Hatred of hatred is hatred of humanity
The headquarters building of the Southern Anti-Hate Hate Hate Center in Montgomery, Alabama is one of the
ugliest structures ever conceived. Among other strange, anti-human things about it, it’s devoid of scale; I can’t tell whether it’s a 15 foot high trailer or a 400 foot high apartment block.
- end of initial entry -
Adela G. writes:
Regarding the title of this entry, my observation and experience have been that leftists love humanity, they just don’t like people. They prefer abstractions, hence the ugliness of this building. A building that is visibly related to the land on which it is situated and which has historical references to a traditional past wouldn’t suit the lefties at all.
LA replies:
“A building that is visibly related to the land on which it is situated and which has historical references to a traditional past…” Hey, that sounds like hate. We’d better get the SAHHHC to look into non-modernist architecture.
Gintas writes:
The first picture has a car in it so you can tell the scale: Massively Ugly.
LA replies:
Thanks.
The only other time I remember being so lost as to the scale of an object was when I was on the Tatshenshini River in the Yukon and British Columbia in 1992 going through glacier country. The ice falls at the front ends of the glaciers were so high and vast, the flat areas leading up to the foot of the ice falls in the distance were so vast, that there was nothing in your field of vision to establish the distances and heights. Were the ice falls a few hundred yards away, or miles away? It could have been either. It was immensity without anything to measure it by.
Other than the lack of scale, I realize the comparison is strange. These were sights of great and mysterious and awesome and frightening power, not of massive man-made anti-human ugliness.
In any case, now I know where my gal Heidi “Beria” Beirich works.
March 28
Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:
You bring up the ugliness coupled with the problems with scale that make up the SPLC building. There is so much to write about this, since it is actually a problem with many modern buildings, especially those of the last few years.
Firstly, it is common knowledge that these architects are below par—Gehry keeps getting sued for malfunctioning buildings, he also admits that he cannot draw, and many of his blueprints are basically doodles—he even boasts that his Bilbao Guggenheim is a close replica of his “impromptu” sketch. Libeskind’s ROM extension also has many structural problems, one of which is worries that drywall(!) could start falling off the walls. Libeskind was also the “chosen” architect to rebuild the World Trade Center, but they had to bring in another architect to make his design structurally sound.
Regarding the confusing scale, many of these buildings attempt to destabilize the viewer, and lack normal reference points. In Libeskind’s ROM, structures jut out onto the sidewalk, looking as though they will collapse on the pedestrians. Gehry’s Guggenheim and Disney Concert Hall lack a reference point—which is left, right, center, etc. One of his more famous buildings looks like it is about to implode any minute, being built with such a strange angles.
These two architects are by no means the only famous ones—here’s Sweden’s Turning Torso (with the top wider than the bottom, looking like it will swirl down to a collapse at any moment) designed by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava. The project, was way over budget, took years to finish, and required restructuring (or redesigning)—usually through long distance communication because the architect was always hard to pinpoint. Similar problems with Gehry and Libeskind.
I guess one common thread in these architects is their “globalism”. They don’t really care about the environment in which they build, they just want their visions erected.
But, what I think is really going on is a desire for power. How to disturb, disorient, or grab the attention of people through their structures. The transcendent quality you noticed is I think part of their hunger for power. By designing such overwhelming (in a negative way) buildings, they pull the viewer out of an ordinary mindset—for example, through fear of collapsing building, inability to center a building (where is the main entrance!), and like the SPLC and Turning Torso, placing the building with no attempt to integrate it to its landscape, or put a context to it (where is it, how big is it, etc…). They wield power over people through their buildings. I personally think that is how Muslim architecture (and design) works, but that is for another commentary!
Architecture has become a form of self-expression. Painters do it, but they are delegated to the homes of their buyers, only a few get to see their atrocities, and that is a good thing!
But architecture is a public art. It has to consider so many things from people’s reactions to fitting in with the landscape to conforming to some sort of “tradition”. These “rebel” architects are refusing to go by these guidelines, and have done a great job of convincing their patrons (governments, rich corporations) into buying their “visions.” It looks like architecture is the last frontier for them to make their mark.
Hope this makes sense. There is lot more to say. This link may be of interest. Nikos Salingaros, a fervent critic, calls this phenomenon “Anti-Architecture” or “Deconstructivist Architecture”.
LA replies:
How do these architects justify to critics buildings that deliberately disorient people? Do they say, “Life is confusing and disorienting, and architecture should reflect life”?
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 27, 2009 05:42 PM | Send
