OK, apologies for the low-brow introduction to my first ever blog and the suggested ambiguity but having read Jonathan Meades piece on Zaha Hadid [ 'THE FIRST GREAT FEMALE ARCHITECT' - Intelligent Life Magazine, 2008] there is some justification for this title and the accompanying confusion.
There is something playful at first about the writing, something willfully provocative in his less than glamorous depiction of her office environment being like a factory. The initial duel between the two conjures the image of a boy in the school playground trying what he can to gain the attentions of a girl he likes, eventually resorting to playfully hitting her and running away giggling. I am not saying this is Meades' approach exactly- Meades doesn't run away giggling. He prods her, looking for a response, looking for some fire, but often gets typically Zaha explanations, the sort of explanation which leaves more questions than answers. This initial discussion ends with Zaha offering an insightful pearl about computers and their importance [but they are definitely NOT a tool] and an unconvincing justification for their absolute domination of her office by silent cad monkeys- she seemingly wants to assure us that because the staff are 'connected by digital knowledge' that the accepted norm of discussing design decisions and solving problems is somehow redundant. Odd. But at the same time she tries to make it seem like it's a good thing. Really? I think we are all left cold by this.
The initial feeling is that Zaha is comfortable, not at all out of her depth with the academic powerhouse, confident in her abilities to field his critique or his questioning. But sometimes it does feel as if she is batting each 'attack' away rather than really tackling anything with substance or meaning, this is frustrating as often you are left with the feeling that the article has moved on without any satisfying resolution to a question... or maybe this is proof that Zaha is more than enough of a foil for Meades, does he get out-foxed by Zaha and her [possibly] occasionally well considered nonsensical English to ensure the 'interview' is conducted on her terms? Saying that, she is definitely capable of getting her point across, adding weight to the previous argument. For example, when talking about her perceived weaknesses in her contemporaries and a certain tutor [Leon Krier] she is more than capable of finding the words to sum up her contempt.
Meades' initial tone seems at odds with the irreverent title, but as we continue, the picture becomes clearer. His opinion of her is not necessarily explicitly clear but our understanding of their complex 'relationship' becomes easier to see. I understand that this sounds paradoxical. Sorry. This complexity is a common theme, and the whole time leaves the reader conflicted about both Meades' opinion of Zaha, Zaha's ability to provide any meaningful answers about her work [surely the point] and, more generally, throughout the interview who is serving who's cause. He is lyrical about her ability, effusive of her principals but at the same time suggests she is self obsessed, secretive, deceitful and a willing participant of a deliberately elitist and self congratulatory world of [AA alumni] architects. I get the feeling that it is this elitist mentality which Meades can't tolerate, and with his sweeping contempt for 99% of practicing architects he is in accord with Zaha. I think on a personal level he really respects her, and even more so as she belongs to the 1% who can apparently make real thought provoking, unapologetic architecture [although he probably inwardly battles with the fact that she is still staunchly AA at heart] characteristics which I am sure Meades would himself recognise.
Both opinionated, both willingly counter-culture, both happy to put two fingers up to accepted opinion and both willing to call a spade a spade when it suits them... although I hope you will forgive the deliberate ridiculousness of that and recognise that Meades would probably rather call a spade a 'wonderfully hewn tool for excavation and exploration, who's use is redolent of zen-like gymnastics'... or something... and Zaha would probably tell you [with a yoda-esque sentence structure] that a spade is not even really a tool.
This interview leads nicely to the next text I will look at. Although, 'interview' is an uncomfortable description for this article it serves my point. An 'interview' would suggest an unbiased interviewer who's role is specifically to gain more of an understanding of the interviewee. None of this is true of the Meades piece. It is as much a vessel for his own ideas as it is Zaha's. It is more of a platform for him to shine- and there is not a hint of subjectivity.
No comments:
Post a Comment