Because of safety issues and extra flights of stairs, the uppermost floors were the least desirable, and thus the cheapest to rent. Often those floors were without heating, running water or lavatories, which meant their occupants had to use Rome's extensive system of public restrooms (latrinae). Despite prohibitions, residents would sometimes dump trash and human excrement out the windows and into the surrounding streets and alleys.
Donna, height can be an aesthetic principle. Just look at WTC1. They stole the highest tower in the US title from the Willis tower because they claimed the height of their antenna (which normally does not count when calculating building height) was symbolic... not simply functional. Marketing BS, but still...
Many of us knew Atlas Shrugged was bullshit in college. Ayn Rand's brand of hero worship has a lot of similaritiess with the early modernists manifestos, what with ripping off a facade and all that jazz. All a bit childish. As for connoting Greek Temples with Western patriarchy or fascism vs, democracy and liberty like our founders did... that's the magic of great art. It can be interpreted on many levels. The main question is how most people interpret modernism vs. traditional architecture.
(height isn't an aesthetic principle.) When it's related to proportion, it sure is. Most architects would know that either intuitivley or had they been taught proportions and composition in school, whether they used those rules or not.
There is no there,
You're really hitting it out of the park lately. That's a wonderful essay in abstraction and how all of them are beautiful in their own way. Most people might jump off the train between number 2 and 3, but that's just a guess, if I may be so bold.
Volunteer: Sure, but why did the Nazis persecute Bauhaus? I do find classical elements in much of the Berlin architecture of the 30s/40s, Berlin Tegelhof included. Fascism looked up to Roman Empire, if I correctly remember 2 yrs of having that hammered home in Gymnasium and Uni - hence the borrowing of style, and hence the current aversion, no?
"It's hard for people to break away from superstitions. There always has to be "something" there, an underlying principle that forms the basis of everything, there simply is no such underlying principle, no matter how hard you search. Just look at religion, patterns are easy to find if you customize your blinders to suit."
Patterns are also easy to ignore if you customize your blinders to suit.
Donna said: "Also, I can easily understand someone looking at that acacia tree image and, assuming it's a sunset, feeling terror that the nocturnal battle to survive is about to begin, therefore, not beautiful at all.
The fact that I can't know from the image whether it's a sunset or a sunrise or a sunbreak through a cloud of toxic chemical gas pretty much denies the proposal that any image could have universal resonance, no? It does show that humans will bring whatever we want to/can't help but bring to any image. In other words, your glorious achievement of mankind going back to the Greek temples is my oppression by the Western patriarchy."
But all of the meanings you are ascribing to the image of a tree are cultural meanings, and therefore are learned. We are complicated creatures, and our aesthetics are a combination of cultural and genetic programming. It's my contention that it is in your genes to find aspects of the natural world beautiful. It's certainly true that you will overlay that perception with cultural connotations. I simply saying that the genetic programming is there as well, and it's a universal aspect of human nature, and it is something that links us to our ancestors and our progeny.
Nov 14, 13 11:57 am ·
·
It's hard to wrap your head around but some of this stuff is old, really old. like ancients to the ancients and then even older than that. Secret societies and mysteries of the universe.
And it involves extra-terrestials too.
We can't expect normal folk to understand that which is why only enlightened individuals such as the best archiects are allowed to know this.
Truth is that trees know more about this than the average person but the average person cuts down the tree. How fucked up is that?!
(height isn't an aesthetic principle.) (When it's related to proportion, it sure is.)
Which is why I never related height to proportion in my statement, Thayer. I'm talking about height as an end in itself, not in relation to any horizontal other than the ground plane.
Which is why I find this project so amazing: based on the built world's typical (not traditional) height-to-width ratios it looks all wrong. Spectacularly so, IMO.
EKE: It's my contention that it is in your genes to find aspects of the natural world beautiful. I totally agree with this. But I don't agree that any given aspect of the natural world will have the same resonance with any two people, especially if they're from different cultures.
Volunteer: Sure, but why did the Nazis persecute Bauhaus?
And don't forget that Hitler was a failed artist. He hated modern art and tried to push his "traditional" paintings. Didn't go over so well for him and he decided to try his hand at taking over the world instead. Some people argue that he began his quest to take over the world as a sort of reaction to his rejection as an artist and the rejection of his "traditional" art. He confiscated and destroyed a lot of modern art. The Bauhaus was under a lot of pressure at the time which is why many members fled to the US.
