so i'm bored an watching bladerunner directors cut today... the city looks like a city that i've seem someplace before... nyc / tokyo / hong kong...
do you think what is considered contemporary in architecture and design, at any time, is significantly influenced by what we can imagine at any time as futuristic looking? is science fiction always one step ahead of architecture, and architecture quickly catches up with sicence fiction, at least exhibits a kind of futuristic utopianism / dystopianism? that sometimes has false starts? there are so many old visionary architectures that don't catch on, but look almost like a retro science fiction or comicbook cities of the future... it almost seems like whatever is new at any time is a reflection of what the culture sees as futuristic... like even architecture that looks old to us today might have looked futuristic in their own times... or maybe scifi just a mirror of present day reality? is futuristic always cool?
1)"Space. The continual becoming: invisible fountain from which all rhythms flow and to which they must pass. Beyond time or infinity"
and also by the same architect......
2)"The architect must be a prophet... a prophet in the true sense of the term... if he can't see at least ten years ahead, don't call him an architect."
well as far as I recall, in classic sci-fi i.e. Fritz Lang worked closely with expressionist set builders, quite a few of them architects, so there was an almost symbiotic relationship- cutting edge visuals being provided for the film and the large scale experimentation with architectural ideas possible for the artist.
mostly in sci-fi movies, the visual quality and integrity depends on the individuals involved, i.e. general ideas like "is science fiction always one step ahead of architecture, and architecture quickly catches up with sicence fiction, at least exhibits a kind of futuristic utopianism / dystopianism?" really don't apply. talking about BR, it wouldn't have been worked like that if it hadn't been for Syd Mead, who's quite a genius (even more so or despite the fact that a lot of his designs have become "outdated", rendering them even more charming). It's really all a human resources problem!! read old Cinefex.
good point... theres plenty of cheesy B sci fi out there to go along with the visionary ones... and theres plenty of b-rated architecture as well that is like retro sci fi made real...
just as looking at an old sci fi flick like bladrunner is like looking at an old retro vision of the futures, that has charm that comes from its old version of "coolness", is looking at an old "contemporary" building just the same? contemporary of any era really not about what was current, but about current imaginings about the future? imagining one step ahead in time maybe, on or off teh mark?
"is looking at an old "contemporary" building just the same?"
really like the idea of that... personally, i certainly just *feel* analogous to watching old sci-fi (cheese galore!) when i photograph certain post-60s monuments of a style long gone.
ironically, most BR sets weren't build from scratch-- they just "retrofitted" an old Dick Tracey soundstage. talk about imagining the future by projecting your visions on the past--
i believe most sci-fi that is there to stay as "classics" of the genre did not, in fact, use a design/style/iconography/call it as you wish that was there before in the sense of belonging to a visual genre, but coined it (or stayed rather singular) instead.
BR is the spiritual origin point of most "noir" SF the same way 2001 put SF back on the map at all (and *still* looks more contemporary than anything)-- Dune indulged in an almost baroque orgy of material excess (most sets were build by Mexican craftsmen, often carving away at ornamental pieces for months), and it failed commercially and noone produced quite anything like it ever since.
before digital SF, certain productions enabled a point of confluence of architecture and film, when sets became truly immersive- take i.e. Alien's "nostromo", silent running's "valley forge", parts of 2010's "leonov" (the director mainly using practical lighting instead of off-frame lights)- --- everybody had to be actually crammed into the set, literally entering that scene, that closed-off universe.
well, that's all ancient history and now, just like in architecture, i'm waiting for truly "digital" means of production to establish themselves as broadly used, accepted stylistic devices.
the whole notion of sci-fi is that it is not contemporary. if architecture suddenly became like sci-fi, then sci-fi would evolve into something else aswell.
Im so glad that some people agree that a movie which came out 25 years back may be called "old".
anyways,
hollenstein, good point, generally in any "notion" of the future , in movies or literature ....
technology, architecture etc is shown as 'advanced'.
the only two notable examples that deviate from this pattern ( that I am aware of ) are
1) Planet of the Apes (original one )
2) Waterworld...
Here the future is shown as regressed and not progressive.
It goes to show that in representation ,most of us in the creative profession follow a linear pattern of time rather than a cyclic one.
interesting point there, the one about "regression" and "linearity".. hadn't looked at it from that angle before- just considered "dystopian" sci-fi but that'd still be advanced in a techological sense yet depraved i.e. morally.
btw there's a new BR DVD coming in fall: the definitive Director's Cut.
yay!
