Miles and Donna this designer whether intentional or not is a real hoot. Last couple pics - guest bed posts appear to only support one part of rood sloop while the other fails in the wind........and the guest shower diverted is diverted- it's off to the left of center niche,surely an ergonomic decision.........reading Kipnis on Holl, on bus, maybe it's rubbing off.
This part of Texas is wildcatter/oil & gas country. Fiercely independent, and an architect is seen as an unnecessary evil generally. The firms in this area are either design/build or deal with institutional/large commercial building. The threshold for requiring an architect license is so high that most private buildings don't involve an architect if any kind of developer is involved.
This is most likely an accumulation of a kit of parts on the Home Builder Menu gone horribly wrong. I'm glad I could provide some entertainment today.
The more I look at it, the more I realize that it just looks like someone took a good plan, cut it into pieces, put it a box and then tried to solve the resulting puzzle.
Question though: Intentional or not, why is this any worse than the shit Venturi used to peddle? Is it just because Venturi and Co provided a narrative? Is awareness of one's role within the process of accretion necessary for something to be considered "good"?
You are on point null point. After nearly finishing Kipnis essay on Holl last night on my commute home I was certain I could write an essay about this house the way Kipnis wrote about the Art in the Nelson Atkins museum in comparison with Holls addition to the museum. I was thinking somewhere along the lines - deconstructive post-modernism a counter to Michael Benedikt's Architecture of Reality,one in which jokes, fiction, and performance are intentional........hell maybe I just will work this is to the next blog post brewing in my mind on the - avant-garde......thanks troy brown and null pointer.
You know it's only a few degrees short of being something FAT would have done, which is fabulous. I'd buy this house if I were into collecting houses as art. Ugly beats boring every time.
null, it's a ridiculous question you ask, but if you're serious, I'll try to explain. If you disagree, it means I didn't do a good job, so let's continue to discuss.
Venturi's work is consistent within a stated philosophical approach. Every detail is resolved in respect to that overall concept. Venturi's Mother's house is brilliant and truly a gesamptkunstwerk.
This project has no logic beyond what the builder has easy access to (molding profiles, etc are all off-the-shelf) that seems popular/sellable from a real estate marketing perspective at this moment in time. It's UNintentionally uncomfortable, which is the opposite of what FAT Venturi et al were trying to accomplish.
So yes, I would say one's awareness in the process *does* matter. If you ask the builder of this home why the pilaster in the dining room stops randomly in the face of drywall, the answer won't be because s/he's making a pointed commentary on the use of applied decoration to simulate structure. The answer will be either "The panel only came in 8' lengths" or "I didn't really think about it".
Your comments and critique have made this amazing. I didn't look past ugly when I first perused. But going back to find what you have all pointed out is incredible. Thank you, Internet.
*And quit blaming Texas, Miles. Them there's fighter' words!
"This project has no logic beyond what the builder has easy access to (molding profiles, etc are all off-the-shelf) that seems popular/sellable from a real estate marketing perspective at this moment in time. It's UNintentionally uncomfortable, which is the opposite of what FAT Venturi et al were trying to accomplish.
So yes, I would say one's awareness in the process *does* matter. If you ask the builder of this home why the pilaster in the dining room stops randomly in the face of drywall, the answer won't be because s/he's making a pointed commentary on the use of applied decoration to simulate structure. The answer will be either "The panel only came in 8' lengths" or "I didn't really think about it"."
But why is that qualitatively "less good" than customizing lengths or fabricating custom fixtures for the sake of narrative coherence (or intentional narrative incoherence?)? When it comes down to it, even the best work out there will end up resorting to "We had to print the mold in PLA because resin was too costly", "We used metal studs because it was the most readily available framing material", "The fixture is steel because gold is too expensive". Agency is a funny thing. We all pretend to have it, but in the end, we're all flesh robots.
