True Commitment
&
Mercenary Joy

 

 

 

_______________________________________________________

Architect Fredrik Bergström digs deep into being Architect Fredrik Bergström

_______________________________________________________

All architects/designers are the same; we love as much as we hate what we do. In this field we strive to create an artistic impression that is going to further our creative thought, explore different materials and combinations thereof. It’s a psychology of the human race, its moods, thoughts, tensions, frustrations and discovering what becomes a phase and what leaves a lasting impression, our work becomes an understanding and education of not only ourselves but of all people that get in touch with and experience our creation.

The journey of a project from start to finish is that of excitement, love, torment, hate and finally a disgruntled OK. You would think after such a reaction that all of us would have the sense to leave the profession to be honest with ourselves and to honour our feelings towards our creation; but then, a parent would never leave their children to fend for themselves in the world. The same kind of notion and responsibility is what keeps us going and sticking to our work, because quite honestly, we don’t trust anybody else that hasn’t lived through what we have to be able to cope with the constraints and the everyday slaps in the face from the client and government authorities.

In my case it’s a choice of lifestyle. I discovered at a very early age what I wanted to do in life and set out to pursue it from that point on. I was 8 or 10 years old driving around Stockholm with my father, we were out on one of our spontaneous outings – something that was more or less an ordinary way of existence in our household. This particular day we were looking at buildings, museums and the urban planning of Stockholm; at the time that was not the way it was explained to me rather a day out sightseeing -- my father encouraged me to comment on what I saw -- buildings, parking and the many statues found throughout the city. By chance we found ourselves near two of my father’s good friends, Bosse & Lasse, brothers and both architects. They had opened up their own office not more than five minutes from the Old City, the city between the bridges – (Gamla Stan) often called Little Venice or Venice of the North.

Their office space wasn’t big but every square-inch (or square-millimeter) was thought out and designed. It was here I sat down behind their drawing-tables and looked at a drawing in progress - a perspective, the most impressive of all architectural drawings; it’s the type of drawing that brings to life two-dimensional schemes and conveys what the end-product will look like. I shall never forget that moment; I can picture it as clearly today as if it happened yesterday, but having said so I don’t recall how long I sat looking at the drawing, (it was so real, I felt I could touch the objects drawn), it could have been 5 seconds or 35 minutes maybe more. I lean toward the 35min plus mark because I could sit down at any moment and recreate that very drawing – it was my first real contact with design and architecture. I knew from that very day that that was exactly what I wanted to do. Being slightly dyslexic/word-blind I loved the fact that there were no words to confuse things for me; (words sometimes become a blur to me, I can look at a page and not see a single word, letters start dancing around the page – writing and re-writing this essay has been hard due to this phenomenon).

My education at the time was at a catholic school run by nuns. I was struggling almightily at school – I hated school because the teacher’s would offer me no support or help me find out what my inner skills were and enable me to define myself. The only thing they would tell me was “You’re no good ain’t nothing ever going to become of you!” Not exactly the words of wisdom and encouragement a 10-year old boy wants or indeed needs to hear. My grade point average at school during this time was the lowest they had ever recorded; with 11no. F’s, 4no. D’s and a B+ in Art & an A+ in P.E. my future looked pretty grim; to be quite frank I was completely hopeless academically. What has to be understood here is the Swedish mentality and the added pressure put on this little kid; if you hadn’t proved your worth to society by the time you were 15 the state would stick you in a factory somewhere. Sport was frowned upon and athletes were viewed as layabouts not contributing to socialist society so my A+ in P.E. was viewed as more or less worthless. To top it off artist only starved, so what I was good at counted for nothing in my native country. How things have changed over the past 30 years!

