You could slice your legs at the back of your knees and bleed out right in the swing.
Got to love the thin wires holding it up, also. Can't magine any kids hurting themselves there.
OMG. This isn't a child's playground swing, it's a porch swing. It's meant to move slowly and along a very short path of travel. It allows people to face one another, it provides angled back support. It's not an ergonomic office chair, it's not a couch, it's not a Child Protective Restraint System for a moving automobile.
We can have things in this world that privilege appearance and style at certain appropriate times. I wouldn't want my kid's carseat to look like this swing, and I wouldn't want my porch swing to look like this.
Appropriate criticism, people, please. No one is slicing their knees on this thing.
A general modern-versus-non-modern argument should not become polarized around specifics. People taking sides based on a specific instance which ostensibly stands in for their bigger-picture position is like substituting anecdotes for data in political conversation. (Emotion-grabbing anecdotes effectively obscure what might be really happening across a broader populace.)
Case in point: my position on how we should design in the 21st-century does not mean that I like that swing. This swing design looks nice but fails in that it over-prescribes function. I like a porch swing that I can occupy and a variety of ways, not limited to what the swing explicitly accommodates!
That railing wouldn't pass code around here, either. The wood seat is guaranteed to split apart the way it's assembled. The very least they could have done was run it lengthways ...
I don't know if anyone has read the peice on the Prentice Woman's Hospital demolition by Bertrand Goldberg, but it's very informative as to why this modernist vs. non-modernist debate elicits so many comments. Incredibly honest for what I've always thought to be one of the bastions of modernist ideology. It looks like the blinders are starting to come off.
EKE, I say it is a symbol because it looks better in an image than under your butt. It symbolizes porch swinging, but few would actually be comfortable swinging there, and those that would swing there wouldn't do it for long. A symbol, like the doric columns in my aunt's dining room that hold up the house. Form over function. Image over comfort.
Everything communicates something. Even if we don't intend to conciously, we are always looking for symbols in our environment because it's how we navigate through it, by reading it.
That bench says to me, "You aren't near enough to being cool enough to sit here. Plus you live in a Victorian house and I don't belong there." And I said, "That's cool, I don't care to sit on you anyways. You look uncomfortable and I might get hurt and you would be out of place at my house."
i have not sat in the pictured seat. i don't know if it would cut me to the point of killing me. i don't know if it would break in the middle under my weight. i don't know if i would slide off. i don't know if it would be uncomfortable. i can associate the flat surface with uncomfortable sitting surfaces i've experience in the past, but even that depends on what the use of the porch swing is. am i sitting on it for a few minutes to smoke a cigarette or read the paper (on a tablet) in the morning, or am i lounging in it all day drinking margaritas?
before i would purchase such a thing i would want to sit in it and establish what i was actually using for (it could just be sculptural to fill a space i don't actually sit in very often). i reserve my judgement on it's functionality based on too many variables i don't have the answer to.
residential codes are different than commercial, as is the permitting, review, and inspection process. i'm pretty sure that is an allowable guard detail, depending on the conditions.
tint, that is a great picture and would fit perfectly on the unhappy hipster website. we need a clever headline. preferable something ending with "with industrial steel cable" so it fits in their marketing.
Case in point: my position on how we should design in the 21st-century does not mean that I like that swing. This swing design looks nice but fails in that it over-prescribes function. I like a porch swing that I can occupy and a variety of ways, not limited to what the swing explicitly accommodates!
Occupy in many ways! I think that is a brilliant observation that really opens up pandoras box. The main premise of modernism is that "Form follows function" but what is function? The 21st century will be about redefining function. Complexity in function will result in complexity in form. "less is more" becomes "no more or less than needed is more" Reducing and editing until nothing can be added or taken away without compromising the design.