Now don't get me wrong - I am not saying that a (coherent or incoherent) platonic narrative is a net negative. I am saying that a form-based critique of any work of architecture is impossible unless you believe humans to be of divine provenance. Which in turn means that you'd have just stated that atheist can't be good designers, which is ridiculous.
So yeah, go ahead, critique the crap out of the lack of coherence within the narrative (which in this case is non-existent, therefore not something you can readily do without conjecturing), but reducing the argument to one of form and market forces is nothing less that archi-dogmatic bullying.
(Can you tell I was reading Bleak Houses a few weeks ago?)
Agree totally with your first paragraph. This is why I always say architecture is first and foremost a material endeavor - if you don't know what you're building is made of, then it's not a building.
But I'm not sure I understand this statement: I am saying that a form-based critique of any work of architecture is impossible unless you believe humans to be of divine provenance. Isn't a form-based critique always going to be based in a critical framework that proceeds from a rational basis? Meaning, won't we always only analyze objects based on our previous human experience with objects?
Isn't a form-based critique always going to be based in a critical framework that proceeds from a rational basis? Meaning, won't we always only analyze objects based on our previous human experience with objects?
First Q: No. I don't think so. You can base a full form-based critique on affect instead of the narrative/critical framework related to its process of creation/technique. It might seem depthless,but then the question of how arbitrary of a concept "depth" is follows. It's an alternative to thinking on the process-side of things. Again, I'm not imposing a value judgement here.
Second Q: We do. But it takes a lot of potentially erroneous assumptions to create a faux-critical theory based on a bunch of pictures that lack a narrative. I mean, if architectural practice is indeed a material endeavor, is creating narrative ghosts so that we can claim the house is haunted really part of architecture?
am saying that a form-based critique of any work of architecture is impossible unless you believe humans to be of divine provenance
True to an extent. I will paraphrase Neil Degrasse Tyson.....
We are only 1% genetically divergent from chimps and yet we completely disregard them as intelligent life. A species only 1% more intelligent than us would likely do the same....Imagine a species 10% or 100% more intelligent?
If that were the case (which it likely is,) even our greatest creations would look like kindergarten macaroni art. The relative difference between this pos and the Barcelona Pavilion may be apparent and great to us simple minded humans, but since we are likely not as smart as we think in comparison to other life forms out there in the universe, this pos may not be too far off from Venturis momas house. Our "intent" would be rendered insignificant monkey business...And thus our lack there of would relatively be on par with even our deepest and most thoughtful endevors...
So after all, its not really that bad once we come to the self realization that we are all insignificant mildly intelligent life forms orbiting an insignificant star in the boondocks of an insignificant galaxy in the boondocks of an insignificant universe in the boondocks of a insignificant multiverse....and so on.....
I totally pulled that out of my ass...Maybe the realtor can use this logic to help sell this ugly pos...
A form-based critique is possible, but only based on a personal aesthetic. Which is of course divine provenance. Not to be confused with a forum-based critique.
As to deeper philosophies, there is no apparent conscious design narrative, only a story about how this came to be, which I am sure would be most amusing.
In the rest of the house the pilasters do seem to go up to the crown molding. In the dining room the ceiling on the other side of the archway (at the entrance door) is much higher than that of the dining room. Not sure what the fix would be but this solution may not be a careless error in the mind of the person who installed it.
But...but...pilasters should not *support* crown molding! Crown molding serves one purpose: to conceal the intersection of vertical and horizontal planes in a pretty way. Pilasters are more like columns and should always *support* something (unless you're doing PoMo). A crown mold isn't an entablature.
Donna said... "But...but...pilasters should not *support* crown molding! ...Pilasters are more like columns and should always *support* something (unless you're doing PoMo). A crown mold isn't an entablature."
Nice.
In the classical language of architecture, a crowning molding is analogous to the cornice, or the eave end of the roof framing of a building. Those rafters bear on supporting lintels , which are represented by the frieze and architrave. Together, the cornice, frieze and architrave comprise the entablature, which is supported by columns.
