To the amateur eye it can be puzzling, but with some education about its juxtaposition of traditional design against more complex forms, its status as a groundbreaking residential design becomes clear.
— Realtor.com
Ugly is your opinion only. I've seen children's drawings of this house and they do not render it as ugly at all. It was different for the time, yes, but so were the Eiffel Tower and other designs which were at first considered "ugly" but later became iconic. Classic "beauty" (and who the hell decides absolutely what is beautiful, anyway...you?) is not by any means the only characteristic that makes something iconic or worthwhile - Donna mentioned some other things above.
Don, take it easy. It's just one opinion. I wouldn't say it's f-ugly if that'll cheer you up. I'll take Donna's word that the interiors are nice though. Like I said, I think it's worth saving even though I'll never sketch it. True of a lot of important buildings. The Eiffel Tower IS beautiful, if I may be so bold.
Okay, Thayer, fair enough. Anyway, I would bet that Venturi didn't mind at all that the house was called ugly, what with the "ugly and ordinary" thing. That exterior green color is very close to the "bureaucracy green" that most rooms in public schools and government offices were painted (and many still are). Yes, most would call it ugly, but just like the Golden Gate Bridge has to be that particular color red, I can't picture this house in any other color now.
Many forget that Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye was under threat, that is, in 1958. There was an international hue and cry, but the town of Poissy-sur-Seine was ready to tear it down and build a school on the site. Not until Andre Malraux intervened, was a deal for saving this Le Corbusier masterwork arranged.
Ideally, the Vanna Venturi house will be sold to someone who really wants to live there. However, should the property in Chestnut Hill become a buyer's main goal, the prospect of moving this iconic house will certainly be considered, I predict. After all, this is how the Lieb House was saved.
Yes, institutional green, that's the correct term. That flower pattern front is pretty striking. I wonder if the new owners would have the cojones to do that...but then the old man himself would probably advise them against it....although.....
I've never thought of the Vanna Venturi house as having been painted industrial green. Its stucco surface is too obviously domestic for that moniker. What the flat front facade does evoke is International Style modernism, and I've always considered this to be deliberate on Venturi's part. Venturi has invoked Modernism in order to critique it here (its profile looks like a house, etc.). In addition to the International Style, he's also making reference to both Palladio and Ledoux, with this flat surface. I think a better name for the color of the Vanna Venturi house would be "Marcel Breuer Green," since Venturi said he chose to paint it green in response to a comment by Breuer.
I've always liked the several-tone green brick facade of the Brant House in Connecticut. It's wonderfully suburban, yet witty. This house's "trendy bow-window" is integrated right into the facade. Venturi and Scott Brown often developed their built designs from earlier projects that had not been built. In this case, it's obvious that the Brant House finds its source in Venturi's early Wike House project, for Devon, Pa. (See link below, and scroll down):
Oh, my error: that should be: "institutional green." But, now that I've coined the name, I still like "Marcel Breuer Green" better, and, I think it's more accurate. How many institutions are painted "institutional green" on the outside? Not so many I'd wager. And, from what I can see, there's no trace of "institutional green" to be found in the interior of the Vanna Venturi House. Just International Style white (not including the chair-rails, etc.).
That may be true about institutions (mostly interiors), but Breuer's comment concerned exteriors:
"...And finally, this principle of contrast operates most importantly in the way we use color in the landscape. For example, I think the one color that should be avoided most in our kind of landscape is the color green—because much of our landscape is green. And in a landscape that is full of vivid, many-shaded, lively greens, a flat, painted green will look rather dead. In a landscape in which reds or yellows predominate, green might be a very beautiful architectural color to use...."
Funny, I don't think it looks dead at all, and I've seen it in person.
Yes, Don Kashane, but to my knowledge, Marcel Breuer did not use the phrase "institutional green" in the first place, that is, he was talking about the use of green for exteriors in nature; ( please correct me if I'm mistaken about this).
Breuer's remarks about the use of green on an exterior are fascinating, esp. w/reg to how he thought about color. From what I know, Venturi chose green for the Vanna Venturi house in response to Breuer, and not the other way around. What matters in this context is that Venturi mentioned the reason for his choice of green at all. This continues his theme of this house as demonstratio, or built manifesto, if you like.
