Fondation Cartier, in Paris, by Jean Nouvel. (germanopratines.fr)
There is nothing unique, these days, about an architect who loves to throw ugliness in the eye of the world. There is nothing novel, alas, in architecture by those who keen to a sado-masochist ethic. I refer to Jean Nouvel, who is first in line to put up a skyscraper inside the Périphérique, in Paris, and who has committed other crimes against the eye as well. Anthony Daniels, a fellow of the Manhattan Institute, defenestrates Nouvel with max aplomb in “Architect of Himself” in National Review:
No one can be blamed for the fact that nature did not make him handsome, but blame attaches to the insistent pursuit of personal ugliness, and M. Nouvel’s shaven head and adoption practically always of jet-black casual clothes make him look like an informal SS man, or perhaps a villain from a bad remake of a James Bond film who wants to dominate the world by his evil. A man who self-consciously presents himself thus to the world is not to be entrusted with a task, such as architecture, that requires taste; his appearance is a deliberate slap in the face to others, more appropriate to the doorman of a nightclub with a reputation for violence than to a man practicing a public art that, like stuff, refines — or coarsens — you.
Daniels, after spending most of his essay parsing the meaningless and stupidity – and lies – of the Nouvelian aesthetic, turns to the building where Daniels lives in Paris.
What a relief it is to turn from Nouvel to the building in Paris where I have taken a flat! Built not long before World War I, it is neither original nor wholly derivative. It blends perfectly with the urban environment around it. It is graceful and grand without being overweening. It does not scream “Look at me! I am the work of such-and-such a great name, an Ozymandias of architecture!” True, as with other such buildings in Paris, the name of the architect is carved on a small stone plaque, but he was an architect of civilization, not of gimcrack, sixth-rate ideas, or himself. He is forgotten, no one looks at such plaques, but it probably never occurred to him that he should be remembered. For me, he and many others like him are as forgotten heroes, the architects of the kind of urban civilization that we no longer know how to create.
Imagine how beautiful the world would be if architecture had never stopped being this way. It might not mean there’d never again be Hitlers, but at least there’d be an end to Nouvels.
Architecture Here and There 
enough with the bombastic vitriol! like a building or don’t like a building for whatever reason(s) you wish. but characterizing an architect (or anyone) by what he/she looks like (an SS guard – really?!!? that’s sinking to a pretty low level of criticism) – as the reason his/her buildings look the way do is really stretching things beyond the point that such criticism should even be taken seriously.
LikeLike
On the contrary, Kristen, if you know more than most people do about the history of modern architecture, and especially of its founders, then you’ll know that Daniels was not only being an astute critic but brave to boot – even gentle. Nouvel and his ilk deserve much worse, and to give it to them is to raise one’s level of criticism higher and higher.
LikeLike
calling people names is not being brave. (I must admit that I chose not to pay to read
Daniels entire article – $.25 on my credit card would cost a lot more than a quarter) — only the first few and last few graphs that were accessible. nothing indicated “gentle.” I’ll be the first in line to rant about archi-babble (and Nouvel is a master). and I really don’t care whether he likes Nouvel’s work or not (I’d have linked in ANN if it didn’t cost). I was more revolted by the personal characterization. he’s bald. he’s tall. he wears black. so he deserves being compared to an “SS man”?!!? puh-leeze. cheer or jeer a design or architect’s oeuvre. cheer or jeer archi-babble. a person’s pate or sartorial choices have no bearing on serious criticism of anything. I found it totally insulting. whether I agree or not, I find anything following a tirade about looks hard to take seriously. sorry for my own rant, but it just really struck a nerve…
LikeLike
Fair comment, Kristen, I disagree, and you are clearly unaware of what steps the modernist establishment has taken to assure that the playing field is not level in architecture, but that is a fair comment about sartorial and physical criticism.
LikeLike
Bill is right, you might be thinking of the Torre Agbar, by Nouvel, which is a very similar shape but in Barcelona.
LikeLike
The Gherkin or 30 St Mary Axe, in London, was designed by Norman Foster, not Jean Nouvel:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_St_Mary_Axe
LikeLike
Thanks, Bill. It was an error based on looking at too many Google photos.
LikeLike
One of them was copying the past!
LikeLike