Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Sketches of Frank Gehry (Film)

  1. #16
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ablarc View Post
    Why, sure!

    LOL. Are you bored ablarc ?

    We'll have to agree to disagree . I must say, though, that he came across quite differently than I expected in the interview I posted. Not an ego maniacal, self-indulgent exhibitionist at all . He still designs some monstrosities, however, IMO. Lovin' Beekman, though .

  2. #17

    Default



    Gehry has been dropped from the Museum of Tolerance (Hah!) in Jerusalem. I can only say thank god. It is offensive in the extreme. More proof that Gehry is one of the worst architects I have ever seen.

  3. #18
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    No matter what one thinks of the design Gehry is best out of this one, which seems ill advised based on the location ...

    “This is the right decision for us,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the Center’s Founder and Dean. “The good news, however, is that the project is moving forward; we have a fantastic site in the heart of Jerusalem ...

    The project has been plagued by fury from within Jerusalem which halted the project for two years, and a petition against the project following planning approval in 2008.

    Several well-known architects petitioned against the decision, which would have seen Gehry's flamboyant design bound for permanence on the site of an ancient Muslim cemetery, claiming the plans were a 'blow to peaceful co-existence'. Will Alsop, Charles Jencks, Richard MacCormac and Eva Jiricna all signed the petition which read: "The site in Mamilla, near Jerusalem's Independence Park, is on disputed burial land taken over by the Israel’s Land Administration in 1948, whose ownership is claimed by the Islamic authorities.

    "To pursue this divisive project that will include "two museums, a library-education center, a conference centre and a 500-seat performing arts theatre, would seem highly insensitive, a statement of Israel's hegemony over the Palestinians, rather than any expression of 'tolerance'. All the architecture in the world cannot engender harmony on the basis of trampling over people’s rights and history. It is inflaming passions in an already combustible Middle East, and will push any peace accord further off the horizon."

    The petition went to the high court but was over-ruled on the basis that in 1960, no objection was received for the construction of a parking lot on the same plot of land. The new architect is due to be named shortly, according to the statement.

    Over-ruled but based on a questionable precedent ^

  4. #19
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    A Debate on Frank Gehry’s Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem

    Critical Inquiry [pdf]
    Univ. of Chicago

    In the spring of 2009, Critical Inquiry received an article from Saree Makdisi critiquing the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation’s proposed Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem. Designed by Frank Gehry, the proposed museum has been the subject of controversy since it was first proposed. The chosen site was on one of the oldest Arab cemeteries in the Middle East, and the project has been the focus of impassioned debate and legal action since its inception.

    Makdisi’s article, in our view, provided a strong case for questioning the morality and legitimacy of the proposed siting of the Museum, and beyond that, for considering the whole debate as a microcosm of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We therefore accepted the article for publication with the idea of soliciting responses that would fairly represent the major positions on the issues. We began by inviting Frank Gehry himself to respond, which he agreed to do. At the same time, however, he requested that Critical Inquiry provide space for a response from a team of Israeli scholars that Gehry regarded as more conversant with the complex legal issues surrounding the choice of site. Insofar as Makdisi’s article raised questions about the formal character of Gehry’s design for the Museum, it also seemed advisable to solicit a response from an expert on his architectural work. Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe, who has written extensively on Gehry, was thus invited to respond. And finally, Daniel Monk, who has published studies on the role of struggles over monuments and holy sites in the perpetuation of this conflict, and is the Director of Colgate's P- CON program, was invited to provide some further perspective on the issues.

    The whole dossier is gathered here, and our hope is that it will serve to put in dramatic focus the current state of debate over larger issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict insofar as they hinge on human rights, territorial claims, and the existential realities of one of the longest unresolved military occupations in modern history.

    We should mention one event that occurred in the early fall of 2009, just as this dossier was nearing completion. Frank Gehry announced his decision to withdraw from the project, but not, he hastened to assure us, because of Professor Makdisi’s article.

    *

    MAKDISI-GEHRY DEBATE

    Editor's Note [pdf] (Above)

    Saree Makdisi, The Architecture of Erasure [pdf]

    Frank Gehry, Response to Makdisi [pdf] July 6, 2009

    Raphael Israeli, Shmuel Berkovits, Jacques Neriah and Marvin Hier, Response to Makdisi [pdf]

    Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe, Response to Makdisi [pdf]

    Daniel Monk, The Intractability Lobby: Material Culture and the Interpretation of the Israel/Palestine Conflict [pdf]

    Saree Makdisi, Response to All [pdf]

    Dan Rabinowitz, The Right to Refuse: Abject Theory and the Return of Palestinian [pdf]

    Slavoj Žižek, It's the Political Economy, Stupid! [pdf]

  5. #20
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Famed film editor struck, killed by car in NYC

    YAHOO NEWS
    By CRISTIAN SALAZAR
    Associated Press Writer
    Sat Jan 30, 2010

    NEW YORK – An award-winning film editor who worked on many of Errol Morris' documentaries, including "The Fog of War," was struck and killed by a getaway car speeding from a Manhattan drugstore robbery, police and her mother said on Saturday.

    Karen Schmeer was crossing Broadway at West 90th Street on the Upper West Side on Friday when she was struck by a car driven by two suspects in the theft of over-the-counter medication from a CVS drugstore a few blocks away
    , police said.

    Her mother, Eleanor DuBois Schmeer, confirmed the film editor's death. Schmeer was an editor for Morris' documentaries as well as other works, including "Sergio," which won a best-editing award last year at the Sundance Film Festival. The movie is about Sergio de Mello, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights killed in a 2003 explosion at U.N. headquarters in Iraq.

    "She was just extremely loved by many, many friends," said Schmeer's mother, from her home in Portland, Ore., where her daughter was born.
    Morris wrote on his Twitter feed that Schmeer's death was a "senseless tragedy."

    Lt. John Grimpel said the driver of the car has been arrested on a murder charge shortly after Friday's crash. Schmeer was pronounced dead at St. Luke's Hospital.

    On Saturday, police were still looking for a passenger who fled from the car as well as a third suspect.

