There’s been light blogging from me over the past few days as I’ve been in Bilbao , biggest city in the Basque country and home to Frank Gehry’s wonderful Guggenheim Museum. The Guggenheim is really the main reason to visit the city and is a visual and technological marvel. The computer-generated curves link sufaces of stone, glass and most memorably titanium scales which shimmer over the bank of the Nervion river. Gehry isn’t the only architect in town, though, with Norman Foster represented by the new Metro which runs all the way out to the sea. Building the Guggenheim cost around US$100 million of public money but the effect has been to regenerate a decaying industrial city and put it back on the map as a tourist destination. Good to see a practical demonstration of the power of compulsory taxation and state-sponsored public works projects!
It’s just a shame (at least as of February 2003) there’s nothing in it worth seeing!
And not a word about Solomon Guggenheim, capitalist and philanthropist. Whose idea the whole thing was, and whose foundation provided much of the cash and all of the push.
Shame.
Doug M.
Since Solomon Guggenheim died in 1949 when Bilbao was still under the Francoist dictatorship, a personal mention of him might have been thought a bit silly, Doug. Anyway, you obviously can’t take a gentle dig at our usual breed of market-good/state-bad commenters without reacting!
Was there last summer. Nice place. (museum and city)
If you’ve got time, drive up to the coast; Bakio has a pretty beach and Bermeo is a picturesque fishing village which is a good place to have lunch.
If you like this combination of publicly funded architecture and art, you might be interested in the extension to the Denver Art Museum, currently under construction, which uses the same titanium as is used in the Guggenheim.
Funny. I haven’t been to Bilbao but I love the look of the museum from pictures. But Gehry built the Discover Music Project here in Seattle a few years after he did the Guggenheim - and I think it’s a hideous pile of junk. I mean literally - from a distance that’s what it looks like. Not the beautiful glittering gleaming set of shapes that the Guggenheim looks like in pictures, but just an ill-assorted pile of scrap. I hate it. I wish I didn’t, but I do. It’s not very beautiful close up, either.
Sigh.
No need to sigh, ophelia. When the only principle underlying the design is, “Thats a nicely crumpled bit of cardboard - scan it!” the results will necessarily vary widely from application to application.
Unless, of course, you were sighing on behalf of the city of Seattle, now burdened with a rather prominent scrapyard in its center. That would be justified.
It’s “Experience Music Project”. The reason it looks so different from the Bilbao is that it’s supposed to look “psychedelic”, in tribute to Jimi Hendrix. I actually kinda like it, though it’s not nearly as beautiful as the Bilbao. I’m alone in this, however — everyone else in Seattle hates it.
Oops, sorry, Experience, of course.
I suppose I was sighing for Seattle and the scrap heap - and even more a sigh of wishing the EMP were more like the Guggenheim.
I would like it if I could, but…
Those big slabs of red or blue transparent plastic stacked on top of each other - that you can see from all over the city - eccch.
I do quite like the shiny metal part. But that’s only one part.
Irony — yours or mine — translates poorly into this medium.
The Guggenheims of NY and Bilbao are indeed impressive achievements. But even the Googs — which are done very carefully, with years or decades of planning in advance, and in partnership with local governments — don’t always get it right; Guggenheim Soho didn’t last out its first decade. (Though I did pick up some nice prints when it folded in 2002.)
As for my reaction, it’s to /your/ “big tax funded projects good” point, Chris, not to the “usual breed”. Whatever they may be. The breed on normblog is somewhat different from the one at instapundit; and over on tacitus.org, they think I’m a bleeding heart liberal and, yes, a socialist.
But… if you really want to go there, I’ll see you the Bilbao Goog and raise you the Centre Pompidou.
Doug M.
And what’s wrong with the Centre Pompidou?
I’ve been able to like the EMP—as a landscape-lump—since I heard the description “the Space Needle dropped her dress.” I’m not so fond of it as a building, but it’s next to goofy/boring ’60s architecture already; it’s an extension of the City Themepark instead of a wart on the City Beautiful.
