Sure, although Libeskind’s works mostly look like a big chunk of forms thrown on the land, and it most of the time ended up looking like a big alien structure that, yes, lacks in proportion and scale, and perhaps disrectful towards the context, in my personal opinion, (I haven’t read anything on Libeskind, yet) his work does contain aesthetic value, and very different, bold and abstract. His buildings makes it look quite uninviting due to its out of proportion scale, but the ability to intrigue, build up suspense and curiosity makes it a successful architecture. And perhaps, the disrespectful towards its context is done on purpose, as to make the building to be distinctive and prominent, contradicting to blending in, or complementing the context. Much like a piece of massive sculpture, if that’s not overated. And I think sculptural buildings are not overated, and we need more of these buildings. Not buildings that are too literal that look like leaf, hands, bike or a shoe. Afterall, architecture is an art. And art is subjective and has no absolute definition and the most agreeable definition of art is that it is the way things are done.

Nevertheless, thank you for your rather insightful opinion. I prefer not to be bias towards anyone and I choose to be neutral, whether or not I like the architecture or architect because I have to be open as I still learning, and will never stop learning.

Just a note though, this is purely a personal blog, and as far as I know, most of my readers are of laymen in architecture. Hence, I don’t talk about architecture in great detail here. Just a bit on the surface, more visual stuffs.

On a similar note, and in my opinion, Mr. Libeskind is not really an architect. At best, he is a fringe spectacle trafficking in the tired and puerile formalistic gobbledygook borrowed from these discredited speculations of Derrida, Foucault and other self-styled literary theorists. Deconstructivism was never more than the plaything of intellectual impostors, academic flimflammers and obscurantists trying to pass themselves off as visionary thinkers. Sadly, the movement infiltrated the architectural profession at a time when what it really needed was to recapture the meaningful relevance it had attained in the past. Libeskind, ever the calculating opportunist, embraced Deconstructivism’s utter pretentiousness as a cheap tool to distinguish himself from his more worthy and skilled peers. His incomprehensible babbling is no more than a ploy to distract from and disguise his utter inability to provide substantive detail for the crude and undeveloped drawings he inaccurately refers to as ‘designs’. He is to be credited with the spread of this barren line of inquiry through his own specious and laughable writing, an inept collection of juvenile and unrefined musings that is often mistaken by younger architects for serious architectural theory.

Libeskind’s ‘architecture’ (if it can be called such), is smug, witless, perverted and obvious. It lacks dignity, maturity, insight, craft or development. It ignores context, proportion, scale and place. Only in the matter of self indulgence can he be said to score highly.

buat kat shah alam jom! hehe.