"RyuArch, you sound unconvinced. Are you having a hard time with the word design? Modernists seem to have a hard time with the most simple concepts, which considering the minimalism inherent in a lot of modernist styles work, is ironic. How about you defining the following words since even a dictionary sounds suspect."
-Thayer-D
Did you really just try to say that things which are traditional hold no place in conservative values?!
I wish I could live in a world as you do where no logic or facts impede on your views.
I say don't discriminate curt. Look past, present, older, younger, bigger, smaller, etc. It only limits you to an ever smaller font of knowledge if you don't look where and when you can.
I think the beef is the manifestos and ethos of much, though perhaps not entirely all, Modernism that has historically looked down their noses at and discouraged the practice of looking around as it would shatter the myth of the self-made genius. Of course, it's impossible not to "look around", yet it helps if you do so with eyes and mind wide open.
curtkram, why don't you consider the beams on the seagram building to be ornament? or would you like to withdraw that statement?
Because that would make the Seagram Building a traditional building that uses decorative elements passed down from generations.
You can call people assholes all you want, but it dosen't go un-noticed that you consistently refuse to answer these simple kinds of questions directly, without resorting to invective or snark.
curtkram
Another multi queston rant. Love it.
i also consider 'victorian' to be an architectural style, influenced by other other styles,
This say pretty much all you need to know about your understanding of aesthetics.
what we should all do, ancient arcade or not, is learn from the contemporary (new) sources we can learn from, so if you are making an ancient arcade, it stands up to the expectations of someone today rather than someone a very long time ago.
Sorry, this statement is pretty much all you need to know about your understanding of architecture period, I simply can't keep up with your ignorance. That is what "we" should do? Right, we're the ones telling people what to do. Gott it! And standing up to the expectations of someone today??? Are you reffering to the people you constantly put down as idiots? Nice time to get empathetic. Better late than never. Just don't ask those people who ornament their yards.
curtkram, why don't you consider the beams on the seagram building to be ornament? or would you like to withdraw that statement?
Because that would make the Seagram Building a traditional building that uses decorative elements passed down from generations.
You can call people assholes all you want, but it doesn't go un-noticed that you consistently refuse to answer these simple kinds of questions directly, without resorting to invective or snark."
Its pointing out the complete lack of sense in the argument trying to be made by the defined "traditional" as a blanket term that really applies to everything you like and nothing you do not. I can call you an asshole because I can utilize language for emphasis on my opinion of your behavior and continued aggression.
This doesn't in any way mean Asplund didn't create a fantastic library in Stockholm. Most people using the library wont know nor care where the design inspiration came from. Again, it's okay to look around and look back.
Ledoux and Boullee are some of my favorites. I just find it a null argument to make that "modern" architecture did not receive knowledge or methods of design from "traditional" architecture. And the Asplund library acts as a great example of the transition.
I don't disagree, RyuArch. It did, however, come to pass that the Modernists did in many ways try to shun the practice of using precedent to cut off from the past and start anew. Like I said, it doesn't mean they didn't peek sometimes or play a wink-wink game. There are also some definite grey areas.
Anyway, I don't really see Asplund as a Modernist in my book, save for some trends in his very last works.
RyuArch, not sure when you joined the party, but this was posted here by me a good while back:
Observe:
"The Americans, however, are the people, who, having done most for progress, remain for the most part timidly chained to dead traditions."
- Le Corbusier
"The new times demand their own expressions."
- Gropius
"Today we have got our Modern Architecture and very soon it will be absolutely inescapable. It has the loyalty of the young; it is established, with different degrees of firmness, in every school of architecture in the country. Soon it will not Modern Architecture any longer. It will just be Architecture."
- Sir John Summerson
"Architecture is stifled by custom....the 'styles' are a lie."
- Le Corbusier
"In Europe, there is a sharp division into two camps. To the humanistic camp of the New Traditionalists...a previous article was devoted. There remains the more difficult task of discussing those modern architects who stand opposed. If I have called them, accepting perhaps too much their own estimate of themselves, the New Pioneers, it is because I at least believe in Europe, Traditionalism old or new is already wearing itself out...In calling these younger me Pioneers I have also wished to indicate that even though the future may be theirs, they have today but made a beginning, hewn a first path away from the settlement of the Traditionalist..."
