From a definition of Architecture:
# The art and science of designing and erecting buildings.
# Orderly arrangement of parts; structure: the architecture of the federal bureaucracy; the architecture of a novel.
And of Formalism:
# Rigorous or excessive adherence to recognized forms, as in religion or art.
# An instance of rigorous or excessive adherence to recognized forms.
# A method of aesthetic analysis that emphasizes structural elements and artistic techniques rather than content, especially in literary works.
Thus there is a set of technologies (available structural / material / conceptual options) which create an envelope of possibility. Within these possibilities is historical precedent, at it's boundaries are the future. That which has gone before gives a canonical genealogy of forms. To adhere or not to adhere to precedent cannot remove the product from the family of Architectural achievement. By its continued practice Architecture cannot die. Formalism, of whatever nature, denies full exploration of the envelope of possibility, though might expand the envelope more quickly than random experimentation.
Technologies (from the clay bowl to the computer and including all buildings) are the symbols of what is possible to humanity. Thus to expand human possibilities and capabilities, one must eschew mimicry (of what is held to be true or good) for development from principles. These principles (science), and the value proposition that they embody are orthogonal to the concept of formalism. Value can only be assessed at the end, and by then it is spent.
You're not giving me much to discuss here. Call me uneducated but I don't know anything about the context in which those six words were spoken. And the dots imply that there is more to the sentence, what is it? You saw this in a video? Was it an interview, a fiction, a lecture?
I actually opened this thread thinking there would be some interesting discussion, too, but honestly: give up some of your own thoughts with which I can agree or disagree. That phrase is so vague I don't even know where to start.
context would be key, yes. but just to respond to the topic as given:
prouve was certainly a formal master, whether he wanted to acknowledge it or not. he may have wanted other issues to have been more impt in considering his work. the moderns were keen on presenting everything as based on function or engineering or fabrication or a system or.... admitting a fussiness and attention to formal development would have been taboo.
the comment smacks of provocation.
a professor of mine in undergrad liked to describe a perceived dichotomy between west coast and east coast architects. (for context, this was the late 80s.) he said east coast architects explained their work ad infinitum, overcharging everything with meaning. west coasters, on the other hand, he observed as never telling you what they were up to. he called it 'rope-a-dope' style and used lectures by gehry as an example: "well i just did this 'cause i thought it was kinda cool. don't you?"
i think prouve was engaging in a little rope-a-dope of his own. you know, don't pay attention to the FORM of the thing, pay attention to the connections, the materials, the efficiencies - whatever his thing was.
Very helpful, as always, Steven. I know next to nothing about Prouve, but I think his furniture is beautiful. I think it is difficult, once trained in aesthetics, to disregard them entirely in pursuit of function, engineering, etc. as you noted above. I see body-like forms in a lot of his furniture, the influence of the container in which he worked, if nothing else.
What I don't understand from the quote above is what he meant by "negation". I would love for THuh to come back and explain it a little more.
BTW, the description I have heard of the east-west dichotomy was "East coast architects cover everything in theory, while West coasters work from the wrist down."
if we can indulge in reverse engineering, or retroactive manifesto, i would then place this phrase at the zenith of prouve's career - this large-scale factory to punch out components (it was something of a first i remember) - interestingly, evan douglis did a tile piece that mimics prouve's industry.
i thiiiink prouve wasn't trained as an architect - and this comment could be something to distinguish him from his contemporary Charreau. In fact I often got the two of them confused.
again i have no idea where in prouve's life or circumstance this came from - how reliable is the tv program from where it's taken?
the rope-a-dope technique is the province of powerful architects - trying that at school could be interesting
Formalism is the negation of architecture..." _Prouve
Share your thoughts...
Write your own essay
If I had an essay to write...
I just watched a video and this quote caught me. Don't make assumptions. So much for enlightened conversation.
Sorry Thuh,
gut reaction...
