With the recent Ordrupgård append it was a HUGE task for the engineer to figure out the molds . Even this was a rather geometric form compared this quite organic one the engineers realy was spending huge effords and money I guess mand ended up with halve meter thick walls for a fairly small building , a museum with walls that is a challance hanging up the paintings , even this was said to be a 3D modelled project the engineers found they never was challanced like this before ----- this other project must be 50 fold the efford compared the Ordrupgård project.
baby take off your garwondler. am i the only person not interested in forms like these? am i the only person that thinks these shapes look like they're from the planet of the apes??? take your hands off me you dirty stinking ape!
yea i mean.. there is no need to push the limits of architecture or anything... lets keep building EIFS boxes.. they get me all excited.. i might go to the store to get some cookie cutters now.. weeeeee
If we say that other men should see the beauties we see, it is because we think those beauties are in the object. Our judgement appears to us merely the perception and discovery of an external existence, of the real excellence that is without. But this notion is radically absurd and contradictory. Beauty, as we have seen, is a value; it cannot be conceived as an independent existence which we consequently perceive. It exists in perception and cannot exist otherwise. A beauty not perceived is a pleasure not felt, and a contradiction...
Just chiming in. Hadid's work continues to impress me. That site plan is beautiful. The thing that most excites me is the exectution, which may very well be like these renderings.
On the finish, I am imagining concrete. Like Phaeno. But how to get that V-Ray/Maxwell gloss is beyond me. I'll just look at those renderings for another 5 minutes...
You guys are so 2-dimensional. Do you even know what moore was about? If youre going to try to talk shit you could at least talk about the right sculptor.
i love the zumthor kolumba museum in Koln!! i snuck in and got some good photos and videos, will post when i get back from my trip in january. it is soo beautiful, and innovative.
ah, the last time i checked sculpture was three dimensional. sure you can point to another constructivist for zaha to appropriate. as far as henry moore is concerned, please refer to page 543 of h.h. arneson's History of Modern Art.
Sorry to say but I find that the word "Innovative" seem devaluated so, that if an architect just put the materials already here together in a different way ,then this is supposed to become "Innovative" where if you realy shuld live up to what meaning "Innovative" carry , then most of these innovative builsings --- today 90 pct. for some reson -- will be nothing near "Innovative".
Much more are demanded for a building to act innovative, than just stacking the tradisional materials in a wierd way -- there have to be innovation on a much deeper level , the sheer form can never be innovative this requier somthing much more somthing that enchange the intire structure from down form ending up in the very materials or structural method ; Gee if somthing that here in this tread is already refered to the early 20' now again is reinvented , then it can in no way be innovative.
Do you have a suggestion that is more visionary than the rigid beams and dictating glass ; when somone acturly challance the constant re-inventing is it then fair to make what shuld deal with a serious matter into what some web architects think , iwouldn't it be more honest to ask yourself who else displayed a realistic suggestion ?
Tell me where to find a true vision, a different way that with no doubt are different and thruout innovative, tell me about just one project that is not just re-inventing .
But true --- I think architecture shuld live up to the challance ,deliver some cheap strong houses in a new architecture , And I think so nomatter what web-architects think about the person who seem to be able to point in the right direction. And true I don't think architecture shuld be what web-architects want to spend their time, I think true visions are better than stararchitects words translated by jurnalists who dare not ask the real questions, and I belive that architecture shuld be about mastering the matter, not mastering the social harasment rules in public fora's.
Bside censoring posts, deleting posts make me ask, what contry are we talking about -- think about who censor and why.
I was refering to the collective hater's insights, as in the similarites are superficial. Anyway sorry for the nasty comment it was 5am and was cranky.
I see Per has arrived, so, conversation over ha ha
In other words I don't think archinect shuld pick on one guy becaurse some web-architects have fun mastering their word processor , I don't think it shuld be the issue for a web fora that deal with architecture, to turn architecture into judging architecture from fame , --- censorship and hindering new building systems that the oppoments don't even understand or realise --- do you even understand 3D-H before you critic it, is it a reasoable critic towerds a specific building system what you think about the person inventing it ?
Sorry Trace, but I alway's been good suggesting fresh new attitudes, Silver screen Galleri is at Designcommunity up round 25000 visitors, but here the same tread is only counting just 1000 visitors, --- do you realy find it fair to tamper with posts in serious discussions, will you realy find it supporting towerds innovation to make fully documented suggestions about new technikes into a matter of social context and cencorship as in the soviet union ?
i agree the drawings are beautiful, but beyond that is she really proposing anything more innovative than what saarinen did 50 years ago? at least his forms had somewhat of a basis in its function (and architecture parlante) where as zaha's is just another gratuituous starchitecture extravaganza...