Whenever I heard this quote "form ever follows function" I always agreed with the idea that form should follow function, however I always felt that "function" was left undefined. It seems that throughout history form has always followed function. The only difference between modernism and that "traditional" architecture that the op loves is that modernists minimized function to pure utilitarianism. What is the function of architecture? If one defines function as pure utility then we get very utilitarian forms. If we expand the idea of "function" beyond pure programmatic function, and start to incorporate the soft and hard sciences, then we can be true to this idea while increasing formal complexity. Much of the contemporary work out there today (not all but most) seems to fit into 2 categories. One being minimalist in both form and function, and the other being minimal in function while complex in form. In my mind neither are the "architecture of the 21st century." Instead, I have noticed several recent projects and trends that get to the gist of what Steven seems to appreciate. I truly feel that this balance form following function, and this re imagination or expansion of what function is, based upon our current understanding and knowledge of the soft and hard sciences and those things that make an environment more humane, will be the works that shine and define this century.
I always thought function to include function of the body and mind, not just the function of the material and purpose. But I am used to being on the fringe and me and my wacky ideas are finally doing well!
How is that modern version of a porch swing any more of a death-trap than the rope swing below?
The modern one, an adult can sit on without their ass going numb in 5 secs and it has a back rest for one. Maybe it was designed for the lonely people of the world that don't want you to notice their swing for two is half empty or half full. Is the one below filled with nostalgia because of shape or because you sat on one at grandma's house? Is the "bespoke" rope swing more authentic than the modern one because it uses hemp rope and a walnut seat versus steel cable and birch plywood? What if your future grandkid sat on the modern one and in 30 years associated it with fond memories and special times?
How is the rope swing less dangerous? That kid could slip off the narrow seat and smash her face on the belgium block edging. Those other kids are overloading that swing where both will tip back and crack their heads on the same Belgium block. Either way this rope swing is a precursor to blunt force trauma for children and a symbol of danger.
I have a porch swing just like this one below on my front porch. It was a gift from the in-laws. Handmade from cypress. It's uncomfortable after 10 minutes without a cushion because the slats cut into the back of your legs and you get splinters. The chain rusts and clanks making too much noise. I don't consider it to be any more aesthetically superior to a modern version.
Pretty much all of the reasons giving for disliking the 'modern' porch swing are as irrelevant as the comments I've made about these 'traditional' versions. They all function as seats. They're all symbols of a "seat" and none is better than the other as a symbol of its function as a porch swing. They're all porch swings and each connotes certain values that the individual attributes to that 'porch swing' based on the values, education, memories and experiences of the person.
Does anyone honestly think that asking a 5 year old child which one is the 'truer' porch swing that the kid would point to the 'traditional' one over the modern one? I suspect that they each connote "swing" to a child and the child would swing on either one freely and with abandon because swinging is fun. Whether the child understands which is more dangerous or comfortable or authentic will be predicated on what the child is taught.
The notion that a Classical architectural language is imbued with symbolism that is readily understood to everyone is based on the assumption that others have the same understanding of that particular symbol and formal language as you or I do. A young child looking at a statue of Athena isn't going to understand the Grecian attributes associated with it without studying it. It is merely a statue to the uninformed. The meanings of the symbols are taught to us. Just as a child wouldn't know what the Crucifix is a symbol of without someone teaching the child the meaning of the cross and being raised in the presence and import of that symbol. The 'everydayness' of something as a sign or symbol is what give it meaning to us as humans.
This is the case with any visual or artistic language that involves symbolism and formalism. Architecture - in all of its sub-styles has symbols and formalism to it that require a person to study them to understand the underlying subtext and deeper symbolism that is associated with the styles and ideologies of architecture. This is why we call it the 'language of Architecture'. Understanding the language of the Architecture is different than someone having an initial aesthetic response to a building or painting or piece of music. 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is a cliche for a reason.
I can appreciate a piece by Ornette Coleman without having to study jazz composition or its history. But to truly understand the piece I would have to make an effort to understand music composition if I were to try and write a jazz piece or at least want to understand what Coleman was intending with his music. To be a writer, I have to study the craft of writing and understand the formalism and symbolism of the language I want to write in to create a great work of fiction.