Henry-Russell Hitchcock
You can't say there isn't some fire where that smoke is billowing from.
I don't see how there could be Modernist architecture before the "establishment" of Modernist architecture...CIAM, Bauhaus, etc. Your comparison would be sacrilege in Modernist circles, especially since they would not want you to even know that Ledoux, Palladio, Michelangelo, et al, were some pretty righteous dudes.
Since it's nearly 90 years old, is that too far back to be a reasonable prescedent under the chronological limitations you (arbitrarily?) set, curt ;)? Can we look at Asplund? What about FLW? Loos? Gaudi? Ledoux?
seriously trip. the arbitrary lines in time in which we are supposed to stop learning new things are the exclusive domain of the 'traditionalists' with their fictional enemies. the line of 80 years was established by suri. your assumption that i am setting a chronological limitation is completely opposed to the statement i continue to hold to, which is that there is no 'traditional v. modern' debate except for a few people who are looking for something to whine and complain about. the distinction has no place among architects that design buildings or among those who have studied architectural history.
some of us have different opinions and different tastes. that's fine. some of us can say that we don't want to see any ornamentation on a building. some can say we like ornamentation, but not in a revival style. some can say we like revival styles. there isn't anything wrong with any of those.
all of us should be designing to the regulations currently governing our profession in the regions we are working. all of us should be aware of how buildings go together in a sound manner, using the tools, materials, methods, etc., that are available to the contractors that will be building the buildings. to draw a line in history and say 'this side is good stuff, that side is bad stuff' is professionally irresponsible.
Sorry, this statement is pretty much all you need to know about your understanding of architecture period, I simply can't keep up with your ignorance. That is what "we" should do? Right, we're the ones telling people what to do. Gott it! And standing up to the expectations of someone today??? Are you reffering to the people you constantly put down as idiots? Nice time to get empathetic. Better late than never. Just don't ask those people who ornament their yards.
thayer, it's just you and suri that i think are idots. you want to design and have built a building with the same contractors from 1,000 years ago, good luck. i don't think that's going to meet the expectations of the plans reviewer, building inspector, engineer or other consultants, fire marshal, contractor, sub-contractors, users, the public, or anyone else that is an actual person. but in your world, the public will love it.
Since it's nearly 90 years old, is that too far back to be a reasonable prescedent under the chronological limitations you (arbitrarily?) set, curt ;)? Can we look at Asplund? What about FLW? Loos? Gaudi? Ledoux?
seriously trip. the arbitrary lines in time in which we are supposed to stop learning new things are the exclusive domain of the 'traditionalists' with their fictional enemies. the line of 80 years was established by suri. your assumption that i am setting a chronological limitation is completely opposed to the statement i continue to hold to, which is that there is no 'traditional v. modern' debate except for a few people who are looking for something to whine and complain about. the distinction has no place among architects that design buildings or among those who have studied architectural history.
curt, your earlier statements regarding the usefulness of studying Palladio are what prompted me to inquire about the limitations you feel need be observed.
This sort of thing:
curtkram (History|Contact)
Nov 22, 13 3:20 pm
so are you learning about how palladio built buildings? how he used a block and tackle instead of a crane? how he organized the kitchen of a starbucks? are you learning about how he detailed tile over an expansion joint on a concrete slab? are you learning about the ideal proportions Palladio used for a house? did he get into single family suburban residential much? are you referring to his use of scale when designing a fire station to hold a few large diesel trucks that have to meet ventilation and ada requirements? or the wisdom you take from palladio limited to decoration? just curious.
I hope you don't think I was implying that Corb invented piloti (see: Venice), roof gardens, flat roofs (Pueblo, Baghdad, Jerusalem, etc.) I'm saying he wouldn't consider Ledoux's work to be fit for the "new age." In short, the term Modernism to me encapsulates a movement that stubbornly refused to acknowledge the rich, living traditions of the past. It doesn't mean they didn't try to borrow ideas they claimed were entirely new.