So that fleeting moment in their architectural office showed me that there was something in the working world that I was capable of doing and I could actually use the few talents I had. I vowed while sitting in front of this drawing that this would be what I would pursue as a career. Now then, that was only the work-side of it, a whole other side to life opened up at the same time. My whole mind and body had been captured by this drawing from the first moment I stepped over the threshold of their office so I never noticed any of my surroundings or the activity that was going on. I had been sat upon the chair studying the drawing and all the detail for an unknown length of time only to be jerked back to reality by the realization that people were running around the office in bathing trunks & holding pool-cues. On the funny side, I remember asking the people present why the pool table wasn’t in the front office where there was more room and would make it easier to play – needless to say everyone laughed, I didn’t feel stupid though, it had been a valid design comment - My very first design-comment/statement. I guess at that age I never truly understood the word work, money or any of the implications of life. I think the whole idea of freedom of choice and the taste of life on a grand scale became apparent. I remember feeling joy; the transmission of contentment from everybody else was very infectious. I liked it and I once again recall thinking that this is what I wanted to be like when I finished school and started to work. I could visualize myself in my own office, with my own drawing-table, my own swimming pool and my own pool table. At the time the dream consisted of a beautiful half-finished drawing, me by the pool and friends shooting pool in the background; I was floating away in my childlike mind and dreaming of contented days, money was never an issue in my dreams. I had no concept of reality.

Ever since that day, I never worried about regular school. I was working towards becoming an architect or interior architect; I didn’t care which because I knew that both held happiness beyond my wildest dreams. I tried as hard as possible to be good in school but ended up scraping by each year with a grade-point average well below D. Looking back it’s almost a miracle I managed to get to where I am today; Dual degree – Architecture & Interior Design/Architecture. I got the paper qualifying me and realizing my dreams only 11 years after having discovered what made my head tick. As a side note (a major one), once I wrote a paper in college earning me distinction among all the architects & architectural teaching-staff basically outlining my thoughts regarding architecture & design; I questioned the reason for us students being in college studying what we did with the conclusion that if we were all really honest towards ourselves & our futures we would quit college right there & then. Each one of us would pursue our choice of profession on an apprentice level before delving into college and refine our thoughts to become pure (architectural) professionals; very much the school of thought of the Bauhaus . I think I graduated there and then, two years early. I knew as did my professors that I wasn’t the most academically brilliant but they compared me to Louis Khan whom never graduated college but is historically one of America’s most important architect’s along with Frank Lloyd Wright , Richard Buchminster-Fuller & Frank Geary to name a few. I’m sure it helped that one of the professor’s had studied under Khan, another taught architecture beside him at U of Penn but most of all, they liked that I set out to please myself before pleasing others. Pursuing your own interest & working towards being the best you can be (in your work) is better than being stuck in a job being miserable.

Reality is, however, quite different; The Fountainhead written by Ayn Rand is mere poetic imagery that doesn’t exist. (Fantastic book & film) Architecture isn’t as pure as that, most architects wish it was, but it really comes down to counting the money first and then creating a building that is merely OK. Love, intellectual & platonic, is rarely found in architecture. Relationships have been broken through architecture rather than creating eternal friendships respect & love as depicted in The Fountainhead; divorce cashes in on the conflicts between people at a steady rate. The individuality of a person is constantly repairing and preparing the ego for the next clash of opinions. Playing the truth card can sometimes become a catch 22 situation because sometimes we have to admit we’re playing into the hands of the bank-manager & sacrifice the work we love. We may not be forced to do it, but it becomes a quest of honesty to your family or honesty to your profession. The honesty of Howard Roark in the Fountainhead would be hard to match for us 21st century creatures. The job that is so romantic becomes your enemy; you could do it for love and get paid a pittance or you could be churning out details and like for like drawings in order to provide a comfortable life for your family. I am currently a mercenary of architecture; the money & survival of my family is more important to me than any building, especially as in today’s market the Design & Build efforts are only hybrids of several designs with different conceptual focuses.