As an aside: Breuer's choice of color for the former Whitney Museum on Madison Avenue is fantastic. The dark charcoal-gray granite brings real gravitas to the design. I saw it at night, recently, and was incredibly moved.
No, DW, I wasn't saying that, just that Venturi's was a double nose thumbing (as Q. pointed out): to Breuer concerning exterior green and to everyone else who might have said "no good designer uses institutional green".
True, 3 nose thumbings then. It looks like one of Venturi's strategies was to pull a George Costanza...just try the reverse of what everyone recommends.
quondam.com, Fascinating commentary on Venturi's use of green, thanks.
Don K, I don't know if Breuer, or anyone else was paying much attention to Venturi's challenge to orthodox Modernism way back in 1964, when the Vanna Venturi house was completed. Eventually, Venturi did kick up some dust when he critiqued Paul Rudolph's Crawford Manor housing (vs Guild House by Venturi) in VSB's Learning From Las Vegas.
I've heard that when interviewers bring up Rudolph to Venturi, he's seldom wanted to talk about it. Considering that LfLV was a seminar at Yale, this is a classic case of "biting the hand that feeds you." More recently, Venturi and Scott Brown have alluded to their regret at having written about Rudolph in this way, and it's said they even wrote an apology to Rudolph (to which he did not reply).
All this said, I seriously doubt that there has ever been such a thing as a truly "gentle manifesto"; never was, and never shall be . . .
Kinda looks like a four-family public housing project built by a city under severe budget constraints to me. Add a few cars on cinder blocks in the front yard and you are good to go.
Yes, Donna I had several semesters of architectural history, several of art appreciation, and a few art classes as well. In addition I have been fortunate enough to visit the major capitals of Europe, a few in South America, some in Central America, and even managed to hit Cape town. I am familiar with the works of Venturi and his cult following. If you think his "decorated shed" philosophy of Las Vegas has anything to do with architecture you might want to get out more.
Hey, voluntears, I bet if you were on the Phila. city commission to approve or reject the demolition of that house, you would vote thumbs down, tear it down. If that's the case, I think there's a nice job waiting for you at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC in their Architecture department.....
Also, two can play that game: I've a similar background, only more courses and studies and have gotten out and around to more places than you, and I think you're a clueless moron who doesn't know shit from shinola about architecture. Ok, gotta go...."Oh, Jeeves, bring the limo around, will you?"
Volunteer, if you think Venturi and his decorated shed philosophy of Las Vegas didn't have anything to do with architecture then I'm not sure all that education and travel actually served you well...
I mean all snark aside Venturi is one of the most influential thinkers and architects of the 20th Century, worldwide. Are you saying the Mother's House didn't effect designers that came after it?
How fortunate that Venturi and Scott Brown's architectural designs are still controversial . . . and I should point out that I really do like both their projects and built work a lot, that is, ever since I first saw their designs in Perspecta, when I was in high school.
Miles, the reality is that architectural works exist in context, both historical and physical. Those photographs don't reveal the buildings at all, but the buildings have influenced architecture deeply.
I get the criticism of modernism, especially after it had been watered down by 40 years of cheap and thoughtless imitation, but replacing it with ugly and ordinary cartoon architecture was far worse, especially after it became widely adopted as PoMo, aka the architecture of shopping malls.
To call Venturi's work elevator music would be generous.
nice photos, miles. i've never seen a corner shot of guild house - love how it extends from the flat front plane of the facade. really makes the concepts at play sharp. you can even see the the bend as a precursor to the bank below and of course the national gallery. cool.
I do agree with you Miles that the sloppy adoption of Venturi's ideas led to bad Pomo applique on strip malls. To bring it back to today, the charlatan epigones ofany style can ruin what is actually smart and progressive about the style and turn it into crap.
Perhaps the built designs of Venturi and Scott Brown are sometimes just too smart (in addition to being skillful). It pays to know some architectural history before attempting to evaluate their work. I once took a curator friend of mine from Italy around the Princeton campus where we saw the Venturi buildings of Baker College. First, I showed him the Lewis Thomas lab, with its checkerboard brick decoration up top. My friend smiled and chuckled; he got the wit. Then, we rounded the corner to view the entry-facade of Gordon Wu Hall, with its inlaid-marble ornament, and: my friend chuckled all over again.
