form making and style is not aesthetics.

vado retro - form making, style and aesthetics are as closely related as art and aesthetics....form making is art!

Only if it is nice.

WOW! all those $3 words, you must be a millionaire! where is LEED when it comes to the language of architecture?

damn straight...

Hadid, Gehry and Eisenman aren't deconstructivists.

i think you have a lot to elaborate on in order for your post to communicate effectively.

I like that idea that quantum theorists refer to dark spots on the sun as "sunspots".

form making is art if it is good form making. a work of art is not of aesthetic interest.

yunomihomie, do you mean that it's hard to manage costs in complicated buildings?

i think you're saying that although Libeskind's Jewish museum presented a remarkable thesis on site-specific form making, the fact that his subsequent work aesthetically looks exactly the same while simultaneously lacking the same intensity of explanation or theorizing puts the rationale behind the Jewish museum in jeopardy.

Something like that?

what threw me off is vindpust typing a measly 5 word phrase...

woods man...lebbeaus...(sp)

oops...lebbeus. Lotsa l's and a shitty day on wall street will do that to me.

what? nope. I was right the first time!

LOL dammson.

I would think that the by-product of repetitive space articulation presents extremely synergistic opportunities to the pragmatics of value engineering.

Is that what you meant to say?

Marlin...yes....you're right on...sometimes I'm tortured by the words that occupy my mind....sometimes I feel like a committee rules my brain...but yet, your'e exactly right.

"think you're saying that although Libeskind's Jewish museum presented a remarkable thesis on site-specific form making, the fact "

Eh what Jewish museum do you mean, guess you know Liebskind performed more then one and, they are very different ,the one in copenhagen is merely an instalation.

...the jewish museum is an excellent example.

Liberty bell, 'opportunties' is definitely the operative phrase. right on.

wow... this thread should be framed or something... to whole posts by vindper that actually kinda make sense... and don't include long diatribes about 3D-H...

New glasses ,you know.

are you trying to get us to write your Contemp Theory paper for you?

how do you waterproof all this shit?

So you're saying, like, stuff costs less if you make a lot of it. But if each shape's unique then it's gonna cost more?

Silverlake: Philip Johnson thought otherwise.

Vado: what do you mean by 'aesthetics'?

my thoughts is that is it absolutely necessary to convey a thought such as this with such complex terminologies? im sure there is a simpler and more direct way of pronouncing these thoughts...

is it such a necessity to speak archi-babble?

as for hadid, she has said in her el croquis interview that she doesnt consider herself a deconstructivist, but rather someone who works with modernism but is extending (or developing, not sure) it further...

aesthetics and aesthetic emotion are not the same thing. one can argue that "significant form" is the common denominator of all works of art. in my view this is a (d)evolving definition of a theory of beauty.

according to the oxford dictionary of philosophy:

aesthetics The study of the feelings, concepts, and judgements arising from our appreciation of the arts or of the wider class of objects considered moving, or beautiful, or sublime. Aesthetic theory concerns itself with questions such as: what is a work of art? What makes a work of art successful? Can art be a vehicle of truth? Does art work by expressing the feelings of the artist, communicating feeling, arousing feeling, purging or symbolizing feeling? What is the difference between understanding a work of art, and failing to do so? How is it that we take aesthetic pleasure in surprising things: tragedies, or terrifying natural scenes? Why can things of very different categories eqally seem beautiful? Does the perception of *beauty have connections with moral virtue?....etc...

reminds me of zumthor and emo music...

i take back the emo music part...there isn't such a thing

the beautiful is moral. however, a work of art does not have to be beautiful.

to say that the beautiful is moral , aesthetically speaking you completely miss the initial stage of conceptual development imposing smothering constraints upon the study of true fecundity in the state of the art.

that is a quote by kant who wrote a thing or two about aesthetics.

Kant hated women, though, so should we really trust his opinions on beauty? ;-)

kant's view that women were to be subservient to men is only viewed as women hating with our perspective, since this was not an uncommon view in the 18th century. and frankly aint that all uncommon today.

He believed women should be subservient to men because he believed they were incapable of higher thought or of experiencing "the sublime". Which as you say is not such an uncommon view today.

I thought this thread was about the challenges and opportunities of value engineering. Which I believe was the topic of Kant's first manifesto, published before he became famous.

beauty and the sublime are two different things.

now were talking Plate and Aristotle...

I Kant had been a painter then this would be easy.

plato

If Kant shuld paint a woman and the painting would turn nice or what.
Then if creating beauty isn't a part of it, if no feel no florish , then ofcaurse if Kant was a painter he could hount other pray than beauty , no Kant as architect ; would he even design nice houses , would he dictate munk cells and Castle buildings because he hatet other people and made houses as grusom as possible , happily the only thing that would have an account, would be that of efficiency then would Kant chose digital and awsom or useless glas boxes.

vindpust...as a philosophy major in college (university of Chicago), I can say wholeheartedly that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Decon aside and putting VE up front:

Anyone been to Eisenman's Wexner Center? Is there room for error in all the detailing, i.e. similar built-in fudge room to his use of gyp board for the exterior? Customization on the cheap?

Despite the "formal complexity," Morphosis uses a pretty standardized kit of parts for their detailing these days. The same seems to be the goal for Libeskind, albeit to a much lesser degree. Cost reductions per not having to reinvent the wheel for every project?

Yunomehomie: Is what's at stake with your inquiry partially about how the cult of personality promotes improved "function" simply by hiring a starchitect like the improved "function" of designer jeans?

"I would think that the by-product of repetitive space articulation presents extremely synergistic opportunities to the pragmatics of value engineering." I think LB spotted the correction necessary to clarify your post topic.

much of the relationship between philosophy & architecture was partially (it never helps to speak in absolutes) due to the latters inability to speak clearly on well anything but history. So people had to do the talking. Write| right or wrong.

If you question Kants wish to render beauty , then it must be a positive suggestion to emagine the pictures he would make, then architecture shuld be about providing safe direction and beauty in that respect it is relevant to question the reson.

is this thread a joke? am i missing something? i agree with agfa8x's comments. iron out the wrinkles and slap some gyp board on it. that will bring down the cost.

Artists, people, philosophers one in the same say art is about "painting" pretty pictures. Now we know that paints, painting, pretty and well pictures are all debatable. So what does an artist do? Ask Damien Hurst he's closer than most to figuring it out.

yunomihomie, you gotta understand that vindpust is speculating and asking questions in that paragraph...

this is what i think he is saying:

if Kant was a painter, would he create paintings that are beautiful?...but if a painting doesn't have to be beautiful, (don't quite understand the no feel no florish yet), then Kant, as a painter, can explore other things than beauty, no?. If Kant was an architect, would he design beautiful buildings? would he make monasteries and castles as gruesome as possible because he hated the people who would occupy those buildings?...regardless of whether Kant would make those buildings gruesome or not the only factor that is then important (objective) is the buildings' efficiency...then if that's the case would Kant use the awesomeness of digital technology to design these buildings or design them in an outmoded way like modernist glass boxes?...

in regard to kant and aesthetics, beauty cannot be rendered because a work of art is impure. kants theory of pure beauty excludes the idea of concept end or purpose.

There Kant is right I guess not the impure but the infinaty of it.