“When something is genuine, it come from it’s core” Sure it is pleasing to see a built project resemble what has been imagined, but it is a mere superficial resemblance and does not influence the way we see and understand the built work. Gehry’s buildings only appear to be structurally innovative and talked about as such. Gehry’s team brandishes the computer and the software as something that is truly generating the structure but once what’s underneath the cladding is exposed, can one honestly say that the structure was generated by a computer? It seems to be by the way it looks. Most of Gehry’s structures force a material to do what it is not meant to do. The capacity and beauty of these structural materials are not harnessed and made to influence the design of today’s buildings. Gehry’s methods, I consider, to be antiquated and just sculpturing without any respect for and recognition of the unique properties of materials. No new respectful thinking for materials but a brutal and forceful manipulation of materials into forms for the petty reason of being able to do it (bending H-beams into forms)…and that makes very little sense in terms of innovation and cutting edge technologies.
Where is the spirit of innovation in that?!
How is a building influentially innovative when it is practically a traditional building built with traditional materials? One can not claim the form to be about continuous folding forms when they are actually pieced together using tiny portions of cladding. If Bilbao used huge panels for cladding and beneath the thin skin was an innovative structure instead of layers of thinner and thinner rods and stringers. If the building was truly whole where the interior can be intuitively perceived to have an interrelationship with the exterior. Sadly, those are not the cases and as expected, Bilbao and other Gehry buildings only look to be innovative but are truly not.
“and it do matter, how it is build, it do matter if it had impac, it do matter that so much nonsense are said, that one forget what this shuld be about.”
It is not often that an architecture master reinvents himself, but that is precisely what Pritzker Prize winning architect Frank Gehry has done. Gehry, who first won international recognition with his own residence, a masterpiece of post-modern architecture, has revealed what can only be described as the first post post-modern architectural work, the New Gehry Residence, completely confounding both his critics and promoters alike.
The New Gehry Residence is located in a nearby suburb of Los Angeles is the newest reinvention of Gehry’s signature architecture. The house, which seems to resemble your typical two story McMansion, has all the details that one would expect from his work. The odd shapes resting one on top of the other seem to look like a gable roof, but are in fact so complex, that it took NASA engineers, and builder and his crew, 6 months to make them work. “We couldn’t get them to work together” said one of NASA’s chief engineers. “When Frank asked us to have the larger shape be nested on top of the other two, we new that this was going to be challenge.”
And as expected, the materials used in the construction of the building are extremely advanced, as only an architect of Gehry’s stature could muster. Large PVC-framed double glazed windows, gypsum plasterboard walls and an advanced timber framing system are all part of the new house. Of course, in one of his callbacks to his earlier work Gehry has used, once again, titanium for the roof and siding materials.
If it seems like this is simply a McMansion, be assured, it is not. This is the work of a modern genius, an artist in his prime. The New Gehry Residence is a masterful adaptation of the architectural typological expression of the modern American homeowner. It expresses, both without any irony and by having a profound sense of modern causticness, the expression of contemporary urbanism. A critical look at the consumer expressionism of the spatial factors involved in the formal relationships of how the shapes simply seem as though they formed themselves. It is a simple, yet brilliant reinvention of the modern American house. It is a work of genius.
Also please exchouse me not to have progressed in terms of architecture and structure recently, but I am now that much into this painting , -- still it is difficult to stay away from a discussion as this ,what I like about painting though is all those nice comments, people seem to apriciate nice pictures ;
Yes Trace -- but please don't confuse things ; it was easier in the old day's when there was only those materials and those methods and back then, it was resoable to expect from the master, that he could maneage the planning and the tools and methods as good as the timbermen and bricklayers -- and things was nor so difficult .
But is that reasoable today -- when a master master the programming, the 3D ,that in all other matters are fully accepted as prove, we do send space ships into space and rely on their computing , but opposite the old day's , we today seem to blame the masters when we do not understand a paragineshift -- we expect the same easy explanation the old masters could give about trival construction, to be answered by today's visionary -- and if we don't understand a world so cirtualy different, so increadible fantastic , then we blame the visionary instead of supporting them.
