I am pretty proud of my town gets a Gehry building. I loved his architecture since I saw pictures of his own home for pretty many years ago. But it's right, it is no longer new, it's if he's going to echo himself. Do not now if his architecture is getting old, maybe he is (80 next february). But: I'm still happy to get his architecture to my (very little) hometown.
Perhaps FG's buildings changed slightly our ideas about building (more freedom, let's do it if we can do it) but they do not change the way we can live with an architecture which doesn't take into acount the user. If the outside is stupendous, stimulating, the inside is more than often very disappointing except, usually, an atrium, an entrance Hall, some gesture again. The spaces are very traditionnal, the light not very well used, the details faulty. And let's not speak about sustainability. But I like very much Bilbao and some other buildings, a feast for photographers.
I would like to preface my comments below by admitting that i am as smitten with FG as most people are...however...he is an archetype of a fading (hopefully) era of 'corporate culture architecture' where the firm is business first and last and every once in awhile we do 'altruistic' for promo/marketing reasons.
EG:...how is the $500,000 Superlite chair project relevant and why does this Earth need another CHAIR? Don't we so desperately more need houses to put them (chairs) in?
If you understand the reasons for the 'carbon neutral objective', and you know that our built environment produces almost 50% of carbon emissions and you understand that Gehry's architecture/art is still 'BILLOWING' an unsustainable level of those emissions ...then your opinion of his 'art' must be tempered by this new awareness...and the only response then to the root question of this discussion is.
"YES, FG is getting old and so is his art, because it ignores the crucial new global design agenda we call 'sustainability'.
It never got "new". Did you say "architecture"? I thought so.
Emperor's new clothes as far as I am concerned.
Intellectually I can see value in some elements of his work; how can an average person appreciate, use na denjoy his tortured attempts?
For real architecture see FLW, Calatrava, Juha Leiviska, Alberto Kalach and most recently a more mature Zaha Hadid, among others.
This is a lovely piece of work by FG and I didn't mean to 'slag' him personally in my earlier comments, its more that he and most other starchitects, like 'Dan the Man' and others represent the 'fashion' driven architecture that has us all in so much trouble...and they continue to pander to the corporate and institutional dullards who are in love with the way things look, rather than the way things work.
Since with a little more imagination we can achieve both of those ideals, I am critical of any architect today who does not pursue those goals...
Attached below is another FG atrium, using sustainable engineered laminated wooden structural elements (supplied/installed by my former partner) in the soon to be completed addition to the Toronto Ago project. This will be another beautiful building...but it will still SUCK energy, and we just don't need any more buildings that are conceived with this 'moribound fashion objective, dinosaur marketing'.
hey steve !!! MICHAEL HAS A POINT ...HIS POINT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR
ARE YOU SAYING OLD OR JADED?What is "old"? We measure time according to day and night, and the years by the number of times we travel around the sun. Then of course the other question to ask is: What is "timeless"? Considering that each moment is a new one, perhaps we should take a look at our individual perception of what we are seeing, or think we are seeing. Because it does not appear to have moved/changed/evolved or restyled in our mind, does not necessarily mean it has become "old". Perhaps if we were able to see afresh each moment, then we would indeed find another world in constant change. The only thing that will have changed is our perception - not the world!