    Although Schmeer's last listed address was in Boston, her mother said she was living in an apartment on the Upper West Side when she was killed.
    In addition to editing Morris' Academy Award-winning documentary film, "The Fog of War," which profiled former Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara, Schmeer worked as editor on many of his other films. She also was an editor for "Sketches of Frank Gehry," directed by Sydney Pollack.

    Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

  6. #21
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Frank Gehry: Playboy Interview

    When Philip Johnson, who has been called the godfather of contemporary architecture, first entered the just-completed Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, he wept. It wasn’t the first time Frank Gehry, the building’s architect, inspired emotions rarely caused by an edifice. Johnson is just one of many architects and critics who have crowned Gehry the most important architect in the world.

    Gehry’s hauntingly beautiful, completely original buildings have redefined architecture and transformed cities. Some are made with common materials such as chain-link fences and corrugated metal, on one hand, and on the other, some with sheets of titanium, curving like ocean waves. Like no other architect since Frank Lloyd Wright, Gehry transcends the often-rarefied field to become a celebrity. He hangs out with friends such as Brad Pitt and Bono, for whom he has envisioned pop-up stores for Product Red, a charity that uses its profits to fight AIDS in Africa.

    Recently Vanity Fair magazine asked 52 of the world’s reigning architects and critics to pick the greatest work of architecture built since 1980. The winner by a landslide was Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, called by the late New York Times architecture critic Herbert Muschamp “the reincarnation of Marilyn Monroe.” “Bilbao is truly a signal moment in the architectural culture,” said the Pulitzer Prize–winning critic Paul Goldberger. “The building blazed new trails and became an extraordinary phenomenon. It was one of those rare moments when critics, academics and the general public were all completely united about something.” Other famous Gehry buildings include Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, the Jay Pritzker Pavilion in Chicago’s Millennium Park, the Experience Music Project museum in Seattle and the magnificent “Dancing House” in Prague. The accolades continue to pour in and Gehry has been given every major award an architect can win. For Playboy’s 50th anniversary issue Gehry created the ultimate bachelor pad. A stark contrast to what was the traditional bachelor pad—described by The New York Times as “a studio with a duct-taped beanbag chair and a beer-can sculpture”—Gehry’s was modern and deconstructivist, with a ceiling over the bed that was a glass-bottom swimming pool.

    Gehry, born in Toronto and educated at the University of Southern California’s School of Architecture, is currently working on an arts center at Ground Zero in New York City and a new Guggenheim in Abu Dhabi. Other commissions include buildings in Biloxi, Mississippi, Las Vegas and Basel, Switzerland. Though 81, Gehry travels nonstop, jet-setting between his Los Angeles home and construction or potential construction sites throughout the world. Between trips, the architect sat down with Contributing Editor David Sheff, who has interviewed John Lennon, Fareed Zakaria and Betty Friedan, among others, for us. Sheff reports: “Gehry’s firm is located in a former BMW factory that looks like a cross between Epcot Center, a Silicon Valley technology laboratory and a preschool, with rooms crowded with construction materials (building blocks, sheets of metal) and models of buildings from miniature to room size. In Sketches of Frank Gehry, a documentary about the architect by Gehry’s friend Sydney Pollack, former Guggenheim director Thomas Krens remarks on Gehry’s big ego, but in our conversation the architect was surprisingly modest and self-deprecating. He also had a wry sense of humor. Before we began, he said he’d prepared for our interview by reading one I’d conducted in the past—with Jack Nicholson.

    ‘Mostly Nicholson talked about his sex life,’ Gehry said. ‘I don’t want to disappoint you, but I have no sex life.’ It turned out fine, as at one point he noted that architecture is all about erections.”

    PLAYBOY: It’s not often that an architect is the subject of a Playboy Interview. Does this make you feel like a celebrity?

    GEHRY: I’m of two minds about doing any interviews these days. It seems a lot of the world is out to play gotcha with me. I guess they always go after people these days. It’s sport. Can you imagine being Brad Pitt?

    PLAYBOY: As the world’s most celebrated architect, wouldn’t you expect to be the target of the press and critics?

    GEHRY: The thing is, I hate the celebrity architect thing. I just do my work. The press comes up with this stuff and it sticks. I hate the word starchitect. Stuff like that comes from mean-spirited, untalented journalists. It’s demeaning.

    PLAYBOY: And yet ever since Frank Lloyd Wright, a few architects—such as you, Philip Johnson, Rem Koolhaas and a few others—have become as well known.

    GEHRY: It’s derisive, and once it’s said, it sticks. I get introduced all the time, “Here’s starchitect Frank Gehry.…” My reaction: “What the **** are you talking about?”

    PLAYBOY: From your prominent position, whether as starchitect or architect, how would you sum up the state of architecture in America?

    GEHRY: Ninety percent of the buildings we live in and around aren’t architecture. No, that’s not right—98 percent.

    PLAYBOY: What do you mean they aren’t architecture?

    GEHRY: Ninety-eight percent are boxes, which tells me that a lot of people are in denial. We live and work in boxes. People don’t even notice that. Most of what’s around us is banal. We live with it. We accept it as inevitable. People say, “This is the world the way it is, and don’t bother me.” Then when somebody does something different, real architecture, the push-back is amazing. People resist it. At first it’s new and scary.

    PLAYBOY: Don’t your buildings prove the opposite, that people embrace the radically different?

    GEHRY: After they’re built. Every time, the resistance is enormous. When initially I met with the clients in Bilbao—the people who represented the city—they asked for the Sydney Opera House. That is, they wanted something that would define Bilbao in the way the Opera House defines Sydney. In my own way I delivered what they asked for. I presented the museum in model form and they loved it and pushed the button to go forward and build it. Immediately there was a vigil in the streets. Steelworkers, dockworkers, other union people and many others all against me created a phalanx with candles. I had to walk through them to go to the formal presentation of the model. There was a threat in the newspaper, “Kill the American architect.” I was told not to worry, but believe me, through all the public presentations I stood next to the Basque president. I thought, They’re not going to shoot him.

    PLAYBOY: What was their point? Why were they holding a vigil?