Hee hee; this is so much fun. Valiant attempts, people, but the genus "anti-Venturicus" will not be dismayed. Quondam, there's also Psalm 135:16: "They have mouths, but they do not speak; They have eyes, but they do not see; They have ears, but they do not hear..."
But I like setting bait more, it's so easy. I've been in so many of these kind of discussions: the "antis" are so predictable, their buttons so easily pushed, their prejudices so on the surface. I love watching the frothing at the mouth. So, at the risk of getting off topic (again), I'll offer a corollary figure to Venturi in art (and Venturi looked at his work): Andy Warhol is one of the most important artists of any era and his work should be celebrated.
Wait, I'm grabbing some popcorn, this should be good.
Don, funny aside, I think you bring up an interesting subject….I call it The Kardashian Disorder. It’s not germane to discussing works of architecture (maybe it is) but it’s the American reality. Think people like Warhol should be studied by young practicing architects, not as a way to become “famous” but to become marketable…had a smart guy tell me once “Don’t tell me what you have to sell, ask me what I want to buy”….learning how these cats got famous may reveal ways to become marketable….in a Kardashian world.
Woah, got a little bite already. Hee hee. I'll paraphrase a bit: "Warhol's only talent was in becoming famous and marketing himself, and that's all you can learn by looking at his life, he had no skills as an artist....he was nothing but a 60s Kardashian." That about right? I can see'em moving in the water.
Valiant attempts that go unrefuted. Instead of defending Venturi, Don attacks those who don't like his work while saying nothing about what makes it so great. That's one hell of a persuasive argument if you're an eight-year old.
As for Warhol, it's appropriate that you bring him up. His successful marketing of banality is exactly the same as Venturi's successful marketing of ordinary and ugly. Which is Carrera's point - it's all about the money, honey.
Woaaaaah, got a big one! Feels like a shark....sounds like one too. Yea, Kilometers, I would continue this discussion if anything you wrote was anything but one-note vomitous drivel. I have spoken on the merits of Venturi's work, here and in past threads, as have others, and you know that (notice you didn't respond to Donna or Quondam's latest comments). You're a waste of typing energy.
You can't even read: the only valiant attempts on this thread are by those defending Venturi, not your drivel, and I meant valiant because it's like talking to walls. If I considered your comments on just about anything here at Archinect to be a debate or discussion, that would be one thing, but you're like a barking dog - actually a barking dog has much more nuance - you come to a thread and bark your one-liners and expect everyone to quake in their boots. Talk about an 8 year old.
Oh, wait, I think the shark is tiring out.....oh, never mind, it's just a shrimp.
I have spoken on the merits of Venturi's work, here and in past threads
Hmmmm. Maybe I missed something. Let's see ...
The house was in "10 Buildings that changed America" documentary, it's had books and articles written on it, the owners consulted the architect on the color to paint it for Chrissake, but most of all, it's called "Mother's House"....you don't friggin' tear down a house called that, one that was designed for a mom, not unless you have no imagination or heart at all.
If those are the merits of great architecture we're in deep trouble. Better keep looking ...
he/she doesn't understand anything about anything
you know nothing of this house
you're a clueless moron who doesn't know shit from shinola about architecture
Don, based on your complete inability to defend Venturi's work you're the one who doesn't know shit from shinola. You're just another anonymous jackass who thinks blustering and name calling is intellectual discourse. You're a big fish in an empty pond. LOL
Thanks for the laugh. Be a sport and give us another one by posting some of your work.
