Considering Frank O. Gehry, it is important to indicate that he was born in Toronto; and, indisputably, the time he spent in Canada “had some remarkable quirks” (Weber). However, in 1947 he moved Los Angeles and became entirely involved into a profoundly complex framework of the U.S. society. To be precise, leaving for the United States helped Gehry acquire skills and knowledge, which enabled him to occur as an unprecedentedly virtuous designer. Obviously, practical experience that he obtained while working as a designer encouraged a young man to expand the insight on the area of architectural projects. As a result, Gehry took a critical decision to go back to the University of Southern Carolina and get a Bechelor’s degree in architecture. Subsequently, he entered the Harvard Graduate School of Design that many experts in the built environment consider as an extremely significant center for the development of unique techniques. Surely, before starting his own architecture firm, Gehry used to work for a number of enterprises, and this very priceless experience endowed him with an opportunity to elaborate on his individual style, which consists in revolutionary new approach to building design. One cannot but give Frank Gehry credit for changing “the course of architecture” (Stamberg).
One cannot but encounter the fact that Gehry incorporated all the characteristics necessary to remain at the forefront of design thinking throughout his period even though he “took a very circuitous path to his current post at the top of the architecture world” (Bailey); certainly, “Gehry’s ability to envision form” (Goldberger 5) enabled him to create a variety of epochal buildings. Since the early years, Gehry drew a particular attention to Frank Lloyd Wright’s architectural style; and, thus, one should be conscious that Gehry’s awareness of house design appeared to be under impression of Wright’s creative projects. In addition, due to Gehry’s move to Los Angeles, the signs of “California progressiveness” can be vividly seen in a number of his architectural structures. Notwithstanding this fact, it becomes clear that Gehry’s unusual fabrications should not be viewed exceptionally within the framework of the aforementioned architectural style. The focus here lies in arguing that an increased focus on using a mixture of unusual materials alludes to his unique decorative motif.
In view of many critics, Gehry’s contribution into the development of architectural design is likely to be interpreted from the perspective of post-modern architecture. On the other hand, there are those critics claiming that Frank Gehry’s unique nature has much in common with modern ideas. Despite the fact that the bulk of widely-acknowledged critics vividly see the prevalence of either post-modern or modern motifs in the architect’s style, one should also take into consideration that some make an emphasis on particular similarities with Peter Eisenman’s architectural style; and, therefore, it appears to be certain that one can refer to Gehry’s buildings as decostructivist projects. On the whole, one cannot help but become aware that the architect’s style is difficult to determine due to his unwillingness to stick to popular concepts; in other words, Frank Gehry occurs as an architect who puts a lot of effort into staying outside the framework of popular trends.
It is inevitable that Gehry pays special attention to elaborating on the inclusive approach. To make it clear, the architect usually takes into account the dimension of the public’s sentiments while creating his buildings. Evidently, Gehry’s architectural projects often reflect a national identity. In addition, his buildings aim to allude to some life concepts that a certain group of people grab. Among the most significant buildings that he designed, it is important to make mention of the one for the Department of Art in Canada; a peculiar thing is that this very building was projected in order to mirror the student’s willingness to face challenges throughout life. Among the recent Gehry’s projects, one has to take a notice of Facebook Campus in Silicon Valley. Apparently, the given building addresses the ever-changing trends of digital culture and all the complexity of 21st century interpersonal relationship.
To sum up, it becomes evident that Gehry demonstrated “a number of heuristics to build and keep a design attitude” (Boland et al., 24); and he should not be underestimated from the perspective of an impressive collection of buildings that he continues to create today. Yes, he has been fairly given the status of a living legend due to his unprecedented contribution to humanity, and the fact that he has prompted the public to reinterpret the attitude towards the architecture cannot be called into question.
- Bailey, Spencer. With Nothing Left to Prove, Frank Gehry Continues to Reconstruct the World, Nonchalantly. Surface. 12 Nov. 2015. Web. 30 may 2016.
- Boland, J. Richard., et al. Managing as Designing: Lessons for Organization Leaders from the Design Practice of Frank O. Gehry. Design Issues, 24.1 (2007): 25. Print.
- Goldberger, Paul. Building Art: The Life and Work of Frank Gehry. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015. Print.
- Stamberg, Susan. Frank Gehry’s Lifelong Challenge: To Create Buildings That Move. National Public Radio. 10 Sep. 2015. Web. 30 may. 2016.
- Weber, N. Fox. Building Art: The Life and Work of Frank Gehry, by Paul Goldberger. New York Times. 23 Oct. 2015. Web. 30 May 2016.