What is amazing about looking spectacularly wrong? Almost any random creation that a computer would generate will look spectacularly wrong. That building is representative of the dumbing down of architecture, the same bafoons who are pooping on a canvas and hanging it in a gallery are running these dog and pony shows of look-at-how-unique-and-jarring-i-am publicity stunts. The majority of people see it as nothing more than graffiti, and in a generation when its lost any relevance it had, even the architects and artists will see it as graffiti.
are you saying if we could modify genetic sequence, we could do so in a way that either alters or removes a person's perception of beauty?
i think your assertion could potentially be proven. there are people with mutations in their genetic structure, such as those with an extra chromosome or savants or what have you. find a bunch of people that don't think a tree is beautiful, and see if they have a different string in their genome somewhere. maybe we should actually compare the genome of a bunch of modernists to a bunch of traditionalists, and see if there is an actual sequence in the genes that comes up consistently different. my hypothesis would be that there isn't a significant difference. i believe the difference between traditionalists and modernists is entirely because of what you've learned.
i agree that people seek beauty in their environment. you and i still see different things as beautiful though, so it's certainly not universal.
Volunteer: Donna, hate to be a spoil sport but if you look at the Aztec temple of Teotihuacan one half of the base length divided by the height comes awfully close to the "Golden Mean" of 1.618. the height is 233 feet and one half the side length of 733.2 feet is 366.6 feet.
If this is, for you, a criticism of what Donna said then you would commit a logical fallacy. Her proposition does not eliminate the causual, the relational or the incidental occurence of a principle. Her proposition elimates the necessity of a principle. You only show there are examples of this principle and you do not prove that this principle is necessitated and not indeed casual, historically relational or incidental.
It is also quite difficult to find the roots of an Ur-culture as well, if there is one. So the argument itself (i.e. proving that a certain historical system of proportioning is uber-historical) is futile. Evidence points to plurality, to development, to change...etc
I would imagine that modernists naturally find traditional art and architecture beautiful, but they repress those feelings as if they were vulgar thoughts, much as a religious person (or cult member) would do. They see their modern art and architecture as a higher form of beauty, as a purely cerebral exercise.
Hey, everybody, what do you think of various states, about 12 of them, still allowing people to obtain architectural licenses without a degree in exchange for many more years of internship experience, and in the New Millennium at that?
EKE: It's my contention that it is in your genes to find aspects of the natural world beautiful. I totally agree with this. But I don't agree that any given aspect of the natural world will have the same resonance with any two people, especially if they're from different cultures.
And back to my point that I made a few pages ago......Knowledge and exposure allow us to see more beauty. A rock is more beautiful to a geologist. A typical person may hate spiders but an entomologist may find them beautiful...This is not to say that you need to be an expert to see beauty, but you do need an open mind. Sure we all like an ocean view or a waterfall, but those things are easy to like. Modernism may require a more refined pallet-a back story that allows us to see the intricacy. The beauty of the Barcelona pavilion may be more elusive than that of the Taj Mahal but it is there if you take the time to look. Maybe that is the virtue of modern art and design? Maybe the best part of it is the challenge to see it.
Coming up on a thousand, people. I'm proud of you all. Push it over. :)
And not a mention of it in the Editor's Picks. I think that shows nicely how squeamish this kind of discussion makes a lot of architects.
Nov 14, 13 12:54 pm ·
·
i agree that people seek beauty in their environment. you and i still see different things as beautiful though, so it's certainly not universal.
But you are wrong. what you think is beautiful is really not beautiful. The univearsial is beautiful but you're too warped to see it. At least, that's what I've been told.
jla-x, you make some fine points, though I've always felt that if it needed to be explained then something was potentially lost in the connection from the object observed to the brain and the heart. Which is not to say that I don't appreciate or cherish deeper meanings. But, if one relies solely on explanation then the potential of charlantry is greater. Don't you think so?
Its funny to think that if I was involved in this argument back in the 19th century, I would probably be against the neoclassicists, in favor of the gothic or medieval. Id be against the argument that gothic art/architecture/philosophy was degenerate and of the 'dark ages', too emotional, too religious, unconstrained and wild with ornament, without order or governance, while classical was cerebral, logical, scientific, sterile, contained, in order. Who of those championing the gothic could have imagined that even the sterility of the classical would soon look like heaven on earth compared to the bleak and soul crushing modernism to come?
Because some Nazi-era DRAWINGS of proposed, but unbuilt, buildings show neo-classical style elements that means that we should ignore the many International style buildings that were constructed in Nazi Germany even though they are still standing, occupied, and functioning? You can't get more Third Reichy than the IG Farben headquarters building or Herman Goering's Air Ministry.
Donna,
Can't find anything on Iceland, but since early Roman coins have been found there the Icelanders were probably hoplessly tainted from the start. Trying to find some dimensions on the Thai structures but no dimensions at all yet.
Took a wild stab and looked up the dimensions of teepees used by the Southwest US indians as they would not be influenced by those pesky Greeks and Romans. Seems the teepees are mostly about 15 feet in diameter and 12 feet high. If you divide the height by the floor radius that gosh darn 'Golden Mean' pops up again.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want? Because good designers produce value regardless of style, subject matter or medium, which is the essence of modernism, regardless of what it looks like. That is what the educated mind knows, suri, please try harder to let us know you are learning something at least. You show no capacity for understanding.
