Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Paris Part IV: Getting Trapped In Cramped Loud Spaces and How to Escape from Them While Still Enjoying Modern Art.

Finally the day had come: We were going to see La Centre Georges Pompidou. For years I had attempted to make it there, but something had always gotten in the way. Whether it was food poisoning, or Lance Armstrong winning the Tour, or the most convincing of all: “Baby, that sounds super boring, why don’t we just get drunk here instead?”. There was always a reason why it got passed over. Not today.






The Pompidou Centre is considered to be one of the great masterpieces in high-tech architecture, a joint effort by the Italian architect, Renzo Piano and British architect, Richard Rodgers. Though theirs is an equal partnership, Piano’s influence comes shining through. What one must always admire about Piano is his adaptability, especially in large-scale public forums. Unlike many of the other starchitects, Piano does not necessarily have a “trademark” image. For Zaha Hadid, it’s the harsh, unforgiving sharpness of her reds, for Frank Ghery, it’s the tinfoil flexibility and sheen of a metallic curve and anything by Rem Koolhaas looks like it can double as Darth Vadar’s summer home. Piano, on the other hand is completely adaptable and while he makes the architecture, he is not above being influenced. This allows his structures to seem less alien, especially in the urban fabric. For other examples, I would look at The New York Times building in New York City or Parco Della Musica in Rome (which is one of my favorite buildings of all time).

The Pompidou revolutionized the museum as much as, if not more than, The Guggenheim by Frank Lloyd Wright. By placing all of the infrastructural needs: HVAC, Plumbing, Electrical and vertical transport on the exterior of the building, the interior is entirely open and free. In this situation, the artist determines how their work is to be viewed, making the architecture a humble and willing participant but not the star. This attitude can be contrasted with Ghery’s Guggenheim museum in Bilbao, which aggressively challenges the art to fight it. (This is similar to Wright’s Guggenheim, which forces the art to conform to his vision of circulation and pageantry)

Long story short: Le Centre Pompidou, works well with others.

While the collection was charismatic, sophisticated, social, and at times poetic and political there was one work which I could not get behind. As the escalator moved its way up, there was the undeniable and inescapable noise of tantric chanting. I get it, I do. It’s supposed to make me confront my preconceived notions, but dammit if it’s not obnoxious. I looked at my sister and mouthed “I’m sorry.” It was a movement of kindness on her part that she had let me live. We could not get out of the area due to a massive school group and if not for deft side-stepping we would have gotten stuck there all day.



After the Pomp and circumstance, we spent the afternoon walking around where the Bastille once stood, saw a market and musicians but could find no sign of a giant paper-mache mountain, tragic really:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being


The evening ended when we had to switch our hotel to one in the business district of La Defense in the shadow of La Grande Arche.



Arche de la Défense or La Grande Arche was designed by a Danish architect and an engineer: Johann Otto von Sprecklesen and Erik Reitzel. While a clear reference to the Arc De Triomphe, La Grande Arche is meant not as a monument to the horrors of war but as a reminder of modern societies’ humanitarian responsibilities. It was inaugurated in 1989 as a bicentennial celebration of the French revolution. It’s big, bold and maybe just a little bit boring. Never the less there is no denying its epic domination over the business district.


Our last stop was the countryside of Champagne. What can be said about Champagne? It’s a charming landscape and a beverage that is really, really hard (and pretty dangerous) to make.



As far as architecture goes, there is one site in Champagne that cannot be missed. That is the Cathedral in Reims.
Reims is famous for being the structure most affiliated with the French monarchy in all of France. Some will argue “What about Versailles?” That is the structure most affiliated with the end of the monarchy not necessarily its reign. There is a tendency to forget that French monarchy did go on for over 1300 years before the dopey locksmith and his spend-thrift ditzy bride became the symbols of decadence and corruption. The story started with Clovis I, whose reign began in approximately 481 AD, just as the Roman Empire was on its last legs. Eventually Clovis unified all of what was to be known as “France” (which included the conquest of Gaul) and made Christianity the national religion. This means you need a cathedral. BAM! Notre Dame de Reims.

Since Clovis I, every French monarch (with the exception of one) has been crowned at the Cathedral in Reims upon their assumption to the throne. The exception to the rule is Charles VII, who could not be crowned there initially, as it was under the possession of the English. Then a feisty, illiterate teenager comes out of nowhere and demands he get his skinny ass on that throne. She leads an army to take back the land, gets the Dauphin the Reims, he is crowned King and she is not allowed inside because she is, after all, a peasant. I would have hated to be the usher who tells Joan of Arc that she is not on the list. Not even as a plus one. Awwwwkward.
Reims as a building is a lot like other European cathedrals. The site was evolved over a long period of time, starting as a Roman Bath becoming a place of worship under St. Nicasius and continued as such under St. Remi. It has a labyrinth, similar to Chartes and a rare, beautiful Rose window. Like Westminser Abbey in London, the architecture becomes eclipsed by the history.
After returning from Reims, we ended our time in Paris by having Chinese food and preparing for the southern sun.


Next Time : Part 5 Bordeaux – Out Here in the Field, Down Here in the Ground.

No comments:

Post a Comment