What if I told you it was by one of the defining architects of the 20th century?
Read the main article.
Personally, I think this amounts to needing to needing to scrape off a van-gough early (ie not famous) painting in order to use the canvas for another painting. Can't this be moved or something? It needs to be demolished for the subway? What?
8 comments:
I mean, it's pretty ugly, and it's not like it's his only building in Chicago. To me it's worth absolutely nothing, but, then again, so is a non-famous Van Gough painting (if one exists, which I doubt). I know admittedly little about both artists, and as a result, I have little attachment and appreciation for them or their work, and so their work holds no value for me. I recognize my ignorance here, and will call myself on it before someone else does.
I think this question centers on personal context and what things and people a person has come to value over the course of their life. My artistic knowledge surrounds music and literature: I know a lot about both, and there are musicians and writers, and songs and books, that are near and dear to my heart. If I were to hear about something of theirs being destroyed for some reason, I might be upset (though music and books are very different, since they can be copied and reproduced over and over again). If a First Edition copy of Oscar Wilde's De Profundis somehow miraculously came into my ownership, I would have an easy time placing the book above the building in question (even without owning it, the book is worth more to me). Even though there is more than one, even though it can be reprinted to be the exact same text, it is a text I love, and its author is someone I consider brilliant and hilarious in every good way. I admire him and his art, so his work is something I value above any building of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's (especially if it's an ugly one . . .).
If I were to learn about him, or about Van Gough, or any other artist I'm not familiar with, and be exposed and familiarized with their work so I could appreciate it, my answer might change. Like the article says, we might not know the impact of this decision immediately. I might return to the article one day after learning about Ludwig and be furious.
But for now, to answer your question, yes, I would demolish the building.
I'm also unawares of this architect and his historical/artistic importance, but it's still quite interesting.
"If someone found a demo tape of Jimi Hendrix trying to tune up for three hours, it'd be worth a fortune. Or if you found out a rubbish doodle on the back of an old fag packet was actually by Picasso, you wouldn't think of throwing it away, would you? And then there's movie memorabilia: William Shatner sold his kidney stone for £14,000."
That point seems empty to me. I think the author is confusing artists with celebrities. I won't deny that Picasso and Hendrix were artists, but the mere fact that someone will pay a great deal of money for something does not necessarily mean that thing is worth such a sum.
And if William Shatner is an artist, I'm a fucking scientologist.
No, I wouldn't throw away a rubbish doodle by Picasso, or a demo tape, but those things are far more practical to keep than a building.
I think moving it is a worthy compromise.
I feel like I should clarify that just because the building holds no value for me, and just because I am entirely apathetic about its fate, I know that many people do see value in it, and for them I would do my best to save it somehow.
Or maybe demolish it and sell the bricks for thousands of dollars. (Just kidding.)
I also agree with Amanda, and I don't think people are upset about this because the building is worth some amount of money, but because it is worth something to them emotionally. The value here is not monetary, so the examples the author of the article gives of the doodle, demo, and kidney stone are hollow if all they are worth to someone is what they can sell it for.
Sara, I like the way you think, and I truly mean that.
meis van der rohe is the father of the modern skyscraper, the glass and steel look. becasue i have studied this, i have learned about his designs and theories, ive read some of his treatise, to me this is important, as it is in context with the rest of the campus. but as to weather or not it fits into city planning or a historical landmark ,or just worth noting its importance, i find no problem with it being torn down. i feel that cities grow and move, buildings come and go. if the use of a utility hub is no longer in use, then it no longer has right to exist as such. most famously stated by the architect, less is more. we shouldn't keep something just becasue it has a famous designer, many buildings are destroyed,especially if damaged or condemned. the building should be documented as part of the campus design, and remembered in that context. otherwise, its purpose is needed elsewhere. to turn it into a gift shop as the author states is worse than destroying it.
Wow you guys have made me rethink my position. I think my initial reasoning is that, similar to what the article writes, is that its more or less the work of an artist. Sara, don't you think that campus will lose something if the building was knocked down? You and I went there, so maybe you can say in your opinion d'artiste.
Amanda, yeah, I agree the analogies (or are they metaphors?) need to lose it. I can't say that Van Der Rohe spent all that much effort on this particular building or that it was at the early end of his career. Thus, the issue comes back to overall cohesion of the campus. I really do feel like the campus would lose something.
Or at least I did until I read Steph's post. I think you're right on the money, just as long as we can keep the 860 Lakeshore standing.
In my opinion d'artiste, which in all honesty is not really qualified to approach this topic and will probably make me sound like a giant douche, I have to say that the campus was rather hideous. My aesthetic is quite the opposite of every building that I remember seeing that day, so if the campus were to lose anything, it would be probably the ugliest of several ugly buildings. I don't care if he was groundbreaking, or that the campus is one of the greatest examples of modern architecture in the vast universe. Butt. Ugly. And something I was/am incapable of appreciating without knowing more about.
(Hello again, ignorance and apathy! I hope I wasn't too blunt.)
HOWEVEAH! If I look objectively at the situation, or step into the shoes of the campus and others who are concerned about this, I can definitely see how the destruction would be a loss of something important. As a part of a "collection" the building is part of what the campus uses to define itself. It's certainly obvious that they're pretty damn proud of the fact that this guy designed their campus and its buildings. If they lose this building, that's part of their collection being destroyed. From my perspective, if I had a collection of something I considered valuable and a part of it was going to be taken away, I would be upset. No collector of any kind wants their collection to be disturbed or diminished, or if it is, they want to be the ones to do it. So I certainly understand the campus' perspective on it. Then again, most collections aren't in the way of a subway expansion project.
The campus will lose something certainly, but I won't be one to feel the loss.
A round of high-fives for the brutality!
Awesome.
Post a Comment