Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
by Daniele Scarpa Kos
Used to be a cheesburger and fries from Soup Burg. Now it's something nice from Grace's Market.
yes Miles, bt t question is another....
Bauhaus is an "order of architecture"?
Ionic Order + Bauhaus = Postmodernism
This sounds like the same idea that spawned Andres Duany's upcoming book Heterodoxia Architectonica:
"I would propose a new ethos – one no longer dedicated to the polishing of the classical canon of Vitruvius, Palladio and Vignola, but to supplementing that canon. Because this process cannot be allowed to devolveinto neo-postmodernist dissipation, it should still be based on the authority of masters and masterpieces. First, we must transcend the closed historic treatises, to rescue that which was discarded in the reductive process of writing them. Then we must recover to our side those transitional 19th- and 20th‑century architects who have been assigned to the modernist camp -- where they reside as the foundation of their authority -- when they are, in fact, the last great flowering of classicism. An expanded canon would include newly drawn plates alongside Vignola’s: the Orders of masters such as Gilly, Soane, Thompson, Garnier, Perret, Hoffman, Loos, Asplund, Piacentini, Terragni, Stern, Graves, Porphyrios and Rob Krier. This treatise would claim an enormous amount of new territory for classicism. We are almost there. We have only to climb one last Everest.” Andres Duany
interesting ramifications of architectural theories...
actually, what's interesting to me is that duany would be willing to give such authority to single architects, thereby undermining the canon of established/recognized orders.
as i noted in the other thread [http://archinect.com/forum/thread/36407294/should-bauhaus-be-considered-an-order-of-architecture/0#last], the established orders evolved over time and reached a point where there was some consensus regarding what defined 'doric' vs 'corinthian'.
to fix as canonical the one-off product of asplund on one job would be pretty extraordinary, wouldn't it?
i've seen all the plates and been party to a lot of discussions around the book. my take is that this is less an effort to 'fix' other orders as 'canon' so much as it's a provocation to consider what to do with a whole world of architecture that doesn't neatly fit into what's recognized as the classical canon. it's a much more expansive project - to consider why classical architecture has allowed itself (or allowed others) to pin it into such a narrow definition. in other words, why does most of what we consider classical architecture have to begin and end with the five orders?
and we've given a lot of weight to vignola's singular interpretation, no? even though it's primary goal was to codify a lineage of work, it'd be hard to argue that the 5 orders were the only history that matters.
one way duany's laid this out is to consider canon in 3 parts: the classical, the traditional and the vernacular. the gap between the classical and the traditional seems to be the most fascinating and fertile territory that's being examined.
in other words, why does most of what we consider classical architecture have to begin and end with the five orders?
because of a ethnocentric and eurocentric view of architectural history.
i have nothing to add to this discussion other than to say that i'm really digging that drawing at the top of that duany lecture poster.
Otto Wagner in "Heterodoxia Architectonica"
still think that he really ought to at least have named the 'order' after the individual building from which he's taking the example - not the architect. wagner did a lot of different projects and the 'order' was different across his career.
i acknowledge greg's points above about the authority of vignola and others who attempted to define the canon. the authority, though, wasn't established just in vignola's or alberti's authorship of a text so much as it was in generations of architects who used these texts. in a similar way a.j. downing's work became a model.
to take singular works of architecture and retroactively bestow that authority on them in our time of kaleidoscopic form/styling is presumptuous, reductive, and largely unhelpful. duany is maybe attempting to assume a similar authority as that of vignola? isn't this just an attempt to use other designer/authors' works to make yet another pattern book? will the next seaside be a collage of 'orders' based on calatrava, gaudi, wagner, and eisenman? what a mess.
my experience of lectures by duany is that he's such an evangelical and charismatic presence that he can have you nodding along during his presentation. after the presentation - when you actually allow yourself to think critically about what he's presented - you realize how it's all seduction and over-simplification. i expect this book and its very interesting graphics would be similar. i'll check it out to confirm.
+ 1 Duany
"Go get coffee."
4" diameter pipe column.
if it's any good, it's called a "sammich." and this is what it looks like:
excellent idea Miles - with or w/o sugar?
south park order
hot dog order
dirty dishes order
Acanthus plants and corinthian columns...
The Corinthian is stated to be the most ornate of the orders, characterized by slender fluted columns and elaborate capitals decorated with acanthus leaves and scrolls.
Acanthus wallpaper designed by William Morris
(The Origin of the Corinthian Order, engraving)>>>
>>>G.Anselmo - Untitled (structure eating lettuce)
>>>here 1 acanthus -oooops!- 1 lettuce is crushed between 2 blocks of granite
>>>contemporary Corinthian Order?