If the forms are beautifull ,even somthing alike had been made years before ,it can still turn out to be innovative.
If the architect are able to envision the whole, -- the building forms and at the same time suggest the structural solution ,a new attitude ,an obvious structural whole M then the thing can be called both visionary and innovative.
But is this what we talk about --- I don't think so, and isn't this just what is wrong with today's architecture. That hte architect after 30 years with new digital tools ,still alianiate themself from the core artistic possibilities ,bringing architecture further than fast sketches and trend blob without a thought about what realy matter -- what realy are the tool that decide the limits for the form, what hold it in the air and is it's core quality and architectural challance, the structure.
Many architects and artists suggested organic forms but very few gone deeper into it than that, investigated the limits by acturly mastering the technikes that is those that build compared the sketches that shuld never be counted for more than what they are, just the forms, the outher limits ; that's not where the challance and the expantion offer itself free, for those few who care for architecture more than money.
Hadid's Mediterranean Museum of Nuragic and Contemporary Art
hmmmm...
I'm feeling it...
Anyone wanna speculate on the exterior materials or structural system they might use to pull this off???
Another limit testing concrete pour?
corian perhaps? "the wonders of science'....
With the recent Ordrupgård append it was a HUGE task for the engineer to figure out the molds . Even this was a rather geometric form compared this quite organic one the engineers realy was spending huge effords and money I guess mand ended up with halve meter thick walls for a fairly small building , a museum with walls that is a challance hanging up the paintings , even this was said to be a 3D modelled project the engineers found they never was challanced like this before ----- this other project must be 50 fold the efford compared the Ordrupgård project.
hi
some sort of resin finish?...
[url/=http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=47154_0_24_30_M]Here is the link[/url] from the news section for those that missed it..
well that didn't work out too well, did it...
http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=47154_0_24_30_M
here are all the plans
pics
sections
elevations
http://www.regione.sardegna.it/documenti/1_27_20061024141758.zip
beautiful drawings, contemax.
can't help but wonder how much occupiable floor this thing has. floor area : surface area looks very low.
Hey I found this on wikipedia,
neeto :)
baby take off your garwondler. am i the only person not interested in forms like these? am i the only person that thinks these shapes look like they're from the planet of the apes??? take your hands off me you dirty stinking ape!
completely uninteresting to me. so she's aping henry moore now??
::rolls eyes:: Jesus guys. Theyre nice spaces. Care to enlighten us as to what would impress you?
yea i mean.. there is no need to push the limits of architecture or anything... lets keep building EIFS boxes.. they get me all excited.. i might go to the store to get some cookie cutters now.. weeeeee
form-finding is just one of many directions to 'push the limits of architecture'. it just happens to be the least interesting to me.
this impresses me:
If we say that other men should see the beauties we see, it is because we think those beauties are in the object. Our judgement appears to us merely the perception and discovery of an external existence, of the real excellence that is without. But this notion is radically absurd and contradictory. Beauty, as we have seen, is a value; it cannot be conceived as an independent existence which we consequently perceive. It exists in perception and cannot exist otherwise. A beauty not perceived is a pleasure not felt, and a contradiction...
That said, youre certainly entitled to your opinion.
and you to your "nice" spaces and to aesthetic nihilism.
Just chiming in. Hadid's work continues to impress me. That site plan is beautiful. The thing that most excites me is the exectution, which may very well be like these renderings.
"aesthetic nihilism"
what a beautiful idea! How I wish... sadly I remain quite opinionated..
On the finish, I am imagining concrete. Like Phaeno. But how to get that V-Ray/Maxwell gloss is beyond me. I'll just look at those renderings for another 5 minutes...
polished concrete and clearcoat...
Beautiful.
i loved zahas forms when they were done 50-70 years ago...
jean arp. 1933.
henry moore. 1951
[img]http://www.henry-moore-fdn.co.uk/images/2006_05_09_dm_056_0.jpg
[/img]
thx vado, also the moore one corrected(hopefully):
henry moore. 1951
You guys are so 2-dimensional. Do you even know what moore was about? If youre going to try to talk shit you could at least talk about the right sculptor.
i love the zumthor kolumba museum in Koln!! i snuck in and got some good photos and videos, will post when i get back from my trip in january. it is soo beautiful, and innovative.
ah, the last time i checked sculpture was three dimensional. sure you can point to another constructivist for zaha to appropriate. as far as henry moore is concerned, please refer to page 543 of h.h. arneson's History of Modern Art.