All of the students reading this, take note. Suri is your future.
Its funny to think that if I was involved in this argument back in the 19th century
if you were involved in this argument in the 12th century (gothic-19th century was the onset of the industrial revolution, and after age of enlightenment, and things you don't like), you would be dead now. also, you're career as a programmer of some sort would probably not be in high demand in that era. you probably would not live in an intricately detailed church with flying butresses, but rather in a mud hut or whatever people lived in back then, where people threw their excrement out the window into the street below and then died of the plague. things have changed.
In Europe, however, most housing of that era was actually wood or stone. Just look at any of the great number of surviving Italian and French towns dotting the landscape today.
But, if one relies solely on explanation then the potential of charlantry is greater. Don't you think so?
I had to look up the word charlantry lol, but I see what you are saying. I guess that there is greater potential, but it does not mean that all things elusive and abstract are fraudulent. I think that real beauty will be apparent to the open minded "expert" as well as the open minded and unbiased "child". Children and geologists both collect rocks. The best work reads on both extremes of the spectrum, as does nature. We don't judge the worth of a spider by the soccer mom who thinks they are gross. We judge their worth by the expert who understands their importance, their intricacy, and their complex evolutionary design, as well as the child in us that thinks its cool how they kill, its interesting how they walk, their speed, their form, their colors, etc. The biased are irrelevant. The only worthy judge of beauty is the open mind, and it is extremely inclusive.
I don't see your point curtkram. Why would you have me be in the 12 century? My point was that a similar argument took place in the 19th century between romanticism and neoclassicism, and we have swung so hard in the meantime that neoclassicism is on the other side this time around.
I'm guessing he dosen't think the 19th century arguments over style are relevant becasue the advent of industrialization meant that human nature changed and therefore our architecture's aesthetics needed to change also. Just a guess though. In the 12th century there was no argument about style. Infact, the whole discussion didn't come about in ernest until early 19th century Romantics who began to mistrust technology's effects on society and so romantisized the hand crafted world of the middle ages. Once apprenticeships and the traditions they past down began to be replaced by industrialization and academic training, decisions about what kind of buildings we should build became more about choice than tradition, more market driven, thus the battle of the styles. This modern condition of plurality makes many uncomfortable like the choices in a supermarket aisle or like tea partiers. Thus the proclemations against choice (eclecticism) and the like, to get all architects on one page, just liek the good old days, only modern. Eliminate subjective beauty becasue science will make these animalistic desires obsolete, and voila, modern man!
Unfortunatley of fortunatly, evolution takes a lot longer than Madison Avenue types would have you believe, so while the styles may change, the desire for beauty hasn't, regardless of what political baggage you'd like to package into it. Now science is explaining how beauty is intimatly tied to evolution, but evidence whether in psychology, neurology, or simple surveys will never convince ideologues. It's not in thier nature.
Early modernists tried to say that architectural decoration was the equivalent of tattooing which was how primitive civilizations expressed art, but as societies advance it becomes only the practice of the criminal or degenerate element. As if the desire for decoration (or beauty) is a moral failing. All us common folks who can not appreciate modern art are degenerates running around in our filth, desiring filthy things like beauty. Similar to the folks in the brave new world who want to procreate the barbaric way, who cling to filthy terms like 'mother'. Turning what comes natural into something wrong or sinful is what modernism attempts to do with aesthetics.
Whatever you all decide in this stylistic butting of heads, can we all just at least agree that healthcare and institution architecture is god-awful?
Dear healthcare architects,
Going willy-nilly with patterns, colors and finishes is not design. It's paint-by-numbers. I would seriously rather die of sepsis than have to walk into one of these mauve-and-beige prisons of bad taste.
^ Ok, I don't like photo 3. As for photos 1 and 2, they are institutional but not bad, especially the lobby in 2.
My objections in 1 are the color of the windows and the choices of upholstering, either the vinyl which does not look comfortable or for the thickness of the armrests on the chairs, which do not look comfortable either.
As for 2, the chairs don't look comfortable, not to mention having a stupid pattern on them. At least the lobby doesn't look dark and depressing, reminding one that death is just an elevator ride away for some of those hospitalized.
Here's my question about one of the recurring declarations on this thread: "Architecture should be of it's time".
...Why?
Why should architecture be of its time?
This may seem to many of you like a very simple and stupid question, but I dare any interested parties to try and explain the answer clearly enough for any layperson to have a realization and finally "get it". Those of you who make a living convincing clients to approve your designs should have no trouble with this exercise.