We're probably seeing eye to eye more than we realize, just coming at it from opposite directions.
if i was involved in designing a building with similar programmatic requirements as a palladio building, there might be something there to learn. if i were designing a building to have the same sort look as a palladio building, or if i were to use a similar language in the ornament, then there would be something to learn.
to give the time thing some credence, if i were to design a building programmatically similar to something palladio did, and learned about how he solved that problem around 500 years ago, don't you suppose there could have been someone since then who studied his work and improved on it? why stop at a point 500 years ago, and say 'that's the one we have to repeat in perpetuity?' why stop at any point and say 'that's the style we should stick with?'
as it is, my personal career path is not really moving in a direction where building on palladio's work is all that common. and that's ok. if yours is, then that's ok too.
so what is it you've learned from palladio? he seems to have liked putting little statues on the roof. maybe that's something you've found relateable to the projects you're hired to design?
the modernist movement you see as refusing to acknowledge the past, i see as saying we don't have to be chained to the past.
we don't have to stop learning from history. granted, if you want to design a neoclassical revival house, the modernists would have been opposed to that. that's fine though, to each his own. however, i think the message from the original modernist school, was that we don't have to repeat that stuff anymore. building materials change. that changes construction methods. the environment people were living and working changed. instead of ignoring all of that change, holding as fast as you can to history, go ahead and embrace the change. design a building that reflects the time. develop a new language for ornament that reflects the materials and methods that our buildings are made from, instead of someone else's buildings.
I largely see it as an abandonment of decoration that was somehow related to the utopian ideals (I've read too much Tschumi). And that the "traditional" styles did not go extinct, but progressed in their seperate paths. FLW's work I see as an example of traditional progression, while international is the avoidance of the ornamentation.
at the moment, i don't see the point in talking about program or style if it isn't literal. that's the best i way i can see to try to get the point across.
if a filmaker in full digital wants to make a movie similar to a B&W film noir, then they have a lot to learn from them. if they want to make a film with similar character development to what those movies had, but everything else different, then they have a little to learn from them. if the filmaker in digital watched a B&W film noir movie, and then wanted to do something completely different, is that so wrong? it doesn't mean the filmmaker is uneducated, or refuses to acknowledge the B&W film, it just means they're doing something different.
a filmmaker working in digital that spent all their time learning about how the B&W person spliced their film, was probably wasting their time. you don't splice digital the way they used to. the digital filmmaker should still learn the digital editing tools.
actually suri, i think the public is smarter than you give them credit for. i have no concern of the public conforming to your ideas of 'good architecture,' at least not enough to make a difference in my job.
all my modernist teachers wanted me to know ledoux palladio and Michelangelo and I still spend a lot of time studying them. you can draw a straight line between wittkower writing on the laurentian library and eisenman writing on terragni. of course, only if youre willing to dig up some old copies of the art bulletin.
thayer, it's just you and suri that i think are idots. you want to design and have built a building with the same contractors from 1,000 years ago, good luck.
- I actually design and build many buildings so I'm not sure what your saying.
if i were designing a building to have the same sort look as a palladio building, or if i were to use a similar language in the ornament, then there would be something to learn.
- So Palladio's only contribution to architecture is his use of ornament?
granted, if you want to design a neoclassical revival house, the modernists would have been opposed to that. that's fine though, to each his own.
Was it that hard to grant someone the right to design a neo-classical revival house? Imagine a client requesting a neo-classical addition to his turn of the century Brookline, Mass. home from his architect. Now imagine the architect liking to study neo-classicism fro the early 20th century. Can you point out a problem with this picture? I can't. Also, you finally laid out your view of architecture and your reason for liking modernism. Embrace the change, develope a new language of ornament, and don't repeat that stuff? I'm cool with that. I'd say to each his own also. I'm going to go for a bike ride through Cambridge to take some photos. You allright with that? I know Patrik Schumacher isn't.
I've avoided this travesty of a 'debate' for a while, but I see people are still ENTIRELY misguided with their Mies facts. (page 28 trip to fame and others since then, including curtkram, the modernist martyr of this debacle)
If any of you call the outer members of the Seagram facade 'steel beams' again, I will strongly suggest to anyone reading this to ignore anything said by you, for clearly you do not possess the basic mental capacity required for retaining facts, such as: 1. those are NOTbeams 2. they are NOTsteel.
