Piano – nistennew l-isterizmu
I like this comment about Renzo Piano’s plans for the entrance to the city, in the leading article in The Times today:
When he presents his designs in April one should be prepared for two things. First, one should expect a design that is exciting, vigorous, unusual and unique but which is also functional, elegant, authentic and to scale. “Tradition” is not a word with which Mr Piano is happy. Secondly, his judgment needs to be accepted. Of course, everyone has one’s own subjective ideas but his expertise, experience and talent demand respect.
I think, though, that the timpana and lampuka-pie brigade are going to be out in force, demanding, on the one hand, a reconstruction of Barry’s hideous and ill-fitted building, to be used as an opera house, and on the other hand, something ‘modern’ (but not too modern, please), which is also an opera house. U aqta kemm se jisimghu opri u jonfqu flus.
U nibqghu fejn konna.
12 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I fail to see what’s so brilliant about the comment:(Piano’s) “judgment needs to be accepted.” This is a poor ad hominem argument in reverse. This guy’s a dickhead so he MUST be wrong. Now its this guy’s a genius so he MUST be right.
This man is human like the rest of us. He’s not God Almighty. He has a track record on City Gate. 20yrs ago he planned to destroy the surviving 16th century bridge. He was applauded for this by all the pundits who think he’s God Almighty. I objected. Piano has now revealed that he didn’t know what he was doing, and now that he knows about the existence of the original bridge he is “eager to preserve it and incorporate it in his new design. The pundits will no doubt now perform a volte-face and agree with this as well.
Twenty years ago he planned to apply cladding to a sizable portion of the bastions surrounding the gate. Totally incongruous. Twenty years ago he planned to destroy more of the bastions by punching holes through them. Twenty years ago he did not design a gate.
I trust that 20 years down the line he has developed more of a feel for our fortifications. I cannot agree that his judgment NEEDS to be accepted. Our experience with City Gate has amply demonstrated this. I also have no doubt that those who commissioned him will first want to see what he comes up with, as I would, before finding the need to accept his judgment.
As for the Opera House site – I wonder if Piano may not be a little passe. I suspect that Calatrava would be more likely to produce a design that is “exciting, vigorous, unusual and unique . .etc.” Ever been to Valencia?
[Daphne – Not really, John. The way I read what The Times is saying is that all opinions on this matter are necessarily subjective, therefore when choosing from a plethora of subjective opinions, our choice should fall on the ‘most qualified’ one. As for myself, I approach the matter not only from the aesthetic point of view, but also from what we stand to gain in terms of landmark marketing for Malta. Piano projects put cities on the map. Now you might think that Valletta’s historic status is enough of an attraction in itself, but not really. It only attracts those who have an interest in history, and not those who have an interest in contemporary city life. It is singularly unattractive to young people, and has a very fusty image. It needs a landmark piece of contemporary architecture.
I don’t agree that the option should be left open to have Piano’s designs turned down again. That sort of thing just isn’t on. When you commission an architect of that stature, you accept his designs, perhaps with a little modification here and there, after discussion. Otherwise, you might as well commission a fresh graduate and just tell him what to do.
Yes, I have been to Valencia, and I agree that Calatrava’s buildings are very striking. I am just trying to imagine, though, how they would go down with the timpana-and-lampuka-pie bridge-players. As you said, they are far more avant-garde than Piano, and even Piano is too much for some. I’ve posted a couple of Calatrava links here for our readers http://www.brianmicklethwait.com/images/uploads/CalatravaCiutadValencia.jpg
http://technology4life.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/auditorio-valencia.jpg
Sure. Let’s have the landmark piece of contemporary architecture on the Opera House site. But it doesn’t follow that City Gate (i.e.the fortifications) should be buggered up – as it would have been twenty years ago had we blindly accepted his judgment. My feeling is that this time round he’ll come up with something more acceptable. After all, he already appears to have agreed to “a little modification here and there”.
No doubt. Calatrava would send the country bananas.
I’m having fun reading you two! Please continue…. John, I’ve never been to Valencia but judging from the links Daphne posted there will be a hell of an uproar if Piano designs something like this. And Daphne, why modern at all costs. I think you’ve been to Edinburgh. The parliament building there is modern as hell. It’s a monstrosity.