"Hey, Jeeves, pull over a second, there's another post from Kilometers. Hm, let's see...no, just more barking, more pompous garbage that says nothing about anything, just picking sentence out of context like he always does. Notice how he leaves out "as have others" in his first quote and totally ignores "notice you didn't respond to Donna or Quondam's latest comments" (and DWLinderman's) then goes to the straw man "anonymous" charge, like he thinks the fact that everyone knows his real name makes his sentences less uninformed (notice also that all the projects he ever shows are his dad's, not his, and he asks me to show mine. Be a sport...LOL). Anyway, big yawn. Drive on."
ffs smh lol we really have come full circle lmao havent we?
miles:tear down
anyone younger than miles: fuck off miles
miles: based on your complete inability to defend X's work you're the one who doesn't know shit from shinola. You're just another anonymous jackass who thinks blustering and name calling is intellectual discourse . . . infinte inane muffled grandpa growls LOL . . .
anyone younger than miles: miles, please demonstrate your awesome intellectual discourse . ...
quondam.com, One source for the checkerboard brick pattern on the Lewis Thomas lab at Princeton is certainly the Page Street apartment buildings, Westminster, London, 1928-1930, designed by Edwin Lutyens; see link:
“Hey Jeeves, look at this, the guy's got issues with my comments, but listen to this, talk about empty barrels:
teardown
successful marketing of banality
elevator muzak
a cartoon interpretation of classical elements in Disney materials.
people buy into the bullshit and ignore the reality (then posts four random pictures)
Wow, gotta hold on to something; those are amazing "anti" positions there, real in depth stuff, takes your breath away. Very persuasive arguments if you're an eight-year old.
But the guy is a bit dense; he interprets the fact that I don’t offer encyclopedia responses to his one-liners as an indication that I don’t know about Venturi’s work. There are plenty of good comments on the thread for him to respond intelligently to, but he ignores those so he can bark. I mean, I could guide him to past discussions here at Archinect and elsewhere where the merits of Venturi’s architecture is discussed at great length; I could post countless websites on critiques and considerations of his work; I could list a whole bibliography of books and papers which examine Venturi’s projects with detail and intelligence.
But what would be the point, really, why would I waste any energy arguing against a mulish view that will brook no opposition, that has no real consideration behind it, one that is basically a dogma. Not worth it, because another thing he doesn’t get is I really don’t give a flying leap what he thinks of Venturi's work...or Warhol's either.”
Don, I didn't say you don’t know about Venturi’s work, I said you haven't defended it against my criticism. Do you understand the difference, or is your fragile ego so devastated by any challenge to your textbook belief system that your only possible response is dismissal and insults?
You haven't come up with a single encyclopedia response let alone an independent thought - I'm seriously starting to doubt that you have any. Especially after you failed to recognize the four random pictures of Venturi's buildings. Looks like maybe you don't know anything about him after all.
Hey, Jeeves, look at this. This guy Kilometers is really a mental defective. He accuses others of the exact thing he's doing. He can't understand a fucking thing he's reading and comes back with goofy shit. He says I haven't defended Venturi agains his criticism...his criticism!!!....HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!! Oh my God, Jeeves, help me up. What fucking criticism!?! I didn't notice any. There isn't any. I just read stupid one-liners and blowhard opinions, as posted above. He actually thinks it's because I'm indignant. I keep telling him I won't give him any thoughtful responses 'cause I think he's a boorish asshole and I have no respect for him, but he seems not to grasp that simple concept. And he thinks I didn't recognize his fucking photos of Venturi projects! Oh Lord, I'm going to bust a gut. He doesn't even get sarcasm. Ok, I'll post four pictures of an architect he admires and below I'll put...let's see...This architect has been oversold like cheap wine; it's about time everyone saw through the pretensions of this modernist hack. Perfect, job done. What a criticism!
You know Jeeves, I'm about 2 minutes away from posting about 10 or so pages of commentary on Venturi, most of it from this site, a lot of it from written by me, sprinkled in with pertinent wisdom from other sources; I could turn this thread into a book and I could fucking bury him; but again, what is the fucking point? His moldy corpse would just skip over the pages and go to the end and post a "criticism", something like "Venturi sucks balls"...I mean, how could I compete with that kind of intellect."