Furthermore, what is the architecture of our time? What does it look like? A lot has been mentioned about the beloved steel and glass box, but how can that be of our time when its been built repeatedly for the better part of a century? What does today's architecture achieve that the architecture of 1983 does not?
I would love to hear the answer your question without snark. I've actually evolved a different take on you question though. Everything done today is "of our time" becasue it's litterally of our time. Much like (good) historians don't expunge the record of all the things that don't fit neatly into a pre-concieved narrative, this attempt to sideline those who don't agree with you is simply false. Sure there are general trends and it's useful to identify them, but if alternate views existed, then they should be noted, and if they are more than incidental, they should be explained as alternate but contiguous view.
In architecture today there is much more heterogenity than at the height of modernism during the 1950's to the 1970's, yet you won't see that reported on sites like these to the extend they exist. Simply put, sites like this serve to enforce a world view that's at odds with the reality of the field of architecture as it's practiced in our time. To be fair, I'd guess traditional sites probably don't devote much pixel time to Zaha's latest efforts, but those sites could be seen as a reaction to what isn't covered on sites like this one.
This bi-furcation of the profession seems to be accepted as par for the course, but if one looks at the historical record, you'll find the whole profession adhearing to one media through magazines like American Architect, Architectural Record, and the like. And while there certainly where differing camps of what style was "of our time" and other academic discussoins, it was widely recognized that any major work would be published alongside others of differing styles.
Modernism sought to erase the historical record and start afresh, so there would be no dissent. Thus the whole ostrization of any work that didn't adhear to the tenants of modernism, ie. thou shall not use any ornamentation, historical style, or even try to blend in with-in a context. To be sure, modernism has evolved from it's puritanical roots and left an interesting record of trying to come to terms with many of the original tenants of modernism. But discussoins like this one prove that many in the priesthood are still afraid to acknowledge what is readily apparent to those not steeped in it's theology. Architecture of our time is much more heterogeneous than they would have you believe.
So what architecture is of our time? What music is of our time, what literature is of our time, what narrow cultural stream would those who insist on this definition like us to believe is the appropriate cultural expression of out time? I'd love to hear the answer as well.
'of our time' just means a building designed and built in the time we live, with the materials, methods, financing, scheduling, etc., available in our time. it's not trying to be something else.
the architecture of our time is quite broad. it can be pomo, or decon, or modern, or a variety of other styles. i think glass boxes are definitely of our time. glass boxes use the best materials we have available today, with the best engineering and construction methods available to us. the materials, and methods available to us today aren't that different than 1983, so 'of our time' would probably include that time period.
pretending you can design and build a stone temple like they did in 700bc or 75ad is not of our time. it's a snapshot of the past, where the tools of construction and labor and pretty much everything else in the process is different. they're still using materials and methods of our time, designing on a computer, talking to people over the phone, CYA with email, making their columns from concrete instead of marble, and using cranes and steel frames where they have to, because that's how architecture works in this day and age. it's just the look on the surface that hasn't changed.
gothic architecture is from the 12th century. that's around when they were building those nice big gothic churches. suri thinks that happened in the 19th century, because apparently he wants to imitate gothic revival that was common during the onset of the industrial revolution. this is apparently what we're doing with revivalist styles now. we're not even copying great architecture from the past, we're copying the people who copied. we're trying to take the materials and methods of today, and make a design that looks like something designed and built with 19th century materials that was trying to copy something designed and built with 12th century materials and methods. it's quite sad.
so, to design architecture of our time, all it means is that you don't have to copy other people. you're glass box doesn't have to look like the one mies designed or something from 1983. you don't have to copy gothic revival in a new neogothic revival style. learn and understand the materials and methods available to us to day, and design a great building with those in mind.
emmexxthree, I would turn this question back on you and ask: What value is there in architecture (and every other designed object) not being of its time? What value would be added to an iPhone if it looked "traditional"?
What value is a building that is totally out of its' context? I was in Leadville, Colorado, a couple of years ago walking down the main street admiring the restored Vicforian buildings that were originally restaurants, opera houses, bars, and stores. Some buildings served their original purpose, some had been adapted to new uses. Right in the middle of the town was some kind of ugly public administration building that could be dated precisely to the early 60s. Why disfigure your town like that?
Curt, I believe a design should dictate what materials will be used. Not the other way around. My comment was just to show you that we can't let it be the other way around. There are many, many more important considerations like context, climate, scale, tactility, etc to keep in mind. A good film director doesn't necessarily dive headlong to make his film using the flavor of the day technology- 3D, After Effects. Those are tools at ones disposal, but are not the least bit essential to make an enduring, quality product.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
sometimes the higher position is not the position of dominance, depending on time and place:
from this website, which is probably as accurate as any,
http://www.crystalinks.com/romebuildings.html
also repeated on wikipedia. i don't know which came first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insula_(building)
Because of safety issues and extra flights of stairs, the uppermost floors were the least desirable, and thus the cheapest to rent. Often those floors were without heating, running water or lavatories, which meant their occupants had to use Rome's extensive system of public restrooms (latrinae). Despite prohibitions, residents would sometimes dump trash and human excrement out the windows and into the surrounding streets and alleys.