There are many styles of architecture: Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Art Nouveau, Art Deco, Modern, Post-Modern, the International Style and Bauhaus to name a few. The most gripping to me are the free-flowing forms of the Art Nouveau and the stringent lines and control of the Bauhaus. Many people say they like gothic architecture the best without really knowing what it is in its 3-dimenional glory. To me it’s very heavy, dark and very uneconomical for the 21 st Century. At its height I’m sure it was the way forward, enabling the designer to build tall buildings. I guess I have to go against myself and say that gothic architecture has changed with the invention of steel. True Gothic in my opinion is not only the shape but the mass of the structure. The neo-gothic style is quite pleasing to the eye especially as an architect can play with the dichotomy of the evolution of the style. My own designs are based on the thought-process of the Bauhaus* but with the free-flowing form of the Art Nouveau. I draw influence from the De Stijl movement because within it I can break the rules.

De Stijl by caj7@cornell.edu.

In the early 1920's a group of architects and artists, influenced by some of the ideas of DaDa, formed a movement called de Stijl (Dutch for The Style). Theirs was a utopian philosophical approach to aesthetics, centered in a publication called de Stijl, which presented their ideas and designs. The founder of the publication and leader of the group was Theo van Doesburg, an architect. Other important participants were Gerrit Rietveld and Piet Mondrian.

The philosophy was based on functionalism, with a severe and doctrinaire insistence on the rectilinearity of the planes, which seem to slide across one another like sliding panels. All surface decoration except color was to be eliminated, and only pure primary hues, plus black and white were to be allowed.

The initial source of their ideas came from DaDa notions about dispensing with the pretentious elitist design aesthetics of the pre war era. Some of the early work of Frank Lloyd Wright, which had been published in Europe in 1910, influenced their notions about form. Japanese sources were also of significance, though these ideas may have been derived through the work of Wright.

I also look back on Stockholm city and the Swedish social mentality to form my identity. Though I have been absent from Sweden for over 27 years there are certain aspects of me that will always remain Swedish. My mind still has the indoctrination of that of a Swede but I tend not to use it, in a way I use my Swedish persona in 3 rd person – strange and better left there!

Most of the architecture nowadays are driven by the contractor or what’s called Design & Build. Design & Build has come about due to clients approaching a building-contractor prior to having appointed an architect or having a building design. Crudely described, the building is designed by quantity estimating; the price of each item from concrete slabs to the number of door-handles. When all is added up the contractor will approach 3-5 architects whom then have to compete with their designs. Looks rarely win, most clients want value for money rather than a beautiful building, and ornaments are quickly sacrificed. When all the various design-entries have been submitted the client & contractor sit down and decide which design they like the best in terms of how complex the design is to convert to reality and of course which architect will offer the best deal/value for money. The biggest irony is that the client will want to mix several schemes into one which further confuses the issue and distorts the price as the preferred architect will have to design in these new ‘features’. The designs built are usually hybrids from several schemes. Now you know why there are so many ugly buildings around that do not make sense. I hate it in many ways but it is part of our changing times. The International Style was created due to the financial climate of its time and we’re experiencing similar changes now.

*BAUHAUS from Periods & Styles by Jackie Craven

What is Bauhaus Architecture? What is the International Style?

Bauhaus is a German expression meaning "house for building." In 1919, the economy in Germany was collapsing after a crushing war. Bauhaus architects rejected "bourgeois" details such as cornices, eaves and decorative details. They wanted to use principles of Classical architecture in their most pure form: without ornamentation of any kind.

Bauhaus buildings have flat roofs, smooth façades and cubic shapes. Colors are white, gray, beige or black. Floor plans are open and furniture is functional.

The Bauhaus school disbanded when the Nazis rose to power. Walter Gropius, Mies van der Rohe and other Bauhaus leaders migrated to the United States. The term International Style was applied to the American form of Bauhaus architecture. The name came from the book The International Style by historian and critic Henry-Russell Hitchcock and architect Philip Johnson.

