Arts What’s Going On At Slate?
posted by on May 16 at 16:20 PM
Today the online mag posted a piece called “The best (and worst) of Seattle’s architecture,” and yikes.
The writer, Witold Rybczynski, profiles all the notable buildings in the city—with nary a mention of the new Seattle Art Museum, which opened downtown less than two weeks ago to national coverage in the press. (Editors didn’t notice the oversight?)
Making matters worse, Rybczynski mistakes Richard Serra for Anthony Caro, twice.
It’s not only that Serra is famous and that Serra and Caro are impossible to mistake for one another, but that Serra’s works are among the most architectural in the history of sculpture—well within the bounds for an architecture critic.
Ouch.
Ouch, yeah, I'm glad I didn't see that. the P.I. this morning had a good Northwest section on events for the summer. Calder's sculpture park thing looks great on the front. Did you know the Times/PI, one of em, was a pioneer for color pictures in newsprint? The Center fountain pic with pink umnbrella is very cool.
Holy crap, Slate.com still exists?
That article sucks...they didn't even cover my favorite building, architect Steven Holl's Chapel of St. Ignatius or the many many other libraries going up or the amazing court house...D+
I like how he called the Bourgeois sculpture "wonderful." Fag.
Slate not only still exists; it also still sucks.
Jen, the URL was repeated in your hyperlink -- twice
(No biggie. Just a slight yuk from dumb ol' me)
@6: Should be fixed. Thanks.
i find the new SAM building neither the best nor worst of Seattle architecture. maybe tending towards the worst because of the loss of potential. The rest of the article, despite its flaws and perhaps lack or investment (research), seemed to echo most of my sentiments regarding local projects.
seattle doesn't have much in the way to be proud of when it comes to architecture. there is also, as the article points out, no distinctly seattle aesthetic. and please, please, don't prove the article correct and agree that the INSIDE of the library is what northwestern architecture is supposed to be about. those colors, materials and exposed elements remind me of a mall. or at best, a college building at western.
Without any criteria for determining "best" or "worst." a discussion like this is silly.
Against what standards are we each judging Seattle's buildings? Without making the standards crystal clear, it's impossible to know if any of our opinions make any sense.
Maybe I'm not critical enough, but I actually found the slide-article to be rather complimentary of the direction architecture is going in. Granted, it had harsh words for the EMP - who doesn't agree with that assessment, and was blah on Benaroya - I disagree with it here, Benaroya is beautiful, especially inside, but overall it seemed to give OK marks to our city.
PS why would there be a mention of the new SAM when everyone here in Seattle has downplayed the new SAM building?
Such oversights and mistakes come as no surprise to me. This is typical of how art and architecture writing is ghettoized in many mainstream publications, both print and online. Who is this writer anyway? It read like something written by an intern.
fkxwj eqhc visyu wehj lkfdgc pfgrkqhy qicxjyulf
fkxwj eqhc visyu wehj lkfdgc pfgrkqhy qicxjyulf
ambien online http://rlink.org/ambien >ambien online
ambien online http://rlink.org/ambien >ambien online
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).