Donna, height can be an aesthetic principle. Just look at WTC1. They stole the highest tower in the US title from the Willis tower because they claimed the height of their antenna (which normally does not count when calculating building height) was symbolic... not simply functional. Marketing BS, but still...
Donna,
Many of us knew Atlas Shrugged was bullshit in college. Ayn Rand's brand of hero worship has a lot of similaritiess with the early modernists manifestos, what with ripping off a facade and all that jazz. All a bit childish. As for connoting Greek Temples with Western patriarchy or fascism vs, democracy and liberty like our founders did... that's the magic of great art. It can be interpreted on many levels. The main question is how most people interpret modernism vs. traditional architecture.
(height isn't an aesthetic principle.) When it's related to proportion, it sure is. Most architects would know that either intuitivley or had they been taught proportions and composition in school, whether they used those rules or not.
There is no there,
You're really hitting it out of the park lately. That's a wonderful essay in abstraction and how all of them are beautiful in their own way. Most people might jump off the train between number 2 and 3, but that's just a guess, if I may be so bold.
Volunteer: Sure, but why did the Nazis persecute Bauhaus? I do find classical elements in much of the Berlin architecture of the 30s/40s, Berlin Tegelhof included. Fascism looked up to Roman Empire, if I correctly remember 2 yrs of having that hammered home in Gymnasium and Uni - hence the borrowing of style, and hence the current aversion, no?
"It's hard for people to break away from superstitions. There always has to be "something" there, an underlying principle that forms the basis of everything, there simply is no such underlying principle, no matter how hard you search. Just look at religion, patterns are easy to find if you customize your blinders to suit."
Patterns are also easy to ignore if you customize your blinders to suit.
Donna said: "Also, I can easily understand someone looking at that acacia tree image and, assuming it's a sunset, feeling terror that the nocturnal battle to survive is about to begin, therefore, not beautiful at all.
The fact that I can't know from the image whether it's a sunset or a sunrise or a sunbreak through a cloud of toxic chemical gas pretty much denies the proposal that any image could have universal resonance, no? It does show that humans will bring whatever we want to/can't help but bring to any image. In other words, your glorious achievement of mankind going back to the Greek temples is my oppression by the Western patriarchy."
But all of the meanings you are ascribing to the image of a tree are cultural meanings, and therefore are learned. We are complicated creatures, and our aesthetics are a combination of cultural and genetic programming. It's my contention that it is in your genes to find aspects of the natural world beautiful. It's certainly true that you will overlay that perception with cultural connotations. I simply saying that the genetic programming is there as well, and it's a universal aspect of human nature, and it is something that links us to our ancestors and our progeny.
It's hard to wrap your head around but some of this stuff is old, really old. like ancients to the ancients and then even older than that. Secret societies and mysteries of the universe.
And it involves extra-terrestials too.
We can't expect normal folk to understand that which is why only enlightened individuals such as the best archiects are allowed to know this.
Truth is that trees know more about this than the average person but the average person cuts down the tree. How fucked up is that?!
(height isn't an aesthetic principle.) (When it's related to proportion, it sure is.)
Which is why I never related height to proportion in my statement, Thayer. I'm talking about height as an end in itself, not in relation to any horizontal other than the ground plane.
Which is why I find this project so amazing: based on the built world's typical (not traditional) height-to-width ratios it looks all wrong. Spectacularly so, IMO.
EKE: It's my contention that it is in your genes to find aspects of the natural world beautiful. I totally agree with this. But I don't agree that any given aspect of the natural world will have the same resonance with any two people, especially if they're from different cultures.
Then it's not in your genes. It's cultural.
Volunteer: Sure, but why did the Nazis persecute Bauhaus?
And don't forget that Hitler was a failed artist. He hated modern art and tried to push his "traditional" paintings. Didn't go over so well for him and he decided to try his hand at taking over the world instead. Some people argue that he began his quest to take over the world as a sort of reaction to his rejection as an artist and the rejection of his "traditional" art. He confiscated and destroyed a lot of modern art. The Bauhaus was under a lot of pressure at the time which is why many members fled to the US.
You share most of your genome with all of the people on the planet, and all of the humans that ever have been on the planet
Hitler was also a non-smoker, which is why everyone believes you should never stop smoking.
Don't you just love logical fallacies?
Yes, it is in the genes ! But what if those genes include reptile dna like so many of the leaders? Icke might be right, holy shit !!!