So Donna is correct, supporting a crowning molding directly with pilasters is tectonically illogical. Ornament is not structural, but it should always be a reflection of structure. We sometimes call this "fictive structure".
Volunteer it's that column next to the front door, in the image curt posted above with the quote defining columns. The one that starts life as an engaged column but ends up as two pilasters when it's pinned against the wall by the intercepting drywall arch. I fear the capital we can't see, the one on the other side of the drywall arch, is higher than the one we can see. <sigh>
EKE, to me understanding how ornament evolved through structural use, then using ornament in a way that makes sense to its tradition, is a totally Modern approach to design.
So, in this case, apparently none of the freestanding columns associated with an arch should have a visible portion of the column above the arch and the pilasters on a wall associated with an arch should not progress above the beginning of the arch. In this case the pilaster in the dining room should be lowered to fit around the point where the arch meets the wall? Thanks, makes sense!
This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Miles and Donna this designer whether intentional or not is a real hoot. Last couple pics - guest bed posts appear to only support one part of rood sloop while the other fails in the wind........and the guest shower diverted is diverted- it's off to the left of center niche,surely an ergonomic decision.........reading Kipnis on Holl, on bus, maybe it's rubbing off.
That isn't a fireplace above the range, it is an alcove for holding fake potted plants and chicken and rooster statuary.
I love it that the realtor and the home owners have no idea that their house has become a big deal on the internet.
This part of Texas is wildcatter/oil & gas country. Fiercely independent, and an architect is seen as an unnecessary evil generally. The firms in this area are either design/build or deal with institutional/large commercial building. The threshold for requiring an architect license is so high that most private buildings don't involve an architect if any kind of developer is involved.
This is most likely an accumulation of a kit of parts on the Home Builder Menu gone horribly wrong. I'm glad I could provide some entertainment today.
I've always kinda liked Goldenrod.
Probably a stock plan geeched up by a homeowner / decorator. Only such a combination could explain the obsessive incompetence demonstrated here.
That, and of course Texas.
I would like to see the ideas that were shit-canned as not being good enough to include on this sublime expression of the building arts.
The more I look at it, the more I realize that it just looks like someone took a good plan, cut it into pieces, put it a box and then tried to solve the resulting puzzle.
Question though: Intentional or not, why is this any worse than the shit Venturi used to peddle? Is it just because Venturi and Co provided a narrative? Is awareness of one's role within the process of accretion necessary for something to be considered "good"?
You are on point null point. After nearly finishing Kipnis essay on Holl last night on my commute home I was certain I could write an essay about this house the way Kipnis wrote about the Art in the Nelson Atkins museum in comparison with Holls addition to the museum. I was thinking somewhere along the lines - deconstructive post-modernism a counter to Michael Benedikt's Architecture of Reality,one in which jokes, fiction, and performance are intentional........hell maybe I just will work this is to the next blog post brewing in my mind on the - avant-garde......thanks troy brown and null pointer.
You know it's only a few degrees short of being something FAT would have done, which is fabulous. I'd buy this house if I were into collecting houses as art. Ugly beats boring every time.
null, it's a ridiculous question you ask, but if you're serious, I'll try to explain. If you disagree, it means I didn't do a good job, so let's continue to discuss.
Venturi's work is consistent within a stated philosophical approach. Every detail is resolved in respect to that overall concept. Venturi's Mother's house is brilliant and truly a gesamptkunstwerk.
This project has no logic beyond what the builder has easy access to (molding profiles, etc are all off-the-shelf) that seems popular/sellable from a real estate marketing perspective at this moment in time. It's UNintentionally uncomfortable, which is the opposite of what FAT Venturi et al were trying to accomplish.
So yes, I would say one's awareness in the process *does* matter. If you ask the builder of this home why the pilaster in the dining room stops randomly in the face of drywall, the answer won't be because s/he's making a pointed commentary on the use of applied decoration to simulate structure. The answer will be either "The panel only came in 8' lengths" or "I didn't really think about it".