    GEHRY: They didn’t want it built. They hated it. They were appalled. They didn’t understand it. They didn’t want the change it represented. Now that it’s built they run over and want their pictures taken with me. “Señor Gehry, Señor Gehry…!” I should live there. It’s a love-in, though they’d probably get tired of me. Before, however, they reacted as if I was taking their city away.

    PLAYBOY: Why were people threatened? According to many architects and critics, the Bilbao is the best modern building in the world.

    GEHRY: Generally people are afraid. They pretend they aren’t; it’s part of the denial. We’re all part of it. As much as we pretend otherwise, we want what’s comfortable, and we’re afraid of the different. We’re afraid of change. It happened in Los Angeles, too, when the first models of Disney Hall were shown. You should have heard the outcry from the public, critics and press. It was called “broken crockery,” “outlandish” and blah blah blah. Of course now the feeling is different. The building has helped the Los Angeles Philharmonic, which is one of the few orchestras anywhere that’s in the black. The management of the Philharmonic credits a lot of it to the building. But at first people saw the models and drawings and were horrified. It’s happened over and over again.

    PLAYBOY: How do you feel driving through virtually any city or suburb almost anywhere in America—and increasingly in the world—and passing identical strip malls, condominium complexes, apartments, chain stores, McMansions, big-box stores and tract houses?

    GEHRY: “Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky-tacky.” There’s the old song about it. It’s a metaphor for what we’re being told: “Just stay in the box, kid, don’t muddy the water.” Parents say it to their kids. Teachers say it. Schools do. And so people become immune to the sameness. I’m in denial just like everybody else. It’s so common it’s accepted. We can’t imagine it any other way. It’s dehumanizing, and we don’t even notice it. You see it in Korea, you see it in Russia, you see it in China, you see it in India, you see it in Japan.

    PLAYBOY: Globalized bad taste?

    GEHRY: Globalized no taste. It’s terrible, and each of those cultures comes with a history of beauty, whether Korea, Russia, China, India or Japan. Everywhere, including America, at least a little bit.

    PLAYBOY: But does the sameness come down to no taste or to economics? That is, isn’t it simply cheaper to build cookie*cutter buildings and a mass*produced monoculture than distinctive offices, stores, homes and other structures?

    GEHRY: I think it has more to do with comfort. You can make the economics work if you want. But in Tokyo, London or Los Angeles people go into McDonald’s and the restaurants are identical and people are comfortable. It’s unthreatening. They know it, and we like what we know. Look around this room. [indicates his office, a clutter of drawings, models, stacks of papers, books and photographs] I’ve got all my tchotchkes. They make me feel good. It’s messy, but it’s a controlled mess—my mess. I know where everything is.

    PLAYBOY: Sameness may be about comfort, but could it also be that people don’t notice or don’t care about architecture and design?

    GEHRY: I think people care. If not, why do so many people spend money going on vacations to see architecture? They go to the Parthenon, to Chartres, to the Sydney Opera House. They go to Bilbao. There’s something that compels them. People come to see Disney Hall and Millennium Park in Chicago—I should be happy and shut up. So what is it? The general public throughout the world, no matter what their education or background, from all walks of life, go to the Parthenon. It costs them money to get there. They go to Rome, to Milan. They go to see great architecture. Something compels them, and yet we live surrounded by everything but great architecture. Why do we stand for it? People are searching for something they don’t have in their lives. There’s an unfulfilled need. My question is, What creates that need, and why doesn’t it translate into more of a demand for better design in our lives?

    PLAYBOY: Well? What creates the need?

    GEHRY: What creates the need is deeply part of who we are as people. The reason it doesn’t translate into a demand for better design in our lives is because of denial. As I said, we don’t see the banality, but we accept banality. We accept it as inevitable, and it’s not.

    PLAYBOY: Maybe it is.

    GEHRY: If the general public demanded better, they’d get better, because the market*place responds to the public’s needs and desires.

    PLAYBOY: Do we pay a price for accepting the banal?

    GEHRY: I think we do, but maybe I’m wrong. We’ve survived as a species, so maybe it doesn’t matter. But maybe we’re missing something. Guys way back when were drawing in caves, and something was driving them. We have always created—music, literature, art, dance. The art around us—or lack of it—may be a measure of how we’re doing as individuals and as a civilization, so maybe we should be worried.

    PLAYBOY: Like early man drawing on cave walls, in spite of the boxes we live in and around, people still build and create, whether skyscrapers or sand castles. What’s behind the impulse?

    GEHRY: There’s a drive in us to express ourselves in some way or form. We pick up whatever material is available. It’s primitive. Kids see sand on the beach, build something and show their parents: “Look what I did, Mama.” It’s necessary to us. Some cultures tried to stop people from expressing themselves. In Mao’s China, for example, the Communists tried to stop individual expression. For them the payoff was a society of equality. The problem of course is that it didn’t work. Ultimately you can’t repress individuality, even though you can try. People live and work in uninspiring environments, but look inside those rooms. Look at the painted walls and the decorations. People rebel even in the most controlled office environment in which they’re not allowed to do anything. You see the little bulletin board in front of a person’s desk with their photos, clippings, cartoons and whatever else.

    PLAYBOY: Is it elitist to suggest that people need art and architecture? Many people don’t have the time to see art or get the education that could help them appreciate it.

    GEHRY: It’s not elitist to acknowledge that everyone has a unique signature and everyone is different. We’re physiologically wired differently. There are many variations on the theme, and the excitement and recognition of that should be celebrated. It’s not about time or education but about individuality. Those who say only artists and architects can create are the ones who are elitist. We should celebrate variety rather than conformity and allow people to express themselves. That we don’t is more of our denial. We deny our nature to build and create and then wonder why there is so much alienation and dissatisfaction. Everyone has a desire, if not a need, to use their individual signatures. Whenever people meet to talk about a project, even stuffy old businessmen, they say they want to create something new. Insurance executives go to a retreat and what do they talk about? “How do we make things better?” The experts come in and have everyone free*associate. They even call it play—“Let’s play around with this idea.” We’re wired that way from childhood. Childhood play is nothing more than an expression of our individuality and preparation for human interaction. Everybody’s an artist. Unfortunately we don’t treat them as such.