If you fail to recognize the difference between bronze mullions and steel beams when you see them, and when it has been pointed out explicitly by someone who knows this stuff - your opinions held and expressed on topics pertaining to architecture are irrelevant. Do you all get that?
as for the image-quiz i posted a week ago on page 18, aojwny almost nailed it, and the other responses were enlightning, but perhaps I'll get back to that soon...
the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns is 300 years old.
didascalo is a destroyer of tradition; a minimalist in fact. He knows an architecture of columns, an architecture of pilasters, and an architecture of walls. this is part of the language of architecture, the conceptual language of architecture. most folk don't know it too well being overly concerned with ornament. and he rejects the low trade of copying. we aren't left with a hut. we are left with whatever materials we used to built: HdM's Domus or Mies' Tugendhat. what happens when you scrape the rendering off of corbusiers' savoye? not very truthful is it?
so, is barragan beautiful? Are his walls modern? Are his materials modern? is the space modern? there is a year zero. its when space became a plastic, conceptual idea - and it probably has more to do with Raphael than it does with Corbusier.
my first post in this thread contained a passage from this book by Jonathan Swift, which would prove an enlightening read to anyone looking here, and especially to all participating in the thread.
also, didn't Tony Vidler stake the foundations of one of his recent books on Wittkower's positing of the origin of modernism with Ledoux? personally, I understood the Renaissance to be the first modern movement since very early on in art studies, and this position was confirmed several times over throughout my post-secondary experience. Maybe I should have taken more care to remember particularly those texts that seemed to support that very same position...
The Renaissance 're-discovery' of antiquity and the attendant canonization of Vitrivus' treatise on architecture lay the disciplinary foundations for modernism
The atrached Seagram I-sections, be they in bronze or steel or pewter or acrylic or cob or resin ir whatever, are non-functional and thus purely ornamental. Pretty established, really. those dogmatic blinders you wear are tre passé.
"The Renaissance 're-discovery' of antiquity and the attendant canonization of Vitrivus' treatise on architecture lay the disciplinary foundations for modernism"
I'd be really interested to hear the explanation behind this statement. What "disciplinary foundation" for modernism was laid by Renaissance classicists?
Ledoux was a classicist, in concept and practice. Modernists look at the superficial aesthetic qualities of a few of his more spare designs, and try to sweep him into their stable, since it serves their narrative of the "ladder of progress".
Don't forget Schinkle, the Crystal Palace and the early Chicago School. Who knew modernism's banishment of history had so many exceptions. I would have stuck with the original treatise where by you deny all history. The whole "invent an aesthetic lineage" to establish one's place in the flow of history is unbecoming of a revolutionary, besides being tenuous at best. I'd go old school and accuse all ornament of being criminal, who dosen't want to play the hero! Remember, 1. those are NOT beams 2. they are NOT steel. and #3, They are NOT ORNAMENTATION! That would be criminal.
Gee, what would bronze beam ornamentation on the Seagram building look like? The definition of "mullions" is all over the place, I guess you could say there are a mullion different definitions you could toss over the transom (sorry).
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
"RyuArch, you sound unconvinced. Are you having a hard time with the word design? Modernists seem to have a hard time with the most simple concepts, which considering the minimalism inherent in a lot of modernist styles work, is ironic. How about you defining the following words since even a dictionary sounds suspect."
-Thayer-D
Did you really just try to say that things which are traditional hold no place in conservative values?!
I wish I could live in a world as you do where no logic or facts impede on your views.
I say don't discriminate curt. Look past, present, older, younger, bigger, smaller, etc. It only limits you to an ever smaller font of knowledge if you don't look where and when you can.
I think the beef is the manifestos and ethos of much, though perhaps not entirely all, Modernism that has historically looked down their noses at and discouraged the practice of looking around as it would shatter the myth of the self-made genius. Of course, it's impossible not to "look around", yet it helps if you do so with eyes and mind wide open.
St. Peter's. Michelangelo. Full circle!
Ryuarch,
curtkram, why don't you consider the beams on the seagram building to be ornament? or would you like to withdraw that statement?
Because that would make the Seagram Building a traditional building that uses decorative elements passed down from generations.