What is amazing about looking spectacularly wrong? Almost any random creation that a computer would generate will look spectacularly wrong. That building is representative of the dumbing down of architecture, the same bafoons who are pooping on a canvas and hanging it in a gallery are running these dog and pony shows of look-at-how-unique-and-jarring-i-am publicity stunts. The majority of people see it as nothing more than graffiti, and in a generation when its lost any relevance it had, even the architects and artists will see it as graffiti.
are you saying if we could modify genetic sequence, we could do so in a way that either alters or removes a person's perception of beauty?
i think your assertion could potentially be proven. there are people with mutations in their genetic structure, such as those with an extra chromosome or savants or what have you. find a bunch of people that don't think a tree is beautiful, and see if they have a different string in their genome somewhere. maybe we should actually compare the genome of a bunch of modernists to a bunch of traditionalists, and see if there is an actual sequence in the genes that comes up consistently different. my hypothesis would be that there isn't a significant difference. i believe the difference between traditionalists and modernists is entirely because of what you've learned.
i agree that people seek beauty in their environment. you and i still see different things as beautiful though, so it's certainly not universal.
Volunteer: Donna, hate to be a spoil sport but if you look at the Aztec temple of Teotihuacan one half of the base length divided by the height comes awfully close to the "Golden Mean" of 1.618. the height is 233 feet and one half the side length of 733.2 feet is 366.6 feet.
If this is, for you, a criticism of what Donna said then you would commit a logical fallacy. Her proposition does not eliminate the causual, the relational or the incidental occurence of a principle. Her proposition elimates the necessity of a principle. You only show there are examples of this principle and you do not prove that this principle is necessitated and not indeed casual, historically relational or incidental.
It is also quite difficult to find the roots of an Ur-culture as well, if there is one. So the argument itself (i.e. proving that a certain historical system of proportioning is uber-historical) is futile. Evidence points to plurality, to development, to change...etc
I would imagine that modernists naturally find traditional art and architecture beautiful, but they repress those feelings as if they were vulgar thoughts, much as a religious person (or cult member) would do. They see their modern art and architecture as a higher form of beauty, as a purely cerebral exercise.
Hey, everybody, what do you think of various states, about 12 of them, still allowing people to obtain architectural licenses without a degree in exchange for many more years of internship experience, and in the New Millennium at that?
Oh, never mind.
EKE: It's my contention that it is in your genes to find aspects of the natural world beautiful. I totally agree with this. But I don't agree that any given aspect of the natural world will have the same resonance with any two people, especially if they're from different cultures.
And back to my point that I made a few pages ago......Knowledge and exposure allow us to see more beauty. A rock is more beautiful to a geologist. A typical person may hate spiders but an entomologist may find them beautiful...This is not to say that you need to be an expert to see beauty, but you do need an open mind. Sure we all like an ocean view or a waterfall, but those things are easy to like. Modernism may require a more refined pallet-a back story that allows us to see the intricacy. The beauty of the Barcelona pavilion may be more elusive than that of the Taj Mahal but it is there if you take the time to look. Maybe that is the virtue of modern art and design? Maybe the best part of it is the challenge to see it.
Coming up on a thousand, people. I'm proud of you all. Push it over. :)
And not a mention of it in the Editor's Picks. I think that shows nicely how squeamish this kind of discussion makes a lot of architects.
i agree that people seek beauty in their environment. you and i still see different things as beautiful though, so it's certainly not universal.
But you are wrong. what you think is beautiful is really not beautiful. The univearsial is beautiful but you're too warped to see it. At least, that's what I've been told.
Its funny to think that if I was involved in this argument back in the 19th century, I would probably be against the neoclassicists, in favor of the gothic or medieval. Id be against the argument that gothic art/architecture/philosophy was degenerate and of the 'dark ages', too emotional, too religious, unconstrained and wild with ornament, without order or governance, while classical was cerebral, logical, scientific, sterile, contained, in order. Who of those championing the gothic could have imagined that even the sterility of the classical would soon look like heaven on earth compared to the bleak and soul crushing modernism to come?
If anything is potentially beautiful, and it is entirely subjective, then the word has no meaning beyond "stuff I like at this particular moment".
I believe there is a difference between beauty and mere affinity, and that the difference is qualitative and not quantitative.
Because some Nazi-era DRAWINGS of proposed, but unbuilt, buildings show neo-classical style elements that means that we should ignore the many International style buildings that were constructed in Nazi Germany even though they are still standing, occupied, and functioning? You can't get more Third Reichy than the IG Farben headquarters building or Herman Goering's Air Ministry.