Ans Trace -- you know others allready made my prove for me, -- but please realise that building something after you understood it is easy, what is difficult, is to come up with a brilliant new aproach, that cover it all and promise a paragime shift -- that can be a difficult situation to stand in, becaurse you get nothing but complains, and you get nothing but complains even your idea are proven.
Sp don't bla,e me to have retired into painting -- you see for me these things was newer difficult, -- my problem was, that I newer got the chance and support, to display how advanced it in fact was, -- but look at my paintings and ask yourself if a guy who maneage these, and eventhere in painting instantly make it into newthinking and Huge paintings, who before found it easy to, to draw and build a boat with in-house design tools, couldn't have come up with an innovative and newthinkingconstruction method to -- think about it, -- still no other method been able to challance. But look at my oictures while you think about what I said ;
Above I see as a prove that unless architecture realise, that the paragime shift been delayed by paintings, all we will get is decadeence -- Decadence in the meaning, that the more actural possibilities , if the designers investigated into their tools, today's digital production, --- then the build works will miss the obvious paragimeshift new production methods and newthinking of the basic structure will mean.
It is decadent when when that happen, and part of the reson is, that we havn't seen what could come, it is decadent becaurse what had been carrying the progress in modern structural thinking , the skilled innovative aproach, are compleatly vasted and replaced with an image that maybe don't even look as what we would realise, case the old master minds and innovative individuals had the chance.
Sorry but I has to ask if you realy think, the above are the result of reakising that now architecture students can freely nodel with Solids -- and move the detail creative process into new leads, profiting the detail, or is it a decadent aproach to the attitude of architecture that give a heck about both how it is build , that building like that without proving new standards and methods, will only make it even more expensive ?
There could be a meaning building like that -- if it was to prove the mastery of new digital based methods above the oldfasion rigid thinking -- but it was not that, it was only forcing the known materials and known methods ti the limits in a desperate try to picture what modern methods could provide, --- case the structure was projected playing with allready known new methods, it would not have displayed so decadent.
Oh , now I see it quite fun things--- but this is 3dh at a very primitive state , basicly staying with the tradisional planes. As you know, things realy start happen, when new planes are used planes like 45 deg. to the tradisional planes make some realy interesting structures, what most don't realise though, is that any other structure made in paper, will be exactly as fragile , one of the most used arguments can be translated like this ; " Na this will not work, as if I build from paper thin sections, in paper, then paper will collapse ".
Offcaurse it will, a scale brick made in just as thin paper , would also collapse.
Thank's -- for architecture groups I use another profile picture, see I has these glasses --- they are not round , but stainless steel and made by Zeiss, no one beat that ;
But about those pictures, then I am sorry I off track a most important discussion by pointing to what obviously are missing ; structure that from my point of view shuld be paramount in modern archutecture , with the computers instant delivery of that. Of what hold it all in the air , delivery of exactly that creativity that soon will bring wonders no one can emagine today -- when no one need to vorry if it is even possible to eject the structural basic ,and floors plus internal spaces mean no extra expenses than the sheer materials that hold the walls and floors, when floors in various levels, walls in any form is no extra cost -- emagine what is then possible.
Sad architecture to those extentst ar a social game ! As othervise anyone would realise, that we has the computers, we has the N.C. cutters it only take a bit guts and visionary thinking plus the wish to step out of the limitations -- then everything for together, from projecting calculating, over manufactoring to delivery -- and in each step a plain tabletop computer can make a mountain of new jobs , plus a brand new architecture way different, and much more relevant, than what we discuss here.
Sorry when I get rugid, but problem is that I feel something for architecture, -- guess my ecape into painting simply has been in vain over seing architecture been ruled by old men with no thought what so ever, about all those new jobs and all that beauty , that with my suggestion can be experimented renewed, develobed, in brand new way's to engage the build works. Gee why can't they realise it ?
My glasses though, they must prove I mean this serious ...