Careful, Olaf. The wrong (right?) essay on that PoS could elevate someone to Pritzker nominee status.
Nailed it, fineprint. The mediocrity is what is truly awful.
Your comments and critique have made this amazing. I didn't look past ugly when I first perused. But going back to find what you have all pointed out is incredible. Thank you, Internet.
*And quit blaming Texas, Miles. Them there's fighter' words!
"This project has no logic beyond what the builder has easy access to (molding profiles, etc are all off-the-shelf) that seems popular/sellable from a real estate marketing perspective at this moment in time. It's UNintentionally uncomfortable, which is the opposite of what FAT Venturi et al were trying to accomplish.
So yes, I would say one's awareness in the process *does* matter. If you ask the builder of this home why the pilaster in the dining room stops randomly in the face of drywall, the answer won't be because s/he's making a pointed commentary on the use of applied decoration to simulate structure. The answer will be either "The panel only came in 8' lengths" or "I didn't really think about it"."
But why is that qualitatively "less good" than customizing lengths or fabricating custom fixtures for the sake of narrative coherence (or intentional narrative incoherence?)? When it comes down to it, even the best work out there will end up resorting to "We had to print the mold in PLA because resin was too costly", "We used metal studs because it was the most readily available framing material", "The fixture is steel because gold is too expensive". Agency is a funny thing. We all pretend to have it, but in the end, we're all flesh robots.
Now don't get me wrong - I am not saying that a (coherent or incoherent) platonic narrative is a net negative. I am saying that a form-based critique of any work of architecture is impossible unless you believe humans to be of divine provenance. Which in turn means that you'd have just stated that atheist can't be good designers, which is ridiculous.
So yeah, go ahead, critique the crap out of the lack of coherence within the narrative (which in this case is non-existent, therefore not something you can readily do without conjecturing), but reducing the argument to one of form and market forces is nothing less that archi-dogmatic bullying.
(Can you tell I was reading Bleak Houses a few weeks ago?)
Agree totally with your first paragraph. This is why I always say architecture is first and foremost a material endeavor - if you don't know what you're building is made of, then it's not a building.
But I'm not sure I understand this statement: I am saying that a form-based critique of any work of architecture is impossible unless you believe humans to be of divine provenance. Isn't a form-based critique always going to be based in a critical framework that proceeds from a rational basis? Meaning, won't we always only analyze objects based on our previous human experience with objects?
Wow. What started as a facepalm shared with the world has evolved into something I'm gonna have to revisit to fully digest. Y'all are awesome.
that's amazing.
Let's make this house famous:
...but Donna, I am of divine provenance.
Isn't a form-based critique always going to be based in a critical framework that proceeds from a rational basis? Meaning, won't we always only analyze objects based on our previous human experience with objects?
First Q: No. I don't think so. You can base a full form-based critique on affect instead of the narrative/critical framework related to its process of creation/technique. It might seem depthless,but then the question of how arbitrary of a concept "depth" is follows. It's an alternative to thinking on the process-side of things. Again, I'm not imposing a value judgement here.
Second Q: We do. But it takes a lot of potentially erroneous assumptions to create a faux-critical theory based on a bunch of pictures that lack a narrative. I mean, if architectural practice is indeed a material endeavor, is creating narrative ghosts so that we can claim the house is haunted really part of architecture?
haha, nice meme.
We all can probably learn more from the deconstruction and analysis of bad design than studying what is right about good design,
I want to make more memes but it's a pain to do at work. Please, anyone else, go for it.
THE KERNING! IT BURNS!
I like that turkey!
just switch that white zin? for a bourbon
am saying that a form-based critique of any work of architecture is impossible unless you believe humans to be of divine provenance
True to an extent. I will paraphrase Neil Degrasse Tyson.....
