| Query: Who are the major architects of today? |
|---|
ORIGINAL QUERY:
Date:
Sun, 25 October 2009
From: Steve Wassell
<wassell (at) sbc.edu>
Who are the major architects of today? The question seems simple enough, but it quickly raises additional questions. How do we measure "major"? Do we use media coverage as a basis? Or public sentiment (and if so, how do we measure this)? Or architectural quality and significance (and if so, how do we measure these)? In any case, I'd like to get the collective opinion of the NNJ readership. Your list can be as short or as long as you like. You can give reasons for your choices or just give a list. And just to be specific, let's agree that "of today" means the architect must be living. Can anyone come up with someone older than Oscar Niemeyer (age 101)?!
NNJ READERS'
RESPONSES:
From: João Pedro
Xavier <joaopedro(at)jpx-arq.com>
I’m sending to you this address – http://www.baunetz.de/ranking/?area=ranking&type=int&lang=en – of a ranking which the own architects take very much taken in consideration. As all the rankings it has the value it has. Anyway they explain which are the criteria they’ve followed at http://www.baunetz.de/ranking/?area=info&type=warum
-------------------------------------------------
From:
Luisa Consiglieri <lconsiglieri(at)gmail.com>
My classification is based on the following items:
1. The value of an architect is given by:
1.1. the sum of the values of its works, and
1.2. the value of the sum of its works.2. The value of an oeuvre is classified the cultural character of each stage of society. At each stage, the following items should be considered:
2.1. to have at least more than one innovative conception,
2.2. to have a continuous evolution along its architectonic conceptions.3. In the present stage, the morphocontinuous behaviour should be taken into consideration (cf. (L. CONSIGLIERI and V. CONSIGLIERI, Continuity versus discretization, Nexus Network Journal 11 :2 (2009), 151--162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00004-008-0086-x).
In conclusion, the today architects that meet these requirements Office for Metropolitan Architecture [OMA].
-------------------------------------------------
From: Michael R. Ytterberg <MRY(at)BLTA.com>
The Baunetz list, as it explains, is primarily based on current notoriety in the professional media. It is not an indicator of actual production or lasting value, though interestingly David Chipperfield rates it very highly. Of course there are no traditionalists on this list of the latest style setters.
A more established list:
USA: Meier, Gehry, Stern
UK: Rogers, Foster, Chipperfield, (Quinlan) Terry
France: Nouvel, Portzamparc, Perrault
Spain: Moneo, Calatrava
Portugal: Siza
Switzerland: Herzog and de Meuron, Botta
Italy: Piano
Australia: Murcutt
Japan: Ando, Maki, Ito
Brazil: Niemeyer
Mexico: Legoretta
Finland: Leiviska
-------------------------------------------------
From:
David Vanderburgh <david.vanderburgh(at)uclouvain.be>
I honestly don't mean to be difficult, but I'm not sure that it is helpful to ask the question in the form proposed.
Most architects I know do not aspire to be "major" in or for themselves, but rather to have some rôle ("major", perhaps) in bringing a "major" work to fruition. The question I find more important is : "What allows us to designate as "major" a given work of contemporary architecture?". One might then ask with regard to each "major" work : "Who is or are the architect(s) who took part in the design?", followed by a proper appreciation of credit where credit is due -- and, no doubt, extending credit to the enlightened clients and other participants without whom outstanding works could not happen. If it so happened that a single architect appeared so regularly on the list of authors of "major" works that this latter should be synonymous with his "oeuvre", it would be interesting but anecdotal.
An example: I would be tempted to answer that Peter Zumthor is a "major architect of today" -- in a certain way it is obviously true -- but my critical opinion doesn't have much to do either with the man, whom I do not know personally, or with "today". A good number of his (firm's) built works are clearly remarkable. I think they are demonstrably "major", and I've learned a great deal from close examination of them, but it is probably because they are also not, or not only, "of today", and their conditions of possibility include the Swiss financial and artisanal context! It takes a certain amount of cultural good fortune, plus time, measured in years, decades or centuries, for a "major" work to deliver on its promises.
I would therefore propose the following reformulation of the question in two parts:
- "What works of contemporary architecture have, have had, and are likely to continue to have "major" effects on our understanding of things?"
- "To whom should we give credit for having helped to make such important things possible?"
-------------------------------------------------
Send an e-mail to respond to this query
top of page
Copyright ©2009 Kim Williams Books
