I think I've always heard "Devil is in the detail." And now that I look it up via the unfaltering internet, it looks like the history of it isn't that clear between both of them. Its interesting the interpretation of the phrase could also change depending on whether or not you say "detail" or "details." But yeah, that was my understanding that something minor could make or break the whole entity.
If The Devil is in the Details means that you can have a good idea on the surface, but good ideas fall apart once start to examine them closer, if you can't work thru the problems. Then to say God is in the Details might be to say that if you can handle the details, and keep it together (fight thru the awkwardness) you can succeed.
Strawbeary, that interesting.
So one is relevant when you are looking at something existing with the intention to test it, the other is relevant when you are the author and are trying to build something that passes the test.
maybe in academia we should say "devil is in the details"
and in practice we should say "god is in the details"
c.k.-- it's not that deep. but good try on throwing trying to throw some gasoline on a fire!
If I remember correctly, it is a pompous French phrase... "Le bon Dieu est dans le detail." I don't remember who wrote it but I think it was the mid 19th century. Since they were quite literalistic at the time, I'm going to say this really isn't a philosophical issue.
ive never really considered the distinction between "the devil is in the details" and "god is in the details". They seem 2 sides of the same coin to me.
If anyone has been to IIT's campus, i think the perfect examples of both are found right across the street. At crown hall, you have the mullion details of mies. Examining their simplicity leads you to an epiphany about the whole building process. Then, across the way at OMA's MTCC, examining the details leads you to realize no one ever thought about most of them, and the building really suffers for it.
[Off topic] Someone with bad french telling someone else their French is bad while trying to do a bad job rewriting a letter in bad french to replace it with more bad french.
devil in the details: you trip yourself in the nitty gritty and you lose your way by only focusing on the background
god in the details: god is reached through rituals... though sacraments, such is the practice of religion. how fitting that a protestant imagination would divinize the worldly.
webtearout,
You should read "The Artless Word" by Fritz Neumeyer. Your asking the wrong people here at Archinect This place is full of people that should have gone into sociology or phsychology.
PS. Peter Behrens was the one that told Mies "Less is more"
strawberry has it best. it's an adaptation of the phrase the devil is in the details. for mies, a good architectural composition should begin with the details; the parts should relate the whole, and vice versa. i'd also add that this is what a great many architects of that time (wright, alvar alto, especially mosei ginsburg) meant when they used the term 'organic,' that a composition should be irreducible by it's parts, the parts determine the whole like an organism (or a machine). this is as opposed to the references to biomorphism that the term more contemporarily implies. students are always confused by this.
letdown, that's a pretty good observation about crown hall and the oma building. interestingly enough, as bad of shape as crown hall is in, the oma building isn't too far behind and it's much younger.
Liveload,
Exactly!! Finally, from the point of view of an architect. Thanks for the book reference and lletdownl, that makes sense about the literal details in IIT. That is what I think, as well. Unicorn Slaughter, maybe that was a phrase by Walter benjamin, when he was writing about the Passages of Paris?
Is The Artless World and apocolyptic manifesto on how art now has gotten more self-referential or how the world would be pretty dull and uninspiring without art?
No, it was used by that guy who wrote Madame Bovary... Gustave Flaubert.
I think the phrase is hogwash to be honest. Even more so by a modernist, Mies, attributing god-like qualities to work supposedly devoid of ideas past modernism was struggling to redefine.
I'd say the phrase, in older contexts, is anthropomorphizing objects to have personalities or sentience beyond their form, construction or use.
Simply saying that there's "devil in the details" of something being broke is like passing off blame. It obviously can't be the object that does not work or it is troubled-- it must be damned... it is the work of the devil!
However, Flaubert's usage is the earlier of the two.
"God is in the details." = Details are really important.
It's simple. Don't make a easy one too complicated.
Basically every greatest architects have said details are important.
Even Louis Kahn who is one of the most esoteric architects thought that details are important.
"Details is devil" is what Rem said, but he is not a designer even if he has a great eye for design.
