Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Icon frenzy replaces modesty with ego

  • Comment
letters

The problem with the current blether is that to Charles Jencks' 'existential questions' (AJ 9.9.04) - 'What should a building mean? In what style should it be? What associations should it have? What iconography should it adopt?' - too many architects will answer 'Bold!

An Icon! Kind of out-there! Something to make me seem trendy and daring, sexy and famous!' - forgetting, in their excitement, that they have not yet asked what is going on inside the building, what it is and who it is for - 'What might the building itself want to be?' The answer to this question might be: 'I want to be simple and quiet, well-mannered and well put together'. Or maybe even:

'Whatever makes those who use me most content'. There is a world of difference between, say, Utzon, who understood the virtues of simplicity and modesty (Sydney Opera House, pictured) - and where the need for celebration overtook them - and today's restless, self-advertising egotists.

Malcolm Fraser , Malcolm Fraser Architects, Edinburgh

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.