Vanity Fair surveyed 52 architects, educators, and critics asking "What are the five most important buildings, bridges, or monuments constructed since 1980?" and "What is the greatest work of architecture thus far in the 20th century?" The results, in the August issue and online, overwhelmingly pointed to Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. For an insightful assessment of the results, AAO turned to noted architectural journalist Edward Lifson, Loeb Fellow at Harvard's GSD and former NPR contributor and host of the design-focused radio show "Hello Beautiful." Currently, Lifson is in China interviewing architects about their 2010 Expo pavilions. AAO staff member Katherine Stalker caught up with him to discuss the VF survey, about which he said, "The list transforms Vitruvius's commodity, firmness and delight to bling, ego and commerce."
Read the full interview below.
Katherine Stalker (KS): What do you see as emerging themes? On the other hand, what about these buildings represent timeless human interests?
Edward Lifson (EL): The emerging theme is that we are building less in the west for now. So it’s a good moment to take stock of where we are and the road we’ve traveled since 1980. The hottest theme in architecture currently is sustainability, but that may not be sexy enough for Vanity Fair, as this survey barely goes there. The list transforms Vitruvius’s commodity, firmness and delight to bling, ego and commerce. But the “winner” - Gehry’s Bilbao - is delightful and we do see sensitive, uplifting and responsible projects mentioned throughout the replies.
Timeless human interests? Well, Bilbao does represent those. It gathers up the raw energy of the community around it, polishes it, and turns labor into art; turns the expenditure of human energy into a place that gives one a new kind of energy. Bilbao is one of those rare buildings that has a heart, you can almost feel it beating in the atrium to which you return after depleting yourself in the galleries. The atrium architecture brings you back to life, reopens your eyes, and lifts your body; readies you to return to the galleries, which, after all, are exhausting, as any good museum experience is. Bilbao is a good campfire: it shines, people collect around it, it dances, like any good ship in a port, it has many stories to tell to anyone who will listen. In these ways the Bilbao Guggenheim represents and satisfies timeless human interests. Who doesn’t want joy, dance and light?
KS: Do you agree with the message that this is sending the general public about architecture?
EL: No. The story focuses too much on monuments. Life is filled with more common buildings. Let’s make them meaningful. Good buildings need not express novel individuality; they can be designed with more collective good sense. Gehry’s is such an individual path; I hope this does not encourage his imitators. The headline says the article will tell us “the most important piece of architecture built since 1980.” I think they mis-define “important” as influential and original. And the story is a missed chance to explain better to people how architecture works, how it transmits its messages. Here each firm is developed as a brand, little mention is made of the collaborative nature of the practice, or of the needs to respond to site, landscape, program, etc. It’s as if Frank, Renzo, Rem, Zaha and the rest are being judged for Oscars. Not healthy.
KS: What, if anything, surprised you about this list?
EL: I’m flabbergasted that the respondents allowed their answers to be made public. Whichever friends they left off their lists will be ticked, no? And a lot of how people answered is about friendships and chits. It’s amusing, and more or less predictable, if you know the personalities to see who named themselves.
I’m a little surprised that Gehry triumphed, although that pleases me. For some time already it has cool to diss FOG. His colleagues do it, architecture students do it, journalists do it. So I was a little surprised that in a magazine that thrives on cool, Gehry got the votes. Then again, the respondents skewed older. Then again, if VF is so cool, why the need to mention a leaky roof in an article on architecture?
I’m also surprised that Gothic cathedrals emerge as a gold standard. For me enough modernist masterpieces exist that we need not reach back so far for architecture that truly moves the spirit.
KS: What are your thoughts about architects voting for themselves?
EL: This goes back to the discussion on whether so much individual expression in architecture (and in society) is a good thing. But if we accept for a moment, that this is the way things are, then good designers must believe in themselves. To get anything even above-average built is so difficult that if good architects don’t believe in themselves we’re all lost. Don’t worry, they do have some ego. And it’s not going away.
KS: Do you think that the list indicates more of an interest in how buildings look or how they are used?
EL: Clearly this is about how buildings look. It’s not about how they work, what they cost, environmental impact, any of that. Sadly, it’s not even about, in a profound way, how they affect us.
KS: If you had organized the survey, what two questions would you have asked the architects?
EL:
1. What can you do as a designer to help more Americans care more about the quality of the built and natural landscape?
2. How can you help increase optimism in the west, like the optimism that Chinese people and clients seem to have? Don't you wish you spoke Mandarin?