Landscape is our Sex by David Heymann

[Edward Flaherty]

Dear Readers,

The entire essay can be found at: http://m.designobserver.com/places/feature/landscape-is-our-sex/31228/

David wrote:

“Landscape is good; building is landscape; therefore building is good. One hears this three-car train of logic constantly in architectural discourse today. It’s an enduring staple of public design presentations, magazine articles, student reviews, architects’ written descriptions of their own work, and — as noted — public lectures. Nothing sells like landscape. It’s our sex.“

 

My questions to readers are:  

1. Is the ‘landscape’ being co-opted by architects as claimed in David Heymann’s essay?

2. Do we agree with the strength, depicted by Heymann, of the ‘landscape image’ in the public eye?

 

Thank you,

Edward Flaherty

 

[Roland Beinert]

I read this article yesterday, and I came to the conclusion that he was talking about the sometimes ridiculous reasons starchitects give for choosing design features. The architect picks a feature of the local landscape then tells a nice story about how it inspired him/her to make a building that looks like an ameoba or something. This is something all designers, even landscape architects, do sometimes. I’ve done it before myself.
Sometimes, though, architects really are inspired by the landscape. I actually like the work of Glen Murcutt, who was mentioned in the article.
So, I don’t think he was saying ‘landscape’ has been co-opted.
I do agree that the landscape image has strength in the public eye, maybe because it ties the building to a place.

[Andrew Garulay, RLA]

Different designers get inspiration from different sources. Sometimes they are practical, sometimes philosophic, sometimes metaphoric, and sometimes a bunch of BS to justify something they just plain wanted to do. It matters not which design profession. That diversity is a great thing because it offers choices to the real people behind the project to choose a designer to meet their needs.

 

I don’t think any of us need to feel threatened by architects “co-opting” the landscape. Responding to existing conditions is just plain practical (interesting to think how the Mac Computer building design fits into this). Architects manipulating the landscape to better work with their buildings is not inherently bad either unless they are incompetent at doing so.

 

Any audience can be programmed and/or diverted to see a project in a certain way to some extent. I will be presenting a 1970’s condo re-vitalization landscape plan to the residents of 14 buildings later today. This is not a strip out and start over landscape. Some areas were well maintained, some were re-landscaped by unit owners, some had odd things added by unit owners, some lost a plant here or there that were never replaced, …. a complete hoge-poge without a big budget. The people who are a mess will get all new landscaping. The people who did a good job maintaing things will get nothing. The people who willy-nilly tossed in plants will lose them. Some will get a few new plants and some much needed pruning and thinning. They will all be paying for it. Half my presentation will be to re-program them into seeing the project from a perspective other than what they are getting at their own unit. It works, for the most part (this is the seventh village in this condo that I have done this for).

 

The big lesson in the article is not what direction architecture is going regarding the landscape or what the public perception of the landscape is. It really is about shaping your audience to respond possitively … or not. Design as a business is not all a competition of ideas and flashy drawings. It is about relating to and the perception of those whom you are designing for.

[ida]

I wish when architects are inspired by landscape, they should consider the functional aspect of the spaces and not just form. Somehow I think a Zaha building is too static and rigid to be considered landscape, and unfortunately the exterior spaces of her buildings are just as static and anything but dynamic as what landscape or nature truly is.

Function-wise, a modernist box where you can open and close windows and move walls is much more natural and has a more unique connection to its place than a Zaha sculpture.

[Trace One]

I think the article is about how deceptive architects are being, and use the comfy dialect of site to convince, whicle their true impulse right now is to be brutalist and modernist in the extreme. Zaha Hadid is an excellent example of brutalism, in my opinion..

So I agree with Roland, this writer  is not interested in co-opting, it seems like he really doesnt think architect CAN work with landscape effectively.

But I disagree with Roland, in the strength of ‘landscape image’ – I don’t think landscape is anywhere, in the public’s eye..I mean look at that Hadid building..where are the benches? yet she gets it built. 

[Roland Beinert]

What I meant was the image of some landscape or feature of the landscape within the region that people love, not necessarily the landscape outside the building. That sort image has a lot of power, I think. We tend to associate the regional landscape or famous landscapes with a place. I associate Moscow, ID, where I live, with the rolling hills of the Palouse, for example. So if the architect associates the building with an important landscape or feature associated with a place, the building is tied to that place in some people’s minds, even if the building is horrible and brutal.
That makes sense, right?

[Andrew Garulay, RLA]

Context vs. Scenario

 

If the context does not actually match, some designers program the observers with a story line in order to create a scenario in which the building fits.

 

You  can look at it as a sham or you might be the type that is intrigued by the whole thing and think it is great. … you know, the Martha Swartz bagels and such, or the abstract art that hangs in a museum*, or a Haiku. Some people get a thrill out of it while others think it is lame. It is diversity of design. No one is right, no one is wrong. It is all perpective and/or perception.

 

*Roland, a piece in the U of I gallery that I saw in 1983 had potatoes attached to the wall in a triangle. One at the top, two in the middle. Three below. The sign below read “One potato, two potato, three potato, floor”. My skirt did not blow up, but obviously others felt it was gallery worthy. Without the sign, the composition was nothing.

[Trace One]

Yes, roland, I agree with you in that explanation..It certainly was an interesting article! Took a while to get through.

[Andrew Garulay, RLA]

If landscape is compared to sex than it is likely that there are different orientations, some fetishes, ….. and some perversions with the bottom line being that pleasure is the driving force.

 

I think it has similarities including intolerance when it does not match our own inclinations.

[Trace One]

Or you could also say, if architects’ landscape is sex to them, they are not getting a lot! But I would not be surprised, judging by the architects I have known..(kidding!)

🙂

[Andrew Garulay, RLA]

Some would say that landscape architects are getting ……

 

 

…. by architects.

 

I, for one, don’t have a problem with landscapes being created by others. You have to have dark in order to see the light.

[Roland Beinert]

One potatoe, two potatoe, three potato, floor? Brilliant! That may inspire my next project.

[Andrew Garulay, RLA]

Looks like a flashback to Idaho 1988 with that Dan Quayle spelling of potato. … I met him in the state house there. …Weird, no kidding, he just popped up on my tv right now. Freaky coincidence!

[Roland Beinert]

You say potato; I say potatoe.

Not sure why I spelled it that way. My brain switched on for the last one.

[Andrew Garulay, RLA]

All in good fun. You probably heard the same report in the backround on the radio and it triggered a subconscious response. Or it comes from seeing “Famous Potatoes” on the license plates every day. Weird that they add the “e” when it goes plural.

[Author]

Posts