Hi
To much talk is spend discussing splendid architecture, what about dealing with the real crap the bad architecture ,the architecture that fail visions, maby that way it will be easier to determine if architecture shuld be arts.
What do you mean by vision?
What is it about vision that should make architecture better?
What is it about an architect that allows him to pass the litmus test of visionary?
Is "The Vision" stable over many centuries? Or less than a decade ("Post Modern")?
What is the difference between vision and fashion?
Are all arts imbued with vision?
What is the difference between the Chrysler office building (assuming that has vision) and the Sears (assuming that has little vision)?
I'd initially say that the Chrysler Building was born of fashion and the Sears Building was born of a vision... a modernist manifesto v.s. art deco style
vision doesn't always make good architecture. Hitler had vision...
The Sears Tower had a vision. Had it not been for people like Mies I doubt the Sears would look like it did. Most of the vision on that era of high rises was the structure. We should all know the engineers name on something like the Sears but as architects we often fail to give proper credit to those who make our buildings possible.
More on topic I'd say we often start with vision but bad architecture is more a failure of the client in some matter. Currently I'm completely redesigning a project that the client failed to get proper funding for. He has instructed me how to design the building, more or less re-using old parts of the plan and placing them together like a jig saw puzzle. Design purely in plan doesn't work when it gets built in 3 dimensions. Oh well, should I just quit? Sadly, as Phillip Johnson said, we are high class whores at times.
i think it depends on who's vision you are talking about. on one hand i feel it is an arrogance that architects have to assume that what we want (our vision i guess) should supercede our clients vision for their space but on the other hand....people have some bad taste. also it is hard to begin to decide what is vision and what is a stylistic preference.
I believe it's our jobs as designers to give the client what they want programatically. That isn't our vision. Where our expertise comes in is taking a program and turning it into something beautiful - architecture. I don't see that as arrogance and I don't see it as superceding the clients wishes.
^ so far my experience has been that clients sometimes barely realize what they want programmatically but feel as though they should tell us what's beautiful(in their opinion) and we should agree and draw the building. the architects vision is not important to the client because the client will actually be using the space. it seems as though clients don't trust the vision of an architect. what gives?
Hi
When I used the arts acadamy the saying was , do you want to build buildings do become a building constructor not an architect, those are the ones that make the cubic structures the engineers, My guess is that when arts get into enginering things suddenly will happen, alone the two is nothing beside part of the pyramide any respect .
Ofcaurse it is not arogant to se the contractor as idiot ,he must be signing up you, but nothing realy will happen in architecture as an art form before new visions show their value. Value is as alway\s jobs and new technology .Now I am no architect I just make the tools, for me it\s easy I can alway\s make it better than the architects they are the ones failing the visions, not me. Architects don\t even need to be able to acturly draw. Ofcaurse it is difficult emagining new options new technikes where there are no timbers, no 20 different steel profile ,nuts and special fittings but just one material acturly made on computer. Ant that such cost a third four times as strong.
Now who said the Crysler building was not nice.
Now I done it anyway ,but please se this as just a tool please don't se the examples as anything but what you can produce with a CAD program ,opposite today's architect applications that I find make it very difficult to use to show an innovative aproach .
Reson why is that with the tradisional applications you are supposed to use the tools avaible and those you find in architect programs ,focus on attributes and accounting rather than shaping.
Anyway there are a great difference as 3D-H acturly describe each building element as a 3D object ready for the water or laser cutter where the tradisional programs just store the entities to be used in the tradisional way rather as paper than as real elements .
Now I guess you se the difference ----- instead of 20 different timbers ,profiles, boards bricks 3D-H uses just one material to form what was before made as a puzzle of timbers or steel profiles, and you cut the replacement for that in plain sheet steel or chipwood sheets .
Now Visions for me is somthing about realising ,best thing to make me realise somthing concerning construction is new methods new tools, ---- like this tool I promote that will build for a third the cost much stronger, and much different than just shaping the useal glass and steel in another form.
One architect might have a vision about how his work will make massive change in the world.
Another might have a vision about how designing an oval east-facing frosted glass window in the bathroom of his brother's house will make that bathroom more memorable to a baby nephew growing up.
hitler wasn't an architect, but he had a imperial rome image of what his empire would look like. He closed down the Bauhaus! The man had a vision! He was also a physcopath!
one would also need black framed round-rimmed glasses, and some sort of substance abuse problem
couldn't the thick black frames be squarish?
i read somewhere that clark kent would suffer major anxiety when too close to a substance called krypton, but those closest to him said taht he simply suffered from claustrophobia (not the same as Santaphobia, btw).
The plan of the two holer (with lids) would be a great new design for black frame glasses... for those that think they have culled all there detractors.
Visionless architecture
Hi
To much talk is spend discussing splendid architecture, what about dealing with the real crap the bad architecture ,the architecture that fail visions, maby that way it will be easier to determine if architecture shuld be arts.
visionless architecture isn't necessarily bad architecture.... what about vernacular styles? Just a thought
What do you mean by vision?
What is it about vision that should make architecture better?
What is it about an architect that allows him to pass the litmus test of visionary?
Is "The Vision" stable over many centuries? Or less than a decade ("Post Modern")?
What is the difference between vision and fashion?
Are all arts imbued with vision?