E.L. James might have sold 35 million copies of her 50 shades trilogy but that doesn't put her work on the same level as Nabakov. Both are writers but one is far superior to other for mastering the craft of language and understanding the symbolism. To appreciate Nabakov on a deeper level, one has to study the text. I can read E.L. James and be entertained but the writing has no substance, depth, or prose to it.
i made a chair similar to your second picture iamus (though it had legs instead of chains). i gave it to my sister, and haven't sat on it in some time. it's made with 2x's, PT pine, so the thing is crazy heavy. if a tornado ever hit, i'm certain the chair will hold up better than their house. the seat part slopes down towards the back and has a bit of a curve. the back is angled back, but perhaps not at the perfect angle. i routed the corners of each board, so they don't cut, pinch, or give slivers. i expect that's the problem you had? anyway, it's a very nice chair.
i'm pretty sure it's modern. if i had more time, i would have carved a graven image of mercury, or perhaps hermes, so it could be considered 'traditional.'
You're definitely going to need a bigger porch for that curtkram. I'd like one of those as my bed if i lived somewhere where I could walk around nude, reading great literature and making homebrew. It would be my symbol of 'making it' !
As to my porch swing, I'm not sure what would make it comfortable. I have issues with all types of chairs. Stuffed sofas, church pews, ergonomic office chairs, porch swings, park benches. About the only "chair" I find comfortable that doesn't bother my legs after long periods of time is the giant exercise ball I sit on at home sometimes. And the only response that a pale-skinned, mid-career architect sitting on a large exercise ball would elicit is laughter.
iamus, exercise balls are great for sitting, and they look "smart" in the same way that bike helmets do. Unhelmeted bike riders look like idiots no matter how beautifully their hair flows in the wind.
I've actually thought about getting an exercise ball for my office (granted, it's in a basement. No one ever sees me.)
I might try it at the corporate office one day and see. I use the ball all the time at the home office / gym / art studio / storage space or otherwise known as the 'junk' room to normal people or in your case, the basement.
As to looking smart on a ball. I guess it depends on how you sit and if you're smartly dressed. Stuffing myself into spandex and doing stretches? Not so much.
I ride my 3 speed to work but don't wear a helmet because it would crush my fedora, muss my carefully coifed hair or distract from the costume I wear on Thursdays. Otherwise I wear a helmet. Plus if you wear a helmet backwards like this person you don't look smart. You look like this guy....
"I'd like one of those as my bed if i lived somewhere where I could walk around nude, reading great literature and making homebrew." You just described my life, although I am usually wearing yoga pants and a sweatshirt and the homebrewing isn't everyday. And great literature is a stretch, we'll go with books and blogs.
"You just described my life, although I am usually wearing yoga pants and a sweatshirt and the homebrewing isn't everyday. And great literature is a stretch, we'll go with books and blogs."
Ha. Well if i could get away with lounging in the nude and homebrewing everyday I'd do it but having so many interests & things it's hard for me to pick just one thing to focus on exclusively. I think I was describing my retirement plan.
And great literature a stretch? Say it ain't so! Blogs and ordinary books wouldn't do for me. Although they would fill the space between deciding which heavy tome or work of non-fiction to read next.
That's reserved for the exclusive use of the one who christened me.
Reducing and editing until nothing can be added or taken away without compromising the design.
This was the premise of classical modernism (zing). Efficient, honest use of materials with sensitivity to their characteristics. Unfortunately, contemporary modernism is largely featurization for consumer marketing (eg. the incorporation of complex multifunction and electronics in products that are better without them) or the exploitation of technology for exploitation's sake (because we can, which is also a marketing device).
Not that I am in love with it, or any of the ICAA competition designs, but Duany's at least has some pretty rigour thinking that went into it. And Gehry's, if you got rid of the monster screens, would be innocuous and bearable.
Not a huge fan of this particular Duany counter proposal, but would prefer it any day of the week/month/milenia over the train wreck that is Gehry's sheme.
heiroglyphics are for new age hippies. written communication will never catch on. i get my information from staring at the night sky, or from listening to stories passed down from generation to generation.
