Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Zaha Hadid. Great furniture/designs. Her architectural work is way too unrealistic, and when actually built, has little practical value. I hate to say it, but I strongly believe that her fame comes from her being from a woman from a heavily oppressed society and not the quality of her work.
Frank Gehry. Flowing metal sheets over a rectangular building. Not practical either.
Gehry and Libeskind would be my picks. Both should be stripped of their licenses and denied being able to practice architecture ever again for the garbage they build.
Who is the Most Overrated Architect in Your Opinion?
Most famed architects got famous for a reason. Architectural critics aren't fools, you know. Whether or not you have the same sentimentality or proper understanding of a given architectural style to fully appreciate their famous works is entirely different matter.
Those who are not capable to do certain things tend to be the loudest critics of that very things sometimes. Empty criticism is always the easiest to make regardless of background. Educated, professional and constructive suggestions or advise after criticism backed by proper experience seem hard to come by afterward.
I also find that many people tend to over trivialize and generalize on things that they are not trained and qualified to do themselves. They like to sometimes delude themselves to believe that, though being a layman or amateur, they can do just about everything as good as a well trained and seasoned professional. I suspect it has to do with one's misplaced pride and ego.
To put it in perspective, someone might say "It is terribly easy to design a car. They are all the same, a metal body on four wheels. I'm sure I can do just as good a job as Mr. Ferrari." This is what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, it is not an exaggeration. Some people out there do think like that sometimes. What seemingly the simplest and "easiest" thing to do is actually the hardest thing to achieved, though an accomplished professional may make it seem that way.
BTW, IMO Le Corbusier is certainly not one of those "overrated" architects you so casually refer to. I can assure you that much with confidence. I understand and appreciate one's personal preference and taste. After all, having the knowledge and understanding to appreciate architecture is a learned process, which is quite different from liking the look of a smart phone, for example.
To answer your question simply: there is no "overrated" architects I know of, only unappreciative and opinionated laymen and amateur with untrained eyes and sensibility. That tends to be the case most of the time.
Who is the Most Overrated Architect in Your Opinion?
Most famed architects got famous for a reason. Architectural critics aren't fools, you know. Whether or not you have the same sentimentality or proper understanding of a given architectural style to fully appreciate their famous works is entirely different matter.
Those who are not capable to do certain things tend to be the loudest critics of that very things sometimes. Empty criticism is always the easiest to make regardless of background. Educated, professional and constructive suggestions or advise after criticism backed by proper experience seem hard to come by afterward.
I also find that many people tend to over trivialize and generalize on things that they are not trained and qualified to do themselves. They like to sometimes delude themselves to believe that, though being a layman or amateur, they can do just about everything as good as a well trained and seasoned professional. I suspect it has to do with one's misplaced pride and ego.
To put it in perspective, someone might say "It is terribly easy to design a car. They are all the same, a metal body on four wheels. I'm sure I can do just as good a job as Mr. Ferrari." This is what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, it is not an exaggeration. Some people out there do think like that sometimes. What seemingly the simplest and "easiest" thing to do is actually the hardest thing to achieved, though an accomplished professional may make it seem that way.
BTW, IMO Le Corbusier is certainly not one of those "overrated" architects you so casually refer to. I can assure you that much with confidence. I understand and appreciate one's personal preference and taste. After all, having the knowledge and understanding to appreciate architecture is a learned process, which is quite different from liking the look of a smart phone, for example.
To answer your question simply: there is no "overrated" architects I know of, only unappreciative and opinionated laymen and amateur with untrained eyes and sensibility. That tends to be the case most of the time.
Quite possibly the most pretentious response I have ever seen to a thread.
Just because people aren't professionals in a specific area does not mean they cannot be critics. One can have strong and valid opinions on a subject if they're someone who has a strong connection to that subject. I can easily be a critic about architecture because I have seen countless buildings in my life in my travels to 46 states and more than 40 countries. I can personally say that an architect is overrated if I have seen a number of his/her work and find it to be uncreative, derivative or simply ugly and an eyesore.
So I, like everyone else in this thread, can say that IM Pei, Gehry, Wright or Louis Kahn are overrated.
Personally, I think that Kahn is very overrated...his buildings are nearly always eyesores. I went to high school with a gigantic library designed by him:
And the Salk Institute is made so much uglier due to the hideousness of the Kahn buildings.
Gehry is another one I find to be overrated.
Tom Wright and WKK make some amazing things and that's my pick for "Most underrated"
Just because people aren't professionals in a specific area does not mean they cannot be critics. One can have strong and valid opinions on a subject if they're someone who has a strong connection to that subject. I can easily be a critic about architecture because I have seen countless buildings in my life in my travels to 46 states and more than 40 countries. I can personally say that an architect is overrated if I have seen a number of his/her work and find it to be uncreative, derivative or simply ugly and an eyesore.
Correct. Although someone might not be an architect that does not mean that they haven't studied
art and architecture.
The fact that you just think 'eyesore' says to me you don't understand what architecture is. Architecture is not about making things 'pretty', it's only something you realise when you actually get into the nuts and bolts of practicing it. A building can be good architecture, but as ugly as sin and vice versa.
As far as Kahn is concerned he is a mixed bag aesthetically. Personally I love the salk institute, but yes most of his buildings are hideous. BUT his buildings are superb architecturally, aesthetics are a different matter.
Last edited by archineer; 10-17-2014 at 02:19 PM..
Zaha Hadid. Great furniture/designs. Her architectural work is way too unrealistic, and when actually built, has little practical value. I hate to say it, but I strongly believe that her fame comes from her being from a woman from a heavily oppressed society and not the quality of her work.
Frank Gehry. Flowing metal sheets over a rectangular building. Not practical either.
Can I point out their empty shining baubles are merely a symptom of our time? The ultimate expression of rampant consumerism IMO.
Frank Gehry, his buildings are all the same. Crazy, free forming and almost Disney like props. You can design a couple of buildings in that style but not all of your works. There is no diversity or change.
lol
I'm no expert on architecture, but I've seen his work and I hate it. My vote's for Gehry too.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,363,738 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbler20
For me, it's going to be Le Corbusier. Sure, he changed modern architecture, but his buildings are sort of eyesores, he's very easily ripped off, and his obsession with concrete doesn't really make his buildings look very attractive.
Would you limit judgment to esthetics or add practicality to the mix?
I can't claim to have read extensively about architects and their projects but more than once have criticisms of the practicality of some Frank Lloyd Wright designs.
The only one of his buildings I've been in was the Guggenheim in NYC and personally, I like the look as well as his idea that having an extended ramp, making art viewers stand on a tilted floor, would keep traffic moving thru the museum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
