What sells architecture? Landscape, writes David Heymann in his 2011 article “Landscape is Our Sex”. Heymann presents an interesting stance on the role of landscape in modern architecture, however, despite the conviction of Heymann’s beliefs, this article presents insufficient evidence to support many of his claims.
“Landscape is Our Sex” discusses the trend in modern architecture to describe designs as a response to the site; correlating the built form with the landscape as a strategy to persuade the public to accept ambitious designs. Heymann asserts that few architects create designs that are a true response to the unique characteristics of a site (like Glenn Murcutt); rather, most architects use elements of the site to generate an abstracted …show more content…
Heymann consistently speaks of the architects’ personal contribution in creating a design – the artist within the architect that bends, skews, layers and interprets maps in a manner that supports their design desires and artistic intent. However, unlike an abstract artist who may wilfully create a work without the consideration of the audience’s perception, an architect must first obtain audience approval before their art may be realised. In this way, Heymann succinctly summarises the plight of the architects need to sell a design to progress from concept to construction in “a marketplace society”, especially abstracted designs (Heymann 2011, …show more content…
To support his assertion, Heymann cites a series of examples that illustrate the modern architects’ tendency to retrospectively connect landscape to design as a strategy to sell abstracted architecture. Whilst the examples do provide weight to this assertion, it is the omissions that make the reasoning for this conclusion tenuous. Consider the logic – fruit is red; apples are fruit; therefore apples are red. After showing a series of red apples, one must conclude that apples are red. However, the argument fails in the presence of a custard apple or a granny smith. Similarly, Heymann’s examples exclude the granny smith apples of commercial architecture and omits the custard apples of residential architecture completely (with the exception of the Simpson-Lee House by Glenn Murcutt). Did Frank Gehry equate a fish to the landscape to sell the abstracted design of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain? Does the residential architect use landscape to sell to a client, or is the sell focused on the client requirements and budget? Heymann’s red apples do show that landscape sells architecture, however, through omission he concedes that a relationship with the landscape is not the only reason for considering a building good, nor is landscape the mechanism used by most architects to convince a client to
“Landscape is Our Sex” discusses the trend in modern architecture to describe designs as a response to the site; correlating the built form with the landscape as a strategy to persuade the public to accept ambitious designs. Heymann asserts that few architects create designs that are a true response to the unique characteristics of a site (like Glenn Murcutt); rather, most architects use elements of the site to generate an abstracted …show more content…
Heymann consistently speaks of the architects’ personal contribution in creating a design – the artist within the architect that bends, skews, layers and interprets maps in a manner that supports their design desires and artistic intent. However, unlike an abstract artist who may wilfully create a work without the consideration of the audience’s perception, an architect must first obtain audience approval before their art may be realised. In this way, Heymann succinctly summarises the plight of the architects need to sell a design to progress from concept to construction in “a marketplace society”, especially abstracted designs (Heymann 2011, …show more content…
To support his assertion, Heymann cites a series of examples that illustrate the modern architects’ tendency to retrospectively connect landscape to design as a strategy to sell abstracted architecture. Whilst the examples do provide weight to this assertion, it is the omissions that make the reasoning for this conclusion tenuous. Consider the logic – fruit is red; apples are fruit; therefore apples are red. After showing a series of red apples, one must conclude that apples are red. However, the argument fails in the presence of a custard apple or a granny smith. Similarly, Heymann’s examples exclude the granny smith apples of commercial architecture and omits the custard apples of residential architecture completely (with the exception of the Simpson-Lee House by Glenn Murcutt). Did Frank Gehry equate a fish to the landscape to sell the abstracted design of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain? Does the residential architect use landscape to sell to a client, or is the sell focused on the client requirements and budget? Heymann’s red apples do show that landscape sells architecture, however, through omission he concedes that a relationship with the landscape is not the only reason for considering a building good, nor is landscape the mechanism used by most architects to convince a client to