You can call people assholes all you want, but it dosen't go un-noticed that you consistently refuse to answer these simple kinds of questions directly, without resorting to invective or snark.
curtkram
Another multi queston rant. Love it.
i also consider 'victorian' to be an architectural style, influenced by other other styles,
This say pretty much all you need to know about your understanding of aesthetics.
what we should all do, ancient arcade or not, is learn from the contemporary (new) sources we can learn from, so if you are making an ancient arcade, it stands up to the expectations of someone today rather than someone a very long time ago.
Sorry, this statement is pretty much all you need to know about your understanding of architecture period, I simply can't keep up with your ignorance. That is what "we" should do? Right, we're the ones telling people what to do. Gott it! And standing up to the expectations of someone today??? Are you reffering to the people you constantly put down as idiots? Nice time to get empathetic. Better late than never. Just don't ask those people who ornament their yards.
I wish I could live in a world as you do where no logic or facts impede on your views.
I wish you could hold a complex idea for more than 5 seconds. Must be difficult when designing in the round.
"Ryuarch,
curtkram, why don't you consider the beams on the seagram building to be ornament? or would you like to withdraw that statement?
Because that would make the Seagram Building a traditional building that uses decorative elements passed down from generations.
You can call people assholes all you want, but it doesn't go un-noticed that you consistently refuse to answer these simple kinds of questions directly, without resorting to invective or snark."
Its pointing out the complete lack of sense in the argument trying to be made by the defined "traditional" as a blanket term that really applies to everything you like and nothing you do not. I can call you an asshole because I can utilize language for emphasis on my opinion of your behavior and continued aggression.
Also, this:
This doesn't in any way mean Asplund didn't create a fantastic library in Stockholm. Most people using the library wont know nor care where the design inspiration came from. Again, it's okay to look around and look back.
There is no one "Victorian" style. The era encompasses everything from Gothic Revival to Queen Anne, over twenty types of architecture.
Yeah cause calling someone an asshole isn't aggressive. Your difficulty with the English language is worse than I thought
Ledoux and Boullee are some of my favorites. I just find it a null argument to make that "modern" architecture did not receive knowledge or methods of design from "traditional" architecture. And the Asplund library acts as a great example of the transition.
"ass·hole
ˈasˌhōl/Submit
nounvulgar slang
1.
the anus."
You are behaving in such a manner that excrement is come forth from you in the illogical and demeaning things you say.
I don't disagree, RyuArch. It did, however, come to pass that the Modernists did in many ways try to shun the practice of using precedent to cut off from the past and start anew. Like I said, it doesn't mean they didn't peek sometimes or play a wink-wink game. There are also some definite grey areas.
Anyway, I don't really see Asplund as a Modernist in my book, save for some trends in his very last works.
RyuArch, not sure when you joined the party, but this was posted here by me a good while back:
Observe:
"The Americans, however, are the people, who, having done most for progress, remain for the most part timidly chained to dead traditions."
- Le Corbusier
"The new times demand their own expressions."
- Gropius
"Today we have got our Modern Architecture and very soon it will be absolutely inescapable. It has the loyalty of the young; it is established, with different degrees of firmness, in every school of architecture in the country. Soon it will not Modern Architecture any longer. It will just be Architecture."
- Sir John Summerson
"Architecture is stifled by custom....the 'styles' are a lie."
- Le Corbusier
"In Europe, there is a sharp division into two camps. To the humanistic camp of the New Traditionalists...a previous article was devoted. There remains the more difficult task of discussing those modern architects who stand opposed. If I have called them, accepting perhaps too much their own estimate of themselves, the New Pioneers, it is because I at least believe in Europe, Traditionalism old or new is already wearing itself out...In calling these younger me Pioneers I have also wished to indicate that even though the future may be theirs, they have today but made a beginning, hewn a first path away from the settlement of the Traditionalist..."
Henry-Russell Hitchcock
You can't say there isn't some fire where that smoke is billowing from.
Well was Ledoux a traditionalist or a modernist? Some of his designs seem modernist.
Ah, cut and paste wars again? I've always liked this classical example:
I don't see how there could be Modernist architecture before the "establishment" of Modernist architecture...CIAM, Bauhaus, etc. Your comparison would be sacrilege in Modernist circles, especially since they would not want you to even know that Ledoux, Palladio, Michelangelo, et al, were some pretty righteous dudes.