Jun 10, 06 9:34 am ·
·
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.
which came first: architecture or sci-fi?
so i'm bored an watching bladerunner directors cut today... the city looks like a city that i've seem someplace before... nyc / tokyo / hong kong...
do you think what is considered contemporary in architecture and design, at any time, is significantly influenced by what we can imagine at any time as futuristic looking? is science fiction always one step ahead of architecture, and architecture quickly catches up with sicence fiction, at least exhibits a kind of futuristic utopianism / dystopianism? that sometimes has false starts? there are so many old visionary architectures that don't catch on, but look almost like a retro science fiction or comicbook cities of the future... it almost seems like whatever is new at any time is a reflection of what the culture sees as futuristic... like even architecture that looks old to us today might have looked futuristic in their own times... or maybe scifi just a mirror of present day reality? is futuristic always cool?
[img]
hmm... maybe bad examples... those are all basically from outer space
Quote straight out of some Sci-Fi movie.
1)"Space. The continual becoming: invisible fountain from which all rhythms flow and to which they must pass. Beyond time or infinity"
and also by the same architect......
2)"The architect must be a prophet... a prophet in the true sense of the term... if he can't see at least ten years ahead, don't call him an architect."
---Frank Lloyd Wright.
well as far as I recall, in classic sci-fi i.e. Fritz Lang worked closely with expressionist set builders, quite a few of them architects, so there was an almost symbiotic relationship- cutting edge visuals being provided for the film and the large scale experimentation with architectural ideas possible for the artist.
mostly in sci-fi movies, the visual quality and integrity depends on the individuals involved, i.e. general ideas like "is science fiction always one step ahead of architecture, and architecture quickly catches up with sicence fiction, at least exhibits a kind of futuristic utopianism / dystopianism?" really don't apply. talking about BR, it wouldn't have been worked like that if it hadn't been for Syd Mead, who's quite a genius (even more so or despite the fact that a lot of his designs have become "outdated", rendering them even more charming). It's really all a human resources problem!! read old Cinefex.
good point... theres plenty of cheesy B sci fi out there to go along with the visionary ones... and theres plenty of b-rated architecture as well that is like retro sci fi made real...
just as looking at an old sci fi flick like bladrunner is like looking at an old retro vision of the futures, that has charm that comes from its old version of "coolness", is looking at an old "contemporary" building just the same? contemporary of any era really not about what was current, but about current imaginings about the future? imagining one step ahead in time maybe, on or off teh mark?
"is looking at an old "contemporary" building just the same?"
really like the idea of that... personally, i certainly just *feel* analogous to watching old sci-fi (cheese galore!) when i photograph certain post-60s monuments of a style long gone.
ironically, most BR sets weren't build from scratch-- they just "retrofitted" an old Dick Tracey soundstage. talk about imagining the future by projecting your visions on the past--
i believe most sci-fi that is there to stay as "classics" of the genre did not, in fact, use a design/style/iconography/call it as you wish that was there before in the sense of belonging to a visual genre, but coined it (or stayed rather singular) instead.
BR is the spiritual origin point of most "noir" SF the same way 2001 put SF back on the map at all (and *still* looks more contemporary than anything)-- Dune indulged in an almost baroque orgy of material excess (most sets were build by Mexican craftsmen, often carving away at ornamental pieces for months), and it failed commercially and noone produced quite anything like it ever since.
before digital SF, certain productions enabled a point of confluence of architecture and film, when sets became truly immersive- take i.e. Alien's "nostromo", silent running's "valley forge", parts of 2010's "leonov" (the director mainly using practical lighting instead of off-frame lights)- --- everybody had to be actually crammed into the set, literally entering that scene, that closed-off universe.
well, that's all ancient history and now, just like in architecture, i'm waiting for truly "digital" means of production to establish themselves as broadly used, accepted stylistic devices.
I've just read 25 minutes ago (on a cigarette break) the following:
I quote: Form follows fiction
so why not science-fiction...
the whole notion of sci-fi is that it is not contemporary. if architecture suddenly became like sci-fi, then sci-fi would evolve into something else aswell.
Brink,some months back when i saw bladerunner for the first time and I called it an "old" sci-fi flick here, ..i was literally pounced upon ...
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=P32200_0_42_0_C
Im so glad that some people agree that a movie which came out 25 years back may be called "old".
anyways,
hollenstein, good point, generally in any "notion" of the future , in movies or literature ....
technology, architecture etc is shown as 'advanced'.
the only two notable examples that deviate from this pattern ( that I am aware of ) are
1) Planet of the Apes (original one )
2) Waterworld...
Here the future is shown as regressed and not progressive.
It goes to show that in representation ,most of us in the creative profession follow a linear pattern of time rather than a cyclic one.
interesting point there, the one about "regression" and "linearity".. hadn't looked at it from that angle before- just considered "dystopian" sci-fi but that'd still be advanced in a techological sense yet depraved i.e. morally.
btw there's a new BR DVD coming in fall: the definitive Director's Cut.
yay!
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.