Monthly Archives: May 2009

Salome in St. Louis

ST. LOUIS—A standard production of Richard Strauss’s “Salome” requires a cistern, from which John the Baptist booms out prophecies and imprecations against the title character’s dysfunctional family. Opera Theatre of St. Louis, one of the country’s best summer festivals, doesn’t have a stage that can accommodate a cistern, so on Saturday evening they turned the cistern on its side, and made it a giant vault at the back of the theater. When John appears for the first time, through an oculus that opens to reveal a dark chamber, he is seen in a loin cloth, in Caravaggio-esque shadows, as if framed in a Renaissance tondo.

It’s a powerful entrance, and part of a radical rethinking of the opera that gives the prophet equal dramatic weight with Salome, the spoiled girl who demands and in the end receives his head on a silver platter. “Salome,” which requires a large orchestra and powerful dramatic soprano, is not usually performed by companies the size of Opera Theatre. But Opera Theatre has staged it anyway, scaling it down, and casting the title role with an auburn-haired, pint-sized soprano, Kelly Kaduce, who sings it in almost conversational tones.

Much is lost along the way. The horns and lower strings of the St. Louis Symphony, the pit band for Opera Theatre, are swallowed up in the small orchestra pit, and Strauss’s magnificent and over-sized orchestration becomes a series of interesting, if unsatisfying coloristic effects. The larger momentum of the piece is broken as well, channeled into vignettes and small scenes. The basic reward structure of a Strauss opera—lots of orchestral foreplay that yields, finally, to a long delayed orgiastic release—has lost much of its frustrating pleasure.

But there are many compensations. The suppression of the orchestra allows smaller characters to be heard, and many of the minor players emerged in a way they never do in a fully-scaled opera house performance. Narraboth, the handsome captain of the guards who is dangerously enthralled with Salome, is generally a thankless role, an envoy of the homoeroticism in Oscar Wilde’s original play, which Strauss sets faithfully. Eric Margiore’s Narraboth was a real presence, sung with a fine, forceful tenor and acted with more intelligence than is usually showered on a character whose purpose is only to delay the action. The soldiers under his command—ably sung by Matthew Anchel and Bradley Smoak—were also compelling presences, rather than mere functionaries.

And there’s the peculiarity of this performance. The singers are engaged more with the drama than with the music, which becomes a mere vehicle for the text. There are people who piously insist that this is the proper balance in the opera house, but it is a strange way to approach this early, epater la bourgeoisie opera of Strauss. Strauss chose Wilde’s exercise in decadence (originally written in French) to scandalize, not because the play has any particular psychological depth or even dramatic substance. It was a series of compelling and grotesque tableaux, nothing more.

Strauss’s characters don’t think in words, rather, the orchestra thinks for them. It is the struggle with the orchestra that produces the character’s appearance of psychological depth. Fundamentally, “Salome” is not about Salome, or John the Baptist, or Salome’s horrid parents. It is about a soprano’s battle with a giant noise making machine, ratcheted up to its most perfervid pitch. It is an athletic competition, fought on the gridiron of music, not a drama of words or characters.

Perhaps only a performance that breaks so fundamentally with tradition could reveal this truth, and for that one is grateful to the daring of director Sean Curran, conductor Stephen Lord and dramaturg and consulting director James Robinson.

Kaduce also deserves enormous respect for undertaking a role that she may never sing in a fully-scaled production. With the orchestra kept well tamed, she emerged as the Salome one dreams of: Convincingly adolescent and petulant, lithe and sexy, and a dancer of considerable skill (who finishes the dance of the seven veils completely naked). Her English diction (the libretto was translated by Thomas Hammond) was impeccable, and she managed to stitch together the painfully wide intervals with which Strauss diabolically stresses the musical line. Kaduce’s voice isn’t huge, and she is perhaps still too young to have a clear sense of what its texture and depth will be. But she never wavered or faltered, and she embraced one of opera’s most psychotic roles with true artistic courage.