    PLAYBOY: When you’re traveling, do you feel different depending on whether you stay in a beautiful hotel versus a standard Holiday Inn?

    GEHRY: Generally people are more impressed with the services and the comfort issues than the design. If there’s fruit, you feel welcome. I tend to go to very old-fashioned hotels. I’ve stayed in the Philippe Starck hotels with tiny rooms, and I bump into everything. I love his work a lot, but when I go to some of those hotels I come out with black-and-blue marks. There are also places that are so designed they’re unlivable. I used to rail against the Farnsworth House by Mies van der Rohe. If you lived in that house and you came home and took your clothes off, where would you put them? You couldn’t just throw your coat on the chair; it would spoil the design.

    PLAYBOY: Like Mies, some architects plan every detail, including the furniture and art on the walls. Don’t you?

    GEHRY: I don’t. A friend of mine who worked with Mies had the Mies ensemble—a settee, two chairs and a coffee table—in front of the fireplace in his apartment. He’d complain that it wasn’t comfortable. I said, “I’ll show you what’s wrong.” I took the settee and pulled it around, put a chair on either side of the fireplace and did this and that. He agreed it was so much better. The next time I went it was all put back the way it had been. I asked why, and he said, “That’s the way Mies wanted it.” Mies was dead by then. I don’t think he would have cared.

    PLAYBOY: On the other hand, how does it feel if someone with terrible taste decorates one of your buildings?

    GEHRY: It’s up to them. It’s why I don’t micromanage the interiors. People ask me to and I say no. I don’t want to control everything like Mies and Frank Lloyd Wright did. I’ll say, “I’m going to design the container and interior spaces. You bring your own stuff to it and make it your own.” I don’t impose myself in that way.

    PLAYBOY: How do you respond to the charge that your work is about art, not people?

    GEHRY: Art is about people. I think the discussion about whether architecture is art or not is lamebrain. Richard Serra, whom I very much respect, has joked that my work is not about art because I put a toilet in it—he called me a plumber. Artists dismiss me as an architect, so I’m not in their box, and architects dismiss me as an artist, so I’m not in their box. I don’t know whose box I’m in, and I don’t really care. In the Renaissance there wasn’t a distinction. Bernini was an artist and he made architecture, and Michelangelo also did some great architecture. The back of Saint Peter’s is one of the finest pieces of architecture I’ve ever seen. The architect Borromini’s Quattro Fontane, a little church in Rome, is one of the most beautiful rooms in history.

    PLAYBOY: Isn’t it annoying to create what you consider a piece of art and then have a client say, “My wife needs a bigger bathroom.”

    GEHRY: I don’t do houses.

    PLAYBOY: How about a building when the client asks for changes?

    GEHRY: In the Sydney Pollack documentary about me, Tom Krens, the former Guggenheim director, says I have the biggest ego in the world and that it manifests itself when you come to me and say “I don’t like this” or “I want a change.” He says I relish that because my ego’s so big I think I can solve whatever you throw at me and make it even better. I enjoy the interaction and the challenge.

    PLAYBOY: In your opinion are your best buildings ones in which you’ve been given free rein?

    GEHRY: No. The best are the result of collaboration with a good client.

    PLAYBOY: What about a bad client?

    GEHRY: I do my best to choose carefully. If I don’t feel that collaboration is going to happen, I say no. Think about it. These projects can involve a five-to-seven-year partnership. If you don’t feel comfortable with someone, you can’t get rid of them. I just walked away from a job for that reason. Every one of these projects is an emotional investment, like falling in love. You’ve got to believe in it and you’ve got to like the people you work with.

    PLAYBOY: After the initial stage of signing on to create a building, is there usually a moment of epiphany when you first envision the overarching design?

    GEHRY: I have moments. I do get excited. It happens when I have the idea—the structure, the form, the body language, the way it fits, the way it deals with the functional elements, with gravity and the realities of construction—and I know it’s affordable to the client.

    PLAYBOY: What if you come up with an exciting idea that because of engineering or cost is impractical to build?

    GEHRY: I’m preprogrammed emotionally and intellectually not to go down blind alleys. I don’t waste the time. I automatically edit out whatever’s impractical. By the time I get to what I call the candy store, when it all comes together, I know I can do it. The rap on me on the street is the opposite—I’m impractical, I’m more expensive, it’s too complicated and I run over budgets, which isn’t true. None of that’s true and there’s plenty of documentation if anybody needs it.

    PLAYBOY: From where do the big ideas come? Is it true you saw what became Disney Hall in a crumpled-up piece of paper?

    GEHRY: That’s mythology. I wish I could do that, but it’s not true. That’s from The Simpsons. On the show I crumple up a letter and there’s the concert hall they asked me to design. If only it were that easy. The Disney Hall was never a crumpled piece of paper. The fact is I’m an opportunist. I’ll take materials around me, materials on my table, and work with them as I’m searching for an idea that works.

    PLAYBOY: What was the biggest challenge designing Disney Hall?

    GEHRY: I spent a lot of time with musicians and learned how often they’re frustrated in these rooms because they can’t hear one another. That was one challenge. Another was performer-audience connection. Shakespeare said it: “All the world’s a stage. And all the men and women merely players…” blah blah blah. Both the audience and the performer want that connection. I’ve experienced it myself giving lectures in various auditoriums. If the room is friendly to a relationship between lecturer and audience, you feel everything—the tension, the appreciation. I think the audience feels it too. I carefully analyzed the halls that work for musicians and audiences and those that don’t, and spent a lot of time talking to musicians and people who make up the audience. As a result I designed Disney Hall to be extremely intimate, with an intense connection between performers and audience. It was challenging for many reasons, including how difficult it is to build anything these days.

    PLAYBOY: Why is it difficult these days?

    GEHRY: When you were a kid, if you went to the Montreal Forum or a hockey game at Maple Leaf Gardens, which I did, there was a great feeling. The new stadiums don’t have it. Why don’t they have it? Building codes.

    PLAYBOY: What’s wrong with building codes?

    GEHRY: The safety requirements, which are necessary, spread everything out and push people farther and farther away from the stage and from each other. That’s a big part of the problem.

    PLAYBOY: How did you solve it for the Disney Hall?

