Above:  four Daniel Libeskind buildings: (from l to r) the graduate center at London Metropolitan University, the Jewish Museum, the ROM, and the Denver Art Museum addition.

Former Boston University president John Silber’s book The Architecture of the Absurd, set off a tacit rebuttal by Nicolai Ouroussoff back in December of 2007, and rightfully so.  The book is a predictable condemnation of the work of several starchitect including Frank Gehry, Daniel Libeskind, and Steven Holl, that reads more like the ranting of a crotchety old man than a measured professor of philosophy and son of an architect.

Indeed, the author has a unique and knowledgeable point-of-view: as the former president of Boston University, his administration oversaw a large building program, adding umpteen million feet of built area to the campus.  He has worked with architects entrusted with the large, complex capital investment of a university building.  Unfortunately, Silber falls flat on his face by presenting a one-dimensional argument which seeks to expose the con-men who use David Copperfield-ian “theoryspeak” to distract attention while Gehry et al, rob 501(c)3 organizations blind.

By implication, Silber must think that starchitect clients are either so stupid they are easily taken by the shell game played by the starchitect or guilty by association in the architect’s crimes of megalomania, poor taste, and flitching the hard-earned money of non profits in the first degree.  Fortunately, we have blueprint-reading university presidents like Silber to stand up to these amoralists in our ranks (forgetting of course that Silber refused to add a non-discrimination on sexual orientation provision in the university’s hiring practices, lest they be forced to allow those who practice “pedophilia, incest, and beastiality”).

I’m not going to get into it, because Ouroussoff isn’t the only one who’s been here before (he is proud because he decided to cap an atrium in a new BU building with an artificial skylight, rather than waste money with a real one).  Blind pragmatists could add depth to their arguments by examining some undeniable contributions that architecture as sculpture has necessitated.

For instance, Gehry’s drive to realize his models and sketches brought CATIA, a software package developed to fabricate aircraft fuselages, into architecture.  At the time, CAD software was being used as a simulacrum for hand-drafting.  With CATIA came the potential of parametric design and today we have BIM, for good or for bad.  BIM, or building information modeling, of course, allows architects to create a 3-d parametric model of a building from which schedules and drawings can automatically be pulled, greatly streamlining and improving portions of a design process.

To be fair, I do find Libeskind’s endlessly repetitive buildings a little tiring (though his forgotten masterplan for Ground Zero was very uplifting).  And I’m glad that MIT didn’t have to waste any of my tuition or slice of endowment to pay for maintenance, repairs, and legal fees for the Stata Center.  But there is plenty of shit to be spread around here, and Silber seems to suggest that only he has the sense to wear the rubber gloves.  At the heart of his argument seems is that Silber simply finds the architecture he rails against distasteful.  He and Prince Charles should be pen pals.