Andy Warhol = Rem Koolhaas

Where I started going in my last post, but never reached, was my idea for a new architectural publication. Based upon Andy Warhol's Interview magazine, there should be an "Interview for Architects." So instead of interviews of celebrities and the glorification of their lives, we would interview architects and illuminate their offices and work.

The first half of magazine would be having architects interview other architects. One month Bernard Tschumi could interview Jun Aoki and then, the following month, Mr. Aoki could interview David Adjaye. And this cycle could continue, switching in and out of different architectural circles, geographical locations and allowing the evolving discussion to fluctuate depending upon the interests of interviewer and subject.

The second half of the magazine would be the general graphic design and layout. With the interviewer acting as a guest designer, each interview would be accompanied by a curated layout. So we would get Jun Aoki through the eyes of Bernard Tschumi; with the interviewer having a reasonable control over what we see and hear from the subject.

I hope that this format would lead to deeper analysis/criticism than is expected out of most architectural periodicals. With architects looking to outdo one another or pin their competitors, the possibilities for actual architectural discussion without the drivel about practice/sustainability/or other Arch. Record favorites could be avoided. Freeing architects to talk about architecture without being burdened by building.

But if this magazine were truly based upon Andy Warhol's model, there will need to be five pages of ads for every page of content. In that regard, maybe the project is better undertaken by Rem Koolhaas rather than myself.

Stop, Collaborate, and Listen

Learning from Vanilla Ice and Charlie Rose

Although I have not watched the full episode of Charlie Rose from last week, where a panel of Pritzker Prize-winning architects discussed architecture, I did watch enough of it for it to be floating in and out of my thoughts for the past week. A particular exchange between Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid stuck me as particularly awkward, and the more I thought about, the more I thought that it should have been one of the great moments of post-modern architecture.



During a segment on competition and routinely competing against each other, Jean Nouvel pointed out that Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid do not want to work together. Mr. Gehry claims that they had tried once and Ms. Hadid's response was nothing more than an articulated roll of the eyes. Without ever having been in their offices, I have heard about certain megalomaniacal traits that each of these popular and powerful architects possess, so it is easy to understand why a working relationship between these two giants is not possible.

While I understand this reality, I don't want to accept it. In my opinion, there is not enough collaboration in contemporary architecture at the world scale. Sure, it exists in offices and between design architects, clients, artists, and consultants, but I don't think we will ever see a serious project designed or built by Gehry/Hadid Architects. Well, maybe in Dubai.

At first, it seems like novelty to bring two notably renowned architects into a collaboration and I don't mean to suggest that every major project be undertaken by an architectural dream team, but I think some very interesting projects could be developed through a collaboration like this. Just think back to the Rogers/Piano team and the creation of the Centre Pomipdou. Granted this pairing occurred two decades before the Pritzker Prizes came calling, but the collaboration resulted in what may be the greatest postwar urban improvement of Paris.

So perhaps it is time to start playing musical chairs with our architects. Monica Ponce de Leon & Nader Terani can trade-off with Lise Anne Couture & Hani Rashid for awhile or Herzog can go hang out with Steven Holl while de Meuron hosts an exchange with Kengo Kuma and Associates. I would like to think that the overlapping visions and philosophies would lend a more complex interpretation of what contemporary architecture is or what it could be if the thought and practice was invested.*

*Note: I hope that this line of thought would lead to something more than an architectural "exquisite corpse," like that damned Hotel Puerta America.

And before I end, we return to Charlie Rose because I always find myself noting Mr. Rose's axiom, "I believe there is a place in the spectrum of television for really good conversation, if it is informed, spirited, soulful." And this is probably why his talk show remains a classic, both for its consistency and for its diverse range of topics and guests. It is also why I generally get very excited when architects and artists are scheduled to appear on his show. And most of this post relates to the fact that I think there is a need in architecture for really good conversation. Thank you Charlie for fulfilling this need occasionally between world political, economic and cultural leaders.