Been working on this report and analysis on design concept like minimalism, its birth, and its rationale from different architects. I know its a broad subject, and to avoid stylistic design approach, therefore I wanna reduce it to architects which gives a deep rationale that affects users in their ritual, visual experience and philosophy.
One good example are my favourites; John Pawson and Louis Kahn. Any other architect can u guys recommmend? What about a good book on Zen buddhism? Any other sector in minimalism which you guys think I will be missing in my report?
John Pawson is not a minimalist. he might be a stylist though.
start looking into 20 th century art, if you want to unfold the truth about minimalism. around second half of that century in new york and west coast art. donald judd, michael asher, walter de maria, david lamelas, etc., umm, even richard serra.
pawson is way overrated for his materialistic minimal efforts which in themselves are problematic. if you want to make a floor planks from 2 x12 clear doud fir, that process has no minimalist approach left in it after many fabrication hurdles.
sigurd lewerentz
david adjaye
david chipperfield
donald judd
claudio silvestrin
alberto campo-baeza
eduardo suoto de moura
luis barragan
ando
rcr arquitectos
mieli + peter
boyd cody
as far as books on zen, i'm drawing a blank. I can recommend:
-in praise of shadows
-wabi sabi for artists, designers, poets and philosphers
I've always thought of Hugh Newell Jacobsen as a beautiful minimalist:
I don't know much about his work beyond the images, however, and I know that making something look simple often requires a ridiculous level of complexity. So given Orhan's example of Pawson not actually being minimal, I may have to agree that Jacobsen isn't either.
i agree lb.
i remember being a very young undergrad looking at an eave/internal gutter detail for one of those jacobsen houses in PA and thinking to myself, "how in the hell did he come up with that??"
internally so complex but so freaking sublime from the exterior.
I'm not *exactly* sure what you're asking, exzekiel. But whenever I think about what "simple" actually means I don't get far without remembering that "simplistic" is very easy to achieve, while "simple" is very difficult to achieve. Like el jeffe said, something can appear very simple visually, from the outside, but to get it to actually work that way needs a complex support that is hidden from view.
Thinking of Donald Judd's boxes: I had a friend who did these boxes out of lead sheet in grad school. She would take a 24"x36" sheet of thin lead and cut/fold it in very complex ways, cutting down and crimping all the corners so no raw edge was exposed, until she finally had a little box about 4" x 6", with a tiny square hole in one side. Looking at it one might think it was simple, but if you picked it up you felt that it wasn't hollow - the things weighed a ton! - and if she showed you the plan/pattern drawings she did of the fold pattern you saw that this little thing was incredibly complex.
On a perhaps more architectural example, getting rid of a baseboard seems like a basic goal of minimal interiors - but making it happen is incredibly hard: you have to have craftsmen who know their material and can work it with minimal tolerances, you need materials that won't expand and contract enough to deform if they have minimal tolerance, and you need a sub-structure that is close enough to perfect that it doesn't require being somewhat hidden.
Here are two previous threads that might interest you:
I'd like to delve into Orhan's opinion of John Pawson. I've always felt his work to be of a reduced value (my def of minimal...brought down to its essential nature). Similar chipperfield and adjaye in much of their work. I group these two together simply because of the former playing mentor to the latter.
i don't think pawson is a bad example of minimalist architecture. although not a 'true' minimalist, he is a great example of simplicity and restraint in architecture, quite an anomaly these days, and if anything, underated for what he does.
mies had his guys spend countless hours grinding away at the welds of his steel frames so they they would look clean. At the end of the day, it is just another type of aesthetic
Minimalism and Partners
Hi again,
Been working on this report and analysis on design concept like minimalism, its birth, and its rationale from different architects. I know its a broad subject, and to avoid stylistic design approach, therefore I wanna reduce it to architects which gives a deep rationale that affects users in their ritual, visual experience and philosophy.