From a definition of Architecture:
# The art and science of designing and erecting buildings.
# Orderly arrangement of parts; structure: the architecture of the federal bureaucracy; the architecture of a novel.
And of Formalism:
# Rigorous or excessive adherence to recognized forms, as in religion or art.
# An instance of rigorous or excessive adherence to recognized forms.
# A method of aesthetic analysis that emphasizes structural elements and artistic techniques rather than content, especially in literary works.
Thus there is a set of technologies (available structural / material / conceptual options) which create an envelope of possibility. Within these possibilities is historical precedent, at it's boundaries are the future. That which has gone before gives a canonical genealogy of forms. To adhere or not to adhere to precedent cannot remove the product from the family of Architectural achievement. By its continued practice Architecture cannot die. Formalism, of whatever nature, denies full exploration of the envelope of possibility, though might expand the envelope more quickly than random experimentation.
Technologies (from the clay bowl to the computer and including all buildings) are the symbols of what is possible to humanity. Thus to expand human possibilities and capabilities, one must eschew mimicry (of what is held to be true or good) for development from principles. These principles (science), and the value proposition that they embody are orthogonal to the concept of formalism. Value can only be assessed at the end, and by then it is spent.
Try not to get snippy, THuh.
You're not giving me much to discuss here. Call me uneducated but I don't know anything about the context in which those six words were spoken. And the dots imply that there is more to the sentence, what is it? You saw this in a video? Was it an interview, a fiction, a lecture?
I actually opened this thread thinking there would be some interesting discussion, too, but honestly: give up some of your own thoughts with which I can agree or disagree. That phrase is so vague I don't even know where to start.
these six words started a punch-up with perret. the old man surprised him, though - quick feet
i don't store credit with one-off quotes. they're dangerous out of context
context would be key, yes. but just to respond to the topic as given:
prouve was certainly a formal master, whether he wanted to acknowledge it or not. he may have wanted other issues to have been more impt in considering his work. the moderns were keen on presenting everything as based on function or engineering or fabrication or a system or.... admitting a fussiness and attention to formal development would have been taboo.
the comment smacks of provocation.
a professor of mine in undergrad liked to describe a perceived dichotomy between west coast and east coast architects. (for context, this was the late 80s.) he said east coast architects explained their work ad infinitum, overcharging everything with meaning. west coasters, on the other hand, he observed as never telling you what they were up to. he called it 'rope-a-dope' style and used lectures by gehry as an example: "well i just did this 'cause i thought it was kinda cool. don't you?"
i think prouve was engaging in a little rope-a-dope of his own. you know, don't pay attention to the FORM of the thing, pay attention to the connections, the materials, the efficiencies - whatever his thing was.
Very helpful, as always, Steven. I know next to nothing about Prouve, but I think his furniture is beautiful. I think it is difficult, once trained in aesthetics, to disregard them entirely in pursuit of function, engineering, etc. as you noted above. I see body-like forms in a lot of his furniture, the influence of the container in which he worked, if nothing else.
What I don't understand from the quote above is what he meant by "negation". I would love for THuh to come back and explain it a little more.
BTW, the description I have heard of the east-west dichotomy was "East coast architects cover everything in theory, while West coasters work from the wrist down."
hahahah. i love it.. 'rope-a-dope'..thanks guys. you made my day. so true..
if we can indulge in reverse engineering, or retroactive manifesto, i would then place this phrase at the zenith of prouve's career - this large-scale factory to punch out components (it was something of a first i remember) - interestingly, evan douglis did a tile piece that mimics prouve's industry.
i thiiiink prouve wasn't trained as an architect - and this comment could be something to distinguish him from his contemporary Charreau. In fact I often got the two of them confused.
again i have no idea where in prouve's life or circumstance this came from - how reliable is the tv program from where it's taken?
the rope-a-dope technique is the province of powerful architects - trying that at school could be interesting
actually i just read PsiArc and it rings true - although lotta big words in there ;-]
I was going quite strong and then got a bit bored by my own hyperbole...
prouve was not trained as an architect or an engineer. He refered to himself as a "simple sheet metal bender" ... or something like that.
He also once said that unless you plan on building something, there's no point drawing it.
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.