Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:53:54.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deconstructivists Frank Gehry and William Forsythe: De-Signs of the Times

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2014

Kate Mattingly
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Why choreography and architecture? Both are visual art forms based on three-dimensional design. Both create vocabularies in space in order to express or communicate. Both are highly collaborative: in architecture there is the marriage of site and structure, in choreography, of music and movement. Perhaps these intertwined relations are seen most clearly in Fallingwater's majestic cantilever over Bear Run Creek, and in Martha Graham's powerful response to Aaron Copland's score, Appalachian Spring. Both Fallingwater and Appalachian Spring are bound to their settings, yet each enriches the site or score immeasurably.

The similarities between choreography and architecture oscillate between the obvious and the contrived. Unlike architecture, dance is ephemeral and subject to human variables which are, by nature, unpredictable. Choreography is dependent on the human dancer and therefore subject to multitudinous interpretations and manifestations. The architect's product is as solid as the building, but the architect's design is no less spontaneous than the choreographer's. Both art forms are subject to gravity, to expression and to structure—for the choreographer, structure involves both the dancer's individual body and the group's compositional organization. Both are collaborative forms: music and dance, costume and movement partner one another as structural engineering must support the design, the site, the building.

Type
Articles
Information
Dance Research Journal , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , Spring 1999 , pp. 20 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Congress on Research in Dance 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sources

Becker, Douglas. Rehearsal at New York University's TISCH School of the Arts, Fall 1995.Google Scholar
Browne, David. “Sports Extremist.” New York Times Magazine (May 19, 1996): 30.Google Scholar
Jencks, Charles, with commentary by Maxwell, Robert. Frank Gehry Recent Projects: Individual Imagination & Cultural Conservatism. London: Academy Editions, 1995.Google Scholar
Laban, Rudolf. The Mastery of Movement. London: MacDonald & Evans, 1960.Google Scholar
Lehmann-Haupt, Christopher. “Why ‘to be continued’ Is Continued.” Week in Review, The New York Times (April 7, 1996): section 4, E2.Google Scholar
Mason, Francis. WQXR review of Steptext, March 31, 1996.Google Scholar
Maxwell, Robert. Sweet Disorder and the Carefully Careless. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Muschamp, Herbert. “Deconstructivists: Buildings Born of Dreams and Demons.” Architecture View, The New York Times (January 7, 1996): section 2, 1.Google Scholar
Nagourney, Adam. “Top Epithet Was ‘Extreme’.” Week in Review, New York Times (November 3, 1996): section 4, 4.Google Scholar
Phifer, Cassandra. Personal interview with the author, December, 1995.Google Scholar
Scully, Vincent. American Architecture. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1988.Google Scholar
Sulcas, Roslyn. “Channels for the Desire to Dance.” Dance Magazine (September 1995): 52–59.Google Scholar
Venturi, Robert. Learning from Las Vegas. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Wigley, Mark. The Architecture of Deconstruction: Derrida's Haunt. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993.Google Scholar