![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Aug. 5th, 2009
Gehry v. Kent
Aug. 5th, 2009 04:24 pmWhen this broke out during the Aspen Ideas Festival and later on Jim Fallows' blog, I didn't say anything. Mostly because Gehry's rudeness fell into "Dog bites man" as far as I was concerned, and because Jim accepted Gehry's... erm, statement, and I didn't want to rock the boat.
But I was catching up with David Sucher's blog, and the amazing thing to me was, in the comments to this post (with a link to the video in question -- as David says, go to minute 54), people actually defended Gehry.
That prompted this comment by me just now:
*^*^*
Let's get to the 800 lb gorilla in the room: For Frank Gehry -- Frank Gehry! -- to dismiss someone as "pompous" and "self-promoting" is hypocritical in the extreme on Gehry's part. Unless his point was, only one person can be pompous and self-promoting in his presence, and he's already taken that job, thank you. I mean, look at his core statement regarding whether structures need to be fixed (I would've used "learn") once they have long exposure to the site -- "Not my buildings!" How is that not more pompous and self-promoting than anything Kent said? Even on its own terms -- "Commission me, and a perfect structure falls as though from the brow of Zeus, and you won't have the added expense of any retrofits 10, 20, 30, 100 years hence."
The greatest irony, of course, is that Gehry is factually incorrect. When a Gehry structure goes in, the life on the street of the site is visibly, palpably diminished. Gehry is as unapologetic about that as he is because he sees no value in urban life. He's a sculptor, first and foremost, and when "little people" - critics, clients, clients' employees who have to work in his buildings, citizens of the cities afflicted with his buildings - make their displeasure known, it's "insulting." This is somewhat like a cobbler saying it's "insulting" to hear customer complaints of how the nails holding the soles onto the shoes he's made stick into the customers' feet.
And when I say "unapologetic," it is no mere rhetorical flourish. The most revealing thing is how, when James Fallows reported his discomfort with the incident, Gehry replied with a non-apology apology. That is, he doesn't say he did anything wrong, no, he just "apologize(s) for offending you." Translation: "If only you hadn't been offended, and if only you didn't write for The Atlantic, there wouldn't be anything to apologize about." (Full disclosure: Fallows and I have corresponded on other topics.)
A friend of mine has said the point of etiquette is to make the other person relaxed and at leisure. This episode has only shown that Gehry understands that idea as well as he understands the impact of his structures on the communities where he places them -- Not at all.
But I was catching up with David Sucher's blog, and the amazing thing to me was, in the comments to this post (with a link to the video in question -- as David says, go to minute 54), people actually defended Gehry.
That prompted this comment by me just now:
*^*^*
Let's get to the 800 lb gorilla in the room: For Frank Gehry -- Frank Gehry! -- to dismiss someone as "pompous" and "self-promoting" is hypocritical in the extreme on Gehry's part. Unless his point was, only one person can be pompous and self-promoting in his presence, and he's already taken that job, thank you. I mean, look at his core statement regarding whether structures need to be fixed (I would've used "learn") once they have long exposure to the site -- "Not my buildings!" How is that not more pompous and self-promoting than anything Kent said? Even on its own terms -- "Commission me, and a perfect structure falls as though from the brow of Zeus, and you won't have the added expense of any retrofits 10, 20, 30, 100 years hence."
The greatest irony, of course, is that Gehry is factually incorrect. When a Gehry structure goes in, the life on the street of the site is visibly, palpably diminished. Gehry is as unapologetic about that as he is because he sees no value in urban life. He's a sculptor, first and foremost, and when "little people" - critics, clients, clients' employees who have to work in his buildings, citizens of the cities afflicted with his buildings - make their displeasure known, it's "insulting." This is somewhat like a cobbler saying it's "insulting" to hear customer complaints of how the nails holding the soles onto the shoes he's made stick into the customers' feet.
And when I say "unapologetic," it is no mere rhetorical flourish. The most revealing thing is how, when James Fallows reported his discomfort with the incident, Gehry replied with a non-apology apology. That is, he doesn't say he did anything wrong, no, he just "apologize(s) for offending you." Translation: "If only you hadn't been offended, and if only you didn't write for The Atlantic, there wouldn't be anything to apologize about." (Full disclosure: Fallows and I have corresponded on other topics.)
A friend of mine has said the point of etiquette is to make the other person relaxed and at leisure. This episode has only shown that Gehry understands that idea as well as he understands the impact of his structures on the communities where he places them -- Not at all.
Tags: