The most significant point in the debate between Charles Jenks and Rem Koolhaas is the importance of iconic images in communication, applied mainly to architecture. Koolhas says that the negative tag related to the “iconic” character of a building horrifies him. In addition, Charles Jenks argues that it is only a bad thing from the point of view of architects, puritans and minimalists. However, when it is well done, it can be very popular among the public.
The iconic buildings use to be very criticized by architects and theorists that disagree with this kind of architecture. However, many times it does not depend on the architect’s desire or personal opinion. The discussion raised by Koolhaas to what concerns on the architect’s power to control the process of project seems very pertinent. He argues that the architects does not have the power to define its own content, in most cases they cannot put their agenda first. Architects have to deal with the client’s desire, the availability of money, the political background, and so on…
This was the case of the CCTV building designed by Koolhaas in China. The client was asking for a building different from the other 300 skyscrapers that was already there. It should be iconic in its essence. The response it created was positive and negative in many ways. The other competitors criticized the building form, claiming that it was a pornographic icon. The public, however, easily created a connection with the building, which turned into a landmark and touristic attraction. This is a characteristic of Post-modern architecture: the public can appreciate it and participate of it without being inside.
It is still argued that a building has to be content-driven to be radical today, and that content must be public and significant. In this sense, Charles Jenks argues that the work of Rem Koolhaas seems to follow the radical agenda of post-modernism, operating in the gap between art and life.
The iconic buildings use to be very criticized by architects and theorists that disagree with this kind of architecture. However, many times it does not depend on the architect’s desire or personal opinion. The discussion raised by Koolhaas to what concerns on the architect’s power to control the process of project seems very pertinent. He argues that the architects does not have the power to define its own content, in most cases they cannot put their agenda first. Architects have to deal with the client’s desire, the availability of money, the political background, and so on…
This was the case of the CCTV building designed by Koolhaas in China. The client was asking for a building different from the other 300 skyscrapers that was already there. It should be iconic in its essence. The response it created was positive and negative in many ways. The other competitors criticized the building form, claiming that it was a pornographic icon. The public, however, easily created a connection with the building, which turned into a landmark and touristic attraction. This is a characteristic of Post-modern architecture: the public can appreciate it and participate of it without being inside.
It is still argued that a building has to be content-driven to be radical today, and that content must be public and significant. In this sense, Charles Jenks argues that the work of Rem Koolhaas seems to follow the radical agenda of post-modernism, operating in the gap between art and life.
Jenks, C. and Koolhaas, R. 2011. Radical Post-Modernism and Content: Charles Jencks and Rem Koolhaas Debate the Issue. Architectural Design, [online] pp.32-45. Available at: OneLibrary [Accessed 6 Feb. 2015].