    GEHRY: I compressed the space but found ways to include the required exits and accessibility and everything else. I convinced the clients it was worth it even though we wound up with fewer seats than they originally wanted. The plan was for 2,500 seats; I finally got in 2,265. I made it all work without compromising intimacy. In fact, the few complaints I got were about that very issue. Some people find it too tight and feel threatened by that kind of closeness. I’m sorry about that, but we’ve found places they can sit where it isn’t a problem. Otherwise people—musicians and audience—respond to the intimacy. We worked with acousticians, of course. We made a one-to-10 model of the space. We took out the oxygen and replaced it with nitrogen—that allows for the purest sound because it’s less obstructive to sound waves. A Mozart sonata was played. It was another part of the process of fine*tuning, all of which resulted not only in the design of the space, including the risers on which the orchestra sits and a million other things, but also acoustic changes. It was all incredibly complex. It’s not just about crumpling a piece of paper. And it had to fit the budget, which it did.

    PLAYBOY: When a building as complex as that is completed, are you sort of amazed that you pulled it off?

    GEHRY: I am.

    PLAYBOY: And proud?

    GEHRY: It takes three or four years before I get there. My first reaction is, “Oh my God, what have I done to these people?”

    PLAYBOY: Do you sometimes wish you could have another go, that you could improve on a design?

    GEHRY: Every time.

    PLAYBOY: Which of your buildings is your favorite?

    GEHRY: That’s like asking which of your kids is your favorite. Even if I had one I wouldn’t say.

    PLAYBOY: But are you particularly proud of the most famous ones—the Bilbao, Disney Hall, your original Santa Monica home?

    GEHRY: There are the obvious ones, but I’m also terribly proud of others. One that comes to mind is the Maggie’s Centre in Scotland, which I did pro bono.

    PLAYBOY: Which are your favorite buildings designed by other architects?

    GEHRY: The easy one is the chapel by Corbusier at Ronchamp in France. One of my unsung heroes is Erich Mendelsohn. I met him when I was a student and he was a cranky old man and very unpleasant. But if you go to his Einstein Tower in Potsdam, Germany you see an enormous intellect at work with a language that was personal and new. It has a sense of urban design and of theater and procession I hadn’t seen before. His drawings are expressive and beautiful. If he’d had the computers we have now, everything I’ve done he would have done before me. I would have had to figure out something else.

    PLAYBOY: What newer buildings do you like?

    GEHRY: At first I didn’t cotton to Mies’s Lake Shore Drive towers in Chicago, but when I went there and saw how they come down on the slab of one-and-seven-eighths-inch-thick travertine, I turned around. I think that was an incredible statement of modesty and power, not resorting to the usual pedestals and the other aggressive things modernists do. It was so subtle, understated and powerful as hell. Rem Koolhaas certainly achieved an incredible piece of sculpture in the CCTV tower in Beijing. Also in Beijing, of course the Bird’s Nest stadium [built for the Olympics] by Herzog & de Meuron. I like a lot of young people, such as Zaha Hadid, who did the MAXXI Museum in Rome. They’re finding their way, and I have great respect for them.

    PLAYBOY: After years of debate and revision, what’s your opinion of the Freedom Tower that will go up at Ground Zero in New York City?

    GEHRY: I don’t know. It’s probably going to be okay.

    PLAYBOY: We thought that 9/11 would have stopped what seemed to be a perpetual competition for the world’s tallest building, but skyscrapers keep getting taller.

    GEHRY: Yes, the race continues in a way. My tallest is the Beekman in New York; it’s being finished now. The client said that at 76 stories it is the tallest apartment building in New York, and I said, “Why don’t we make it two stories shorter so it’s not, because if Trump hears that, he’ll try to beat it, and I don’t want to bother him.” Already somebody’s doing a taller one. It’s a hilarious thing about erections.…

    PLAYBOY: What’s your opinion of the current world’s tallest building, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai?

    GEHRY: It’s big. When you get up to the top there’s no space.

    PLAYBOY: Though buildings are getting taller, did the destruction of the World Trade Center change architecture in other ways? Is it looked at as an anomaly, or do architects and engineers now take into consideration the possibility of a similar attack?

    GEHRY: You have to pay attention to it. I would certainly raise that issue with the structural engineers I deal with. Everybody takes it into account. It’s now possible to do a lot better with engineering.

    PLAYBOY: What’s changed?

    GEHRY: Everything—design and technology and materials—has changed since the World Trade Center was built. A lot of it has to do with computers, which allow us to be far more efficient as well as structurally sound.

    PLAYBOY: Exactly how have computers changed architecture?

    GEHRY: They allow architects to remain parental instead of being marginalized by the contractors and managers.

    PLAYBOY: How are architects marginalized?

    GEHRY: Until now, you hired an architect and they designed a building you liked. You put it out to bid to contractors, and the bid comes in high. You don’t have the money. What do you do? You turn to the contractor, who begins telling you how to cut costs. The contractor becomes parental and the architect becomes infantilized. The contractor, who doesn’t know why these shapes are the way they are, attacks anything that’s different and says, “Look, do this and do that and we’ll fix the budget.” With computers we can work everything out from the beginning. For example, the Disney Hall models were presented to the board in my offices some years ago. The contractor, who was well-known to the board members, came to the meeting. The board oohed and aahed over the model and loved it, then they turned to the contractor and said, “What do you think?” This guy, in my office, in front of them and in front of me, said, “Looks great, but you can’t build it.” I was ready for him. I’d made a 20-foot-long, 12-foot-high mock-up of all the hard parts of the building. It was in the parking lot. We all went outside, and the contractor looked at it in front of the board said, “I didn’t understand what you meant. Of course I can build that.” I was playing gotcha. We were able to build it because computers demystify the complex, giving you more freedom. Before we built anything we worked it all out on computers until we knew exactly what would and wouldn’t work and how much it would cost. Architects are back in control, even though people still love to tell us what won’t work. They’ve always done it—they told Frank Lloyd Wright, too.

    PLAYBOY: What did they tell Wright he couldn’t do?

