Daniel Libeskind’s Architectural Aggression
Libeskind’s addition to the Dresden Museum features a massive five-story wedge of glass, concrete and steel that slices through the Neoclassical façade of the historic 1873 building. One certainly cannot accuse Libeskind of being overly respectful of either the historic architectural context or the work of his predecessors.
A recent museum addition by Daniel Libeskind provides vivid evidence of the disdain that many Modernist architects hold not only for traditional design, but also for the work of their professional predecessors. The building in question is an addition to the Military Museum in Dresden, Germany. Not content with merely affixing an unsympathetic, context-defying appendage to the original Neoclassical building, Libeskind took the additional step of slicing through the façade of the older structure to emphasize his total disregard for historic fabric.
Interestingly, to avoid the charge of mere personal grandiosity and ego projection, Libeskind has chosen to cloak his Dresden work in political terms. Says Libeskind, “The new façade’s openness and transparency contrast with the opacity and rigidity of the existing building. The latter represents the severity of the authoritarian past. while the former reflects the openness of the democratic society in which it has been reimagined.”
To assert that the 19th-century Neoclassical façade represents “the severity of the authoritarian past” is the hoary rhetorical device of attempting to link architectural style to political beliefs. Modernists frequently deride Classicism because it was a style used during the Fascist era. This argument totally ignores the fact that Classicism has been employed by regimes of all political stripes throughout the ages. Does Libeskind also contend that the U.S. Capitol’s Classical “opacity and rigidity” represent “the authoritarian past?” Does Libeskind’s creation represent “the openness of a democratic society” more than Thomas Jefferson’s Classical scheme for the University of Virginia?
Ironically, if Mies van der Rohe had prevailed, classicists today would be deriding Modernism as “Fascist design.” Mies spent much of the mid-1930s – encouraged by the Nazis’ chief propagandist, Josef Goebbels – attempting to win commissions from the Nazi regime. It was the chance meeting between Hitler and the young Albert Speer that undid Mies’s career as a budding Nazi architect. It was only in 1937 – after despairing of ever winning any major commissions from the Nazis – did Mies move to the U.S. and unleash his theories on American architectural education. If Goebbels’s taste for Modernism had triumphed, today we would be denouncing the rigidity and coldness of Modernism as symbolic of “the authoritarian past” of the Nazi era.
Libeskind’s propensity for superimposing his vision over that of earlier architects was also shown in his 2007 addition to the older neo-Byzantine wing of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. As in Dresden, the new work slices into the original façade and significantly diminishes the historic building.
Libeskind’s false – but widely believed – linking of architectural style to outmoded political beliefs should give pause to those in the traditional design community who have cautioned against speaking out about the absurdities of Modernist polemics. “There’s plenty of room for both Modernist and traditional architecture,” they contend, and add: “People don’t like negative arguments.” Perhaps that’s true. But to this observer, it seems that the Modernists who deride traditional design are the ones getting the big public commissions today. This does not seem to be the time for unilateral disarmament.
Bad as it is, it’s better than the Royal Ontario Museum project. The Globe and Mail’s architecture critic (no friend of traditionalism) said the best thing about it was that it could probably be deconstructed in 20 years without too much difficulty.
Deconstructing the deconstructors: I’m sure Libeskind will find the irony delightful.
Clem,
HNY!
It’s been a few decades since we had lunch in Brooklyn and TB published my grandest house on Round Hill, Woodbridge CT. Since sold to a couple who put a giant horse barn & interior ring next to it, on a hill top.
Curious if you are getting either mailed BRIGHTNOTES or e-versions. If not please send me your addresses.
Best,
Jay
A society always reflects its values in its material culture, often without awareness, so to this extent I disagree with you. Libeskind’s “transparency” argument is not convincing. But Ruskin argues persuasively in “The Nature of Gothic” that Gothic cathedrals reflect an acceptance of human imperfection as well as receptiveness to the expression of the individual workman and to a collaborative, communal spirit in building, and that this represents a fundamental difference between Gothic and classical architecture in both approach and manifest style. From a Ruskinian point of view, starchitects like Libeskind are as dictatorial, not to say egomaniacal, as any “fascist” approach to building. As I said, they do what they do and — say what they say — often without awareness.
I agree that the interpretation of classical architecture as representing a form of government is somewhat ambiguous. Classical architecture was first created and popularized in ancient Greece and Rome, societies known for practicing early forms of Western democracy, though both at times were interrupted by the rule of tyrants or emperors. Possibly it was the revival of classical architecture during the enlightenment era, practiced by architects like Jefferson, and implemented extensively in places like Washington D.C. that create contemporary associations of classical architecture with democracy.
