2001: A Space Odyssey turned 40 years old on April 2. That’s the date it premiered in Washington D.C.
As I said last month, this is the masterpiece of modern art, an opinion possibly confirmed by Roger Ebert writing in 1997:
The genius is not in how much Stanley Kubrick does in 2001: A Space Odyssey but in how little. This is the work of an artist so sublimely confident that he doesn’t include a single shot simply to keep our attention. He reduces each scene to its essence, and leaves it on screen long enough for us to contemplate it, to inhabit it in our imaginations. Alone among science-fiction movies, 2001 is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe.
And, as Ebert wrote in his orgiinal review: “it fails on the human level but succeeds magnificently on a cosmic scale”, a comment that one could apply to some of Wright’s work as well.
4 Comments
“it fails on the human level but succeeds magnificently on a cosmic scale”, a comment that one could apply to some of Wright’s work as well.
Very insightful comment and one that many Wright purists would refuse to make and admit the obvious.
“fails on the human level, but suceeds magnificently on a cosmic scale”.
Since I am human, I rather prefer things that succeed on the human level. I saw Kubrick’s ‘masterpiece’ in 1968 and was awed, for a while, then I was bored. I’ve never had the urge to revisit this movie, yet I can enjoy the original “Star Wars” over and over again. Why? It would seem that the first rule of movie making is to get the audience to identify with the characters. Lucas did, Kubrick didn’t.
I wonder which of Wright’s buildings fail to engage us at the human level? Certainly, his houses are usually successful in this regard, his public buildings less so. I’ll throw the Gammage Auditorium out there as perhaps his least human scaled building. Does anyone care to name his least ‘human’ work and elaborate on why this is the case?
Paul: I can see some purists being angry, but I’d guess that Wright has a higher percentage of great works in his 400 extant buildings than any other artist. Relatively few in that 400 are duds. I’ll bet if I flipped though my copy of The Field Guide I could easily find 200 buildings that qualify as near great or better.
Ed: I’ll admit, I’ve seen Star Wars more times than 2001 (hell, I’ve seen Silent Running more often), and if I were a home-owner, I want my house to succeed on the human level.
But look at, for example, Mies’ Farnsworth House. At the human level, it’s an utter, total failure. As a philosophical expression of architectural ideas and ideals, it’s an out-of-the park success.
Look at the classical Greek temple, it was built only to succeed as an expression of divine attributes; St. Peter’s in Rome was built express the temporal power of the Popes and to make even rival kings and emperors appear small.
Even the great room in a suburban Mcmansion exists only to make visitors feel small and poor. The goal is the great room isn’t to enhance the home and family life of the owner, but to enhance the appearance of (again) temporal power.
Note that Fallingwater, built for a very wealthy man has more in common with a modest Usonian that it does with a mansion (or Mcmansion) and you’ll see how well Wright succeeded on the human scale.
I’d say the concrete block houses failed on the human level and I thinnk one could argue that the Guggenheim succeeds on a philosophical level more than a human one.
“Silent Running”, a great underrated movie.
Good point. Buildings are not always intended to relate at a human scale. Churches, temples, etc. are usually intended to inspire awe. Seats of government and corporate headquarters to project an image of power. However, when these objectives are brought into the residential realm it is imo a great tragedy. The apparent need of people to flaunt their real or imagined power (wealth) in the most ostentatious way is a blight upon the land. Too bad most peoples idea of a power image seems to be an English manor house or French chateau. Sadly, these people will likely never know what they’re missing.
As to the Farnsworth House, I think it world work well in a remake of ‘The Martian Chronicles”. The superior beings, in flowing robes, gliding about its Cartesian purity.