In trying to reread "Leaning from Las Vegas" for the first time in years I am convinced it is a just an insiders attempted put down of Las Vegas. The joke, however, is on Venturi. He studied in the second worst cesspool on the east coast and then taught in the worst. If he was seeking cheap, tawdry, and tacky , (like his buildings) marinated in a high crime rate, there was no need to cross the country; he could just have walked out his front door in Philadelphia or New Haven. At least the people in Las Vegas can and do walk the streets of their city at night. Care to try that in New Haven, Connecticut? If you asked most Americans where they would like to spend the rest of their lives, Philadelphia, New Haven or Las Vegas, I imagine most would chose the desert climate, outdoor life-style, and the reasonable cost of living and housing in Las Vegas, even among those opposed to gambling.
135 Comments
Ugly is your opinion only. I've seen children's drawings of this house and they do not render it as ugly at all. It was different for the time, yes, but so were the Eiffel Tower and other designs which were at first considered "ugly" but later became iconic. Classic "beauty" (and who the hell decides absolutely what is beautiful, anyway...you?) is not by any means the only characteristic that makes something iconic or worthwhile - Donna mentioned some other things above.
Don, take it easy. It's just one opinion. I wouldn't say it's f-ugly if that'll cheer you up. I'll take Donna's word that the interiors are nice though. Like I said, I think it's worth saving even though I'll never sketch it. True of a lot of important buildings. The Eiffel Tower IS beautiful, if I may be so bold.
Okay, Thayer, fair enough. Anyway, I would bet that Venturi didn't mind at all that the house was called ugly, what with the "ugly and ordinary" thing. That exterior green color is very close to the "bureaucracy green" that most rooms in public schools and government offices were painted (and many still are). Yes, most would call it ugly, but just like the Golden Gate Bridge has to be that particular color red, I can't picture this house in any other color now.
Many forget that Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye was under threat, that is, in 1958. There was an international hue and cry, but the town of Poissy-sur-Seine was ready to tear it down and build a school on the site. Not until Andre Malraux intervened, was a deal for saving this Le Corbusier masterwork arranged.
Ideally, the Vanna Venturi house will be sold to someone who really wants to live there. However, should the property in Chestnut Hill become a buyer's main goal, the prospect of moving this iconic house will certainly be considered, I predict. After all, this is how the Lieb House was saved.
Mmmm, I think you're onto something there....
Yes, institutional green, that's the correct term. That flower pattern front is pretty striking. I wonder if the new owners would have the cojones to do that...but then the old man himself would probably advise them against it....although.....
I've never thought of the Vanna Venturi house as having been painted industrial green. Its stucco surface is too obviously domestic for that moniker. What the flat front facade does evoke is International Style modernism, and I've always considered this to be deliberate on Venturi's part. Venturi has invoked Modernism in order to critique it here (its profile looks like a house, etc.). In addition to the International Style, he's also making reference to both Palladio and Ledoux, with this flat surface. I think a better name for the color of the Vanna Venturi house would be "Marcel Breuer Green," since Venturi said he chose to paint it green in response to a comment by Breuer.
I've always liked the several-tone green brick facade of the Brant House in Connecticut. It's wonderfully suburban, yet witty. This house's "trendy bow-window" is integrated right into the facade. Venturi and Scott Brown often developed their built designs from earlier projects that had not been built. In this case, it's obvious that the Brant House finds its source in Venturi's early Wike House project, for Devon, Pa. (See link below, and scroll down):
http://www.ncmodernist.org/venturi.htm
Brant House...one of my favorite Venturi et. al. projects. Yep, Q., that's the green.
Oh, my error: that should be: "institutional green." But, now that I've coined the name, I still like "Marcel Breuer Green" better, and, I think it's more accurate. How many institutions are painted "institutional green" on the outside? Not so many I'd wager. And, from what I can see, there's no trace of "institutional green" to be found in the interior of the Vanna Venturi House. Just International Style white (not including the chair-rails, etc.).
That may be true about institutions (mostly interiors), but Breuer's comment concerned exteriors:
"...And finally, this principle of contrast operates most importantly in the way we use color in the landscape. For example, I think the one color that should be avoided most in our kind of landscape is the color green—because much of our landscape is green. And in a landscape that is full of vivid, many-shaded, lively greens, a flat, painted green will look rather dead. In a landscape in which reds or yellows predominate, green might be a very beautiful architectural color to use...."
Funny, I don't think it looks dead at all, and I've seen it in person.