    GEHRY: He was always searching for and testing new materials. He wanted to use a new kind of concrete blocks for the Ennis House in Los Angeles, for example. He was told they couldn’t be built. He ignored the intelligentsia and made them himself, and they lasted about 50 years. After that amount of time they failed, but they were fixable. The building’s an icon, but he built it for people who lived in it and loved it. They were long gone when the blocks failed.

    PLAYBOY: After the destruction of the World Trade Center, do you feel responsible for the soundness of the materials and safety of your buildings?

    GEHRY: The materials had nothing to do with the collapse of the towers, but yes. With our engineers and consultants we’re responsible to make sure things aren’t only beautiful but safe. When I teach at school and see these kids coming through, I look at them and say, “You’re walking into a bloody cannon and you’d better start looking at the realities. If you’re serious about being an architect, you’ve got to learn how to take responsibility.” It’s not fluff. You have to do every detail on every bloody piece of the building. You have to know how the engineering works. You have to know how the fittings go together. You have to master the mechanical, electrical, acoustical—everything.

    PLAYBOY: After all these years, why do you still teach aspiring architects?

    GEHRY: I love it. You feel as if you can make a difference in someone’s life. When I start my class I ask the students to write their signatures on pieces of paper and put them on a table. I have them look at them, and I point out, “They’re all different, aren’t they? That’s you, that’s you, that’s you, that’s you.” I say, “That’s what you have to find in architecture. You have to find your signature. When you find it, you’re the only expert on it. People can say they like it or don’t like it. They can argue about it, but it’s yours.” In one class the students had to build a model of a concert hall in Istanbul for the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra. It was a theoretical assignment. A brilliant and talented young lady from Iran knew the region, knew the history and knew the culture. She designed a building that contained all she knew. It was too rigid. I suggested that she had to find her signature in the building and not try to create it for other people. One night at her apartment she had a dinner party for the class, and for dessert she’d made a meringue. It was beautiful. She said that whenever she became stressed or freaked out with work she’d cook. She loved it and derived great joy from it. I said, “That’s where you have to look for your inspiration. Don’t separate the rest of your life—who you are, what you love—from your work.” The meringue was the result of her passion. I said, “Your concert hall is in there.” Her final project not only worked, it was beautiful.

    PLAYBOY: Do architecture schools inspire people to, as you describe it, have their own signatures?

    GEHRY: Sometimes, but it should begin much earlier with arts education in the American school system, which is sadly deficient. When I was a child I could do math and art, so I had left- and right-brain capabilities. But I’ve seen my children, who are more right-brained, struggling. My son was told he wouldn’t make it to college, but he dogged it through and ended up being accepted by 10 major art schools after the high school advisor said, “Please don’t apply. You’re going to be disappointed.” That kid’s an artist now. Generally in our world, whether in architecture or almost anywhere else, we devalue the artist, and schools at whatever level shut people down. A 14-year-old girl was in a high school class I visited. Her mother worked, and this girl had to take care of a baby. She was completely shut down, insecure and self-deprecatory. She’d hide in the corner and wouldn’t say anything. I had the students make a city. I got them a bunch of boxes full of chicken wire, trash and other materials. She sat in the corner and didn’t do much. I noticed and decided to give her a box, paintbrushes and paints, and I asked her to paint it. We put the box in the final model, and everybody saw how beautiful it was and told her. It brings a tear to my eye to think about that moment. She became the class artist and changed before my eyes. Her confidence, her sense of possibilities. There are thousands of kids like that.

    PLAYBOY: In your life, did you have an equivalent teacher who was encouraging and inspiring?

    GEHRY: The ceramics teacher who sent me to architecture class. I was in night school, taking art classes. I was 18 or 19. The teacher was building a house by a well-known Californian modernist architect, Raphael Soriano. I guess something I was doing or saying resonated with him, because he took me to see that house.

    PLAYBOY: Is architecture something you had thought about before in your life? Growing up were you aware of architecture?

    GEHRY: Not very much.

    PLAYBOY: What was your childhood home like? Were your parents involved in the arts?

    GEHRY: My mother was interested in classical music. She studied violin when she was a kid. She took me to concerts. She also took me to art museums. She’d taken me to the Art Gallery of Ontario, which I coincidentally ended up remodeling. I used to go to the lectures at the University of Toronto on Friday night, which was date night. I attended a lecture by a gray-haired old man from Finland, who later I discovered was the architect Alvar Aalto. I was very moved. I wasn’t interested in architecture, but it was a moving thing I’ve never forgotten. Meanwhile my father was in the slot machine and pinball machine business until they were declared illegal in Canada. He didn’t have an education. He failed and he got sick. His brother picked him up and brought him to California, because that’s what they did to people who were sick. I came to California and became a truck driver.

    PLAYBOY: How did you get from truck driving to architecture?

    GEHRY: I got into architecture school at USC and then did graduate work at Harvard in city planning. When people condemn me for designing iconic buildings in cities and not having an idea what a city is, they haven’t done their homework. I started in urban design and city planning. It’s just that when I got out of school there wasn’t much of a market for that. There still isn’t.

    PLAYBOY: When you decided on architecture, did you know what type you wanted to do?

    GEHRY: I’m a do-gooder liberal. That’s why you go into architecture—at least I did—to do things for people. I think most of us are idealists. You start out that way, anyway. I didn’t have any interest in doing rich people’s homes. I still don’t.

    PLAYBOY: And yet you’ve done many.

    GEHRY: Not lately. I stopped. In the early days I had to do them.

    PLAYBOY: Everything changed for you when you built your own home in Santa Monica, famously made with chain-link fences and corrugated metal. What inspired you to use those materials?

    GEHRY: It goes back to what we were talking about earlier: denial. Here we are surrounded by material that’s being manufactured in unimaginable quantities worldwide and is used everywhere. I don’t like it, no one likes it, and yet it’s pervasive. We don’t even see it. I noticed and started finding ways to beautify it. I wanted to take the curse off the material. It’s also why I made cardboard furniture. Cardboard is another material that’s ubiquitous and everybody hates, yet when I made furniture with it everybody loved it. In the art world Robert Rauschenberg had been combining common materials that people thought was art and beautiful, and it was. If he could do that, I could emulate him.