While Bauhaus architecture had been concerned with the social aspects of design, America's International Style became a symbolism of Capitalism: It is the favored architecture for office buildings, and is also found in upscale homes built for the rich.

When I mentioned architects hating their projects I refer to this slave to the Developer attitude that is all too common. It’s pure anti-Bauhaus thinking and goes against the grain of creativity. To put the Bauhaus simplistically: the human brain and its thoughts should guide creativity, machines and computers should be there to assist the human creation. We shouldn’t look at what the basic machine can/will do and adapt our thoughts accordingly. Money has invaded the art and is shaping it depending on budget. We also see the introduction of codes that make designing a building very difficult, new development usually means new codes; to forsee the code-changes is good but the client will in most cases not want a building designed for future codes they want it designed as tightly as possible around today’s regulations. Modern society and economy say that it is cheaper to tear down a building than to rectify & upgrade a building to meet new codes. I use common sense as my base & have done since my very first design. By doing so I usually meet or even exceed the regulations for the design of spaces for the disabled, blind or deaf. It’s a formula that works for me and has left all my clients with buildings that adhere to the latest codes and even codes that haven’t been written yet; it also gives a very firm base for any arguments why something has been designed into a building. The disabled act is taboo to the developer because he/she knows that they are in trouble and face heavy fines if they mess with it. Note that I mentioned that the client will not want to spend money on codes that are not written (even if it makes more sense) but I feel it’s up to me to rescue the art from the claws of the economy and try to bring back solid thinking and a better building; a building created for everyone regardless if disabled or not.

Despite hating the direction architecture is taking I still love my profession because I can go in low-key and absolutely blow the minds of the client/employer once I have been given the task at hand. I pride myself on being able to squeeze more life out of a space than anyone else. I pride myself on always sticking to the guidelines and working within the constraints, solving the problem at hand and never go beyond the boundaries of the project; I know I will always be within budget and meet all the codes that stand in my way. I think a weak designer will have to break away from the restrictions and go beyond the boundary in order to make his/her design work. I pride myself on drawing it better than anyone else; PC’s have introduced a new level of draftsmanship, which can be distinguished between each user. The barrier between machine & computer is being broken down and we learn how to personalize the machine to suit us and create an identity. (This is again following the teachings of the Bauhaus.) This hidden aspect of architecture and design is just as important to me as designing something well. To me I can demonstrate logic & reason for my every move including the way I draw something.

I love drawing and working out spatial problems; I can walk into a space and feel what I want to do with it. I look at the potential to create something unusual but also exciting. Every side of an object should have purpose. I approach all my design-work the same way be it a shelving-unit, a Murphy-style bed – I want it to be unique, and every aspect of it should be useful. Designing houses gives the architect/designer endless opportunities to hint on what lies behind a wall--teasing the visitor--leading them into a maze where surprises and unexpected nooks and spaces occur. Unfortunately, newer houses are not built this way; the economy drives a square house with no excitement where you will know where the bathroom is before you enter the house. Some will call it good design others (like me) will call it boring. We all want excitement around the house, I remember being a child and getting lost in my grandparent’s summerhouse. There were so many places to hide and create a personal space. Creating personal space is what we aim to achieve in Interior Design, it’s not often it is captured due to the surrounding architecture.

We may love or hate Frank Geary for his buildings or maybe both at the same time, but he seems to have translated the interior of a building to the façade in some of his work.

Frank Gehry

(b. Toronto, Ontario, Canada 1929)

Frank Gehry was born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada in 1929. He studied at the Universities of Southern California and Harvard, before he established his first practice, Frank O. Gehry and Associates in 1963. In 1979 this practice was succeeded by the firm Gehry & Krueger Inc.

Over the years, Gehry has moved away from a conventional commercial practice to an artistically directed atelier. His deconstructed architectural style began to emerge in the late 1970s when Gehry, directed by a personal vision of architecture, created collage-like compositions out of found materials. Instead of creating buildings, Gehry creates ad-hoc pieces of functional sculpture.