Her love, and her victim, John the Baptist, was sung by baritone Gregory Dahl, whose voice was the most traditionally matched to the role. He was an uncomfortably believable prophet, vocally authoritative, and at times almost pastoral in his warnings to Salome. He dominated the orchestral texture more than the other singers, which meant he had an unusually large impact on the drama. That, and the slower, more methodically delivered lines of the Jews who debate religion, made the opera seem, at moments, strangely Christian—a genuine meditation on sin and redemption.

That is there, of course, in Wilde’s text. But it’s debatable whether Strauss wanted anyone to find it. Perhaps that’s the best way to sum up an impressive and quixotic effort: Opera Theatre has found in Strauss’s “Salome” things the composer never could have imagined anyone missing.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Music, Opera, Uncategorized

14 Degrees, Halfway Done

Lean TowerThe economic decline may have slowed the Emirate’s development, but the raising of the world’s “most leaning” tower continues. RMJM has just sent a progress report on the Capital Gate tower, which leans (or rather, appears to lean) at an 18-degree angle—more than the Leaning Tower of Pisa (which does in fact lean). The tower has reached the 17th  and 18th floors of its projected 35-floor height. Constructed on top of a 7-foot deep concrete base, with a steel, diagrid exoskeleton, the finished structure will house a high-end hotel. Some 490 piles, reaching 100 feet into the ground, will help it resist wind and seismic forces.

 

The amazing thing is that I’m writing about this. Capital Tower may present significant engineering challenges, but it’s even more remarkable how the Emirates publicity machine remains uniquely harnessed to architectural form. Buildings take on strange shapes because they must compete with one another in a climate of pure speculation. In most other contexts, you would want to know why the building leans—what is the meaning? the purpose? the intention? In places like Abu Dhabi, form doesn’t follow function, it follows advertising, which in turn chases the decadent human delight in the ever-new. You make a leaning building so that when it’s half finished you can send out notice that the world’s most leaning building has reached its halfway point. As Frederic Jameson writes, “Of all the arts, architecture is the closest, constitutively to the economic…” And he’s right. This building looks like the economy of the Gulf states.

 If the Leaning Tower of Pisa seems a miracle, it is a miracle that contrasts the power of God (to sustain things in mid-air) with the fallibility of man. Capital Gate makes us wonder at the power of engineering, and ultimately, at the power of money, which ensorcells these strange objects out of the sand. Rem Koohlhaas’s CCTV tower in Beijing is similar in its terrifying celebration of pure power, but it is the power of the state (to observe and control and send messages) which is encoded in the building’s dizzying overhang. Older buildings make us wonder, who built that? Today’s buildings make us wonder, how does it stay up? There’s an important difference there, a shift from a powerful person (Pharoah or King) to a more abstract, hidden sense of raw power.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Architecture

The Ordos Prize

            Young Chinese architects are blessed and cursed with an abundance of work. Many of them have burgeoning portfolios of built projects in their 20s, when young architects in the West are still thoroughly in the apprenticing process. But when I visited China last year, I heard the same refrain: While it’s nice to work, they also want a chance to think.

            When  I visited a class of aspiring architects at Nanjing University, they wanted to talk about Kenneth Frampton and regionalism and debate the merits of starchitecture. They wanted time to ponder China’s role in the world, and how the younger generation could steer the country away from building fast and encourage it to build well. They were idealists, but they knew that their likely fate was a life of long hours, cranking out formulaic designs for warehouses and generic housing.

            Announcing the Ordos Prize, a new architecture competition funded by a Chinese billionaire. It is named for the Inner Mongolian city of Ordos, one of China’s astonishing “mushroom” cities that has grown from a population of zero in 2001 to 1.36 million today. Part of the award includes a commission to build a new building, plus $20,000 in award money.

Though not so grand as the Pritzker Prize, or so thorough in its process as the Aga Khan Award for Architecture  (which operates on a three-year cycle and is meant “to encourage architecture that reflects the pluralism that has always characterised Muslim communities”), the Ordos Prize does seemed design to address the malaise of over-worked and under-theorized young architects. It is not limited to Chinese architects, and the nominating committee is thoroughly international: Ben van Berkel, Stefano Boeri, Liz Diller, Jacques Herzog, Thom Mayne, Pierre de Meuron, Enrique Norten, Kazuyo Sejima, Wang Shu and Robert A. M. Stern, according to a press release.