Rem said that details are expensive so that is devil, but actually good details are cheaper than clumsy one or no details.
Moreover I don't think his buildings are ever cheaper than other designers' buildings with good details.
Thanks, i will read the book. I don't think Kahn was esoteric. His book, Silence and light is very clear and simple and not esoteric. Koolhas is great with big concepts but not good with constructing them. Trust me, I live a few mins. away from the Kimbell museum and that place is great with concepts and with construction! He did concrete, steel and wood beautifully!!
Kahn's "Silence and light" seems to be influenced by "neo-platonism", and that is the reason that many people think Kahn's theory is "somewhat" esoteric.
Of course, his building is not esotecric but his theory is.
And Rem is obviously not a designer.
OMA's designs have been changed whenever its main designer changes even if Rem has been there.
I admit Rem is good with big concepts but architectural designs cannot be achieved just by a big concept.
An architect isn't just a Philosopher.
my own read on this statement was always that, while the overall design might matter (formal, functional, whatever considerations may be considered important), it was in the DETAILS that a project could become transcendent.
to some extent i think that's true: a design of stellar formal virtuosity that is then poorly realized is not going to rise to the same level as a very simple design assembled beautifully and meticulously.
despite the coolness we expect from mies, he did have a bit of the folk german near-religious belief in the mystical/transcendental.
Apr 29, 10 8:49 am ·
·
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.
Can someone decipher: "God is in the details"
When Mies stated this quote, did he mean to say that the details make or break the piece of architecture? Any thoughts?
I tend to think it means that to achieve good design, all awkwardness must be eliminated. In other words, there is nothing to add or take away.
I've got another good quote:
“Art is the elimination of the unnecessary.” - Pablo Picasso
I think I've always heard "Devil is in the detail." And now that I look it up via the unfaltering internet, it looks like the history of it isn't that clear between both of them. Its interesting the interpretation of the phrase could also change depending on whether or not you say "detail" or "details." But yeah, that was my understanding that something minor could make or break the whole entity.
If The Devil is in the Details means that you can have a good idea on the surface, but good ideas fall apart once start to examine them closer, if you can't work thru the problems. Then to say God is in the Details might be to say that if you can handle the details, and keep it together (fight thru the awkwardness) you can succeed.
Maybe he meant for everyone to keep analyzing the deeper meaning of it like in Southpark’s episode of the Tale of Scrotie Mcboogerballs.
he might have been feeling joyful after sketching an unbelievable detail when he said that phrase...and couldn't resist the mawkish remark...
it has a hint of braggadocio. i liken it to saying "details are the bomb!"
Strawbeary, that interesting.
So one is relevant when you are looking at something existing with the intention to test it, the other is relevant when you are the author and are trying to build something that passes the test.
maybe in academia we should say "devil is in the details"
and in practice we should say "god is in the details"
c.k.-- it's not that deep. but good try on throwing trying to throw some gasoline on a fire!
If I remember correctly, it is a pompous French phrase... "Le bon Dieu est dans le detail." I don't remember who wrote it but I think it was the mid 19th century. Since they were quite literalistic at the time, I'm going to say this really isn't a philosophical issue.
and your French is not that good!
(I started rewriting your french cover letter from the other thread and gave up 'cause my French is soo rusty!)
hmmm, interesting!!!!
ive never really considered the distinction between "the devil is in the details" and "god is in the details". They seem 2 sides of the same coin to me.
If anyone has been to IIT's campus, i think the perfect examples of both are found right across the street. At crown hall, you have the mullion details of mies. Examining their simplicity leads you to an epiphany about the whole building process. Then, across the way at OMA's MTCC, examining the details leads you to realize no one ever thought about most of them, and the building really suffers for it.
Low introductory 2.99%APR
[Off topic] Someone with bad french telling someone else their French is bad while trying to do a bad job rewriting a letter in bad french to replace it with more bad french.