As I understand the columns in Duany's Eisenhower proposal they are based on gun barrels of a particular type of heavy gun used in winning WWII, one of Esienhowers great achievements.
Oh, and Miles Jaffe, there are a number of classical orders, not just three. Most often five are given, but even the ancients were quite inventive, and often didn't stick to the rules.
curt, there are some modern conveniences I simply cannot bring myself to abandon. Stone carvings are so much easier to understand than a series of grunts of arbitrary star alignments, I mean... eventually most traditions evolve right? Modern flint technologies although they may have less of the small scale, one-on-one story telling aspects of traditional information gathering our grand fathers preferred, still have a place in our evolving society right?
Maybe I can ask my wife to make up a pinterest board on stone carvings, it would help to build my case... no?
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
You could slice your legs at the back of your knees and bleed out right in the swing. Got to love the thin wires holding it up, also. Can't magine any kids hurting themselves there.
It looks like you can move the back rests around to different positions.
OMG. This isn't a child's playground swing, it's a porch swing. It's meant to move slowly and along a very short path of travel. It allows people to face one another, it provides angled back support. It's not an ergonomic office chair, it's not a couch, it's not a Child Protective Restraint System for a moving automobile.
We can have things in this world that privilege appearance and style at certain appropriate times. I wouldn't want my kid's carseat to look like this swing, and I wouldn't want my porch swing to look like this.
Appropriate criticism, people, please. No one is slicing their knees on this thing.
Case in point: my position on how we should design in the 21st-century does not mean that I like that swing. This swing design looks nice but fails in that it over-prescribes function. I like a porch swing that I can occupy and a variety of ways, not limited to what the swing explicitly accommodates!
Besides being a kiddie death-trap the seat isn't made for the human butt and the back rest isn't made for the human back.
That railing wouldn't pass code around here, either. The wood seat is guaranteed to split apart the way it's assembled. The very least they could have done was run it lengthways ...
I don't know if anyone has read the peice on the Prentice Woman's Hospital demolition by Bertrand Goldberg, but it's very informative as to why this modernist vs. non-modernist debate elicits so many comments. Incredibly honest for what I've always thought to be one of the bastions of modernist ideology. It looks like the blinders are starting to come off.
http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/demolition-of-prentice-womens-hospital-by-bertrand-goldberg-and-penn-station.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=jump&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ABU_110513&day=2013-11-05
^ LOL, no mention of economic forces, as if they didn't exist or weren't the driving force behind everything in supercapitalist society.
El Jafferino (if I can call you that), did you read the article?
Penn Station met the wrecking ball because of real estate interests; the same was true for Prentice.
FWIW, that bench symbolizes may things:
1-form over function.
2-The folks who bought it want you to know they are hipper than the hippest.
3-They like that kind of stuff, and so what.
It's elegant and very interesting, but how's your but not going to slide off?
The baby carriage symbolizes many things also:
1-I don't want my baby to die from an accident.
2-I follow the rules
3-Babies are cool, but they require a lot of work to get up and running.
I guess by those standards, the baby carriage is modernist, right?
EKE, I say it is a symbol because it looks better in an image than under your butt. It symbolizes porch swinging, but few would actually be comfortable swinging there, and those that would swing there wouldn't do it for long. A symbol, like the doric columns in my aunt's dining room that hold up the house. Form over function. Image over comfort.
Everything communicates something. Even if we don't intend to conciously, we are always looking for symbols in our environment because it's how we navigate through it, by reading it.
That bench says to me, "You aren't near enough to being cool enough to sit here. Plus you live in a Victorian house and I don't belong there." And I said, "That's cool, I don't care to sit on you anyways. You look uncomfortable and I might get hurt and you would be out of place at my house."
i have not sat in the pictured seat. i don't know if it would cut me to the point of killing me. i don't know if it would break in the middle under my weight. i don't know if i would slide off. i don't know if it would be uncomfortable. i can associate the flat surface with uncomfortable sitting surfaces i've experience in the past, but even that depends on what the use of the porch swing is. am i sitting on it for a few minutes to smoke a cigarette or read the paper (on a tablet) in the morning, or am i lounging in it all day drinking margaritas?
before i would purchase such a thing i would want to sit in it and establish what i was actually using for (it could just be sculptural to fill a space i don't actually sit in very often). i reserve my judgement on it's functionality based on too many variables i don't have the answer to.
residential codes are different than commercial, as is the permitting, review, and inspection process. i'm pretty sure that is an allowable guard detail, depending on the conditions.