 “Unlike other major prizes that recognize an architect for a significant project or body of work, The Ordos Prize is the first to honor emerging young talent,” says Rem Koolhaas , who heads The Ordos Prize Jury.

  

The prize process is being thrown together rather quickly. A spokeswoman for the award said that nominees are currently coming in, and the jury will meet in July. The award will be presented August 20, 2009. The commission that goes along with the cash award is “still a work in progress,” according to Barbara Sayre Casey, whose public relations firm sent out the announcement. At this point, it’s not clear what the building will be, though it will be built in the city of Ordos. Which already seems to have one of everything.
 
Architecture critics love prizes because they are a lazy man’s way of sorting through a large and confusing field of data. I also think there’s a desire to see something interrupt what seems like an intractable problem in China—the disappointing lack of authenticity and innovation in a country that is building so much new stuff. There are exceptions, of course, and perhaps this prize is one way of locating and promoting them.

 Meanwhile, it’s worth taking note of the larger fact of Ordos, the city-out-of-nowhere that is cashing in on the fossil fuels trade. It is also the site of the Ordos 100 project (funded by the same billionaire, Cai Jiang), a collection of 100 individually designed villas being curated by Herzog and de Meuron. An international array of architects is involved, and according to Sayre Casey, who has just returned from the site, they are actually being built. So far, a half dozen or more are underway. And the city includes a museum, also under construction, designed by the Beijing-based MAD firm, which I visited last year. MAD is a very interesting, ambitious and innovative young company that always manages to find itself in the headlines.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Architecture

Old Bohemians in New Groves

The mad ambition of Saadiyat Island continues to take form. A torrid patch of sand just off the coast of Abu Dhabi, Saadiyat Island is slated to become one of the world’s most ambitious, built-from-scratch cultural districts. The bluest of blue-chip architects, including Frank Gehry, Tadao Ando, Jean Nouvel and Zaha Hadid, have been enlisted to build a range of museums and performance spaces.

Louvre Abu DhabiToday (May 26), French President Nicolas Sarkozy visited the Emirate for the official ground-breaking for Nouvel’s commission, the new Louvre Abu Dhabi. The festivities included the usual diplomatic flapdoodle (“With deep admiration for the people of Abu Dhabi, and for their leaders who believe, as we do, that the arts lie at the very heart of civilization,” gushed the prominent husband of the singer and sometime nude model, Carla Bruni) but also a glimpse of what the museum may become. Along with the ground breaking, a preliminary exhibition, called “Talking Art: Louvre Abu Dhabi,” offered an introduction to the curatorial mission of this new outpost of French culture. The focus is “universalism.”

Which is to say, the new Louvre wants to have a little bit of everything, all tied together with the not terribly shocking notion that art and ideas cross boundaries. It is just the sort of idea that a museum afraid of ideas would pick. And of course “universalism” is a good way to keep the art focus on the larger world—and not ruffle any local feathers. So the first exhibition includes decorative arts from around the world, a Mamluk Qu’ran and lamp, fancy house wares from France, carvings from Africa, ancient classical pieces and a smattering of paintings. Among the last of these is a painting by Manet called “The Bohemian.”

The “crossroads” of civilization is as valid (and empty) a conceit for Abu Dhabi as it is for any other country located on or near a major trade route. But like Dubai, its more extravagant neighbor, Abu Dhabi isn’t really a crossroads at all. Although they are strategically placed along well-traveled sea routes that brought East and West together for millennia, the Emirates today are merely destinations for the wealthy, who can live and play there with a strange, denatured insularity. Despite their efforts to host international book fairs and arts festivals, there’s very little real or permanent depth of intellectual or creative culture in the Emirates. That’s not to say that there aren’t a lot of creative people there, but it remains a very commercial culture, and a rather decadent one too. And little of the imported international culture intersects with the local Emirates culture, which remains curiously elusive.

Nouvel’s Louvre plans reflect uneasiness about all of this. The building has two central elements, a giant dome with an 180-meter diameter, under which the architect has placed a mini “city” of smaller buildings. The dome is really a large, disk perforated in a pattern inspired by the intricate wood carving of Arabian screens, or mushrabiya. The city underneath resembles, in some ways, an archaeological dig—especially when seen from above, where the square forms poke out from the dome in an almost haphazard form, like the small rooms and stubby walls you find in an old Pueblo ruin.