I don't see much difference in those statements as that have occurred with every cultural transition.
I'd been following for a while before jumping in to point out how this is all just arguing for the sake of arguing and that the OP is trolling.
Since it's nearly 90 years old, is that too far back to be a reasonable prescedent under the chronological limitations you (arbitrarily?) set, curt ;)? Can we look at Asplund? What about FLW? Loos? Gaudi? Ledoux?
seriously trip. the arbitrary lines in time in which we are supposed to stop learning new things are the exclusive domain of the 'traditionalists' with their fictional enemies. the line of 80 years was established by suri. your assumption that i am setting a chronological limitation is completely opposed to the statement i continue to hold to, which is that there is no 'traditional v. modern' debate except for a few people who are looking for something to whine and complain about. the distinction has no place among architects that design buildings or among those who have studied architectural history.
some of us have different opinions and different tastes. that's fine. some of us can say that we don't want to see any ornamentation on a building. some can say we like ornamentation, but not in a revival style. some can say we like revival styles. there isn't anything wrong with any of those.
all of us should be designing to the regulations currently governing our profession in the regions we are working. all of us should be aware of how buildings go together in a sound manner, using the tools, materials, methods, etc., that are available to the contractors that will be building the buildings. to draw a line in history and say 'this side is good stuff, that side is bad stuff' is professionally irresponsible.
Sorry, this statement is pretty much all you need to know about your understanding of architecture period, I simply can't keep up with your ignorance. That is what "we" should do? Right, we're the ones telling people what to do. Gott it! And standing up to the expectations of someone today??? Are you reffering to the people you constantly put down as idiots? Nice time to get empathetic. Better late than never. Just don't ask those people who ornament their yards.
thayer, it's just you and suri that i think are idots. you want to design and have built a building with the same contractors from 1,000 years ago, good luck. i don't think that's going to meet the expectations of the plans reviewer, building inspector, engineer or other consultants, fire marshal, contractor, sub-contractors, users, the public, or anyone else that is an actual person. but in your world, the public will love it.
If you said Corbu drew these, only knowing their rhetoric and not the actual authors. Would you say this is a traditional design or modern?
Since it's nearly 90 years old, is that too far back to be a reasonable prescedent under the chronological limitations you (arbitrarily?) set, curt ;)? Can we look at Asplund? What about FLW? Loos? Gaudi? Ledoux?
seriously trip. the arbitrary lines in time in which we are supposed to stop learning new things are the exclusive domain of the 'traditionalists' with their fictional enemies. the line of 80 years was established by suri. your assumption that i am setting a chronological limitation is completely opposed to the statement i continue to hold to, which is that there is no 'traditional v. modern' debate except for a few people who are looking for something to whine and complain about. the distinction has no place among architects that design buildings or among those who have studied architectural history.
curt, your earlier statements regarding the usefulness of studying Palladio are what prompted me to inquire about the limitations you feel need be observed.
This sort of thing:
curtkram (History|Contact)
Nov 22, 13 3:20 pm
so are you learning about how palladio built buildings? how he used a block and tackle instead of a crane? how he organized the kitchen of a starbucks? are you learning about how he detailed tile over an expansion joint on a concrete slab? are you learning about the ideal proportions Palladio used for a house? did he get into single family suburban residential much? are you referring to his use of scale when designing a fire station to hold a few large diesel trucks that have to meet ventilation and ada requirements? or the wisdom you take from palladio limited to decoration? just curious.
Let's see, RyuArch...no piloti, no roof gardens, no free facade, no horizontal windows...what else am I missing?
Similair Characteristcs?
and Roof Gardens http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/class/larc380/greenRoofFiles/pages/history.htm
Ando is not Corbusier.
I hope you don't think I was implying that Corb invented piloti (see: Venice), roof gardens, flat roofs (Pueblo, Baghdad, Jerusalem, etc.) I'm saying he wouldn't consider Ledoux's work to be fit for the "new age." In short, the term Modernism to me encapsulates a movement that stubbornly refused to acknowledge the rich, living traditions of the past. It doesn't mean they didn't try to borrow ideas they claimed were entirely new.
