Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


By Jane Holtz Kay / May 29, 1981

Collaboration -- the you-write-the-words-and-I'll-do-the-music alliance between art and architecture -- usually has less harmony than its lyrical counterpart.

Skip to next paragraph

Works of sculpture or paintings, which try to add melody to the scrip of the streets afterm the fact of a building, work as discordantly in the environmental arts as they would in the musical ones.

The inevitable Calder stabiles stastioned beneath so many slick structures become little more than jungle gyms, toy concessions for the art crowd. The yellow form dropped before, say, the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank Building as part of the half-a-percent-of-a-building-cost-for-art program, looks like that stilted structure simply laid an egg.

Even Chicago's famous Picasso fails to humanize the plaza it adorns; it performs best in photographs where the camera makes the high-rise architecture dwindle in favor of the sculpture.

No wonder, then, that one designer declared that "labor" was the operative word in the title of an exhibition of art and architecture called "Collaboration ," now making the rounds of the US.

The traveling show, which finishes the first of 13 stops in New York June 7, called on 11 teams of artists and architects to create joint works in honor of the contennial of the New York Architectural League.

Born in an era when the "American Renaissance" tried to re-create a namesake era, the Architectural League sought to knot all the arts and crafts in the rich tapestey of a single building. The noble goal and the architectural teamwork subsided in the early 20th century and seemed extinct in its second half.

Securing the alliance anew for the "Collaboration" show was more part frustration than exhilaration: less inspiring than exasperating.

Above all, teaming such artists and architects as Hugh Hardy and Jack Beal, Richard Meier and Frank Stella, Charles Moore and alice Wingwall, and Cesar Pelli and William Bailey was a foreign approach to creation -- so foreign that some like Stanley Tigerman and Richard Haas and Susana Torre and Charles Simonds split before the labor produced the collaboration.

"Do you actively seek collaboration in your building?" Barbaralee Diamonstein , who curated (masterminded might be a better word) the current exhibition, put the question to the architects interviewed for her recent book "American Architecture Now" (New York: Rizzoli International Publications). Most responded negatively.

"Too much of the '50s were spent simply doing a plaza and then putting Henry Moore in just the right place in the plaza. This is a little bit like putting a monogram on a shirt," one of the more articulate, architect Edward Larrabee Barnes, responded.

To have the sculpture and the architect really involved with each other, you must either create the facade of a cathedral or a conceptual sculpture, deciding to affix his supersized form on the side of a building, he said. "I think that the kind of sanitary relationship which we went through in the '50s and '60s is over."

Having posed the question, Diamonstein tried to make the marriage between architects and artists.

"In process," is the way she describes the results of a relationship in its initial stages. That is indeed the best way to label the bonding shown at the New York Historical Society.

The work of Michael Graves, who might be called an artist equal to his show colleague Lennart Anderson, begins the exhibition with a painting of a bacchanalian feast above an art deco altar; the boxlike construction of architect Charles Moore, again an architect with artistlike instinct, ends with the addition of some rather weak bronzed cloth forms of Alice Wingwall.