This suggestion of a city emerging from lost time (with a superficial overlay of Arabic patterning) may function very well as a museum space, especially given the wildly eclectic art that is likely to be on display. The division into smaller rooms lessens the need for some large, over-arching program (a curse of too many new museum designs). But it also reveals what may be a powerful fantasy: That underneath the arid sand there is a lost culture. And so the Emirates, posit a past they never had, and connect it directly with the brilliant future that their wealth (somewhat tarnished by the global downturn) seems to promise. They are ancient, they are new, there’s no troubling history in between.

History, of course, will make its challenges felt, and it will be hard to curate a serious museum in a culture that is deeply traditional and hierarchical. Despite their superficial openness as a destination, the Emirates are intellectually bound to structures and ideas deeply at odds with the antagonistic critique of values implicit in much of Western art since… since…

Manet's "The Bohemian"

Manet's "The Bohemian"

Since at least the time of Manet. So it is curious to see his painting “The Bohemian” is one of the anchors of the new collection. Granted, it’s not Manet’s “Olympia,” that brazen naked beauty, who might find her  power to scandalize renewed by a visit to Abu Dhabi. But, rather like “Olympia,” this painting of a raffish young man with blue sash and yellow head band  personalizes outsider status, allowing a marginal figure to gaze out of the painting with the intelligence of personhood, rather than the blandness of a type or caricature.  The young man challenges the viewer on a number of levels–his shabbiness is its own provocation–half smiling in a way that suggests he doesn’t care much what we think about him.

One wonders what locals will make of “The Bohemian,” seen perhaps after driving by one of the Emirate’s ubiquitous construction sites, where workers from south Asia swelter in boiling temperatures, serving almost as indentured labor. Poverty, in the Emirates, depersonalizes and dehumanizes, creating a hidden-in-plain-sight underclass of invisible men. “The Bohemian” represents a different kind of poverty, to be sure, but he is a very insistent fellow, forcing a confrontation with social categories that have little place (except at the bottom or the margins) in Emirates society.

Images courtesy of Saadiyat Island

Above:  Ateliers Jean Nouvel

Below: Edouard Manet (French, 1832-1883). The Bohemian , 1862. Oil on canvas; 90.5 x 55.3 cm.

1 Comment

Filed under Architecture, Culture

Of Ducks, Donald and Daffy

Tucked into the bottom of a fascinating Wall Street Journal article by Susan Bernofsky, we find this gem:

“Even Frankfurt School philosopher Max Horkheimer admitted to enjoying reading Donald Duck comics before bed.”

It’s part of an interesting little piece on Donald Duck in Germany. Apparently, through long-term licensing, the Duck thrives in Allemagne. He’s pretty much off the radar screen in his native land, but he’s enjoyed a long ex-pat life in Germany where Disney allows translators a remarkable degree of freedom when rendering Donald auf Deutsch. And so, for German readers, Donald is an erudite bird, familiar (in a fallible way) with Schiller and Goethe and the rest of the canon.

All of which reminds me of something I thought worth putting on the record. I have the sneaking suspicion that  Louis de Funès, the great French comic, stole his whole shtick from another duck, Daffy. De Funès made dozens of films between 1945 and his death in 1983. They’re hardly known in the U.S., but still very popular in the Francophone world. A few of them (La Folie des Grandeurs is a good start) are available on Netflix.

Like Daffy, De Funès’s character is pure id, and like Daffy, he has a tendency to complicate the means by which he achieves his desires. He sees the social world through Rube Goldberg glasses, but always in the service of almost childlike appetites. In the end, he is self-defeating, unmasked and ridiculous (it helps that De Funès was about 5 and a half feet tall and bald) . We always felt sorry for Daffy, but I don’t know that we ever loved him. De Funès is lovable, perhaps because his voraciousness is so large and primitive and infantile. He never becomes a true villain because he is us, or a part of us, dimly remembered from when we were three years old and unselfconsciously selfish.