Yes, Don Kashane, but to my knowledge, Marcel Breuer did not use the phrase "institutional green" in the first place, that is, he was talking about the use of green for exteriors in nature; ( please correct me if I'm mistaken about this).
Breuer's remarks about the use of green on an exterior are fascinating, esp. w/reg to how he thought about color. From what I know, Venturi chose green for the Vanna Venturi house in response to Breuer, and not the other way around. What matters in this context is that Venturi mentioned the reason for his choice of green at all. This continues his theme of this house as demonstratio, or built manifesto, if you like.
As an aside: Breuer's choice of color for the former Whitney Museum on Madison Avenue is fantastic. The dark charcoal-gray granite brings real gravitas to the design. I saw it at night, recently, and was incredibly moved.
No, DW, I wasn't saying that, just that Venturi's was a double nose thumbing (as Q. pointed out): to Breuer concerning exterior green and to everyone else who might have said "no good designer uses institutional green".
True, 3 nose thumbings then. It looks like one of Venturi's strategies was to pull a George Costanza...just try the reverse of what everyone recommends.
quondam.com, Fascinating commentary on Venturi's use of green, thanks.
Don K, I don't know if Breuer, or anyone else was paying much attention to Venturi's challenge to orthodox Modernism way back in 1964, when the Vanna Venturi house was completed. Eventually, Venturi did kick up some dust when he critiqued Paul Rudolph's Crawford Manor housing (vs Guild House by Venturi) in VSB's Learning From Las Vegas.
I've heard that when interviewers bring up Rudolph to Venturi, he's seldom wanted to talk about it. Considering that LfLV was a seminar at Yale, this is a classic case of "biting the hand that feeds you." More recently, Venturi and Scott Brown have alluded to their regret at having written about Rudolph in this way, and it's said they even wrote an apology to Rudolph (to which he did not reply).
All this said, I seriously doubt that there has ever been such a thing as a truly "gentle manifesto"; never was, and never shall be . . .
seriously educational thread. This Is why I come to Archinect, no joke,
thanks Q, Don K and Orhan
Kinda looks like a four-family public housing project built by a city under severe budget constraints to me. Add a few cars on cinder blocks in the front yard and you are good to go.
Volunteer, do you even architecture history?
Yes, Donna I had several semesters of architectural history, several of art appreciation, and a few art classes as well. In addition I have been fortunate enough to visit the major capitals of Europe, a few in South America, some in Central America, and even managed to hit Cape town. I am familiar with the works of Venturi and his cult following. If you think his "decorated shed" philosophy of Las Vegas has anything to do with architecture you might want to get out more.
Hey, voluntears, I bet if you were on the Phila. city commission to approve or reject the demolition of that house, you would vote thumbs down, tear it down. If that's the case, I think there's a nice job waiting for you at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC in their Architecture department.....
Also, two can play that game: I've a similar background, only more courses and studies and have gotten out and around to more places than you, and I think you're a clueless moron who doesn't know shit from shinola about architecture. Ok, gotta go...."Oh, Jeeves, bring the limo around, will you?"
Volunteer, if you think Venturi and his decorated shed philosophy of Las Vegas didn't have anything to do with architecture then I'm not sure all that education and travel actually served you well...
I mean all snark aside Venturi is one of the most influential thinkers and architects of the 20th Century, worldwide. Are you saying the Mother's House didn't effect designers that came after it?
Donna, arguing with anti-Venturi-ites is like debating with Donald Trump....actually, I think you would get farther with the Donald.
Radical ideas and theory don't necessarily make for good architecture. I'm always surprised how people buy into the bullshit and ignore the reality.
How fortunate that Venturi and Scott Brown's architectural designs are still controversial . . . and I should point out that I really do like both their projects and built work a lot, that is, ever since I first saw their designs in Perspecta, when I was in high school.
Miles, the reality is that architectural works exist in context, both historical and physical. Those photographs don't reveal the buildings at all, but the buildings have influenced architecture deeply.
I get the criticism of modernism, especially after it had been watered down by 40 years of cheap and thoughtless imitation, but replacing it with ugly and ordinary cartoon architecture was far worse, especially after it became widely adopted as PoMo, aka the architecture of shopping malls.
