Say what you will about Kimmelman, but it is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY important to question big architects (no pun intended). Almost all firms nowdays (BIG specially) post rationalize their architecture to a large extent. They make sweeping assumptions all the time. This does not necessarily lead to bad architecture (specially in BIG's case), but it is important to interrupt them when they make sweeping assumptins (whether they are right or wrong) and to never stop questioning them. It is not bad manners, it is good journalism.
+Alex F. I'm all about keeping people accountable, especially artist with wild visions ad imaginations but this interviewer was glaringly against anything from BIG. He was a passive aggressive protestant that was internally giggling with anticipation of seeing Mr. Ingles choke up, look stupid or avoid answering a question. The problem with most people with an agenda is that they are often against any other view than their own and can't see the forest through the trees.
Problem is that these critics come out of the woodwork when new pioneers actually break new ground but are blissfully silent when there are decades of complete stagnation and uninspired development... block after block of square boring buildings are fine because they don't challenge the (limited, stagnated, out of date) mindset of these old minds. Anyone with any talent realizes the good that Bjarke brings to the scene and he should be celebrated.
He doesn't let him get away with his scripted information, or what he has planned to say. He's getting to the actual knowledge of the projects. It really pushes Bjarke's limits to open up with more information. Yes he does it in a jerking manor, but this might have been necessary to get more out of the conversation. As you can see, Bjarke Just rambles and as an experienced journalist, He's slowing him down by asking questions inside of a question. 28:00 on He doesn't interfere because its all information that hasn't been said before in other presentations. This is actually a fantastic interview that shows that this great architect isn't perfect. That being said, I still find BIG a fascinating group to study for architectural relevance.
I totally agree. Finally a probing, informative and interesting interview, with the interviewer doing their proper job instead of some obvious questions and polite agreement of everything the interviewee says. I don't understand the negative attitude toward the journalist (Kimmelman) here - welcome to the proper and useful conversation which isn't shy of criticism. I admire the work of BIG (and it's obvious here that Kimmelman does too), and Bjarke is truly inspirational, but not everything they do is free and above of critique as some commentators here would like to believe.
As long as the interviewer is clear about it when inviting people, I think it's perfectly fine to "dig a little deeper" but you *need* to let people know about it or they'll likely never accept an invite again. The reason people tend to say a lot of the same stuff in talks etc. is because it's what they were asked to do. A talk isn't some new "stand up show" that people rewrite every time someone calls them up. It's a fairly "standard product" that you can hire the person to "perform" if you want to. So if that's what the person thinks they're walking into ("someone wanting to hear me talk") then it's an ambush if you don't let them talk at all. But as long as you're being honest about what you're inviting them for, they can just decline the invitation if they don't like the idea. If they accept, then it's obviously fine.
Knowledge is truly power. Same with modesty. This is why even though that old guy acts arrogant and smart towards Bjarke, Bjarke looks like the person with the real knowledge.
I understand some o the hate directed at Kimmelman here, but to be fair I really enjoyed seeing Bjarke being held to account and put on the spot a little bit.
Best interview I've ever seen made to Bjarke Ingels! This is a true critic questioning the principles and solutions of BIG's work and not just playing along to fuel BIG's self-marketing speech. BIG masters the art of soundbites and social media, they use the diagram to justify their design concepts and solutions often with utter disregard for functionality, comfort and constructability. It is undeniable there's brilliance in their team, I've worked with BIG's team, unfortunately the lack of substance of their architectural discourse is coated with flashy graphics and efficient marketing scripts.
jhe3903 kimmelman thinks some magic machine makes federal funds, which Bjarke knows is actually private people's money that gets stepped on like bad cocaine by the time it gets back to the people it came from. and that direct investment actually makes things go smoother and faster, even with local input from the incurably indecisive...
After watching this interview my respect for Bjarke has grown ten fold. I mean even a child could tell that the interviewer was a dumb ass and all he wanted to do was demean Bjarke. But Bjarke answered all the questions maintaining composure, with dignity and showed respect to the idiotic guy in front of him. Hes not just a genius but he has this kind of humbleness and way with words which is really remarkable...
I felt the underlying rage of the NYT editorial department that such a talented, community-driven architect is getting his paycheque from NewsCorp and FOX.
Henry von Rintelen perhaps some people have known all along that blowing smoke up the arses of certain people is the best way to laugh all the way to the bank. this tactic works well on all ideologies, particularly the stupid. how you think Hillary got rich?
+Henry von Rintelen BIG is not a 'radically left' firm. They have a vision of (a practical) utopia and they dont care wether the money comes from private enterprise of socialist goverment. Architecture does not make architecture political - its politics that makes architecture political.
Instead of getting the information out, the interviewer spends more time correcting him on his knowledge about NYC. The interview is meant to get to talk about the projects not to correct opinions or historical facts.
Wow. This is an impressive level of antagonism from the interviewer. Of course one needs to ask tough questions, but the side comments, ways he injects his opinion in such a way that he gets the last word.... it's shockingly passive aggressive. The nervous laughter from the audience and the way Ingels had to constantly manage Kimmelman made it uncomfortable to watch and a less revealing interview than it otherwise could have been.
+inExiled Wrong, he is just asking honest questions. I know it looks like he is giving Bjarke a rough time but on the other hand this is how we get to see Bjarke's views on a lot of topics.
Wow. That was so unbelievably painful to watch. Kimmelman should be removed from all public appearances of this nature forever and go play his piano. What a rude man. Whether or not you like Ingels' work, this is a public interview, for public benefit. The fact is each project got awarded to him - end of story. He is not solely responsible for all communal or open-plan work spaces around the world, and pretending like he is is ridiculous, and a waste of all of our time - to mention but one of many oversteps. Kimmelman sat there touching his nose and fidgeting in his chair the more he harassed Ingels. To be so visibly incensed by his very existence, interrupting constantly and suddenly changing the topic (and slides) back and forth, whilst unable to even contain such arrogant body-language, is borderline insane. I'd like to see him try those same antics against Ingels in Copenhagen or elsewhere - where that tired, old, pointy-nosed New York ponceyness can't be applied to arguments. Ingels, a man who actually builds complex things, in real life, came off the consummate gentleman in the face of such unprofessionalism. He had a great and balanced answer for every insolent snipe, and pretty much won me over because of it. Extremely disappointing day for all NYT criticism.
"have you ever been to a garden of a building bjarke?" Bjarke lives in a 2000-something sqm condo in brooklyn with 3 garden.s Yeah idiot i think he knows.