He is, in a way, a tragic figure. Just as some people go through life with physical limitations that bring them often into grief, the archetypal De Funès character is philosophically handicapped: He can concoct elaborate schemes, but he can’t see one step ahead in the causal chain of events. The world is forever surprising him. It’s failure to conform to his wishes, his plans and his appetites is always a scandal.

Daffy had a bit of this too. After eating a hot chili in a Mexican restaurant, Bugs hands him a shot of tequila. And wham! To the Moon! Poor Daffy never sees it coming.

1 Comment

Filed under Culture, Feuilleton, film

Exploring the “film memoir” at the National Gallery

Beginning tomorrow (Sunday, May 24), the National Gallery presents three very different, but wonderfully rich film
“memoirs
.” The best of them (May 31 at 4:30 p.m.)  is Agnes Varda’s The Beaches of Agnes, certainly one of her finest films, if not her masterpiece. It’s a complete delight and even though there’s a good chance that next Sunday will be warm, sunny and lovely, carve out two hours and don’t miss this film. Really. Don’t miss it. And don’t miss Guy Maddin’s year-old “My Winnipeg,” a slightly cracked memoir of place (May 30 at 2 p.m. and 4 p.m.). Rounding out the series is “L’Aimee,” a slower, more introverted and painful film, but deeply touching for anyone thinking about the death of a parent (May 24 at 4:30). I wrote up the series in the Sunday edition of The Washington Post.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Culture, film

Rethinking embassy architecture

Dwell magazine, which bears the subtitle “At Home in the Modern World,” sponsored a panel called “Designing Diplomacy: Embassy Architecture in Washington DC and Abroad” at the Finnish embassy yesterday. I was on the panel, deftly moderated by Dwell editor Aaron Britt.

As you might expect, given the magazine’s interest in mid-century modernism, much of the discussion centered on what are often seen as the glory years of American embassy design, the 50s and 60s, when architects such as Walter Gropius, Edward Durrell Stone and Eero Saarinen designed embassies for Athens, New Delhi, London and Oslo, all of them monuments of modern design if not always commodious buildings. They were fortunate to work in an era that celebrated contemporary design, at a time when the United States was conspicuously interested in projecting an image of openness, transparency and a progressive embrace of technology and innovation.

Professor Jane Loeffler, of the University of Maryland, who has written extensively about the history of American embassy design was also on the panel. Reading her excellent book, “The Architecture of  Diplomacy,” it’s hard not to get angry. Since the middle of the last century, the design of American embassies has moved so far away from the ideals of the mid-century modernists, and into such a dark realm of fear and anxiety and pragmatic submission to the regime of security at all costs, that you despair of America ever sending the old messages it once cherished: City on the hill, beacon of light, hog butcher to the world. Since the middle of the 1980s, when the “Inman standards,” a set of security guidelines authored after the devastating 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut were adopted, American embassies have grown more and more fortress like, more removed from the urban environment, and altogether more ugly (except on the inside). Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, things have only gotten worse.

I went into the panel deeply pessimistic that architects can finesse beautiful buildings out of these onerous security guidelines. William Miner, of the State Department’s Overseas Buildings Operations, is more sanguine. And he was genuinely excited about the ongoing design competition for the building that will replace Saarinen’s London embassy. Good architects can solve the problem, he argues. I’ll wait to see what emerges from the finalists vying to replace the Saarinen structure.

In a fit of temporary despair (you really have to see some of the new embassies to understand how forbidding, off-putting and ugly they are), I proposed acknowledging an impasse. If we’ve reached the point where the only embassies we can build are bunkers behind blast walls set into 10-acre compounds on the ex-urban rim of the city, then perhaps we need to rethink the very idea of embassies and diplomacy. Perhaps it’s time to disperse the various functions foreign missions must perform. Any business that can be transacted through video conferencing or the Internet should be removed entirely from the country. Deal with visa seekers in several small offices conveniently spread around the city—and treat them like clients, not criminals. Find reasonably safe rental space for the commercial mission. Hide the ambassador in a fortress where he or she will be completely safe (and do no harm). And then build a nice glass box, the vulnerability of which will be accepted as a necessary risk of public diplomacy, for the outreach functions.