Does this help you picture yourself sitting on it?
"How long can I hold this pose before my butt falls asleep?"
"Try not to slip off or else that cocrete floor will break my tail bone"
"Did I just hear those ceiling bolts come loose?"
tint, that is a great picture and would fit perfectly on the unhappy hipster website. we need a clever headline. preferable something ending with "with industrial steel cable" so it fits in their marketing.
Case in point: my position on how we should design in the 21st-century does not mean that I like that swing. This swing design looks nice but fails in that it over-prescribes function. I like a porch swing that I can occupy and a variety of ways, not limited to what the swing explicitly accommodates!
Occupy in many ways! I think that is a brilliant observation that really opens up pandoras box. The main premise of modernism is that "Form follows function" but what is function? The 21st century will be about redefining function. Complexity in function will result in complexity in form. "less is more" becomes "no more or less than needed is more" Reducing and editing until nothing can be added or taken away without compromising the design.
Whenever I heard this quote "form ever follows function" I always agreed with the idea that form should follow function, however I always felt that "function" was left undefined. It seems that throughout history form has always followed function. The only difference between modernism and that "traditional" architecture that the op loves is that modernists minimized function to pure utilitarianism. What is the function of architecture? If one defines function as pure utility then we get very utilitarian forms. If we expand the idea of "function" beyond pure programmatic function, and start to incorporate the soft and hard sciences, then we can be true to this idea while increasing formal complexity. Much of the contemporary work out there today (not all but most) seems to fit into 2 categories. One being minimalist in both form and function, and the other being minimal in function while complex in form. In my mind neither are the "architecture of the 21st century." Instead, I have noticed several recent projects and trends that get to the gist of what Steven seems to appreciate. I truly feel that this balance form following function, and this re imagination or expansion of what function is, based upon our current understanding and knowledge of the soft and hard sciences and those things that make an environment more humane, will be the works that shine and define this century.
I always thought function to include function of the body and mind, not just the function of the material and purpose. But I am used to being on the fringe and me and my wacky ideas are finally doing well!
also worth mentioning: the function of the social and historical setting.
How is that modern version of a porch swing any more of a death-trap than the rope swing below?
The modern one, an adult can sit on without their ass going numb in 5 secs and it has a back rest for one. Maybe it was designed for the lonely people of the world that don't want you to notice their swing for two is half empty or half full. Is the one below filled with nostalgia because of shape or because you sat on one at grandma's house? Is the "bespoke" rope swing more authentic than the modern one because it uses hemp rope and a walnut seat versus steel cable and birch plywood? What if your future grandkid sat on the modern one and in 30 years associated it with fond memories and special times?
How is the rope swing less dangerous? That kid could slip off the narrow seat and smash her face on the belgium block edging. Those other kids are overloading that swing where both will tip back and crack their heads on the same Belgium block. Either way this rope swing is a precursor to blunt force trauma for children and a symbol of danger.
I have a porch swing just like this one below on my front porch. It was a gift from the in-laws. Handmade from cypress. It's uncomfortable after 10 minutes without a cushion because the slats cut into the back of your legs and you get splinters. The chain rusts and clanks making too much noise. I don't consider it to be any more aesthetically superior to a modern version.
Pretty much all of the reasons giving for disliking the 'modern' porch swing are as irrelevant as the comments I've made about these 'traditional' versions. They all function as seats. They're all symbols of a "seat" and none is better than the other as a symbol of its function as a porch swing. They're all porch swings and each connotes certain values that the individual attributes to that 'porch swing' based on the values, education, memories and experiences of the person.