To call Venturi's work elevator music would be generous.
nice photos, miles. i've never seen a corner shot of guild house - love how it extends from the flat front plane of the facade. really makes the concepts at play sharp. you can even see the the bend as a precursor to the bank below and of course the national gallery. cool.
Thanks, Miles!
Yeah, thanks Miles, for changing the subject, got green paint on my scrolling finger.
Yea, ok, Mr. Miles Trump, whatever you say.
Correction: elevator muzak.
Don, name calling is your best defense of Venturi? LOL
I do agree with you Miles that the sloppy adoption of Venturi's ideas led to bad Pomo applique on strip malls. To bring it back to today, the charlatan epigones of any style can ruin what is actually smart and progressive about the style and turn it into crap.
"Wait, Jeeves, don't drive on yet, there's a new post by Kilometers on this thread....oh, never, mind, just more cartoon drivel....carry on."
Perhaps the built designs of Venturi and Scott Brown are sometimes just too smart (in addition to being skillful). It pays to know some architectural history before attempting to evaluate their work. I once took a curator friend of mine from Italy around the Princeton campus where we saw the Venturi buildings of Baker College. First, I showed him the Lewis Thomas lab, with its checkerboard brick decoration up top. My friend smiled and chuckled; he got the wit. Then, we rounded the corner to view the entry-facade of Gordon Wu Hall, with its inlaid-marble ornament, and: my friend chuckled all over again.
Who were Venturi's contemporaries? I am thinking Aalto, Saarinen, Utzon? And you celebrate this "stuff" from Venturi as pictured above?
Hee hee; this is so much fun. Valiant attempts, people, but the genus "anti-Venturicus" will not be dismayed. Quondam, there's also Psalm 135:16: "They have mouths, but they do not speak; They have eyes, but they do not see; They have ears, but they do not hear..."
But I like setting bait more, it's so easy. I've been in so many of these kind of discussions: the "antis" are so predictable, their buttons so easily pushed, their prejudices so on the surface. I love watching the frothing at the mouth. So, at the risk of getting off topic (again), I'll offer a corollary figure to Venturi in art (and Venturi looked at his work): Andy Warhol is one of the most important artists of any era and his work should be celebrated.
Wait, I'm grabbing some popcorn, this should be good.
Don, funny aside, I think you bring up an interesting subject….I call it The Kardashian Disorder. It’s not germane to discussing works of architecture (maybe it is) but it’s the American reality. Think people like Warhol should be studied by young practicing architects, not as a way to become “famous” but to become marketable…had a smart guy tell me once “Don’t tell me what you have to sell, ask me what I want to buy”….learning how these cats got famous may reveal ways to become marketable….in a Kardashian world.
Woah, got a little bite already. Hee hee. I'll paraphrase a bit: "Warhol's only talent was in becoming famous and marketing himself, and that's all you can learn by looking at his life, he had no skills as an artist....he was nothing but a 60s Kardashian." That about right? I can see'em moving in the water.
Valiant attempts that go unrefuted. Instead of defending Venturi, Don attacks those who don't like his work while saying nothing about what makes it so great. That's one hell of a persuasive argument if you're an eight-year old.
As for Warhol, it's appropriate that you bring him up. His successful marketing of banality is exactly the same as Venturi's successful marketing of ordinary and ugly. Which is Carrera's point - it's all about the money, honey.
There you go, Carrera, that answers your question of how can young architects market themselves: have an Edie Sedgwick type accompany you everywhere.
^Don't be it, learn from it.
Woaaaaah, got a big one! Feels like a shark....sounds like one too. Yea, Kilometers, I would continue this discussion if anything you wrote was anything but one-note vomitous drivel. I have spoken on the merits of Venturi's work, here and in past threads, as have others, and you know that (notice you didn't respond to Donna or Quondam's latest comments). You're a waste of typing energy.
You can't even read: the only valiant attempts on this thread are by those defending Venturi, not your drivel, and I meant valiant because it's like talking to walls. If I considered your comments on just about anything here at Archinect to be a debate or discussion, that would be one thing, but you're like a barking dog - actually a barking dog has much more nuance - you come to a thread and bark your one-liners and expect everyone to quake in their boots. Talk about an 8 year old.
