However, sincerity of purpose, quality of abstraction, and the compromises necessary within the creative process to realize a work, don’t necessarily result in a cohesive and worthwhile project. Neither does missionary zeal in pursuing an aim negate the ego motive that may be the sum call to action or only a fractional part thereof. It is possible to be sincere, talented, emotive, and outrageously pretentious all at the same time.

Doubtless Morphosis have their reasons for wanting this building to look as it does, doubtless they faced compromises in a budgetary process within a University context, and doubtless the result satisfies them. I would posit, though, that these are simply not the criteria for objective criticism.

Put another way, judged by the criteria that have been laid out here, a credible argument could be made for saying, by way of example, that Edward D. Wood Jr. was a comparable filmaker to Stanley Kubrick – after all they both approached their work with comprehensive understanding of their aims, absolute passion, and each followed the creative process through its compromises to a result that was visible on the screen. This game can be carried to truly ludicrous extremes by comparing Abraham Lincoln and Idi Amin – why not.

As a work of architecture this building strikes me as staggeringly pretentious and unnecessary. For example, the staircase, however elliptical its intent, is an extravaganza of dry wall geometry pointing to what? My take away from looking at it is that it is pointing to itself and screaming look at me. If we are meant to take Morphosis seriously as architects then it is legitimate to ask why such a staircase exists? What is its purpose? What is it meant to inspire?

Perhaps the comparison isn’t apt, but looking at this staircase brings to mind the spiral ramp of the Guggenheim and the grand stair of the Garnier Opera. In both cases the transit between spaces is treated as both a liminal and elevating experience. No one would argue that Wright or Garnier were anything other than egotists of the Howard Roark magnitude, but the work stood up. You cannot look at either gesture and say, hmm that is just pretention for the sake of doing something -different-.

It is perfectly legitimate to differentiate between the visual poetry of Mark Rothko and the visual pollution of Banksy. Both artists charge their expression with everything they can bring to bear upon their subject, but they are not equivalent. Neither -must- we celebrate one artist at the expense of the other; they are both arguably relevant. However, we can -choose- to appreciate one at the expense of the other. There is absolutely no reason for me not to think that Rothko is a more inspiring, or even better artist than Banksy (and that is precisely what I think).

When I look at a project like the Cahill Center I sometimes ask myself what would someone like Francois de Menil do with the same brief. My guess is that the result would have been, well, spatial – a meaningful pictorial and plastic depiction of inner, outer, otherness, inclusion, and most of all thoughtfulness. The pursuit of spatialism and proportion in architecture, in art, in film, and in all gestural media is a truly noble pursuit. Proportion allows us to differentiate between this and that expression and gauge its appropriateness to the subject at hand.

Where proportion is most relevant is in action. If we are defined by what we do, and we are, then the pursuit of proportion in action, in gesture, is the singular definition of character and soul. The soul of the building, too, is defined by its character and gesture, consequences of the actions of the architect who built it (within a framework of compromises).

No, I don’t think it is up to anyone to judge the soul of another. However, it is up to each of us to choose those souls with whom we wish to fraternize and travel through space.

By those criteria this is a building that doesn’t inspire me to look at the stars. When I look up I see the celestial horizon (or far beyond if I am one of the students and scientists who walk through this building). Walking through that staircase all I can imagine are Earthbound limitations.

Terry Glenn Phipps

I’m sure Mayne had many reasons, some esoterically elaborate and others simply banal, for the decisions made in the building’s design and construction. We shouldn’t forget that even the likes of Morphosis must make compromises in pursuing the collective vision of a project. Are they all presented here? No. Are they all apparent to those who use the building daily? Again, no. They don’t have to be. How unbelievably boring and dismal it would be to have everything explained. The greatness in this kind of work is its support of mysteries through the bits of information we do receive. As Andrew MacNair said to me, “it’s a damn miracle anything gets built, but build it dammit”

Sometimes the architecture isn’t the building itself but rather some aspect of the building.