What is the difference between the Chrysler office building (assuming that has vision) and the Sears (assuming that has little vision)?
thats funny,
I'd initially say that the Chrysler Building was born of fashion and the Sears Building was born of a vision... a modernist manifesto v.s. art deco style
vision doesn't always make good architecture. Hitler had vision...
The Sears Tower had a vision. Had it not been for people like Mies I doubt the Sears would look like it did. Most of the vision on that era of high rises was the structure. We should all know the engineers name on something like the Sears but as architects we often fail to give proper credit to those who make our buildings possible.
More on topic I'd say we often start with vision but bad architecture is more a failure of the client in some matter. Currently I'm completely redesigning a project that the client failed to get proper funding for. He has instructed me how to design the building, more or less re-using old parts of the plan and placing them together like a jig saw puzzle. Design purely in plan doesn't work when it gets built in 3 dimensions. Oh well, should I just quit? Sadly, as Phillip Johnson said, we are high class whores at times.
^ indeed
back to vision though.... not al architecture can or should have vision. It's a utopian arguement.
Whats more important is honesty and integrity in the built form. Spreading this message should be as important as producing our own 'visions'.
No Master Architect ?
^ are you talking about FLW? Lately I've been looking at his work... alot of vision... for himself alone, many times, it seems.
Vernacular would be fun...
of course if its critical - not the kitsch that seems to surround us most times - really bad
i think it depends on who's vision you are talking about. on one hand i feel it is an arrogance that architects have to assume that what we want (our vision i guess) should supercede our clients vision for their space but on the other hand....people have some bad taste. also it is hard to begin to decide what is vision and what is a stylistic preference.
it's our job to know what's good and what isn't. The eye of the beholder is irrelevant!
I believe it's our jobs as designers to give the client what they want programatically. That isn't our vision. Where our expertise comes in is taking a program and turning it into something beautiful - architecture. I don't see that as arrogance and I don't see it as superceding the clients wishes.
^ so far my experience has been that clients sometimes barely realize what they want programmatically but feel as though they should tell us what's beautiful(in their opinion) and we should agree and draw the building. the architects vision is not important to the client because the client will actually be using the space. it seems as though clients don't trust the vision of an architect. what gives?
Hi
When I used the arts acadamy the saying was , do you want to build buildings do become a building constructor not an architect, those are the ones that make the cubic structures the engineers, My guess is that when arts get into enginering things suddenly will happen, alone the two is nothing beside part of the pyramide any respect .
Ofcaurse it is not arogant to se the contractor as idiot ,he must be signing up you, but nothing realy will happen in architecture as an art form before new visions show their value. Value is as alway\s jobs and new technology .Now I am no architect I just make the tools, for me it\s easy I can alway\s make it better than the architects they are the ones failing the visions, not me. Architects don\t even need to be able to acturly draw. Ofcaurse it is difficult emagining new options new technikes where there are no timbers, no 20 different steel profile ,nuts and special fittings but just one material acturly made on computer. Ant that such cost a third four times as strong.
Now who said the Crysler building was not nice.
Brother Per,
What kind of tools do you make and how do you make better than architects?
Skoal, Chrysler building!
giant green fiberglas brontosauri!
A hitler wasn't an arch, (was he??)
Visionless architecture doesn't come from lack of vision.
It comes from lack of wanting.
Gustav I turned down the promotion of 3D-Honeycomb in this tread
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/
Now I done it anyway ,but please se this as just a tool please don't se the examples as anything but what you can produce with a CAD program ,opposite today's architect applications that I find make it very difficult to use to show an innovative aproach .
Reson why is that with the tradisional applications you are supposed to use the tools avaible and those you find in architect programs ,focus on attributes and accounting rather than shaping.
Anyway there are a great difference as 3D-H acturly describe each building element as a 3D object ready for the water or laser cutter where the tradisional programs just store the entities to be used in the tradisional way rather as paper than as real elements .
Now I guess you se the difference ----- instead of 20 different timbers ,profiles, boards bricks 3D-H uses just one material to form what was before made as a puzzle of timbers or steel profiles, and you cut the replacement for that in plain sheet steel or chipwood sheets .
Now Visions for me is somthing about realising ,best thing to make me realise somthing concerning construction is new methods new tools, ---- like this tool I promote that will build for a third the cost much stronger, and much different than just shaping the useal glass and steel in another form.
One architect might have a vision about how his work will make massive change in the world.
Another might have a vision about how designing an oval east-facing frosted glass window in the bathroom of his brother's house will make that bathroom more memorable to a baby nephew growing up.
hitler wasn't an architect, but he had a imperial rome image of what his empire would look like. He closed down the Bauhaus! The man had a vision! He was also a physcopath!
^ so to be an architect, one needs vision, though a certain type of vision that would exclude psychopathology from the equation?
one would also need black framed round-rimmed glasses, and some sort of substance abuse problem
^if so, could it be that you and I have expected and allowed this to happen?
couldn't the thick black frames be squarish?
i read somewhere that clark kent would suffer major anxiety when too close to a substance called krypton, but those closest to him said taht he simply suffered from claustrophobia (not the same as Santaphobia, btw).
Don't look up in the sky for SuperArchitecture
The plan of the two holer (with lids) would be a great new design for black frame glasses... for those that think they have culled all there detractors.
I want Dwayne Wayne glasses
its a Different World, people
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.