Donna, Can't find anything on Iceland, but since early Roman coins have been found there the Icelanders were probably hoplessly tainted from the start. Trying to find some dimensions on the Thai structures but no dimensions at all yet. Took a wild stab and looked up the dimensions of teepees used by the Southwest US indians as they would not be influenced by those pesky Greeks and Romans. Seems the teepees are mostly about 15 feet in diameter and 12 feet high. If you divide the height by the floor radius that gosh darn 'Golden Mean' pops up again.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want? Because good designers produce value regardless of style, subject matter or medium, which is the essence of modernism, regardless of what it looks like. That is what the educated mind knows, suri, please try harder to let us know you are learning something at least. You show no capacity for understanding.
All of the students reading this, take note. Suri is your future.
Its funny to think that if I was involved in this argument back in the 19th century
if you were involved in this argument in the 12th century (gothic-19th century was the onset of the industrial revolution, and after age of enlightenment, and things you don't like), you would be dead now. also, you're career as a programmer of some sort would probably not be in high demand in that era. you probably would not live in an intricately detailed church with flying butresses, but rather in a mud hut or whatever people lived in back then, where people threw their excrement out the window into the street below and then died of the plague. things have changed.
15/12 is 1.25
I think you misread that there curtkram. Use the radius, not the diameter.
Mud hut is still one of the most common and numerous dwelling types today. People still die of disease, too.
In Europe, however, most housing of that era was actually wood or stone. Just look at any of the great number of surviving Italian and French towns dotting the landscape today.
But, if one relies solely on explanation then the potential of charlantry is greater. Don't you think so?
I had to look up the word charlantry lol, but I see what you are saying. I guess that there is greater potential, but it does not mean that all things elusive and abstract are fraudulent. I think that real beauty will be apparent to the open minded "expert" as well as the open minded and unbiased "child". Children and geologists both collect rocks. The best work reads on both extremes of the spectrum, as does nature. We don't judge the worth of a spider by the soccer mom who thinks they are gross. We judge their worth by the expert who understands their importance, their intricacy, and their complex evolutionary design, as well as the child in us that thinks its cool how they kill, its interesting how they walk, their speed, their form, their colors, etc. The biased are irrelevant. The only worthy judge of beauty is the open mind, and it is extremely inclusive.
I don't see your point curtkram. Why would you have me be in the 12 century? My point was that a similar argument took place in the 19th century between romanticism and neoclassicism, and we have swung so hard in the meantime that neoclassicism is on the other side this time around.
suri,
I'm guessing he dosen't think the 19th century arguments over style are relevant becasue the advent of industrialization meant that human nature changed and therefore our architecture's aesthetics needed to change also. Just a guess though. In the 12th century there was no argument about style. Infact, the whole discussion didn't come about in ernest until early 19th century Romantics who began to mistrust technology's effects on society and so romantisized the hand crafted world of the middle ages. Once apprenticeships and the traditions they past down began to be replaced by industrialization and academic training, decisions about what kind of buildings we should build became more about choice than tradition, more market driven, thus the battle of the styles. This modern condition of plurality makes many uncomfortable like the choices in a supermarket aisle or like tea partiers. Thus the proclemations against choice (eclecticism) and the like, to get all architects on one page, just liek the good old days, only modern. Eliminate subjective beauty becasue science will make these animalistic desires obsolete, and voila, modern man!
Unfortunatley of fortunatly, evolution takes a lot longer than Madison Avenue types would have you believe, so while the styles may change, the desire for beauty hasn't, regardless of what political baggage you'd like to package into it. Now science is explaining how beauty is intimatly tied to evolution, but evidence whether in psychology, neurology, or simple surveys will never convince ideologues. It's not in thier nature.
Early modernists tried to say that architectural decoration was the equivalent of tattooing which was how primitive civilizations expressed art, but as societies advance it becomes only the practice of the criminal or degenerate element. As if the desire for decoration (or beauty) is a moral failing. All us common folks who can not appreciate modern art are degenerates running around in our filth, desiring filthy things like beauty. Similar to the folks in the brave new world who want to procreate the barbaric way, who cling to filthy terms like 'mother'. Turning what comes natural into something wrong or sinful is what modernism attempts to do with aesthetics.
There you go again referencing the historical record. Primitive Troll!
Whatever you all decide in this stylistic butting of heads, can we all just at least agree that healthcare and institution architecture is god-awful?
Dear healthcare architects,
Going willy-nilly with patterns, colors and finishes is not design. It's paint-by-numbers. I would seriously rather die of sepsis than have to walk into one of these mauve-and-beige prisons of bad taste.
^ Ok, I don't like photo 3. As for photos 1 and 2, they are institutional but not bad, especially the lobby in 2.
My objections in 1 are the color of the windows and the choices of upholstering, either the vinyl which does not look comfortable or for the thickness of the armrests on the chairs, which do not look comfortable either.
As for 2, the chairs don't look comfortable, not to mention having a stupid pattern on them. At least the lobby doesn't look dark and depressing, reminding one that death is just an elevator ride away for some of those hospitalized.