Does anyone honestly think that asking a 5 year old child which one is the 'truer' porch swing that the kid would point to the 'traditional' one over the modern one? I suspect that they each connote "swing" to a child and the child would swing on either one freely and with abandon because swinging is fun. Whether the child understands which is more dangerous or comfortable or authentic will be predicated on what the child is taught.
The notion that a Classical architectural language is imbued with symbolism that is readily understood to everyone is based on the assumption that others have the same understanding of that particular symbol and formal language as you or I do. A young child looking at a statue of Athena isn't going to understand the Grecian attributes associated with it without studying it. It is merely a statue to the uninformed. The meanings of the symbols are taught to us. Just as a child wouldn't know what the Crucifix is a symbol of without someone teaching the child the meaning of the cross and being raised in the presence and import of that symbol. The 'everydayness' of something as a sign or symbol is what give it meaning to us as humans.
This is the case with any visual or artistic language that involves symbolism and formalism. Architecture - in all of its sub-styles has symbols and formalism to it that require a person to study them to understand the underlying subtext and deeper symbolism that is associated with the styles and ideologies of architecture. This is why we call it the 'language of Architecture'. Understanding the language of the Architecture is different than someone having an initial aesthetic response to a building or painting or piece of music. 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is a cliche for a reason.
I can appreciate a piece by Ornette Coleman without having to study jazz composition or its history. But to truly understand the piece I would have to make an effort to understand music composition if I were to try and write a jazz piece or at least want to understand what Coleman was intending with his music. To be a writer, I have to study the craft of writing and understand the formalism and symbolism of the language I want to write in to create a great work of fiction.
E.L. James might have sold 35 million copies of her 50 shades trilogy but that doesn't put her work on the same level as Nabakov. Both are writers but one is far superior to other for mastering the craft of language and understanding the symbolism. To appreciate Nabakov on a deeper level, one has to study the text. I can read E.L. James and be entertained but the writing has no substance, depth, or prose to it.
I wish my porch was big enough for this one.
i made a chair similar to your second picture iamus (though it had legs instead of chains). i gave it to my sister, and haven't sat on it in some time. it's made with 2x's, PT pine, so the thing is crazy heavy. if a tornado ever hit, i'm certain the chair will hold up better than their house. the seat part slopes down towards the back and has a bit of a curve. the back is angled back, but perhaps not at the perfect angle. i routed the corners of each board, so they don't cut, pinch, or give slivers. i expect that's the problem you had? anyway, it's a very nice chair.
i'm pretty sure it's modern. if i had more time, i would have carved a graven image of mercury, or perhaps hermes, so it could be considered 'traditional.'
But even Mercury and Hermes where once considered "modern" gods some thousands of years ago...
You're definitely going to need a bigger porch for that curtkram. I'd like one of those as my bed if i lived somewhere where I could walk around nude, reading great literature and making homebrew. It would be my symbol of 'making it' !
As to my porch swing, I'm not sure what would make it comfortable. I have issues with all types of chairs. Stuffed sofas, church pews, ergonomic office chairs, porch swings, park benches. About the only "chair" I find comfortable that doesn't bother my legs after long periods of time is the giant exercise ball I sit on at home sometimes. And the only response that a pale-skinned, mid-career architect sitting on a large exercise ball would elicit is laughter.
Actually this is the one I want. I'm thinking of renovating my front porch specifically to fit it.
iamus, exercise balls are great for sitting, and they look "smart" in the same way that bike helmets do. Unhelmeted bike riders look like idiots no matter how beautifully their hair flows in the wind.
I've actually thought about getting an exercise ball for my office (granted, it's in a basement. No one ever sees me.)
donna,
I might try it at the corporate office one day and see. I use the ball all the time at the home office / gym / art studio / storage space or otherwise known as the 'junk' room to normal people or in your case, the basement.
As to looking smart on a ball. I guess it depends on how you sit and if you're smartly dressed. Stuffing myself into spandex and doing stretches? Not so much.
