Guggenheim When Comparing the Two

Guggenheim

When comparing the two Guggenheim Museums created by Frank Lloyd Wright vs. Frank Gehry's creation, one would think from the names that they would be similar in many different ways. In this particular case, that is not necessarily true. Though the buildings do share some similarities they are difficult to find and it is much easier to contrast the two, than compare.

If it is true, as some art experts believe, that an architect is a portrayer of his society, then Wright's Guggenheim Museum should have been built in a much different spot. He railed early on that New York City was "overbuilt, overpopulated, and lacked architectural merit" (the Building). Perhaps subconsciously he wished to emphasize his displeasure with the location and it showed in the architecture. In discussing the form of each building one might consider that "the forms of architecture reflect and interpret some of the fundamental values of the society of the architect" (Martin, 146) One wonders then the difference between a building of 1959 versus the building of 1997 since it is difficult to tell that Wright's building is even a museum, which is true of Gehry's as well. Both buildings lack the form to follow the function. "The function or use of a building is an essential part of the subject matter of that building, what the architect interprets or gives insight into by means of its form" (Martin, 145)

This paper will compare and contrast not only the fact that both building lack the form to follow function but will also discuss the two styles of the buildings, and the symbolism, iconography, composition and chiaroscuro of the buildings as well.

First I will discuss the styles of both buildings. The focus of the paper on styles is that Wright's building is both earth-resting and sky-oriented architecture while the Guggenheim Bilbao created by Gehry is earth-rooted when observing it from the northern perspective and sky-oriented when viewing it from the southern perspective. "Earth-resting buildings relate more or less harmoniously to the earth" (Martin, 163-164) while sky-oriented architecture "discloses a world by drawing our attention to the sky bounded by a horizon" (Martin, 158). While Wright's building incorporates both of these styles it is conceded by most experts that it does not fit its location. The earth-rooted style of Gehry's building shows an architecture that seems to hug the earth. Wright's museum effectively uses cantilever construction to assist in the spiral flow leading to the sky (making it sky-oriented as well). Cantilever construction is known by projecting a form that is attached at one end to the building, while the other end juts out.

Second I will discuss the symbolism of the two buildings. The symbolism of both shows that the key images of both buildings depends on the perspective from which the building is viewed. The author talks of a 'colossal artichoke...a blooming flower' when referring to the Gehry museum while Wright's Guggenheim is in the shape of a seashell. These are all key images as related to the two architects.

The third discussion will focus on the iconography of the buildings which can be described as the viewer's participation in identifying and explaining what is going on in the building.

As mentioned above neither building has a form that follows function and the Gehry creation especially is difficult to tell what is going on in the building. Each perspective of the building from the viewer's participation can be totally different depending on the view. This is especially true of Gehry's museum. Wright's museum has a more difficult time in being 'right' due to its proximity to so many closely cropped buildings. This difficulty is examined in the next paragraph when the composition of both buildings is discussed.

The composition of a building can be defined as "the ordering of relationships: among details, among regions, among details and regions and among these and the total structure" (Martin, 79). Gehry's museum is much more ordered than Wright's is. Wright seems to be just a little off in his approach, which may have been the way he wanted it, but certainly is throws the viewer for a loop that is somewhat disconcerting.