Sorry to say but I find that the word "Innovative" seem devaluated so, that if an architect just put the materials already here together in a different way ,then this is supposed to become "Innovative" where if you realy shuld live up to what meaning "Innovative" carry , then most of these innovative builsings --- today 90 pct. for some reson -- will be nothing near "Innovative".
Much more are demanded for a building to act innovative, than just stacking the tradisional materials in a wierd way -- there have to be innovation on a much deeper level , the sheer form can never be innovative this requier somthing much more somthing that enchange the intire structure from down form ending up in the very materials or structural method ; Gee if somthing that here in this tread is already refered to the early 20' now again is reinvented , then it can in no way be innovative.
and you have a suggestion vindpust...uh, like a 3D honeycomb something-or-other?
----- I didn't say that , but do you ?
Do you have a suggestion that is more visionary than the rigid beams and dictating glass ; when somone acturly challance the constant re-inventing is it then fair to make what shuld deal with a serious matter into what some web architects think , iwouldn't it be more honest to ask yourself who else displayed a realistic suggestion ?
Tell me where to find a true vision, a different way that with no doubt are different and thruout innovative, tell me about just one project that is not just re-inventing .
But true --- I think architecture shuld live up to the challance ,deliver some cheap strong houses in a new architecture , And I think so nomatter what web-architects think about the person who seem to be able to point in the right direction. And true I don't think architecture shuld be what web-architects want to spend their time, I think true visions are better than stararchitects words translated by jurnalists who dare not ask the real questions, and I belive that architecture shuld be about mastering the matter, not mastering the social harasment rules in public fora's.
Bside censoring posts, deleting posts make me ask, what contry are we talking about -- think about who censor and why.
I was refering to the collective hater's insights, as in the similarites are superficial. Anyway sorry for the nasty comment it was 5am and was cranky.
I see Per has arrived, so, conversation over ha ha
In other words I don't think archinect shuld pick on one guy becaurse some web-architects have fun mastering their word processor , I don't think it shuld be the issue for a web fora that deal with architecture, to turn architecture into judging architecture from fame , --- censorship and hindering new building systems that the oppoments don't even understand or realise --- do you even understand 3D-H before you critic it, is it a reasoable critic towerds a specific building system what you think about the person inventing it ?
Sorry Trace, but I alway's been good suggesting fresh new attitudes, Silver screen Galleri is at Designcommunity up round 25000 visitors, but here the same tread is only counting just 1000 visitors, --- do you realy find it fair to tamper with posts in serious discussions, will you realy find it supporting towerds innovation to make fully documented suggestions about new technikes into a matter of social context and cencorship as in the soviet union ?
trace!!! Nooooooo!
i agree the drawings are beautiful, but beyond that is she really proposing anything more innovative than what saarinen did 50 years ago? at least his forms had somewhat of a basis in its function (and architecture parlante) where as zaha's is just another gratuituous starchitecture extravaganza...
hi
we have an original j. arp print # 40/60 in the house. it is very different than zaha buildings.
btw, anybody have any idea how much is an arp like tis worth these days? thanks in advance.
the world according to Arp
looks like there are many around. scheisse!
thanks vado i'll call them anyway.
That someone has done something before is not an argument against someone else doing the same thing later on.
Right?
there is an old saying regarding to chess;
every move has been done before.
but there are still beautiful combinations keep coming out of the board. check ;) these out...
ooh, chess quotes!
maybe appropriate to zaha:
by frank marshall (my favorite chess player ever)
"a bad plan is better than none at all"
If the forms are beautifull ,even somthing alike had been made years before ,it can still turn out to be innovative.
If the architect are able to envision the whole, -- the building forms and at the same time suggest the structural solution ,a new attitude ,an obvious structural whole M then the thing can be called both visionary and innovative.
But is this what we talk about --- I don't think so, and isn't this just what is wrong with today's architecture. That hte architect after 30 years with new digital tools ,still alianiate themself from the core artistic possibilities ,bringing architecture further than fast sketches and trend blob without a thought about what realy matter -- what realy are the tool that decide the limits for the form, what hold it in the air and is it's core quality and architectural challance, the structure.
Many architects and artists suggested organic forms but very few gone deeper into it than that, investigated the limits by acturly mastering the technikes that is those that build compared the sketches that shuld never be counted for more than what they are, just the forms, the outher limits ; that's not where the challance and the expantion offer itself free, for those few who care for architecture more than money.
Vindpust,
A few examples of star-architects who do that are
Norman Foster ,Renzo Piano and Santiago Calatrava
(to name just a few )
well put vindpust.. i think you captured my feelings on the matter
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.