I didn't know someone wrote an Ornament and Crime For Dummies. Such a shame the way that text gets garbled.
Here's my question about one of the recurring declarations on this thread: "Architecture should be of it's time".
...Why?
Why should architecture be of its time?
This may seem to many of you like a very simple and stupid question, but I dare any interested parties to try and explain the answer clearly enough for any layperson to have a realization and finally "get it". Those of you who make a living convincing clients to approve your designs should have no trouble with this exercise.
Furthermore, what is the architecture of our time? What does it look like? A lot has been mentioned about the beloved steel and glass box, but how can that be of our time when its been built repeatedly for the better part of a century? What does today's architecture achieve that the architecture of 1983 does not?
emmexxthree,
I would love to hear the answer your question without snark. I've actually evolved a different take on you question though. Everything done today is "of our time" becasue it's litterally of our time. Much like (good) historians don't expunge the record of all the things that don't fit neatly into a pre-concieved narrative, this attempt to sideline those who don't agree with you is simply false. Sure there are general trends and it's useful to identify them, but if alternate views existed, then they should be noted, and if they are more than incidental, they should be explained as alternate but contiguous view.
In architecture today there is much more heterogenity than at the height of modernism during the 1950's to the 1970's, yet you won't see that reported on sites like these to the extend they exist. Simply put, sites like this serve to enforce a world view that's at odds with the reality of the field of architecture as it's practiced in our time. To be fair, I'd guess traditional sites probably don't devote much pixel time to Zaha's latest efforts, but those sites could be seen as a reaction to what isn't covered on sites like this one.
This bi-furcation of the profession seems to be accepted as par for the course, but if one looks at the historical record, you'll find the whole profession adhearing to one media through magazines like American Architect, Architectural Record, and the like. And while there certainly where differing camps of what style was "of our time" and other academic discussoins, it was widely recognized that any major work would be published alongside others of differing styles.
Modernism sought to erase the historical record and start afresh, so there would be no dissent. Thus the whole ostrization of any work that didn't adhear to the tenants of modernism, ie. thou shall not use any ornamentation, historical style, or even try to blend in with-in a context. To be sure, modernism has evolved from it's puritanical roots and left an interesting record of trying to come to terms with many of the original tenants of modernism. But discussoins like this one prove that many in the priesthood are still afraid to acknowledge what is readily apparent to those not steeped in it's theology. Architecture of our time is much more heterogeneous than they would have you believe.
So what architecture is of our time? What music is of our time, what literature is of our time, what narrow cultural stream would those who insist on this definition like us to believe is the appropriate cultural expression of out time? I'd love to hear the answer as well.
'of our time' just means a building designed and built in the time we live, with the materials, methods, financing, scheduling, etc., available in our time. it's not trying to be something else.
the architecture of our time is quite broad. it can be pomo, or decon, or modern, or a variety of other styles. i think glass boxes are definitely of our time. glass boxes use the best materials we have available today, with the best engineering and construction methods available to us. the materials, and methods available to us today aren't that different than 1983, so 'of our time' would probably include that time period.
pretending you can design and build a stone temple like they did in 700bc or 75ad is not of our time. it's a snapshot of the past, where the tools of construction and labor and pretty much everything else in the process is different. they're still using materials and methods of our time, designing on a computer, talking to people over the phone, CYA with email, making their columns from concrete instead of marble, and using cranes and steel frames where they have to, because that's how architecture works in this day and age. it's just the look on the surface that hasn't changed.
gothic architecture is from the 12th century. that's around when they were building those nice big gothic churches. suri thinks that happened in the 19th century, because apparently he wants to imitate gothic revival that was common during the onset of the industrial revolution. this is apparently what we're doing with revivalist styles now. we're not even copying great architecture from the past, we're copying the people who copied. we're trying to take the materials and methods of today, and make a design that looks like something designed and built with 19th century materials that was trying to copy something designed and built with 12th century materials and methods. it's quite sad.
so, to design architecture of our time, all it means is that you don't have to copy other people. you're glass box doesn't have to look like the one mies designed or something from 1983. you don't have to copy gothic revival in a new neogothic revival style. learn and understand the materials and methods available to us to day, and design a great building with those in mind.
emmexxthree, I would turn this question back on you and ask: What value is there in architecture (and every other designed object) not being of its time? What value would be added to an iPhone if it looked "traditional"?
do you really believe that trip?
What value is a building that is totally out of its' context? I was in Leadville, Colorado, a couple of years ago walking down the main street admiring the restored Vicforian buildings that were originally restaurants, opera houses, bars, and stores. Some buildings served their original purpose, some had been adapted to new uses. Right in the middle of the town was some kind of ugly public administration building that could be dated precisely to the early 60s. Why disfigure your town like that?
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.