The Gehry hate has to stop...
Where is the spirit of innovation in that?!
How is a building influentially innovative when it is practically a traditional building built with traditional materials? One can not claim the form to be about continuous folding forms when they are actually pieced together using tiny portions of cladding. If Bilbao used huge panels for cladding and beneath the thin skin was an innovative structure instead of layers of thinner and thinner rods and stringers. If the building was truly whole where the interior can be intuitively perceived to have an interrelationship with the exterior. Sadly, those are not the cases and as expected, Bilbao and other Gehry buildings only look to be innovative but are truly not.
“and it do matter, how it is build, it do matter if it had impac, it do matter that so much nonsense are said, that one forget what this shuld be about.”
gehry's new home spotted on inhabitat
It is not often that an architecture master reinvents himself, but that is precisely what Pritzker Prize winning architect Frank Gehry has done. Gehry, who first won international recognition with his own residence, a masterpiece of post-modern architecture, has revealed what can only be described as the first post post-modern architectural work, the New Gehry Residence, completely confounding both his critics and promoters alike.
The New Gehry Residence is located in a nearby suburb of Los Angeles is the newest reinvention of Gehry’s signature architecture. The house, which seems to resemble your typical two story McMansion, has all the details that one would expect from his work. The odd shapes resting one on top of the other seem to look like a gable roof, but are in fact so complex, that it took NASA engineers, and builder and his crew, 6 months to make them work. “We couldn’t get them to work together” said one of NASA’s chief engineers. “When Frank asked us to have the larger shape be nested on top of the other two, we new that this was going to be challenge.”
And as expected, the materials used in the construction of the building are extremely advanced, as only an architect of Gehry’s stature could muster. Large PVC-framed double glazed windows, gypsum plasterboard walls and an advanced timber framing system are all part of the new house. Of course, in one of his callbacks to his earlier work Gehry has used, once again, titanium for the roof and siding materials.
If it seems like this is simply a McMansion, be assured, it is not. This is the work of a modern genius, an artist in his prime. The New Gehry Residence is a masterful adaptation of the architectural typological expression of the modern American homeowner. It expresses, both without any irony and by having a profound sense of modern causticness, the expression of contemporary urbanism. A critical look at the consumer expressionism of the spatial factors involved in the formal relationships of how the shapes simply seem as though they formed themselves. It is a simple, yet brilliant reinvention of the modern American house. It is a work of genius.
Dammson thank you !
Treekiller Eh !
Also please exchouse me not to have progressed in terms of architecture and structure recently, but I am now that much into this painting , -- still it is difficult to stay away from a discussion as this ,what I like about painting though is all those nice comments, people seem to apriciate nice pictures ;
www.ArtWanted.com/PC
I am only interested in tested examples, in large built works that are used everyday as a building.
Gehry may not be rocket science, but he's pushed the envelope of what gets done with the limitations that exist today.
Until we see tested examples, not just ideas, it is all irrelevant.
I recall having this discussion many times before ;-)
There is no envelope, there never was an envelope, and there never will be an envelope to push. Let's move on.
Yes Trace -- but please don't confuse things ; it was easier in the old day's when there was only those materials and those methods and back then, it was resoable to expect from the master, that he could maneage the planning and the tools and methods as good as the timbermen and bricklayers -- and things was nor so difficult .
But is that reasoable today -- when a master master the programming, the 3D ,that in all other matters are fully accepted as prove, we do send space ships into space and rely on their computing , but opposite the old day's , we today seem to blame the masters when we do not understand a paragineshift -- we expect the same easy explanation the old masters could give about trival construction, to be answered by today's visionary -- and if we don't understand a world so cirtualy different, so increadible fantastic , then we blame the visionary instead of supporting them.
Ans Trace -- you know others allready made my prove for me, -- but please realise that building something after you understood it is easy, what is difficult, is to come up with a brilliant new aproach, that cover it all and promise a paragime shift -- that can be a difficult situation to stand in, becaurse you get nothing but complains, and you get nothing but complains even your idea are proven.
