Just finished Architecture of the Absurd by John Silber. It is one of the more thoughtful and unique criticisms of architecture that I have read. Initially it seems a recycling of Tom Wolfe's whack at self-indulgent modernism. Mercifully, Silber actually knows something about architecture and the building of buildings, having supervised the construction of nearly 13 million plus square feet of space on Boston College's campus during his years as President of the school.
What makes it unique is that he is writing from the point of view of the client--an extremely knowledgeable and experienced client--of architects. Though a doctor of philosophy and law by education, his father was an architect and trained Silber in drafting and the practical aspects of architectural design, drafting and construction. Combine this background with a quarter of a century of hiring architects to design and build all manner of university buildings and you have a unique POV and analytical capability. I highly recommend it for several reasons.
First, Silber does not do a hatched job on modernism, or what followed, as Wolfe did. Instead, Silber distinguishes between good and bad in modernism and in what has followed in terms of what he characterizes as self-indulgent expressions of architecture as absurdist sculpture (i.e. the functional and beautiful as per his Beaux Arts philosophical bent vs. the absurdly conceived and poorly designed and constructed genius-ism that he thinks has overtaken architecture).
Second, Silber pulls the fascist skeletons in Corbu's closet out for a look at the same time he exposes the lunatic grandiosity of Corbu's city planning for Algier. His Algier plan frankly does seems a little like Albert Speer high on French champagne and LSD doing mat paintings for Metropolis. And his later analysis of Corbu protege Josep Sert's deeply flawed structures on the Boston College campus is all by itself worth the price of the book.
Third, he shows how even architects he thinks do superb work, like Louis Kahn, were swept up in absurd explanations of their own work--what Tom Wolfe coined theory-speak.
Pt 2
Fourth, he offers a wickedly amusing discussion of Frank Lloyd Wright, an architect he obviously respects in some ways. He recounts Wright's migration from practical, client-conscious young architect to a man capable of improperly engineering Fallingwater and being too stubborn to admit to the client, who hired a structural engineer to explore his concerns with the design, that he had botched it. In turn Fallingwater's magnificient cantilevered balconies, etc., soon crumbled and drooped and required a costly reconstruction and reinforcement that the engineer had said would be required. Silber also does us all the service of printing a photo of one of the most hideous houses I have EVER seen--Wright's Stockman residence in Mason City, Iowa, and at the same time quote's Wright's advice to young architects to start out some where other than where the intend to end up, so their early mistakes will be little seen. How can you not enjoy these sorts of insights.
Fifth, he appropriately and soundly fillets Daniel Libeskind and exposes his work for its contrived, pointless goofiness.
Sixth, he holds several of Frank Gehry's recent works up to the scrutiny of good sense and an unblinking camera, and one of my long time favorites is found sloppy and wanting. I confess I had not seen Gehry's ghastly Fisher Hall at Bard College. God forbid America is ever subjected to the kind of aerial bombardments that demolished so much of Europe and Japan, but if it ever happens we can only hope and prey that this building takes a direct hit when it is empty of persons. Gehry owes Bard an apology and should return his fee. Silber also exposes the complete ridiculousness of the space program and interiors of Stata center at MIT. Silber's only obvious pettiness, however, is reserved for Gehry. He refuses to analyse Bilbao, which betrays: a) he knows its a good building that anomalously contradicts his thesis that genius-ism and sculpture-ism spell doom for good architecture; and b) Silber disrespects Gehry. Silber also exposes the flaws in the Dorothy Chandler Pavillion without admitting its beautiful balancing of a form language of collapse and emergence, functionality and formidable presense. Silber also unloads on the Prtitzger Pavillion in Chicago, which I think works and finds the IAC headquarters in NYC passable, which I think after deliberation is an ugly building.
Like most critics, however, Mr. Silber is a far better at exposing what's wrong that doing what is right. I find the few examples of what he hired built even worse than what he is criticizing, at least visually. I will have to trust Mr. Silber that there are architects that can build buildings that don't leak and are beautiful.
Pt. 3
The first major problem that I have with Mr. Silber is that he argues that if architects were better managed by less gullible clients that their work might be better. He produces not one shred of evidence that this would occur. To the contrary he produces evidence that while the roof might not leak, the work would be boring.
The second major problem I have with Mr. Silber is that he implies a level of competance at big sychopantic, client-driven firms like SOM that much of their work does not support.
The third major problem I have with Mr. Silber is that he suggests that bureacrat-CEOs, government agency heads, and university leaders are capable of reigning in self-indulgent architects and capable of knowing what ought to be built. This position is not only wrong, but, I would say, ironically, absurd, judging by the vast ocean of crap that has been overseen and built by these types traditionally.
Like most institutional bureaucrats, Mr. Silber has a great deal more confidence in what his type are capable of than the facts bear out. What the facts bear out is that his type of bureacrat is often only sophisticated and skillful at grabbing and controlling turf and associated revenue streams. If one were cynical, one might well rationalize this book of Mr. Silber's as a skillful endeavor to give these bureaucrats even more influence over architecture than they already have. Alas, I am not as cynical as I am a creature of logic and my logic leads me to this thought. Mr. Silber essentially wants to solve the problem of institutional bureaucrats with lousy gate keeping instincts (i.e., they're the ones who have been hiring all these self-indulgent architects), by giving these lousy gate keepers even more control over the process. Doing this would be akin to giving a proven bungler even more authority.
In conclusion, like most critics, Mr. Silber should stick to criticism, which he has the training, intellect and experience to do well. And he should refer problem solving tand innovation to someone with the skill for it.
Post Script: because his book is not full of impressive architectural successes that Mr. Silber oversaw on the Boston College, I can only infer that there aren't any. If someone has visited some of the 13 million square feet that Mr. Silber oversaw the construction of and finds them to be remarkable in a positive way, please note them for me and include links to pictures.
Wary
I've been warily eyeing this book. I may need to pick it up after the holiday season has passed. I'm cautious because a) Mr. Silber is not an architect, no matter how closely he has associated with them in his family; a) it is well known around Boston just how much he h-a-t-e-s Ghery.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com