    PLAYBOY: More than 30 years before the green-architecture movement, you were recycling materials. The most dramatic recent change in architecture follows that model. In the age of global warming, it’s the trend toward environmentally responsible design. Why then did you criticize LEED [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design] certification of buildings that meet green standards?

    GEHRY: What I said is that what’s being done, while it makes everybody feel good, isn’t enough to meet the needs of the problem. I’m concerned about it. China is building cities for a 20 to 40 percent increase in population. India is quickly growing. The carbon footprints of that and other development around the world are overwhelming. The issues are bigger than LEED. It’s a world problem and has to be solved politically. Many people put a green button on their collar and feel good, just like a lot of people put an American flag on their lapels and feel patriotic. It’s not enough. I’m not dismissing it. I’ve been concerned about these issues since the 1960s. There have been many articles that say we’ve been exemplary regarding these issues. We’ve been doing environmentally responsible architecture for years. My house from 1978 would probably get LEED Platinum. For years good architects were dealing with environmentally responsible design—materials, energy efficiency, all that—before it became a trend. Frank Lloyd Wright always did. I just don’t think it’s enough to solve this monumental problem. We have to do more.

    PLAYBOY: Earlier you mentioned that the people who commissioned the Bilbao said they wanted a Sydney Opera House, which meant they wanted a building that would become an icon and a symbol for the city. The Guggenheim accomplished that for Bilbao, and now many cities want what has been named the Bilbao effect. Is transformation of a place a lot to ask of architecture?

    GEHRY: It’s not new. The Bilbao effect is the Parthenon effect, the Chartres Cathedral effect, the Notre Dame effect. The press labeled it the Bilbao effect; I didn’t name it. It’s not new that architecture can profoundly affect a place, sometimes transform it. Architecture and any art can transform a person, even save someone. It can for children—for anyone. It still does for me.

    http://www.playboy.com/articles/fran...iew/index.html

  7. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Merry View Post
    PLAYBOY: It’s not often that an architect is the subject of a Playboy Interview. Does this make you feel like a celebrity?

    GEHRY: I’m of two minds about doing any interviews these days. It seems a lot of the world is out to play gotcha with me. I guess they always go after people these days. It’s sport. Can you imagine being Brad Pitt?

    PLAYBOY: As the world’s most celebrated architect, wouldn’t you expect to be the target of the press and critics?

    GEHRY: The thing is, I hate the celebrity architect thing. I just do my work. The press comes up with this stuff and it sticks. I hate the word starchitect. Stuff like that comes from mean-spirited, untalented journalists. It’s demeaning.

    PLAYBOY: And yet ever since Frank Lloyd Wright, a few architects—such as you, Philip Johnson, Rem Koolhaas and a few others—have become as well known.

    GEHRY: It’s derisive, and once it’s said, it sticks. I get introduced all the time, “Here’s starchitect Frank Gehry.…” My reaction: “What the **** are you talking about?”
    And yet, from the original post in the thread...

    Apparently, this is why he was asked by longtime pal Frank Gehry to do a film on him and his groundbreaking work in architecture.
    This is hilarious. The hypocrisy of this ego display may even top designing a Center for Tolerance on top of a Muslim cemetery. It's hard to believe that this guy is for real. He's like some over-the-top character out of a sitcom. Seriously, do you imagine a real-life, non-fictional figure talking about his creations as such:

    The Bilbao effect is the Parthenon effect, the Chartres Cathedral effect, the Notre Dame effect.
    I guess he is a good representation of our generation. "The World's Most Celebrated Architect"? Sounds just about right at a time when Justin Bieber is dubbed by the media as the current top artist and Sarah Palin is one of the post prominent political figures.

  8. #23
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Crikey, even the link for **** Frank Gehry has been censored LOL!


    Frank Gehry: 'There's a backlash against me'

    Frank Gehry's success with the Bilbao Guggenheim sparked an inevitable backlash, but, as he says, 'expression' is still vital to architecture

    by Rowan Moore | The Guardian

    There are iconic architects and there is the architect who is the icon of iconic architecture. Whether he wanted to or not, Frank Gehry, as the creator of the titanium-clad Bilbao Guggenheim, made the original for 10,000 wannabes – pointy, swooshy, shiny things, would-be masterpieces that proclaimed regeneration for whichever ex-industrial swamp or intended megalopolis that happened to host them. He was feted in magazines and film and by an appearance on The Simpsons. He became the epitome of the idea – again, without much reference to his own wishes – that genius in architecture lies in spectacular shape-making.

    Then there was the inevitable reaction. Iconic architecture came to be seen as wasteful, extravagant, unsustainable and, worse, a gaudy distraction from the dark financial forces for which it was a bauble. It seemed perfectly to encapsulate the great pre-crash deception, by offering only the appearance of glamour and prosperity. According to the art critic Hal Foster, Gehry's Walt Disney concert hall in Los Angeles is a "media logo" and his style of architecture is a "winning formula" for "any corporate entity that desires to be perceived, through an instant icon, as a global player". Someone started selling T-shirts saying "**** Frank Gehry" (and he bought some).

    Not that he or his office seem unduly perturbed by the change in the critical wind. Recently his Signature theatre in New York opened, one of several projects in a city that once shunned him. Last year he completed the New World Symphony, a complex of performance and rehearsal spaces, in Miami. He finished his first skyscraper, in Spruce Street, Lower Manhattan.

    Meanwhile, he is embroiled in a different controversy, with attacks coming from a more conservative direction than Hal Foster's: his proposed Eisenhower Memorial in Washington DC has drawn the ire of some of the president/general's relatives. They don't like it that Gehry wants to show Eisenhower as a "barefoot boy" from Kansas, rather than in the full pomp of his adult success.
    "There is a backlash," says Gehry, now aged 82, "against me and everyone who has done buildings that have movement and feeling", that is "self-righteous" and "annoying… The notion is that it is counterproductive to social responsibility and sustainability. Therefore, curving the wall or doing something so-called wilful is wrong and so there is a tendency back to bland."