That’s a gloomy proposal, and not one I relish. I still yearn for the bold years of making big, optimistic, inspiring statements with embassy architecture. If they can come again, great. But I don’t know that anyone is expecting much from the London competition.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Architecture, Uncategorized

Arthur Erickson, dead at 84

            Arthur Erickson, one of Canada’s most prominent architects, is dead. Even Washingtonians who don’t know his name know his work: The Canadian embassy, certainly the most prominently displayed foreign embassy in the nation’s capitol. It sits on the Mall, just down the hill from the Capitol, and it is a building loved and hated in perhaps equal proportions. Many people found it a mish-mash of classical and modernist references when it opened in 1989, and it has been unfavorably compared to I. M. Pei’s East Wing of the National Gallery, nearby. The embassy seems to honor its host country with a round, classical, portico-like figure facing one direction, though the columns were meant to symbolize the provinces and territories of Canada. Alas, this odd folly is covered by an overhanging slab of the building, supported on a strangely spindly column, like a toy White House sheltered from the world by a table leg and leaf. It baffles many observers.

 

            I learned of Erickson’s death the same day that I’m preparing to participate on a panel about embassy architecture at the Finnish Embassy (see link below). So I’ve been thinking about the messages the United States and other countries send through their foreign embassy architecture. It’s never easy to separate the building from one’s preconceived about ideas about the country it represents. New Zealand’s DC embassy, for instance, is really just an ugly backwater attached to the British embassy. Is there symbolism in that? Or just an accident?

 

            Erickson’s embassy was a better building when the public spaces—gallery and auditorium—could be accessed from street level, rather than from the main, ceremonial entrance up the stairs and under the table overhang. But live with a building long enough and you generally make your peace with it (though not always, see: FBI Building). Today, Erickson’s embassy strikes me as a reasonably friendly, slightly bland, and occasionally silly building. Perhaps another instance of confusing the country with the embassy. In any case, it doesn’t bristle with the empty energy of the Newseum, next door. Thank goodness for that.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Architecture

The Architecture of Authority

I think this show is better than it might seem on superficial first glance. Richard Ross’s photographs of institutional spaces include interrogation rooms, prisons and execution chambers. But also high-school corridors, hotel phone booths and religious spaces. If you take these connections too seriously, it seems like Ross is making silly, agit-prop connections. But if you stand back and allow the show some irony space, it begins to make distinctions that are much more interesting. The show, Architecture of Authority,  first appeared in New York and is now in Washington, DC, at the National Building Museum. And as most things at the NBM, it’s worth some attention. My review is here.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Architecture, Culture, Photography

Edith Wharton reprieve

Last summer I took a long trip through New England and upstate New York, which included a visit to Edith Wharton’s home, called “The Mount.” I described the house this way:

The Mount, Edith Wharton’s home in the Berkshires, presents a face to the world rather like the old saying about mullet haircuts: business in front, party in the back. The main entrance is uninviting, set into the dull face of a largish country house. This rather doughty side of the house must have made an even more modest impression when it was new, in 1902, at least by the standards of Wharton’s neighbors, the Vanderbilts and Morgans, who were building millionaire “cottages” of marble, with names like Elm Court and Ventfort Hall.

The larger context of the story was financial. After an extensive renovation campaign, The Mount piled up a lot of debt. And that debt seriously threatened the viability of this little non-profit house museum. Would Wharton’s home, now looking so fine, be taken away from the public?

Today, there’s good news. Susan Wissler, executive director of The Mount, emailed today word that they have managed to restructure their debt, and with the gift of $750,000 from the Alice M. Kaplan Memorial Reserve, the chances are now much better that the house won’t pass into private hands. They’ve still got some important challenges, including deciding what they want to be when they grow up. A museum? An intellectual center? A host to festivals and performances? All of the above?

But for now, a reprieve. My original story for The Washington Post looked at the house, the woman who built it, the gardens that are its most handsome feature, and some of the literary and philosophical issues raised by maintaining a writer’s house as a shrine and museum. Luckily, it can still be found on the web, and the slide show our web folks pulled together is still available as well.  So you can see for yourself what has been saved. For now.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Architecture, Culture