One good example are my favourites; John Pawson and Louis Kahn. Any other architect can u guys recommmend? What about a good book on Zen buddhism? Any other sector in minimalism which you guys think I will be missing in my report?
Many thanks in advance,
Indra
John Pawson is not a minimalist. he might be a stylist though.
start looking into 20 th century art, if you want to unfold the truth about minimalism. around second half of that century in new york and west coast art. donald judd, michael asher, walter de maria, david lamelas, etc., umm, even richard serra.
pawson is way overrated for his materialistic minimal efforts which in themselves are problematic. if you want to make a floor planks from 2 x12 clear doud fir, that process has no minimalist approach left in it after many fabrication hurdles.
sigurd lewerentz
david adjaye
david chipperfield
donald judd
claudio silvestrin
alberto campo-baeza
eduardo suoto de moura
luis barragan
ando
rcr arquitectos
mieli + peter
boyd cody
as far as books on zen, i'm drawing a blank. I can recommend:
-in praise of shadows
-wabi sabi for artists, designers, poets and philosphers
haven't read it yet, but it is on my amazon wish list, budda mind in contemporary art
I've always thought of Hugh Newell Jacobsen as a beautiful minimalist:
I don't know much about his work beyond the images, however, and I know that making something look simple often requires a ridiculous level of complexity. So given Orhan's example of Pawson not actually being minimal, I may have to agree that Jacobsen isn't either.
But oooh do his images make me quiver.
BOTHOS
i agree lb.
i remember being a very young undergrad looking at an eave/internal gutter detail for one of those jacobsen houses in PA and thinking to myself, "how in the hell did he come up with that??"
internally so complex but so freaking sublime from the exterior.
Dont you guys think simple cant be just literal? What about this phrase by donald judd - " Simple expression of complex thought"?
Indra
I'm not *exactly* sure what you're asking, exzekiel. But whenever I think about what "simple" actually means I don't get far without remembering that "simplistic" is very easy to achieve, while "simple" is very difficult to achieve. Like el jeffe said, something can appear very simple visually, from the outside, but to get it to actually work that way needs a complex support that is hidden from view.
Thinking of Donald Judd's boxes: I had a friend who did these boxes out of lead sheet in grad school. She would take a 24"x36" sheet of thin lead and cut/fold it in very complex ways, cutting down and crimping all the corners so no raw edge was exposed, until she finally had a little box about 4" x 6", with a tiny square hole in one side. Looking at it one might think it was simple, but if you picked it up you felt that it wasn't hollow - the things weighed a ton! - and if she showed you the plan/pattern drawings she did of the fold pattern you saw that this little thing was incredibly complex.
On a perhaps more architectural example, getting rid of a baseboard seems like a basic goal of minimal interiors - but making it happen is incredibly hard: you have to have craftsmen who know their material and can work it with minimal tolerances, you need materials that won't expand and contract enough to deform if they have minimal tolerance, and you need a sub-structure that is close enough to perfect that it doesn't require being somewhat hidden.
Here are two previous threads that might interest you:
the Quest for perfection
and
thousands of words descibing how to get a baseless wall
Is any of that part of the discussion you are looking for?
I'd like to delve into Orhan's opinion of John Pawson. I've always felt his work to be of a reduced value (my def of minimal...brought down to its essential nature). Similar chipperfield and adjaye in much of their work. I group these two together simply because of the former playing mentor to the latter.
i don't think pawson is a bad example of minimalist architecture. although not a 'true' minimalist, he is a great example of simplicity and restraint in architecture, quite an anomaly these days, and if anything, underated for what he does.
mies had his guys spend countless hours grinding away at the welds of his steel frames so they they would look clean. At the end of the day, it is just another type of aesthetic
my only beef with pawson is that i can't stand his retail spaces. but i'm not a big fan of retail projects for the most part anyway.
read the article on Jeff Wall in the Sunday NYTimes mag...
How about Adolf Loos's "Ornament & Crime", quite a key manifesto to start with?
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.