not-so-famous architects. & it works the other way also.
the thing is, even with the most worthy famous architects; fans and patrons are drawn to the name, not the actual work. it works to the favor of the famous architect, and definitely benefits his/her handlers, but it does a disservice to the architecture itself.
the thing is, even with the most worthy famous architects; fans and patrons are drawn to the name, not the actual work. it works to the favor of the famous architect, and definitely benefits his/her handlers, but it does a disservice to the architecture itself.
that's true also. basically someone should go to an architect only after finding out about them & their work.
Ralph Erskine and Richard Murphy
One is postmodernist English/Swede who designed for the people, not the function
Erskine; Greenwich Millenium Village, London
and the another is contextual and subtle, a rarity today
Murphy; Cowgate, Edinburgh
__________________
The stink of excellence in a world gone tits up.
ahhhhhh another Louis Kahn groupie! Too bad there aren't more pics of that Bangladesh legislature around, especially the inside. I also like the Salk Institute in La Jolla:
I would have to say any architect that you never heard of, yet are out there practicing amazing architecture. Actually, most of those architects would rather stay underrated because then it allows their work to speak on its own long after they are gone.
I would have to say any architect that you never heard of, yet are out there practicing amazing architecture. Actually, most of those architects would rather stay underrated because then it allows their work to speak on its own long after they are gone.
I'm sure many of those aren't in the business for fame & fortune. They're only interested in designing buildings for their clients, & being respected by their peers.
Too bad there aren't more pics of that Bangladesh legislature around, especially the inside. I also like the Salk Institute in La Jolla:
Linear Mode