Perfectionné! [/off topic]
devil in the details: you trip yourself in the nitty gritty and you lose your way by only focusing on the background
god in the details: god is reached through rituals... though sacraments, such is the practice of religion. how fitting that a protestant imagination would divinize the worldly.
webtearout,
You should read "The Artless Word" by Fritz Neumeyer. Your asking the wrong people here at Archinect This place is full of people that should have gone into sociology or phsychology.
PS. Peter Behrens was the one that told Mies "Less is more"
what is phsychology?
liveload = people who should have gone to high school!
you see what i mean webtearout?
Tammuz here likes to rubb stardust all over stardust in her spare time.
strawberry has it best. it's an adaptation of the phrase the devil is in the details. for mies, a good architectural composition should begin with the details; the parts should relate the whole, and vice versa. i'd also add that this is what a great many architects of that time (wright, alvar alto, especially mosei ginsburg) meant when they used the term 'organic,' that a composition should be irreducible by it's parts, the parts determine the whole like an organism (or a machine). this is as opposed to the references to biomorphism that the term more contemporarily implies. students are always confused by this.
letdown, that's a pretty good observation about crown hall and the oma building. interestingly enough, as bad of shape as crown hall is in, the oma building isn't too far behind and it's much younger.
bossman... youre right on... in fact crown is probably cleaner now since it got refinished a few years ago...
Liveload,
Exactly!! Finally, from the point of view of an architect. Thanks for the book reference and lletdownl, that makes sense about the literal details in IIT. That is what I think, as well. Unicorn Slaughter, maybe that was a phrase by Walter benjamin, when he was writing about the Passages of Paris?
your welcome webtearout,
that book will change your life for the better.
good luck
Is The Artless World and apocolyptic manifesto on how art now has gotten more self-referential or how the world would be pretty dull and uninspiring without art?
No, it was used by that guy who wrote Madame Bovary... Gustave Flaubert.
I think the phrase is hogwash to be honest. Even more so by a modernist, Mies, attributing god-like qualities to work supposedly devoid of ideas past modernism was struggling to redefine.
I'd say the phrase, in older contexts, is anthropomorphizing objects to have personalities or sentience beyond their form, construction or use.
Simply saying that there's "devil in the details" of something being broke is like passing off blame. It obviously can't be the object that does not work or it is troubled-- it must be damned... it is the work of the devil!
However, Flaubert's usage is the earlier of the two.
"God is in the details." = Details are really important.
It's simple. Don't make a easy one too complicated.
Basically every greatest architects have said details are important.
Even Louis Kahn who is one of the most esoteric architects thought that details are important.
"Details is devil" is what Rem said, but he is not a designer even if he has a great eye for design.
Rem said that details are expensive so that is devil, but actually good details are cheaper than clumsy one or no details.
Moreover I don't think his buildings are ever cheaper than other designers' buildings with good details.
webtearout,
read the book .
kahn is esoteric and koolhaas isn't a designer? what?
Thanks, i will read the book. I don't think Kahn was esoteric. His book, Silence and light is very clear and simple and not esoteric. Koolhas is great with big concepts but not good with constructing them. Trust me, I live a few mins. away from the Kimbell museum and that place is great with concepts and with construction! He did concrete, steel and wood beautifully!!
Kahn's "Silence and light" seems to be influenced by "neo-platonism", and that is the reason that many people think Kahn's theory is "somewhat" esoteric.
Of course, his building is not esotecric but his theory is.
And Rem is obviously not a designer.
OMA's designs have been changed whenever its main designer changes even if Rem has been there.
I admit Rem is good with big concepts but architectural designs cannot be achieved just by a big concept.
An architect isn't just a Philosopher.
my own read on this statement was always that, while the overall design might matter (formal, functional, whatever considerations may be considered important), it was in the DETAILS that a project could become transcendent.
to some extent i think that's true: a design of stellar formal virtuosity that is then poorly realized is not going to rise to the same level as a very simple design assembled beautifully and meticulously.
despite the coolness we expect from mies, he did have a bit of the folk german near-religious belief in the mystical/transcendental.
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.