SDR, you don't know the first thing about being Frank! Just kidding.
I don't completely disagree with you--and there is something very powerful about some Pawson (and other minimalist) spaces. When the focus is on one element, it's very clear and the impact is huge. However, other times, in less powerful spaces, it seems to me to be more of a wash. Obviously the minimalists think about every aspect of construction, every detail, and so on completely. I think it's a question of taste to a large degree, and it's just not my taste as much as some other styles or approaches. I can appreciate Pawson's work (and I do), but to me, the less pristine architecture, the architecture of components, composed elements, but of equally carefully designed details is more interesting.
I can agree with that. Any construction, any architecture which ignores use, weathering, wood movement, use and abuse and all the other inevitables, is bound to fail, sooner or later, and to embarrass the intentions of the makers. Minimalist, beware !
In NY there's plg&p (note scholar's library) who uses "minimal" details within a reality driven context. But if you truly want to discuss minimalism we should throw bunker archaeology into the mix.
I doubt if the architects of bunkers concerned themselves too much with detailing how the walls met the floor. Their concerns were elsewhere.
I appreciate Pawson's monolithic approach to using materials but wonder how many people can afford that kind of architecture. Most of us can only afford surfaces. How much were those Douglas fir beams that make up the floor of Pawson's house to say nothing of the huge marble counter. Wood always moves, of course, negligibly lengthwise, more so, width-wise. At least the seams won't open up when there aren't any but what about internal cracking? Every large piece of walnut I bought had large internal cracks which could not be seen until you cut into the wood.
There's one inescapable fact associated with such design: expense. Pawson's work may be said to quietly scream "This Cost A Whole Lot Of Moolah." Acquiring, working, moving and installing such flawless and oversized pieces of material is, if nothing else, majorly expensive (as they say).
Minimalist Details/Maximum work
SDR, you don't know the first thing about being Frank! Just kidding.
I don't completely disagree with you--and there is something very powerful about some Pawson (and other minimalist) spaces. When the focus is on one element, it's very clear and the impact is huge. However, other times, in less powerful spaces, it seems to me to be more of a wash. Obviously the minimalists think about every aspect of construction, every detail, and so on completely. I think it's a question of taste to a large degree, and it's just not my taste as much as some other styles or approaches. I can appreciate Pawson's work (and I do), but to me, the less pristine architecture, the architecture of components, composed elements, but of equally carefully designed details is more interesting.
I can agree with that. Any construction, any architecture which ignores use, weathering, wood movement, use and abuse and all the other inevitables, is bound to fail, sooner or later, and to embarrass the intentions of the makers. Minimalist, beware !
In NY there's plg&p (note scholar's library) who uses "minimal" details within a reality driven context. But if you truly want to discuss minimalism we should throw bunker archaeology into the mix.
i believe a bunker is functionalist in nature.
Brutalist ?
I doubt if the architects of bunkers concerned themselves too much with detailing how the walls met the floor. Their concerns were elsewhere.
I appreciate Pawson's monolithic approach to using materials but wonder how many people can afford that kind of architecture. Most of us can only afford surfaces. How much were those Douglas fir beams that make up the floor of Pawson's house to say nothing of the huge marble counter. Wood always moves, of course, negligibly lengthwise, more so, width-wise. At least the seams won't open up when there aren't any but what about internal cracking? Every large piece of walnut I bought had large internal cracks which could not be seen until you cut into the wood.
There's one inescapable fact associated with such design: expense. Pawson's work may be said to quietly scream "This Cost A Whole Lot Of Moolah." Acquiring, working, moving and installing such flawless and oversized pieces of material is, if nothing else, majorly expensive (as they say).
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.