Good to see a practical demonstration of the power of compulsory taxation and state-sponsored public works projects!
Unfortunately, for every Guggenheim Bilbao there are 50 or 100 such public projects that don’t live up to their hype—even in terms of keeping themselves going, much less adding real juice to the local economy. Bilbao took a huge risk. It paid off for them, but this isn’t exactly a repeatable event.
Compare this to some of the UK failures:
Arts Council England finally achieved the public recognition it deserves yesterday. According to the Public Accounts Committee, it is utterly useless. This will surprise no one who has observed its activities over the past 25 years.
So it’s no accident that the Public Accounts Committee attacked it so strongly for favouring ventures whose projected attendance figures were ridiculously optimistic. Business plans are always partial works of fiction but the versions accepted by the council could be shortlisted for the Booker Prize. Who on earth was going to travel to Sheffield to pay eight quid to enter a pop museum? Other Arts Council England projects, such as Walsall Art Gallery and the Baltic in Gateshead, those that were fanfared as triumphs of the new millennium, mainly because huge sums were made available for classy pre-opening marketing campaigns, are now in serious trouble. The punters have realised that what they get is not what they want to see.
One thing which seems to be missing from this discussion is any reference to anything beyond personal preference.
I am somewhat amused and also appalled that judging such massive bits of reality — buildings are rather large you know and bulk large in our perception of the world — is done with such aimless whimsy: I like. I don’t like.
But why? do you like/don’t like? That’s the trick.
Do folks really think that that are no standards by which to judge? That it is “all a matter of taste”?
David,
I guess the first question would be - does the building fulfill internally the function for which it was designed (e.g. Does it work as an art gallery, office etc). If that holds true, then surely the external is a matter of aesthetics, especially if the building is a modern design inside an area of traditional buildings (Pompidou,Louvre and Les Halles are obvious examples). And why should the design not challenge us in a like/dislike manner? There is, after all, little else, although it might well be argued that working inside an ‘interesting’ building is psychologically uplifting.
I see the EMP far more often as part of a long-distance view than I pass it on foot. (I do like going through it on the monorail; it’s a fitting gate to the whimsical, impractical amusements at Seattle Center.)
If it were downtown, I’d judge it by very different standards, because downtown has foot flow and (a few) architectural standards to work into.
Actually, extending the park idea, I experience the EMP in Renaissance terms as a grotto.
David,
Well aesthetic judgments are notoriously difficult to ground. I do think I have grounds for mine, can give reasons, etc, but other people are always at liberty simply to have different criteria. We can argue and try to persuade, but that’s all. At least as far as I know.
“I do think I have grounds for [my esthetic jedgments], can give reasons, etc, but other people are always at liberty simply to have different criteria.”
Well, they are at liberty, in that we won’t throw them in jail, but aesthetics goes further than just subjective judgments.
We recognize this when we talk about goodness. You can say e.g. “This is good for you, even though you don’t think it is.”
You can’t do the same directly for beauty. You can’t say e.g. “You really do enjoy the EMP, even though you don’t think you do.”
However, there is such a thing as objectivity in aesthetics; it isn’t just “I like this, you like that.”
For example, I have terrible taste in wine. This means that my subjective criteria differ from the criteria established by experts in the field of wine.
So we can say “This is an admirable wine, even though you don’t like it.” and can even say “This is an admirable cheese, even though I can’t stand it.”
And what’s wrong with the Centre Pompidou?
Putting aesthetics altogether aside, it is now, and always has been, a massive money hole.
It had enormous cost overruns in construction. Just how enormous remains literally a state secret — several of the people involved are still prominent in French politics — but there’s general agreement that the official price tag of about 200 million 1975 US dollars is low. Very low.