We're probably seeing eye to eye more than we realize, just coming at it from opposite directions.
if i was involved in designing a building with similar programmatic requirements as a palladio building, there might be something there to learn. if i were designing a building to have the same sort look as a palladio building, or if i were to use a similar language in the ornament, then there would be something to learn.
to give the time thing some credence, if i were to design a building programmatically similar to something palladio did, and learned about how he solved that problem around 500 years ago, don't you suppose there could have been someone since then who studied his work and improved on it? why stop at a point 500 years ago, and say 'that's the one we have to repeat in perpetuity?' why stop at any point and say 'that's the style we should stick with?'
as it is, my personal career path is not really moving in a direction where building on palladio's work is all that common. and that's ok. if yours is, then that's ok too.
so what is it you've learned from palladio? he seems to have liked putting little statues on the roof. maybe that's something you've found relateable to the projects you're hired to design?
Again, way too literal on "program" and "style", curt. That's your right, of course.
Filmmakers working in full digital need not ever watch nor try to glean anything at all from B&W film noir movies, correct curt?
the modernist movement you see as refusing to acknowledge the past, i see as saying we don't have to be chained to the past.
we don't have to stop learning from history. granted, if you want to design a neoclassical revival house, the modernists would have been opposed to that. that's fine though, to each his own. however, i think the message from the original modernist school, was that we don't have to repeat that stuff anymore. building materials change. that changes construction methods. the environment people were living and working changed. instead of ignoring all of that change, holding as fast as you can to history, go ahead and embrace the change. design a building that reflects the time. develop a new language for ornament that reflects the materials and methods that our buildings are made from, instead of someone else's buildings.
I largely see it as an abandonment of decoration that was somehow related to the utopian ideals (I've read too much Tschumi). And that the "traditional" styles did not go extinct, but progressed in their seperate paths. FLW's work I see as an example of traditional progression, while international is the avoidance of the ornamentation.
Patrik Schumacher is afraid to post in this thread.
at the moment, i don't see the point in talking about program or style if it isn't literal. that's the best i way i can see to try to get the point across.
if a filmaker in full digital wants to make a movie similar to a B&W film noir, then they have a lot to learn from them. if they want to make a film with similar character development to what those movies had, but everything else different, then they have a little to learn from them. if the filmaker in digital watched a B&W film noir movie, and then wanted to do something completely different, is that so wrong? it doesn't mean the filmmaker is uneducated, or refuses to acknowledge the B&W film, it just means they're doing something different.
a filmmaker working in digital that spent all their time learning about how the B&W person spliced their film, was probably wasting their time. you don't splice digital the way they used to. the digital filmmaker should still learn the digital editing tools.
i wonder if he's reading it? maybe he's to hoity toity.
I'm not afraid to post in his.
Are you worried that if the public comes to expect neo-gothic and beaux arts, the demand for less-is-more glass boxes might fall off?
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/103/1/e/neogothic_skyscraper_by_yenna_savil-d4w1r6c.jpg
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/fintastique/fintastique0704/fintastique070400371/889604-looking-up-at-tall-skyscraper.jpg
I can not comprehend why an architect of all people would prefer to design something like the latter, perhaps they just don't have much to say.
actually suri, i think the public is smarter than you give them credit for. i have no concern of the public conforming to your ideas of 'good architecture,' at least not enough to make a difference in my job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Favorite_Architecture
all my modernist teachers wanted me to know ledoux palladio and Michelangelo and I still spend a lot of time studying them. you can draw a straight line between wittkower writing on the laurentian library and eisenman writing on terragni. of course, only if youre willing to dig up some old copies of the art bulletin.
hey - is Michelangelo really a good classical architect?
and why?
I want 1500 words from everybody by Monday.
No excuses.
suirxurient....Have you actually taken a project from contract thru to completion...when you were not under the guidance of an Architect?
"actually suri, i think the public is smarter than you give them credit for."
This statement I agree with 100%
thayer, it's just you and suri that i think are idots. you want to design and have built a building with the same contractors from 1,000 years ago, good luck.
