well Lebbeus has worked through this, right? not saying it's not worthy of further discussion, just interested in what new could be brought to the discussion.
I've seen new construction look almost that bad (well, not really that bad, but it sure didn't look like new construction). Oh the photos and videos I could post... *sigh*
(and I truly don't intend to make light of this very somber subject. It's just been a long <fill in duration of time.>)
paging mr. finoki.... there is a topic on line one for you.... paging mr. finoki
We are in the business on construction not destruction. An architect that builds for war is one that builds for destruction. Therefore he/she is not an architect.
hey, time to trot out this old standby quote again!:
Architecture, we forget at our peril, is inherently violent. It invariably subtracts from the range of available possibilities, especially the perennially attractive option of building nothing at all. In this sense, construction sites are crime scenes. Memories, landscapes, slices of sky, beloved vistas and old neighborhoods are violated even when buildings of distinction take their place. Perhaps the most architecture can do is convert aggression into desire, its primitive twin. Beauty is an effect of this emotional transmutation. – Herbert Muschamp
i dislike the notion that architecture is not part of nature. it is a part of our nature. sustainability isn't just about the sustainability of our ecosystem, but about us, our communities, our desires. think about the growth, diversity, change that buildings bring about aside from their impact to the physical ecosystem. war creates as much as it destroys. (but i'm not advocating it.) it's a finite system.
hmmm...now i'm trying to conjure up memories of BLDGBLOG's article on those bunkers and bridges in the alps (?)
besides architects don't build for war, we build for people who go to war. (i don't build for people who go to war, personally.)
The new issue of The Journal of Architecture Education is all about architecture and war ... it features essays by Antoine Picon, Andrew Herscher, Eric Mumford, and others.
I have been fascinated by the idea of detoriating and the destruction of architecture by man-made or natural causes since my undergrad. Many of my projects examined the culture implications of the constant reminder of destruction.
My elderly next door neighbor was in the homefront Navy during WWII, and tells of German U-Boats regularly off the Jersey coast. Apparently, a couple of German sailors were caught buying bread in Atlantic City.
To: architecthetics
Subject: Baroque beginnings?
Date: 2000.10.26
Alex asks:
To repeat a previous question: who designed the Baroque? OR How did the Baroque arise (emerge)? Any takers?
Steve offers:
I think Michelangelo’s architecture (which was more or less a product of his late life) manifested tremendous ‘new’ inspiration for 17th century architecture. The details of the Porta Pia and the wholly integrated articulation of the Sforza Chapel offer architectures completely unprecedented until that time, which in turn inspired new architectures. Likewise, the ‘undulating’ wall of St. Peter’s no doubt became the new paradigm, especially considering that St. Peter’s then (as now?) represented the ultimate place of worship. In simple terms, it is best to learn from the best.
To this day, I am intrigued by Michelangelo’s fortification designs for Florence (recorded as plan drawings). They exhibit many proto-Baroque flourishes, and it is interesting to note the military connection (vis-à-vis ‘war and architecture’).
This places Michelangelo’s fortification projects among the incunabula of modern military architecture, just at the most fluid and inventive moment in its history, at a time when experience had established no proven formula of design. Unlike the situation in other arts, the lessons of antiquity and of preceding generations were of little account; this is one of those rare events in the history of architecture when technological advances altered the basic precepts of design.
--James Ackerman, The Architecture of Michelangelo (Penguin, 1970), p. 127.
postscript:
Alex also asks:
...is architecture the product of Man (singular, intentional) or of men (plural and impartial)?
Steve replies:
I see architecture as the product of human imagination(s), and that is why I spend my time trying to figure out where human imagination comes from.
Hey, Steven, you left out what Muschamp wrote next, which is even more interesting:
On a human level, I prefer most developers to most architects, because (to borrow Truman Capote's terms) developers tend to be Unspoiled Monsters, whereas architects are often very Spoiled Monsters indeed. Possessed by the desire to control, they are also convinced that their aggression is redeemed by a high artistic calling, proof of which is usually lacking.
the architecture of war
This is just mean to begin some sort of open-ended discussion to what war does to buildings and surroundings. For your consideration:
well Lebbeus has worked through this, right? not saying it's not worthy of further discussion, just interested in what new could be brought to the discussion.
I've seen new construction look almost that bad (well, not really that bad, but it sure didn't look like new construction). Oh the photos and videos I could post... *sigh*
(and I truly don't intend to make light of this very somber subject. It's just been a long <fill in duration of time.>)
I'm not too familiar with the whole Lebbeus thing. Maybe I'll check it out.
old school...
paging mr. finoki.... there is a topic on line one for you.... paging mr. finoki
We are in the business on construction not destruction. An architect that builds for war is one that builds for destruction. Therefore he/she is not an architect.
here endeth the lesson.
cameron, what about the guys doing hardened bunkers?
is the architecture of war necc. the architecture of destruction?