Despite getting three to five times more visitors than the original projections, it has run at a loss continously for nearly thirty years. Completed in 1977, it had to undergo a $120 million dollar renovation in 1997-99 just to keep its doors open.
Putting infrastructure, including escalators, on the outside of a building may or may not be a good aesthetic choice. As a practical matter, though, it has been an unrelenting maintenance nightmare.
(That’s not the least of the Center’s structural and financial problems, but it is the one that still has me scratching my head. In the original version, the escalators weren’t even covered. The architects coated the metal stairs with a special acrylic, and assumed that would solve the problem. It didn’t. Among other things, it turned out that the acrylic disintegrated under prolonged exposure to sunlight.)
Doug M.
It’s probably cheating to bring in an example from the Communist world. Still, for sheer waste and stupidity it’s hard to beat the Palace of the People in Bucharest.
This 3,000 room, multibillion dollar monstrosity consumed something like a quarter of the entire country’s budget for five years. Half of the center of the city was destroyed to make room for it and its appurtentant streets and buildings.
Aside from the fact that it was made of crap materials and is now falling apart, the building has certain… inherent problems. For instance, it was originally supposed to house almost the entire Romanian government, with a total workforce of about 4,500 people entering and leaving every day.
However, the Ceausescus didn’t build a metro station under it, and the nearest metro is a couple of kilometers away. Nor did they provide parking, except for a tiny parking lot (~100 places) for the Party leaders’ limousines.
The other 4,400 people were supposed to take a bus to a special bus stop, go through a security checkpoint, then walk 800 meters across an open lawn to the Palace’s back door.
(There was also supposed to be a museum of socialist achievement inside. About this, least said, better.)
The Palace was completed in early 1989, but hardly anyone had moved in when Ceausescu fell. Today it’s operating at about 10% occupancy, a number which is unlikely to rise. Most of the building is locked and empty, and always will be.
(The Romanians originally wanted to blow the damn thing up, but found they couldn’t afford to. Putting aside the cost of the explosives, removing the wreckage would take months and cost tens of millions. Maybe someday.)
Doug M.
There are criteria for whether a building works well as a piece of the urban fabric and they are not “aesthetic.” The Centre Pompidou is a perfect example of a building which very much fails as a piece of urbanism i.e. I am thinking of it’s “Bus barn” side…a totally dead piece of city.
How the buildings looks as a piece of eye-candy is (or should be) really a somewhat minor concern. But the so-called “aesthetics” seem to trump more real issues.
That’s why there is virtually nothing of intelligence written on the Gehry in LA….people simply don’t know how to assess a building.
Doug,
Don’t forget that the reason Pompidou needed a major refit in 1997 was because it is such a popular building, (26,000 visitors/day against an initial design estimate of 5000). To me, its success implies that it must be a well designed building.
Returning to this thread a bit late; long weekend visiting friends in the former Yugoslavia.
Mark: the visitor “overload” has nothing to do with it being a well designed building. Penn Central Station is one of the worst designed train terminals in the world. Yet by 2000 it was processing about three times as much traffic as they thought it would.
The Centre Pompidou attracts a lot of visitors because (1) tourism to Paris in general has more than tripled since it was built, and (2)it has a lot of very nice attractions that are surprisingly cheap, because they’re subsidized by the French state.
When I was last in Paris, you could get into the National Museum of Art for about $2.50… probably the lowest admission price for a comparable museum in the world. (The Met in NYC does not have an official admission price; in theory you can walk in for free. But it asks for a “recommended donation” of $10, and well over 90% of visitors pay it.) You can also go to a world-class theater performance there for about $25 — less than half the cost of a Broadway show. (If you can get tickets, of course; they sell out fast.)
Now, it’s entirely possible to argue that the State can, and even should, subsidize these sorts of cultural activities. I’d hate to live in a world where only middle class folks could visit museums.
But that’s separate from whether the Center is a “well designed building”. By pretty much any objective criteria, it isn’t.
Doug M.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review