Top Gear

There are a number of questions surrounding the History channel's recent Top Gear spin-off. Exactly a year has passed since the History Channel premiered the 'American version' of the classic English Top Gear and a great deal has already been said online about why the new domestic offering fails to deliver when compared to the quirky antics of the original U.K show. Comments fill the internet ranging in tone from “give them a chance” to “too scripted, not funny.” For anyone not familiar with Top Gear, it is an automotive show, which began its life in the U.K. during the late 70's. It was later revamped in 2002 it has since then won much critical acclaim and fans. It won an International Emmy for best non-scripted show in 2005 and continues to be one of the world’s most-watched television shows. So should we be giving the American Top Gear a chance?

They certainly have gone to great lengths to impress us with the Americanized show. The three hosts were handpicked after nearly 2 years of casting. They consist of professional racing driver Tanner Foust, actor and comedian Adam Ferrara, and automotive/racing analyst Rutledge Wood. The first show in the series was extremely over the top, starting off with time trials in a trio of Lamborghinis and driving a Dodge Viper being chased by a Cobra attack helicopter. Although these aspects/stunts may be seen in the UK Top Gear , how can you compete with the original show that has already sent the first ever automobile to the North Pole? Or invented the combine snow-blower? How can you show-up the show whose hosts managed to cover the entire country of Vietnam on $100 scooters which were then converted into boats in order to reach the bar at the end of the trip?

It is an entirely valid question. Nothing else really sets the new version apart from its parent show. Both shows feature cars being driven, tested, and occasionally destroyed. Both shows feature 'The Stig', an anonymous race car driver in a white race suit. Not only do they feature a similar stage and set for both shows, but the format for each is nearly identical. However, anyone familiar with the classic episodes will quickly point out that the new hosts don't have the same chemistry of their across-the-pond counterparts. This is a point which is hard to argue when you watch the first episode. While they had likely rehearsed their banter in some respect, they came off as three people in a rather awkward situation. The chemistry improves a bit as the season moves forward, but the cast is a far cry from what the existing fan-base is comparing them to. Rome was not built in a day, so should we be so quick to blame the shows presenters?

The real question at hand is why this show even needed to be created in the first place. The English version was already immensely popular in the USA, with prominent placement in the BBC-America prime time line-up and millions of hits on YouTube. The only logical answer for the shows existence lies in the only reason anything exists on television--money. It is no wonder that the show is being poorly received by the existing fans since it is entirely disingenuous from its conception. Following the Emmy win in 2005 NBC and Discovery channel both tasted residual cash in the air and began producing pilots which they hoped would win them the licensing rights from the BBC. Several reasonable people asserted that the show would never be a success without the original hosts, and the project was abandoned to the television-producer limbo. There it would have rightly stayed until the History Channel came and decided Top Gear would fit in nicely with their current line-up of quality programming such as Ancient Aliens andHairy Bikers.

So History started out their capitalization efforts by alienating the gigantic existing fan-base they had created their show for in the first place. The American show is not a labor of love caressed gently into existence by three friends over many years, rather it was conceived to target 'core demographics', fill appropriate time-slots and leach from a something generally regarded as artful. Similarly, the Australian version of Top Gear which has run for a couple years is apparently canceled as of 2011. The Russian version was so poorly received that after only half-a-season, they began airing the British episodes in its place. So far, it has been pretty clear that even if you take the proven, segmented scripts, and formulaic approach; portraying the genuine relationships in Top Gear is not as easy as it sounds. While the American Top Gear was recently renewed for a second season by History Channel, it is also worth noting that Ancient Aliens, a show dedicated to examining the role of aliens in history, has also just entered into its third season this past July. While there are still many questions to be answered about the American Top Gear, for now it seems the fans have spoken.

The Aqua Tower – Architecture Review

Chicago was, and will always be a modern city. The roots of the modernist movement still grow deep here along every street from 31st to Sheridan Avenue. Occasionally these roots will sprout massive steel buildings into the sky like grapes growing on a vine. The seeds of these buildings can be traced back to Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, one of the members of the Bauhaus and a founder of modernism. Van der Rohe fled Nazi Germany before World War II and found his way to Chicago where he founded the Chicago's Armour Institute of Technology, now known as IIT, to continue the work he began at the Bauhaus. From this school the modern style of architecture known as the International or Chicago style was born. One of the most recent additions to this proud architectural heritage is Jeanne Gang's Aqua Tower. This building is a shining example of how far architecture has come since the invention of the modern skyscraper nearly a century ago.