[Daphne – I quite liked it. And contemporary is the only way to go. Reproducing something from the past is the equivalent of spending good money on a copy of an antique cupboard. It has no added value, and no significance. And in any case, it’s considered poor taste. I find it odd that many of those who would never dream of putting a piece of reproduction furniture in their drawing-rooms are calling for a reproduction building.]
The buildings referred to above are outside Valencia so not exactly a good example. They house what is called the City of Arts and Sciences. The buildings are built in the dry bed left when the Turia river was diverted. It would be great to have such fine examples here. I was there last October and they really are inspiring.
http://www.cac.es/ is the official site.
Not to forget that while demanding the reconstruction on Barry’s design they’re also crying “shame” over the government commissioning a foreign architect …
I don’t think that anyone is saying that Piano and Calatrava’s work is automatically horrid. What people are saying is that Piano and Calatrava are not the sort of thing that would look well in a small, cramped city (centre) like Valletta full of Baroque buildings. There is a world of difference between having a modern edifice in Valletta and in the outskirts of a large city.
I agree that Piano’s plans for City Gate were too drastic last time round, but how do we know that they’re not going to be so this time round, too? I consider the “knocking a hole” in the bastions a sacrilege. Valletta is a walled, Baroque city and ripping open the walls is just not on.
[Daphne – I might be wrong about this and I’m quite sure others will rush to set me straight if I am. But surely the predominant architectural style in Valletta was/is Mannerist and not Baroque? Valletta was built when the Mannerist style was in vogue and when Baroque had not yet begun in Rome, still less in backwater Malta. St John’s Cathedral is typically Mannerist, so are the auberges and the original surviving palaces. I see nothing Baroque about them.]
Everywhere I look I find Valletta to be a Baroque city with elements of Mannerism (Cathedral, Sacra Infermeria) and other styles. Someone will certainly come along to clarify the point. If the Baroque looks abysmal sitting side by side with Piano or Calatrava, so will the Mannerist.
[Daphne – St John’s is definitely Mannerist. Only the decoration of the interior is Baroque. It was applied later. Contrary to you, I see very little that is Baroque in the architecture of the houses and palazzi. They are actually very plain and simple.]
[Daphne – St John’s is definitely Mannerist.]
That’s what I said above. So is the Sacra Infermeria. However one must keep in mind that the city only started being built in 1566 (first stone laid), and that Mannerism was on its way out by 1580/ 90. Valletta was not built in a day, and with the demise of Glormu Cassar in 1586, Mannerism gave way to Baroque. Cassar is also responsible for the Augustinian Church in Rabat, which is built in the Renaissance style. Many of Glormu’s buildings were finished off and decorated in the Baroque style, and Auberge de Castille, although it was built in the Renaissance style originally, was given a new facade by Pinto, again in the Baroque style.
You might be interested in this:
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/maltarchitecture/ecclasiastical.html
There are features in the Cathedral facade which appear to be Renaissance, and even after it was built, Mattia Preti appears to have made alterations in the facade (in order to increase the amount of light inside the Cathedral) in the Baroque style. It is all very interesting.
I found this very interesting too:
“It seems that many authors see Cassar as the Maltese version of a Michelangelo by attributing sophisticated and modern Italian designs to him or by interpreting the measurements of St. John’s as “musical proportions” based on Leon Battista Alberti’s theories. Cassar certainly contributed in many ways to the development of Malta’s architecture, and he also influenced many of his followers. But one should always keep in mind that Cassar was neither trained in Classical architecture (which is the basis of Renaissance design), nor did he know the architectural rules that he was supposed to break when applying the Mannerist style.
Therefore, Cassar was merely able to copy certain architectural elements – without actually understanding them – that he had seen on his study tour to Italy, and he applied them in a different way than his Italian contemporaries.”
I think the way it could be put simply, and crudely, is that Valletta started off Mannerist in the 16th century, and many of the major buildings were then “Baroqued” up in the 17th century by adornment of the facades e.g the auberges: Castille, Provence etc; the churches: Sta Catarina d’Italia etc.
Moggy – I think you’ll find that Geronimo lived on for a few more years. See my postscript on the Geronimo blog.
Yes thank you, John. I have answered you on the Geronimo blog.