Gehry's architecture has undergone a marked evolution from the plywood and corrugated-metal vernacular of his early works to the distorted but pristine concrete of his later works. However, the works retain a deconstructed aesthetic that fits well with the increasingly disjointed culture to which they belong.

In the large-scale public commissions he has received since he converted to a deconstructive aesthetic, Gehry has explored the classical architecture themes. In these works he melds formal compositions with an exploded aesthetic. Most recently, Gehry has combined sensuous curving forms with complex deconstructive massing, achieving significant new results.

Sources on Frank Gehry

" Gehry at MIT", by Michael J. Crosbie, ArchitectureWeek No. 198, 2004.0623, pD1.1.

" Gehry's Disney Concert Hall", by ArchitectureWeek, ArchitectureWeek No. 175, 2003.1217, pD1.1.

Kurt W. Forster, Hadley Soutter Arnold, Francesco Dal Co. Frank O. Gehry : The Complete Works. Monacelli Press, September 1998. ISBN 1-8852-5463-6.

I fall into the love and hate his work category; he has captured the essence of his concept, be it his own interpretation but I feel that somehow he got it wrong; to me it doesn’t sit quite right. In some cases his buildings, in my opinion, are ugly. I would love to sweep up the garbage and hide it forever; however, though the exterior is hideous the interiors are sometimes exquisite. Of course not every building he has done is that bad.

Being able to pass such comments on architecture is refreshing; the artist draws from his critiques as much as the encouragement he receives. The open commentary is another aspect of the profession I love; it helps us grow of course. There are of course comments made about architecture and design that we have to be careful not to fall into the trap and dismiss it because we do not understand it.

Grotesque or ingenious, out of place or before its time are some of the terms used to describe architecture. Nothing is ever before its time or out of place; it takes time and sometimes a conversation with the designer to understand why something looks the way it does. Most of the time we say hideous or ugly because deep, deep down the most modern, most contemporary individual is still old-fashioned. Old-fashioned items are, after all, comfortable & generate a motherly security around us. Just as often you hear people say “this belongs in the future – it’s out of this world, not of our age”. It’s a bit of a negative comment because we don’t understand what we are looking at; the object is keeping us in awe, but we haven’t made up our minds whether it is good or bad yet. Our fascination with more intelligent people and life-forms from a different planet makes us often give them the first credit if something new comes along. I guess it is said in awe because there is so much that is yet to be discovered; new materials, better insulation, tougher glass or even plastic and materials we haven’t touched yet. In Architecture and Interior Design the artist is encouraged to try new techniques, explore new possibilities, and combinations of materials to develop and advance the technology as well as expand the art. The fact that the designer has discovered a way to use new technology doesn’t make his work before its time – simply Revolutionary to our age.

Fredrik Bergström

Thoughts gathered up to 2005

 

______________________________________________________________

 

Fredrik Bergström

Born: November 8, 1964 - Stockholm, Sweden

Educated at Spring Garden College, Philadelphia PA

Graduate with dual degrees - Interior Design & Architecture

Other worthwhile mentions are winning photography entries & published written word.

Currently engaged in the architectural design of hospitals and educational facilities; the motivation is to pursue architecture and develop the sensitivity toward people and their interaction with buildings, nature and themselves.

The career has enabled a quite well-travelled person; destinations and places lived include: most of Western Europe, the four corners of mainland USA. Melbourne, Australia & New Zealand with stop offs in the Far East. Someone need to tell me how to spend money in Singapore, cause everywhere I went I got food and drink for free.

A keen skier since being very young, the mountains of Sweden, France, Austria, Italy & USA have been conquered before the giant ski-lift networks of each of these countries were fully developed. The peace of the mountains creates a ‘church' where earth meets the sky without the interruption of man.