- I actually design and build many buildings so I'm not sure what your saying.
if i were designing a building to have the same sort look as a palladio building, or if i were to use a similar language in the ornament, then there would be something to learn.
- So Palladio's only contribution to architecture is his use of ornament?
granted, if you want to design a neoclassical revival house, the modernists would have been opposed to that. that's fine though, to each his own.
Was it that hard to grant someone the right to design a neo-classical revival house? Imagine a client requesting a neo-classical addition to his turn of the century Brookline, Mass. home from his architect. Now imagine the architect liking to study neo-classicism fro the early 20th century. Can you point out a problem with this picture? I can't. Also, you finally laid out your view of architecture and your reason for liking modernism. Embrace the change, develope a new language of ornament, and don't repeat that stuff? I'm cool with that. I'd say to each his own also. I'm going to go for a bike ride through Cambridge to take some photos. You allright with that? I know Patrik Schumacher isn't.
I've avoided this travesty of a 'debate' for a while, but I see people are still ENTIRELY misguided with their Mies facts. (page 28 trip to fame and others since then, including curtkram, the modernist martyr of this debacle)
If any of you call the outer members of the Seagram facade 'steel beams' again, I will strongly suggest to anyone reading this to ignore anything said by you, for clearly you do not possess the basic mental capacity required for retaining facts, such as: 1. those are NOT beams 2. they are NOT steel.
If you fail to recognize the difference between bronze mullions and steel beams when you see them, and when it has been pointed out explicitly by someone who knows this stuff - your opinions held and expressed on topics pertaining to architecture are irrelevant. Do you all get that?
as for the image-quiz i posted a week ago on page 18, aojwny almost nailed it, and the other responses were enlightning, but perhaps I'll get back to that soon...
the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns is 300 years old.
didascalo is a destroyer of tradition; a minimalist in fact. He knows an architecture of columns, an architecture of pilasters, and an architecture of walls. this is part of the language of architecture, the conceptual language of architecture. most folk don't know it too well being overly concerned with ornament. and he rejects the low trade of copying. we aren't left with a hut. we are left with whatever materials we used to built: HdM's Domus or Mies' Tugendhat. what happens when you scrape the rendering off of corbusiers' savoye? not very truthful is it?
so, is barragan beautiful? Are his walls modern? Are his materials modern? is the space modern? there is a year zero. its when space became a plastic, conceptual idea - and it probably has more to do with Raphael than it does with Corbusier.
that's Raphael Sanzio: 1483-1520.
my first post in this thread contained a passage from this book by Jonathan Swift, which would prove an enlightening read to anyone looking here, and especially to all participating in the thread.
also, didn't Tony Vidler stake the foundations of one of his recent books on Wittkower's positing of the origin of modernism with Ledoux? personally, I understood the Renaissance to be the first modern movement since very early on in art studies, and this position was confirmed several times over throughout my post-secondary experience. Maybe I should have taken more care to remember particularly those texts that seemed to support that very same position...
The Renaissance 're-discovery' of antiquity and the attendant canonization of Vitrivus' treatise on architecture lay the disciplinary foundations for modernism
"The Renaissance 're-discovery' of antiquity and the attendant canonization of Vitrivus' treatise on architecture lay the disciplinary foundations for modernism"
I'd be really interested to hear the explanation behind this statement. What "disciplinary foundation" for modernism was laid by Renaissance classicists?
Ledoux was a classicist, in concept and practice. Modernists look at the superficial aesthetic qualities of a few of his more spare designs, and try to sweep him into their stable, since it serves their narrative of the "ladder of progress".
Don't forget Schinkle, the Crystal Palace and the early Chicago School. Who knew modernism's banishment of history had so many exceptions. I would have stuck with the original treatise where by you deny all history. The whole "invent an aesthetic lineage" to establish one's place in the flow of history is unbecoming of a revolutionary, besides being tenuous at best. I'd go old school and accuse all ornament of being criminal, who dosen't want to play the hero! Remember, 1. those are NOT beams 2. they are NOT steel. and #3, They are NOT ORNAMENTATION! That would be criminal.
Gee, what would bronze beam ornamentation on the Seagram building look like? The definition of "mullions" is all over the place, I guess you could say there are a mullion different definitions you could toss over the transom (sorry).
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.