It feels like Zaha Hadid is still a misunderstood figure in contemporary architecture.
-Im keeping this comment short and superficial-
In the lecture she was giving at the AA recently, some people asked about detailing in her architecture.
It might be good criticism, as all the images presented of Zahas work are usually distant, high up shots of her buildings.
But maybe the people here its missing the point.
Her work seems to be exactly about that. The object. The shape and form of the building, which is in no way a skin, but an architectural body.
Probably, the right way to analyze Zahas work is by looking at every nook and cranny; at the geometry. The calculations and the structure.
The architectural body as an artwork of expression and pure form.
The actual shape of the building becomes the protagonist, and therefore the focus is not on the detailing, the finishes, circulation, environment, or any other subject.
And, personally I think thats fair enough. Still we might not want to consider it great architecture.
Thats a personal opinion/judgement.
I was quite skeptic about her work, but from this point of view, I think its great that she's defying all the preconceptions about architecture, the way it has to look and function, and the effort she makes to morph the modeled idea, from her perspective and methods to a built reality, which is quite a stunt.
References
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario