Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Cute Architecture

Recently Todd asked me what I thought of the new MOMA in NY, and I said it was really cute.
Todd suggested that this would the only time that this building is ever described as cute.
Is architecture even allowed to be cute?

Cute is a very diffictult thing for a building to be. It sits so close to so many bad stuff, such as cartoony and kitsch etc etc.
I’m interested in the emotion that a building expresses, even from the way that it stands in the world, from how it carries itself. The pose can express the phycology of this building, the personality. Do buildings have personality?

I suppose that is why I was never interested in processed forms like blobs or deconstructivism. I am interested in forms that relate to stuff, look like stuff, can be described. The interenet is full recognizable forms, stuff that looks like other stuff, but its also full of abstract feelings. So I am interested in my buildings to be easily describable (a cloud house) but I want the effect or the feeling produced by the architecture to be as abstract as falling in love with someone in a chatroom. The feelings that you have for that person is the new definition of abstraction.

3 comments:

newManifesto said...

what about the new hearst tower?

New Andreas said...

hmm yeah not so sure.. dont think its cute, u?

newManifesto said...

i dont know i saw just some pics i wanted to know how u liked it