Aren't bunkers either used for the protection of the few OR as scare tactics (a la cold war).
All of it is about an architecture for aggression.
is architecture of aggression also an architecture of protection? and, in essence, isn't nearly all architecture about protection? even just a wall
[/img]http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/house-selling-1.jpg[/img]
oops...last image...
hey, time to trot out this old standby quote again!:
Architecture, we forget at our peril, is inherently violent. It invariably subtracts from the range of available possibilities, especially the perennially attractive option of building nothing at all. In this sense, construction sites are crime scenes. Memories, landscapes, slices of sky, beloved vistas and old neighborhoods are violated even when buildings of distinction take their place. Perhaps the most architecture can do is convert aggression into desire, its primitive twin. Beauty is an effect of this emotional transmutation. – Herbert Muschamp
i dislike the notion that architecture is not part of nature. it is a part of our nature. sustainability isn't just about the sustainability of our ecosystem, but about us, our communities, our desires. think about the growth, diversity, change that buildings bring about aside from their impact to the physical ecosystem. war creates as much as it destroys. (but i'm not advocating it.) it's a finite system.
hmmm...now i'm trying to conjure up memories of BLDGBLOG's article on those bunkers and bridges in the alps (?)
besides architects don't build for war, we build for people who go to war. (i don't build for people who go to war, personally.)
The new issue of The Journal of Architecture Education is all about architecture and war ... it features essays by Antoine Picon, Andrew Herscher, Eric Mumford, and others.
I have been fascinated by the idea of detoriating and the destruction of architecture by man-made or natural causes since my undergrad. Many of my projects examined the culture implications of the constant reminder of destruction.
I highly recommend this book:
The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War written by Robert Bevan
yes there is a relationship between architecture and war. there is a relationship between architecture and everything.
it's all been done before...
bunker archeology
at the southern-most tip of New Jersey.
My elderly next door neighbor was in the homefront Navy during WWII, and tells of German U-Boats regularly off the Jersey coast. Apparently, a couple of German sailors were caught buying bread in Atlantic City.
pilotis wo bist du?
Yes, human nature.
According to The Bible, the first human death was a murder.
dazzle camo is a very interesting
To: architecthetics
Subject: Baroque beginnings?
Date: 2000.10.26
Alex asks:
To repeat a previous question: who designed the Baroque? OR How did the Baroque arise (emerge)? Any takers?
Steve offers:
I think Michelangelo’s architecture (which was more or less a product of his late life) manifested tremendous ‘new’ inspiration for 17th century architecture. The details of the Porta Pia and the wholly integrated articulation of the Sforza Chapel offer architectures completely unprecedented until that time, which in turn inspired new architectures. Likewise, the ‘undulating’ wall of St. Peter’s no doubt became the new paradigm, especially considering that St. Peter’s then (as now?) represented the ultimate place of worship. In simple terms, it is best to learn from the best.
To this day, I am intrigued by Michelangelo’s fortification designs for Florence (recorded as plan drawings). They exhibit many proto-Baroque flourishes, and it is interesting to note the military connection (vis-à-vis ‘war and architecture’).
This places Michelangelo’s fortification projects among the incunabula of modern military architecture, just at the most fluid and inventive moment in its history, at a time when experience had established no proven formula of design. Unlike the situation in other arts, the lessons of antiquity and of preceding generations were of little account; this is one of those rare events in the history of architecture when technological advances altered the basic precepts of design.
--James Ackerman, The Architecture of Michelangelo (Penguin, 1970), p. 127.
postscript:
Alex also asks:
...is architecture the product of Man (singular, intentional) or of men (plural and impartial)?
Steve replies:
I see architecture as the product of human imagination(s), and that is why I spend my time trying to figure out where human imagination comes from.
QBVS2, pp.24-25.
Hey, Steven, you left out what Muschamp wrote next, which is even more interesting:
On a human level, I prefer most developers to most architects, because (to borrow Truman Capote's terms) developers tend to be Unspoiled Monsters, whereas architects are often very Spoiled Monsters indeed. Possessed by the desire to control, they are also convinced that their aggression is redeemed by a high artistic calling, proof of which is usually lacking.
Taken from this article.
it must exhilirating to be standing at the edge of a floor plate looking out.
...enough to make a plan checker have a seizure...
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.