Different architects have different styles because they are trying to get at different things. Architecture is not just about making something beautiful anymore, it is about trying to get across a set of ideas about how we inhabit space. Two of the most famous architects of the twentieth century, one from each side, the early part and the later part up until today each designed a museum with money donated by the Guggenheim foundation. One of these is in New York City, it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The other is in bilbao, Spain, and it was designed by Frank Geary. My purpose of this paper is to interrogate each of these buildings, glorious for different reasons, to show how each architect was expressing their own style.
The Guggenheim Museum in NewYork City directly across from the famous Central Park. This is important because Frank Llyod Wright is known for his organic architecture, where he tries to make the building fit in with the landscape. This is not the case with the Guggenheim, which I have seen and I can tell you it looks nothing like nature. It is a big white, almost circular building and many critics at the time said that it looked like a 'gigantic toilet.' The important thing about Wright's Guggenheim, however, is not what it looks like from the outside, but what does the purpose of the building. As a museum, the building would have to house a lot of many various art works. The Guggenheim in New York specifically holds Modern Art. My guess is that Wright wanted to do something modern, but he also wanted it to be functional.
In museums, you usually have to follow a map and go into different rooms to see the art works. The Guggenheim's inside is one gigantic spiral so that people can walk continuously while looking at the art, or he can dip into the little side rooms and see what else there is. This is a very functional approach.
I am only going to talk about the outside of Frank Geary's museum because I have never been there, and I have only seen pictures on the internet. This building is surprisingly attractive because the other building that we saw in class of his, his house in Santa Monica, had a great deal of "ugliness," to use an official term. His house in Santa Monica was supposed to look unfinished, with an emphasis on the materials used in construction. This building, however, looks as if it has been wrapped in silver. It looks very futuristic, and angular, so it could be functional as a museum as a museum because people will know it holds modern art. I like the way that it catches reflections, almost mirroring the surrounding buildings.
So, in these two examples we see very different approaches to architecture. One has an impressive inside and the other one has an appealing outside. Also, both seem to be departures for the architects from their normal modes-- Wright's building doesn't blend in with...