    He argues that what he calls "expression" is essential. "Most of our cities built since the war are bland," he says. "They're modernist, they're cold, and now architects want to go back to that. But there are people in the community who want a little more juice, something to relate to, and so they seek out artists and the artists they seek out have become very wealthy and they have big studios." He mentions Olafur Eliasson and Anish Kapoor: "They have big operations going; they have the money, they have the know-how, they have the talent to build big structures."

    Artists, in other words, are commissioned to build public structures because they address needs that architects don't satisfy. "You can't dismiss it as a force," says Gehry. "If there's a void they'll fill it." He does not have a problem with artists taking this role either – "hopefully it is collaborative" as in projects he used to do when he and Claes Oldenburg "played together" – but "the architects won't go there because they're being told not to. 'Don't be a naughty boy now.' You know what I mean?"

    Nor does expression have to be extravagant. "My buildings are all on budget," he says, and he is proud of his practice's methods: "We have one hell of a delivery system." The Spruce Street tower has a surface of rippling stainless steel that looks expensive but which, he says, costs no more than a standard curtain wall. This was achieved by working with the manufacturer, testing options again and again so that waste and the cost of changing mistakes, which often account for a large proportion of construction budgets, were eliminated. The ripples also look like gratuitous decoration, but Gehry says they are purposeful: "They are just bay windows; they are maybe 10% decorative."

    He has set up a company, Gehry Technologies, to sell his expertise in computer modelling to other architects. He also uses the inventions of others such as iCrete, or "intelligent concrete", a version of this sloppy, messy building material that is computer–calculated to achieve the ideal specification, which saves on waste, which saves money and reduces carbon emissions. He scoffs at the idea that his architecture is unsustainable: "We've been involved in environmental issues for 40 years."

    If he is keen to rebut the notion that he is a self-indulgent artist, this is possibly because his parents thought he was. "When I was a kid, my father didn't really have much hope for me. He thought I was a dreamer; he didn't think I would amount to anything. My mother also. You know all parents do that with their kids, but at that time they expressed their worries more than we do now." Building in New York gives him satisfaction "because my father was there as a kid and he never really experienced me as an architect".

    Other planks of the Gehry defence include the fact that, pre-Bilbao, his architecture was not about titanium monuments, but making the most of humble materials, such as plywood and the chain-link fencing that is much used in his adopted home town of Los Angeles. He was engaged, and earthy, and concerned with the undervalued and the overlooked. He does not see his business as flying into cities and dumping masterpieces on them, but believes that his works respond to the places they are in.

    He does not always feel the need to employ his famous curves – "I can do square too." The Signature theatre is mostly about interiors and the "interaction between actors and audience" that is "palpable" and "magical"; it's also about giving its three auditoriums a separate but linked identity. Accessibility is one of the theatre company's aims and his spaces have a directness and a lack of flash that suit a venue with a maximum ticket price of $25.

    He challenges, too, the claim that Bilbao is hostile to art, that it is too concerned with its own splendour to be a setting for the works of others. "The rap on Bilbao is a bad rap, fabricated by museum directors. Cy Twombly stayed away because curators at Moma told him not to go there. When he finally saw it he called and said, 'This is the greatest.'" The museum, he says, "has classical galleries for artists that aren't alive, and exciting ones for those that can respond".

    I buy the Gehry defence. He is, in a way that others called "iconic" are not, a proper architect, in as much as he is concerned with how buildings are constructed and the making of spaces and forms. He discusses, for example, the question of the corners of buildings – if you have "an open corner" with the walls of the building pulled away from each other, it is "seductive", because it gives more freedom to play with surfaces. On the other hand, such corners can weaken the form of a building and make it look more like a stage set and he is a touch offended when I suggest that sometimes a stage set is what he is trying to create. Such conversations are basic to the practice of architecture, but there are plenty of well-known architects with whom it would be impossible to hold one.

    He is not only concerned with the finished form but the processes that get him there. He appreciates his medium, but he is also aware of life beyond it. He is proud of the fact that a new book on management – Managing as Designing by Richard Boland and Fred Collopy – takes his design practices, which are iterative, based on testing and retesting ideas, as a model for other kinds of business. He also spends a month a year working with the department of microbiology at Princeton University, to see if his methods can challenge what he sees as expressive rigidity in cancer research. "There has been so much funding and so much science in big institutions in 30 years, but it hasn't moved the needle." This is a personal matter, as his daughter died of cancer, and he intends to continue this work for the rest of his life.

    It is undeniable that his style and name have been exploited as logos. The Spruce Street tower is marketed "New York by Gehry", making both city and architect into a commercial brand. I am sceptical about his Guggenheim planned for Saadiyat Island in Abu Dhabi. It will be twice the size of the one in Bilbao, for no obvious reason other than that there is the money and space to do so, and where the Basque version has lively rapport with its complex urban surroundings, the newer one risks being a grandiose bellow into nothingness.

    Perhaps Gehry could have resisted more the game of signatures and brands that goes with "iconic" architecture, but he is very far from the worst offender, and it is not the case that his buildings are pure shape, with no thought of what might happen inside and out. He holds on to the idea that architecture is about relationships, as between actors and audience in the Signature theatre, and between the people who make them and the people that use them. And, when his approach really works, the results are breathtaking. The Spruce Street tower may be a block of flats for the well-off, but it brings an energy to the skyline from which the whole of New York benefits.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi...york-interview

  9. #24
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Has Gehry run out of ideas?


    Development Tsunami

    Gehry headlines Santa Monica's swelling building frenzy.

    by Sam Lubell


    Gehry's twisting mixed-use tower. Courtesy Gehry Partners

    http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6597

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Canceled: Downtown Guggenheim - by Frank Gehry
    By NYguy in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2009, 11:09 AM
  2. Gehry Concert Hall at Bard College
    By ASchwarz in forum New York Metro
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2003, 11:51 PM
  3. North by Northwest query - Architecture and Film
    By notnlk in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 16th, 2003, 07:39 PM
  4. World-famous Frank Gehry has set his sights on Sussex
    By NoyokA in forum World Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 20th, 2003, 10:12 AM
  5. 'Manna From Heaven' - Indie film
    By keewee in forum Anything Goes
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 15th, 2003, 11:21 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software