Sp don't bla,e me to have retired into painting -- you see for me these things was newer difficult, -- my problem was, that I newer got the chance and support, to display how advanced it in fact was, -- but look at my paintings and ask yourself if a guy who maneage these, and eventhere in painting instantly make it into newthinking and Huge paintings, who before found it easy to, to draw and build a boat with in-house design tools, couldn't have come up with an innovative and newthinkingconstruction method to -- think about it, -- still no other method been able to challance. But look at my oictures while you think about what I said ;
www.ArtWanted.com/PC
Above I see as a prove that unless architecture realise, that the paragime shift been delayed by paintings, all we will get is decadeence -- Decadence in the meaning, that the more actural possibilities , if the designers investigated into their tools, today's digital production, --- then the build works will miss the obvious paragimeshift new production methods and newthinking of the basic structure will mean.
It is decadent when when that happen, and part of the reson is, that we havn't seen what could come, it is decadent becaurse what had been carrying the progress in modern structural thinking , the skilled innovative aproach, are compleatly vasted and replaced with an image that maybe don't even look as what we would realise, case the old master minds and innovative individuals had the chance.
Sorry but I has to ask if you realy think, the above are the result of reakising that now architecture students can freely nodel with Solids -- and move the detail creative process into new leads, profiting the detail, or is it a decadent aproach to the attitude of architecture that give a heck about both how it is build , that building like that without proving new standards and methods, will only make it even more expensive ?
There could be a meaning building like that -- if it was to prove the mastery of new digital based methods above the oldfasion rigid thinking -- but it was not that, it was only forcing the known materials and known methods ti the limits in a desperate try to picture what modern methods could provide, --- case the structure was projected playing with allready known new methods, it would not have displayed so decadent.
It is decadent to stay with outdated frensh aeroplane design software that give a heck about the floors and walls.
per, did you watch that youtube link emilio posted?...there's 3dh in there.
Oh , now I see it quite fun things--- but this is 3dh at a very primitive state , basicly staying with the tradisional planes. As you know, things realy start happen, when new planes are used planes like 45 deg. to the tradisional planes make some realy interesting structures, what most don't realise though, is that any other structure made in paper, will be exactly as fragile , one of the most used arguments can be translated like this ; " Na this will not work, as if I build from paper thin sections, in paper, then paper will collapse ".
Offcaurse it will, a scale brick made in just as thin paper , would also collapse.
... much better...
thank you all for contributing thus far...
Per - I like your portraits. My friend does very similar but all his girls are smoking -
yeah, per, those are really nice.
by the way, your profile picture there is a trip!
Thank's -- for architecture groups I use another profile picture, see I has these glasses --- they are not round , but stainless steel and made by Zeiss, no one beat that ;
But about those pictures, then I am sorry I off track a most important discussion by pointing to what obviously are missing ; structure that from my point of view shuld be paramount in modern archutecture , with the computers instant delivery of that. Of what hold it all in the air , delivery of exactly that creativity that soon will bring wonders no one can emagine today -- when no one need to vorry if it is even possible to eject the structural basic ,and floors plus internal spaces mean no extra expenses than the sheer materials that hold the walls and floors, when floors in various levels, walls in any form is no extra cost -- emagine what is then possible.
Sad architecture to those extentst ar a social game ! As othervise anyone would realise, that we has the computers, we has the N.C. cutters it only take a bit guts and visionary thinking plus the wish to step out of the limitations -- then everything for together, from projecting calculating, over manufactoring to delivery -- and in each step a plain tabletop computer can make a mountain of new jobs , plus a brand new architecture way different, and much more relevant, than what we discuss here.
Sorry when I get rugid, but problem is that I feel something for architecture, -- guess my ecape into painting simply has been in vain over seing architecture been ruled by old men with no thought what so ever, about all those new jobs and all that beauty , that with my suggestion can be experimented renewed, develobed, in brand new way's to engage the build works. Gee why can't they realise it ?
My glasses though, they must prove I mean this serious ...
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.