The Secret of Philanthropy
By Philip Jodidio. Excerpt from the book "Santiago Calatrava. Complete Works 1979-2007"
Page [1] [2] [3]
Engineer, Architect, Artist
Calatrava's early interest in art, and the aesthetic sense that drew him to the small book on Corbusier would remain another constant factor in his work, and one of the things that sets him apart in the world of contemporary architecture. Referring to a 2005 exhibition of his art and architecture held at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, Calatrava says, "I think that the curator in charge, Gary Tinterow, understood my way of working, because he titled the show 'Sculpture into Architecture' rather than the reverse. Architecture critics haven't gotten over being perplexed by my work." Indeed, while noting that the last time the Metropolitan showed the work of a living architect was in 1973, Nicolai Ouroussoff, when reviewing this show, wrote in The New York Times, "No one would argue that Mr. Calatrava's sculptures would make it into the Met on their own merits; as art, they are mostly derivative of the works of dead masters like Brancusi," going on to a rather brutal conclusion, "One wishes he had left the sculpture back in his studio." This comment above all seems to show a lack of understanding of Calatrava's sculpture. "In sculpture," he says, "I have used spheres, and cubes, simple forms often related to my knowledge of engineering. It is a sculpture that gave rise to the Turning Torso (Malmö, Sweden, 1999-2004). I must admit that I greatly admire the liberty of a Frank Gehry, or Frank Stella as a sculptor. There is a joy and a liberty in Stella's work that is not present in my sculpture, which is always based in the rough business of mathematics." Calatrava is quite clear about saying that he has always disliked the art gallery circuit, almost never showing his sculpture. He also underlines the fact that "the reaction I receive from artists is very positive. Art is much freer than architecture, because, as Picasso said, some artists work with marble and others with shit." This is not to say that Santiago Calatrava is at all naive about the difficulty of his task. In 1997, he wrote, "Architecture and sculpture are two rivers in which the same water flows. Imagine that sculpture is unfettered plasticity, while architecture is plasticity that must submit to function, and to the obvious notion of human scale (through function).Where sculpture ignores function, unbowed by mundane questions of use, it is superior to architecture as pure expression. But through its rapport with human scale and the environment, through its penetrability and interiority, architecture dominates sculpture in these specific areas."
Calatrava has also brought a related passion to his own very personal definition of architecture-that of movement
Calatrava goes so far as to suggest that art must be considered to be a source of ideas for architecture."Why do I make drawings of the human figure? The artist or the architect can send his message across time by the very force of form and shadow. Rodin wrote,'Harmony in living bodies is the result of the counterbalancing of masses that move; the Cathedral is built on the example of the living body.' Let me give you an example of the importance of art for 20th-century architecture.When Le Corbusier wrote 'Architecture is the masterly, correct, and magnificent play of masses brought together in light' in 1923, how many people knew that he was borrowing from the thought of the sculptor Auguste Rodin?
Page [1] [2] [3]
Page [1] [2] [3]
Engineer, Architect, Artist
Calatrava's early interest in art, and the aesthetic sense that drew him to the small book on Corbusier would remain another constant factor in his work, and one of the things that sets him apart in the world of contemporary architecture. Referring to a 2005 exhibition of his art and architecture held at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, Calatrava says, "I think that the curator in charge, Gary Tinterow, understood my way of working, because he titled the show 'Sculpture into Architecture' rather than the reverse. Architecture critics haven't gotten over being perplexed by my work." Indeed, while noting that the last time the Metropolitan showed the work of a living architect was in 1973, Nicolai Ouroussoff, when reviewing this show, wrote in The New York Times, "No one would argue that Mr. Calatrava's sculptures would make it into the Met on their own merits; as art, they are mostly derivative of the works of dead masters like Brancusi," going on to a rather brutal conclusion, "One wishes he had left the sculpture back in his studio." This comment above all seems to show a lack of understanding of Calatrava's sculpture. "In sculpture," he says, "I have used spheres, and cubes, simple forms often related to my knowledge of engineering. It is a sculpture that gave rise to the Turning Torso (Malmö, Sweden, 1999-2004). I must admit that I greatly admire the liberty of a Frank Gehry, or Frank Stella as a sculptor. There is a joy and a liberty in Stella's work that is not present in my sculpture, which is always based in the rough business of mathematics." Calatrava is quite clear about saying that he has always disliked the art gallery circuit, almost never showing his sculpture. He also underlines the fact that "the reaction I receive from artists is very positive. Art is much freer than architecture, because, as Picasso said, some artists work with marble and others with shit." This is not to say that Santiago Calatrava is at all naive about the difficulty of his task. In 1997, he wrote, "Architecture and sculpture are two rivers in which the same water flows. Imagine that sculpture is unfettered plasticity, while architecture is plasticity that must submit to function, and to the obvious notion of human scale (through function).Where sculpture ignores function, unbowed by mundane questions of use, it is superior to architecture as pure expression. But through its rapport with human scale and the environment, through its penetrability and interiority, architecture dominates sculpture in these specific areas."
Calatrava has also brought a related passion to his own very personal definition of architecture-that of movement
Calatrava goes so far as to suggest that art must be considered to be a source of ideas for architecture."Why do I make drawings of the human figure? The artist or the architect can send his message across time by the very force of form and shadow. Rodin wrote,'Harmony in living bodies is the result of the counterbalancing of masses that move; the Cathedral is built on the example of the living body.' Let me give you an example of the importance of art for 20th-century architecture.When Le Corbusier wrote 'Architecture is the masterly, correct, and magnificent play of masses brought together in light' in 1923, how many people knew that he was borrowing from the thought of the sculptor Auguste Rodin?
Page [1] [2] [3]
Santiago Calatrava, Complete Works 1979-2007
Hardcover, 30.8 x 39 cm (12.1 x 15.4 in.), 536 pages
$ 150.00
$ 150.00
Master of Form: Santiago Calatrava’s fusion of architecture, art and engineering (Complete Works 1979-2007)
Santiago Calatrava. Photo: Nathan Beck
Drawing for the Milwaukee Art Museum, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 1994-2001