The Aqua Tower sits near a large park in the Lakeshore East area of downtown Chicago. At 86 stories, the building feels right at home nestled inside the endless rows of International Style towers which stretch off to either side of the Chicago River. The form of the building is similar to its neighbors, yet at the same time entirely different. Not one floor plan is identical and the abstraction of the glass seems to fill in between the concrete like water rushing to fill the low parts of a valley. The play of the forms are rather subtle as each floor changes shape slightly to suggest flowing forms. The description sounds like a hiking trip rather than a building, and this is what makes Aqua Tower something special. The harshness of the lines and materials of construction are still present, yet they intertwine with the fantasy of the shape so effortlessly--so organically--that the suggestion of the movement in form is always present.

Jeanne Gang feels just as at home in Chicago as her Aqua building. She was born in Illinois in 1964 and leads Studio Gang Architects, a Chicago-based architecture and design firm. The Aqua Tower is the tallest building in the world designed by a woman which holds the promise of opening the field of architecture, dominated for so long by men, to young women in the future. Jeanne was recently honored with the very prestigious 2011 MacArthur Fellow Award for her ground-breaking work in architecture. She has brought a holistic approach to the art, combining the principals of the Chicago Style with concern for the environment and the people who will use the structure. All of her projects make use of 'green' building techniques and employ things like recycled or recyclable materials, energy conservation, and sustainable construction methods.

Modern Art always begs the question of what is next, and in the case of architecture the answer can be found in the pursuit of nature. Chicago has seen several buildings attempt to take this path. The Trump Tower plays with sweeping curvilinear lines which seem to catch the setting sun from any angle, while buildings like Bertrand Goldberg's Marina Towers have been experimenting with the organic floor plan idea since the 60's. What separates the Aqua Tower from these other attempts is the execution. While the Marina Towers is using the same principals, each floor is identical which creates the never-ending vertical structures we all expect when we look at a skyscraper. The Aqua destroys this barrier by eliminating any vertical continuity between floors. While the this topographic approach has surely been conceived before, it was not until computer and material technology advanced to a point that the execution was financially viable to produce. In this way, the Aqua Tower still embodies the essence of modernism and the International Style even though it appears so radically different from its predecessors.

The Aqua Tower will prove to be a crowning jewel for the city and one of the most significant architectural advancements to grace the Chicago skyline in many years. Not only is it fantastic to look at, but the implications for international architecture and the culture of Chicago are wide-reaching. Mies van der Rohe is known for coining two phrases: “less is more” and “God is in the details”. While Mies van der Rohe may not have been able to foresee a woman designing such an important architectural work, both of his phrases certainly apply to the Aqua Tower. You could even make the case that in exploring the ties architecture has to nature, the Aqua building is indeed finding God in the details.

Willem De Kooning's Excavation

In one of the most prominent areas of the Art Institute's modern wing hangs a work of abstract expressionism, which was inspired by the 1947 Academy Award-nominated, film Bitter Rice. The scene which served as the inspiration for this painting involves a woman toiling in the rice fields of northern Italy. The painting is the work of Willem De Kooning and is entitled Excavation (1950). Viewers will understandably be struck by the lack of a rice field, a woman, or anything that could be a shape of a person. There are, however, abstract images of animals and human body parts like noses, eyes, teeth, necks, and jaws.

Willem De Kooning's Excavation is joined in its long-term home with other works from the same movement, like Jackson Pollock's, The Key (1946). These artists use large and expressive brushstrokes coupled with various background textures to portray an overall mood. These techniques define abstract expressionism. It is easy to feel the tension present in De Kooning's painting, not only in the line-work itself, but also in the overall visual atmosphere they create. It isn't entirely pleasant and it isn't meant to be. The woman is not there because the piece is not about her physically, but about the mental disillusionment the field workers feel. Although a human figure is not directly discernible in the painting, the human presence is implied.

Those who would contend that the layout is arbitrary need only seek out De Kooning's other works, they would then understand that this is an odd piece for his visual style. It is strangely structured, and while De-Kooning is known for visually separating his subject matter into imaginary planes, there is something else going on here. It only seems appropriate that the overall structure of the painting is vertically aligned into approximate rows when the subject matter at hand is a rice field. None of De- Kooning's other works exhibit the intentional vertical alignment like we see in Excavation. Each individual feels the tension when they look at this piece, even though they may not understand why. This contention and the extent of abstraction used by the artist are both reasons why this work of art has stood the test of time.