The Rachofsky House: a modernist bachelor pad turned private art gallery (site of the previously mentioned Death-by-Meta show).

Lots of Meier trademarks here: white, strict adherence to a visibly articulated grid, sterile.  To my eyes, very beautiful as an art piece (as a home?  Well…maybe not, but then this is the typical critique of modern architecture.  [...]]]>

The Rachofsky House: a modernist bachelor pad turned private art gallery (site of the previously mentioned Death-by-Meta show).

Lots of Meier trademarks here: white, strict adherence to a visibly articulated grid, sterile.  To my eyes, very beautiful as an art piece (as a home?  Well…maybe not, but then this is the typical critique of modern architecture.  For counterexamples from the cozy-modernist set I suggest Schindler and Nuetra.).

Missing from the picture is this Koons giant balloon animal which is above the pond and the drummer-manikin perched on the roof, like a leftover from last nights kegger.  Those give it a different feel.  Also difficult to see are the structural columns which are outside the structure at the first floor and then penetrate the facade and are visible inside on the upper levels.  Nice to see the structure displayed, but the architecture shows no respect for its lines.

The fractured lawn is a Robert Irwin piece, who’s ‘wonderful’ collaboration with Meier was made famous during the Getty project; so that’s a nice choice (There’s a wonderful video of the artists’ design discussions where Meier delivers a long critique, becoming less and less subtle until he finally calls Irwin “irresponsible” for denying visitors a view of the city from part of the Getty garden.  Irwin calmly listens, looks like he’s considering Meier’s advocacy, then yells “Bullshit!” and storms out. Hilarious. Also pretty good visual evidence that Meier is an asshole.)

The house is free to visit with a pre-arranged tour, so give them a call if you’re in Dallas.  They even include Felix Gonzalez-Torres souvenirs at no additional cost.

…as Mr. Stern has suggested, the architecture will serve as subdued backdrop to what the ideas and themes the President has championed during the [...]]]> Acceptable neologism? No? Architectural + Morality has a detailed profile of the architect chosen for Bush’s Library at Dallas. Parsing statements by Robert Stern, the chosen ‘tech, Corbusier concludes:

…as Mr. Stern has suggested, the architecture will serve as subdued backdrop to what the ideas and themes the President has championed during the last eight years:

“The president, if he were here, he’d say, ‘Eventually people will not be so interested in George W. Bush but they will be interested in the ideas, the forums and debates and things that can occur,’ ” Mr. Stern said. “So I think he and I are on the absolute same wavelength in that respect.”

It seems the president would rather emphasize library’s diverse program, which include archives, a learning center and a think-tank, rather than merely generate a uniquely moving impression of grandeur and power.

I’m going to pass on the opportunity to say something snarky about what an architectural manifestation of the “ideas and themes the President has championed” would really look like.  But it does seem incredibly appropriate for the library of a president who sought to vastly expand executive power to be in neo-Georgian style, a style named for the British monarchs named George.  Despite my general hostility to the project, I hope that Corbusier’s interpretations of the intended design are correct, because they would lead to a better building and institution.

Mostly, I’m curious about what goes into the decision to take this commission.  Clearly there are Republican, Democratic, Commie, etc. architects of varying degrees of political vehemence, and it would not be difficult to find a firm that would take the project.  But at what point as an architect do you decline a commission based on your view of the client?  Bush in particular provokes very strong feelings from people, and I suspect many lefty architects would refuse to do the project.  Which is probably better for everyone, because I can’t imagine a good building being produced when the client and architect loath each other.

Anyway, just because someone was going to take the project, doesn’t mean that person isn’t a tool; they are.  My only hope is the Stern will take Raggatt’s approach to the National Museum of Australia, though I am not optimistic.