Gehry as Lear?

Frank Gehry is designing a new house for himself and his family. Says the architect:

“The whole design is set up so that you can break it back down into its individual lots,” he said. “So when we’re gone, the kids can sell off parts of it if they want to, or get rid of the whole thing. It’s really for them.”

Weird literary parallels notwithstanding, the article is an interesting one for the insight it gives into Gehry the man: the piece was authored by a friend, and sheds light on the emotional side of things. For instance, his process and his past:

That lack of sentimentality — that sense that memory can be a prison as well as a source of inspiration — is essential to his creative process. He has said that he even needs to create some personal discomfort to force himself into new creative territory: dwelling in the security of the past, he argues, can be a trap.

Though I suspect this might be a pretty accurate description of most artists’ creative processes, it was nice to see it articulated.
Why does this matter to me? He designed MIT’s latest addition, Building 32, which to my chagrin is more commonly known as the Stata Center, and as a result I find myself curious about the man behind the sheet metal. A quick web search provides a link to this article, which is interesting insofar as it has essentially the same title as the Gehry article from the New York Times which started this whole entry, with “MIT” in place of “Frank Gehry.”
I’d argue that Building 20 was MIT’s dream house, but I’ve already been over that at length and so will spare you.


2 thoughts on “Gehry as Lear?

  1. I really like the house Gehry lived in circa 1978.
    His bathroom medicine cabinet was actually a small
    double-hung window in front of the shelves. The
    glass had been refitted with a mirror. Very clever.

  2. Friend-of-Thought, Please clarify for me why it is that “clever” (in the modern context, not the ‘gentle’ definition — and drop the ‘very’) is a value to be admired. We almost all and almost alway chuckle when we see it, imagine that “it” in our own lifestyle] situation, and then move right along to what we were about without further reference to it because…is it because it really does not matter, that ‘clever’ has no particular lasting quality UNLESS touched by further human imagination, that quality that we call “genius,” because someone says “Aha, [cleverª], if matched with or married to x=Wow! something really useful and lasting” — Is that it?/Friend-in-Wonder

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s