I think Libeskind’s work at Dresden is not as politically symbolic as it is perhaps intentionally surreal, calculated either consciously or unconsciously to be aggressively avant garde enough to disassociate any potential symbolic associations in its context. It would be understandable if the German military museum might create disconcerting or negative associations for the Jewish Libeskind or others of his faith, in a parallel way that the Confederate flag has disagreeably regressive connotations to some Americans. It is unfortunate that architecture and design are sometimes so overwhelmed with such associations as to make them untenable. The geometry of the swastika form appears as a decorative motif in some neoclassical buildings, though its symbolism is still often perceived as unacceptable today in ways that go beyond mere geometry.
Libeskind’s Museum addition design I would not perceive as a judgment against traditional building. It is more of an attempt to at least symbolically escape from the memories of the oppressive order of another time. The architecture is merely the language of the message, not the object of its intent.
An observation about these types of architectural interventions. I have seen the addition to the ROM in Toronto, and, aside from any considerations of rhetorics or aesthetics, the actual craftsmanship of the addition looks poor. What may have a dramatic visual impact in renderings or photographs, or from a distance, proves to be less impressive when you see the sloppy jointing of the addition to the original building, the poor setting of the windows, which look like they will have serious leakage problems before long, and metal elements that are already beginning to rust and stain. I’ve noticed the same thing with certain Gehry buildings. It’s sad to think that after all the fanfare has died down and the starchitect has collected their astronomical fee, someone will be left footing the bill for a structure that I suspect will not age well.
I have to say I agree with the last comment. It is one thing to be able to design and create a building that makes a statement, political or otherwise. However, it is another thing entirely to design and construct a building that is well-built, not merely one that looks good from the outside. Museums and other non-profits have their hands full with many costly responsibilities, one of those being the maintenance of their buildings. Having recently worked on a very small scale project at a historic house where a contemporary, glass and metal, accessible addition was added, I have seen first-hand the elaborate designs that architects can create – lovely to be sure. However, the practical side of things like what it is actually going to cost to maintain such a structure in the long term and whether it will even stand the test of time, seems to elude most architects (and perhaps some museums as well).
Not to belabor the point, but I should also mention the ramifications of dramatic, sculptural exterior designs on the interior spaces they enclose. At the ROM, for example, the interior of the Liebeskind addition creates vast, empty, eccentrically-shaped interiors that are not practical for use except within a relatively small floor area. Once again, someone will be stuck with the mundane but aesthetically necessary task of, for instance, dusting the high, angular interiors of such buildings. Dare I point out that buildings are not sculptures, nor are sculptures living spaces…
My concern is that after a mere decade his work will “ugly out” like Corian countertops. What a waste.
At least the Nazi Area and the Liebskind design have one thing in common: Very Ugly !!!
William Morris – “These old buildings do not belong to us only, they belong to our forefathers and they will belong to our descendants unless we play them false. They are not in any sense our own property to do with as we like with them. We are only trustees for those that come after us.”
John Ruskin – “…it is again no question of expediency or feeling whether we shall preserve the buildings of past times or not. We have no right whatever to touch them. They are not ours. They belong partly to those who built them, and partly to all the generations of mankind who are to follow us.
These ideas are not new. All our actions in and outside of architecture can and should show respect for those who came before us and concern for those who will follow us. All that is required is to check your ego.
Winston Churchill – “We shape our buildings; thereafter, our buildings shape us.”
Churchill was paraphrasing a popular maxim that appeared in several 19th century home decorating manuals – “Who creates a home, creates a potent spirit, which in turn, doth fashion him that fashioned.”
The question for us is – Do we wish to be fashioned by Libeskind’s creations?
When Libeskind builds a fancy on an empty lot the impact on the surroundings are perhaps regrettable, but the impact is indirect and ultimately reversible. His additions to existing buildings are a different matter. It is vandalism. Vandalism of some other man’s work, very direct and very difficult to reverse or ignore. Understand that vandalism cannot occur unless there is something of value to damage or destroy. You cannot vandalize something that is worthless. Vandalism must produce regret and loss. Vandalism is often the product of anger, envy or boredom. Libeskind gives the game away! His very actions admit that both the Royal Ontario Museum and the Dresden Museum have value while he loudly proclaims their lack of value and relevance to us. His actions speak louder than his words.