Do Buildings Have "Sex"?
I think it's about time we talked about "sex" here. No, this isn't about buildings making beautiful music together with other buildings although Frank Gehry's "Fred and Ginger" building might make you think otherwise.
This is about if buildings are perceived to have gender. Can a building be said to be male, female or something in between? Here's Jackie Craven's article on the topic. She's a regular at About.com and presents a lot of good topics such as this one.
Are sex and architecture related? Here are four ways we can perceive our built environment:
Male: The building exudes masculine energy. Something about its shape, proportions, color, texture, or sheer mass shouts out, "Uh! Me Tarzan!" Or, perhaps, "Uh! Me Bill Gates!" Example: Any number of castles, such as Goodrich Castle in England. Or, any number of skyscrapers, such as the Empire State Building in New York.
Female: The building feels feminine. There is something womanly about its shape, size, proportions, color, or texture. Maybe you long to crawl inside and curl into a fetal position. Example: The Sydney Opera House. Or, maybe the building is bold and brassy -- Not the sort of girl you'd bring home to your parents. Possible example: Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum.
Androgynous: This building has both male and female qualities. Perhaps the texture is male, and the shape female. Or, the color is female, but the proportions... Well, you get the point. Example: Louis Sullivan's Wainwright Building.
Neuter: This poor building is entirely asexual. It lacks any qualities that could be interpreted as male or female. Perhaps it should go into therapy? Example: Sorry... I can't think of any. Can you?
posted by ben tumbling @ 2:28 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
I honestly don't think that 'Fred and Ginger' were 'having sex' in Gehry's building, what I do feel about that building are 2 people who are indeed dancing given Frank Gehry's affinity for Hollywood. Just a little thought....
Next thing I want to point out is that I don't think that it's fair or proper to 'determine a building's 'sex'' by means to what was listed above for they are all indeed subjective traits of an architecture. Better yet let's sop classifying them and determining their sex altogether!
The Sydney Opera house's soaring sails may create these 'shelter-like spaces' almost like emotional sanctuaries as more associated with females. But another way to look at it however would be the idea of the buiding's profile alone... Definitive, straightfoward, aggressive, something of a risk taker with its tilted elements, even arrogant as it cheekily taunts the Harbor with its good looks. Looking at the building closely in detail would reveal even stronger and more masculine points (the structural ribs visible underneath the sails). Even the whole idea of a sail, and sea-faring is associated with being male. There are many ways to see it as male as there are equally many ways to see it as female.
At the end of the day however, i think that if we were to talk of Sex and architecture, it is best to veer away from the seemingly direct metaphorical interpretations...
In today's pluralistic postmodern world, it is best that we live up to the positive aspects of being pluralistic and universal- that architecture be free of closed connotations that prevent meaning from entering it. For it is when we find our own special relationship to architecture, regardless of what, that the architecture, becomes closer to us and ultimately more human.
Post a Comment
<< Home