Peripheral viewing of context

Researching on theories of place, and trying to find an actual article or interview of the famous quotation of Frank Gehry and his "I don't do context" line, and after watching a few of his other interviews, I'm beginning to actually appreciate his work.

The initial starter of "I don't do context" really threw me off because to me it is ridiculous to not consider the context of the site at all in any design. For one, I think it is a total disrespect to the culture and history of the site and the people there, and if it's disrespecting the people, I don't see how the design can then be successfully for the people. Unless that's not the intention of the design, to which I can already then label the design as 'unsuccessful' immediately.

But as I read his other interviews and watch his TED talks, I'm beginning to see that such a quote is doing such great injustice to him and his works. Yes he actually aims to focus on context, but not so much in the visual sense alone, or in the traditional concept of what it actually means to fit into context. I have not actually done enough research on his works thus far to analyze and investigate if they actually do reflect context, but it seems to me that perhaps there needs to be a shift in understanding of what 'context' actually means.

It brings me back to what I had written for my reader assignment on place; that another way of designing and creating a sense of place would be to cater to the social needs of the local culture, not just physically reflecting what is in its surrounding context. Although Gehry's designs may have such futuristic forms that clearly deviate from the surrounding buildings, how do they actually function? How do they actually cater to the locals? Do they entice people to stay and observe the rest of the culture? Perhaps Gehry's designs are merely the landmark of an area, the entrance or gate to the city in a way?

I suppose arguably that in that sense, maybe any form of eye-catching, ocular-centric landmark could serve the same function...but would it really? Something that is ocular-centric may not necessarily enhance the identity of place? Especially if you end up with something that's not exactly usable by the community.

But I guess my point is that, our ways of valuing and appreciating the landscape are still very dependent on the visual. "If it doesn't look like it belongs, it must not belong there." This disregards the potential social layer that the object/building might have in relation to its context, just like how the sculptures in Malaya Sadovaya may seem universal and placeless, but they actually enhance the local culture by being successfully integrated and incorporated into the daily lives of the locals.

I wonder, maybe Gehry truly is a genius beyond our time, and that if his architecture is able to last long enough into the future, may he then be truly recognised for the genius that he displays. After all, the true geniuses are always considered to be the mad ones in their lifetimes, no? That said, it also makes me realise how limited my thinking is when it comes to designing too. Still need to figure out what my own style is and what my intentions are I suppose.

And most importantly, from what I've garnered from the 2 interviews that I've listened to on TEDtalks of Gehry, every design opportunity is an experimentation. Be not afraid Jiaying, for experimentation is your only way of figuring yourself out, right?

Search Post

Label :