We are only 1% genetically divergent from chimps and yet we completely disregard them as intelligent life. A species only 1% more intelligent than us would likely do the same....Imagine a species 10% or 100% more intelligent?
If that were the case (which it likely is,) even our greatest creations would look like kindergarten macaroni art. The relative difference between this pos and the Barcelona Pavilion may be apparent and great to us simple minded humans, but since we are likely not as smart as we think in comparison to other life forms out there in the universe, this pos may not be too far off from Venturis momas house. Our "intent" would be rendered insignificant monkey business...And thus our lack there of would relatively be on par with even our deepest and most thoughtful endevors...
So after all, its not really that bad once we come to the self realization that we are all insignificant mildly intelligent life forms orbiting an insignificant star in the boondocks of an insignificant galaxy in the boondocks of an insignificant universe in the boondocks of a insignificant multiverse....and so on.....
I totally pulled that out of my ass...Maybe the realtor can use this logic to help sell this ugly pos...
A form-based critique is possible, but only based on a personal aesthetic. Which is of course divine provenance. Not to be confused with a forum-based critique.
As to deeper philosophies, there is no apparent conscious design narrative, only a story about how this came to be, which I am sure would be most amusing.
only a story about how this came to be, which I am sure would be most amusing.
It involves stock plans, lsd, and a stone veneer salesman.
In the rest of the house the pilasters do seem to go up to the crown molding. In the dining room the ceiling on the other side of the archway (at the entrance door) is much higher than that of the dining room. Not sure what the fix would be but this solution may not be a careless error in the mind of the person who installed it.
But...but...pilasters should not *support* crown molding! Crown molding serves one purpose: to conceal the intersection of vertical and horizontal planes in a pretty way. Pilasters are more like columns and should always *support* something (unless you're doing PoMo). A crown mold isn't an entablature.
pfft. the site i tried to link the image from doesn't want me linking images
and i posted 2 of them
i'll try again
at least i got my post count up
Donna, in all the photos I have seen the pilasters always go up to the crown molding or the architrave, if over doors. What am I missing?
lol curtkram.
Donna, your pomo comments filled me up with glee for some reason. I could not help but put this one together.
/
/
i suppose this one should be here too:
Donna said... "But...but...pilasters should not *support* crown molding! ...Pilasters are more like columns and should always *support* something (unless you're doing PoMo). A crown mold isn't an entablature."
Nice.
In the classical language of architecture, a crowning molding is analogous to the cornice, or the eave end of the roof framing of a building. Those rafters bear on supporting lintels , which are represented by the frieze and architrave. Together, the cornice, frieze and architrave comprise the entablature, which is supported by columns.
So Donna is correct, supporting a crowning molding directly with pilasters is tectonically illogical. Ornament is not structural, but it should always be a reflection of structure. We sometimes call this "fictive structure".
(Donna, your stock just went up) ;)
Can't stop laughing OMG you guys. Killing it.
Volunteer it's that column next to the front door, in the image curt posted above with the quote defining columns. The one that starts life as an engaged column but ends up as two pilasters when it's pinned against the wall by the intercepting drywall arch. I fear the capital we can't see, the one on the other side of the drywall arch, is higher than the one we can see. <sigh>
EKE, to me understanding how ornament evolved through structural use, then using ornament in a way that makes sense to its tradition, is a totally Modern approach to design.
.
Oh Non Sequitur love it!
I love this thread so much. Also my first reaction to seeing that house was "I wonder what Venturi would think?" And that desk, tho!
Looks like shit. Loving this discussion.
\
So, in this case, apparently none of the freestanding columns associated with an arch should have a visible portion of the column above the arch and the pilasters on a wall associated with an arch should not progress above the beginning of the arch. In this case the pilaster in the dining room should be lowered to fit around the point where the arch meets the wall? Thanks, makes sense!
http://img.izismile.com/img/img2/20090122/idiot_09.jpg
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.