I ride my 3 speed to work but don't wear a helmet because it would crush my fedora, muss my carefully coifed hair or distract from the costume I wear on Thursdays. Otherwise I wear a helmet. Plus if you wear a helmet backwards like this person you don't look smart. You look like this guy....
"I'd like one of those as my bed if i lived somewhere where I could walk around nude, reading great literature and making homebrew." You just described my life, although I am usually wearing yoga pants and a sweatshirt and the homebrewing isn't everyday. And great literature is a stretch, we'll go with books and blogs.
You described my life too, except for the walking nude, reading great literature and home-brew part.
"You just described my life, although I am usually wearing yoga pants and a sweatshirt and the homebrewing isn't everyday. And great literature is a stretch, we'll go with books and blogs."
Ha. Well if i could get away with lounging in the nude and homebrewing everyday I'd do it but having so many interests & things it's hard for me to pick just one thing to focus on exclusively. I think I was describing my retirement plan.
And great literature a stretch? Say it ain't so! Blogs and ordinary books wouldn't do for me. Although they would fill the space between deciding which heavy tome or work of non-fiction to read next.
El Jafferino (if I can call you that)
That's reserved for the exclusive use of the one who christened me.
Reducing and editing until nothing can be added or taken away without compromising the design.
This was the premise of classical modernism (zing). Efficient, honest use of materials with sensitivity to their characteristics. Unfortunately, contemporary modernism is largely featurization for consumer marketing (eg. the incorporation of complex multifunction and electronics in products that are better without them) or the exploitation of technology for exploitation's sake (because we can, which is also a marketing device).
Getting back to the Esienhower memorial for a minute. I don't know if anyone mentioned this proposal by Andreas Duany:
http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/andres-duany-designs-alternative-scheme-for-the-dwight-d-eisenhower-memorial.aspx
Not that I am in love with it, or any of the ICAA competition designs, but Duany's at least has some pretty rigour thinking that went into it. And Gehry's, if you got rid of the monster screens, would be innocuous and bearable.
*rigour = rigorous
I'd stick with rigour, as in rigor mortis.
i don't think those columns are doric....
One of the comments describes the columns as militaristic, like gun barrels. I think we have a candidate for a fourth classical order - imperialistic.
iamus, would those heavy tomes and works of non-fiction you want to read be "traditional" or "modern"? Just wondering.
Books are wicked modern compared to hieroglyphics or cave finger-paintings. I only get my information from true traditional sources.
Are you from Boston?
heiroglyphics are for new age hippies. written communication will never catch on. i get my information from staring at the night sky, or from listening to stories passed down from generation to generation.
As I understand the columns in Duany's Eisenhower proposal they are based on gun barrels of a particular type of heavy gun used in winning WWII, one of Esienhowers great achievements.
Oh, and Miles Jaffe, there are a number of classical orders, not just three. Most often five are given, but even the ancients were quite inventive, and often didn't stick to the rules.
Until then you should just STFU. Ignorant can be fixed, stupid can't.
Spoken with only the best intentions.
I also hear Duany is working on a new treatise of the orders, including many modernist examples.
curt, there are some modern conveniences I simply cannot bring myself to abandon. Stone carvings are so much easier to understand than a series of grunts of arbitrary star alignments, I mean... eventually most traditions evolve right? Modern flint technologies although they may have less of the small scale, one-on-one story telling aspects of traditional information gathering our grand fathers preferred, still have a place in our evolving society right?
Maybe I can ask my wife to make up a pinterest board on stone carvings, it would help to build my case... no?
I also hear Duany is working on a new treatise of the orders, including many modernist examples.
So is Kos Scarpa Kos.
Until then you should just STFU. Ignorant can be fixed, stupid can't.
Classy! This coming from the guy who can't read properly in whatever medium he thinks has change human nature.
Sophisticated architectural design and project management services tailored to the specific needs of discriminating clients and demanding projects.
Unless you disagree with him. Then your an ignorant fuck who needs to shut up. Did I get that quote right?
It would be 'you're', actually.
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.