goldberger, again
I FORGOT TO MENTION Paul Goldberger's equally strange review of Norman Foster's new Hearst Building in midtown Manhattan. Sure, the building's diagrid structure is certainly impressive, as is the effort to enhance the skyline of a city so inundated with generic highrise construction. But is Foster really the "Mozart of modernism"? Goldberger, as is usually the case, seems overly enthusiastic and hardly offers any critical reading of the project. Shouldn't the New Yorker, a magazine with such potent weekly political, literary, and cultural criticism, find an architectural critic who has something else to bring to the table, other than wide-eyed awe and fascination?
link: Triangulation: Norman Foster's thrilling addition to midtown Manhattan
Posts
5 comments:
Bravo to these observations, and many thanks for the brave words. Here's hoping that when a few have the courage to take a stand, the backs of others will be straightened! Well perhaps that's a bit dramatic for architectural criticism, but a simple "I agree." didn't seem strong enough! Continued Success in the New Year!
I think comparing Fozzie with Mozart is an insult to Fozzie. In fact, you've just started my brain on a ranting course, about which I may have to blog myself. Thanks for pointing this article out. It's interesting for me to see how he's perceived across the pond - he is certainly the doyen of architecture here in the UK. It is very hard to criticise his work, but when he does put a step wrong, he has an incredible PR team that lays responsibility elsewhere, for example at the millennium bridge in London. And the bad things he does, you never hear about. Which you've got to admire the man for!
Actually, Hugh Pearman's article is better.
He works great!
This is a great bloog
Post a Comment