I grew up a few blocks from his funky Santa Monica house [1], passed by it all the time. When you’re a kid you typically see wild new things like that as just normal because you have no context for how unusual they are. His house defied that perspective; even as a kid you understand that being wrapped in oddly angled chain link fences and corrugated metal is just... different. It's an unanswered question, a loose thread, a thing you can't unknow.
I don't particularly like the house - it's meant to be challenging not beautiful - but with perspective I see now there aren't many creations out there that achieve existence in eternal confusion like it does for me. I see his other works like Bilbao [2] and Disney Hall as refinements on the concept with the added dimension of beauty. They're not quite as memorable, but I think do a great job exploring the frontier of beauty and befuddlement.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehry_Residence
[2] especially the aerial perspective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guggenheim_Museum_Bilbao#/medi...
The Santa Monica spot was, personally, a bit of an eye-sore after about 8 years. I kept wishing someone else would rise to the flamboyance, but nobody ever really did. Well, I'm wrong of course, but I never did see such a striking spot until I got to Europe, or whatever ..
I saw him speak about that house and at that time he was having a really hard time living in the suburban mindset. He wanted to offend.
I’m jealous that you knew it so well and as just another house.
The MoPoP in seattle also carries his aesthetic, I would say it's funky, not beautiful
I don't have much to say about the focus of your comment, but I do want to talk about this:
"When you’re a kid you typically see wild new things like that as just normal because you have no context for how unusual they are."
NOT TRUE! I remember then (and even now) looking at unique things in awe and amazement, rather than something normal or ordinary.
Just what I think :)