Oh, wait, I think the shark is tiring out.....oh, never mind, it's just a shrimp.
I have spoken on the merits of Venturi's work, here and in past threads
Hmmmm. Maybe I missed something. Let's see ...
If those are the merits of great architecture we're in deep trouble. Better keep looking ...
Don, based on your complete inability to defend Venturi's work you're the one who doesn't know shit from shinola. You're just another anonymous jackass who thinks blustering and name calling is intellectual discourse. You're a big fish in an empty pond. LOL
Thanks for the laugh. Be a sport and give us another one by posting some of your work.
"Hey, Jeeves, pull over a second, there's another post from Kilometers. Hm, let's see...no, just more barking, more pompous garbage that says nothing about anything, just picking sentence out of context like he always does. Notice how he leaves out "as have others" in his first quote and totally ignores "notice you didn't respond to Donna or Quondam's latest comments" (and DWLinderman's) then goes to the straw man "anonymous" charge, like he thinks the fact that everyone knows his real name makes his sentences less uninformed (notice also that all the projects he ever shows are his dad's, not his, and he asks me to show mine. Be a sport...LOL). Anyway, big yawn. Drive on."
ffs smh lol we really have come full circle lmao havent we?
miles:tear down
anyone younger than miles: fuck off miles
miles: based on your complete inability to defend X's work you're the one who doesn't know shit from shinola. You're just another anonymous jackass who thinks blustering and name calling is intellectual discourse . . . infinte inane muffled grandpa growls LOL . . .
anyone younger than miles: miles, please demonstrate your awesome intellectual discourse . ...
miles: tear down huehuehue LOL
quondam.com, One source for the checkerboard brick pattern on the Lewis Thomas lab at Princeton is certainly the Page Street apartment buildings, Westminster, London, 1928-1930, designed by Edwin Lutyens; see link:
http://www.masterfile.com/stock-photography/image/845-02729694/Page-Street-Housing-Westminster-1928---1930.-Architect:-Sir-Edwin-Lutyens
“Hey Jeeves, look at this, the guy's got issues with my comments, but listen to this, talk about empty barrels:
Wow, gotta hold on to something; those are amazing "anti" positions there, real in depth stuff, takes your breath away. Very persuasive arguments if you're an eight-year old.
But the guy is a bit dense; he interprets the fact that I don’t offer encyclopedia responses to his one-liners as an indication that I don’t know about Venturi’s work. There are plenty of good comments on the thread for him to respond intelligently to, but he ignores those so he can bark. I mean, I could guide him to past discussions here at Archinect and elsewhere where the merits of Venturi’s architecture is discussed at great length; I could post countless websites on critiques and considerations of his work; I could list a whole bibliography of books and papers which examine Venturi’s projects with detail and intelligence.
But what would be the point, really, why would I waste any energy arguing against a mulish view that will brook no opposition, that has no real consideration behind it, one that is basically a dogma. Not worth it, because another thing he doesn’t get is I really don’t give a flying leap what he thinks of Venturi's work...or Warhol's either.”
Yes, DW, Lutyens used "pattern all over": obviously an overrated hack.
Don, I didn't say you don’t know about Venturi’s work, I said you haven't defended it against my criticism. Do you understand the difference, or is your fragile ego so devastated by any challenge to your textbook belief system that your only possible response is dismissal and insults?
You haven't come up with a single encyclopedia response let alone an independent thought - I'm seriously starting to doubt that you have any. Especially after you failed to recognize the four random pictures of Venturi's buildings. Looks like maybe you don't know anything about him after all.
Hey, Jeeves, look at this. This guy Kilometers is really a mental defective. He accuses others of the exact thing he's doing. He can't understand a fucking thing he's reading and comes back with goofy shit. He says I haven't defended Venturi agains his criticism...his criticism!!!....HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!! Oh my God, Jeeves, help me up. What fucking criticism!?! I didn't notice any. There isn't any. I just read stupid one-liners and blowhard opinions, as posted above. He actually thinks it's because I'm indignant. I keep telling him I won't give him any thoughtful responses 'cause I think he's a boorish asshole and I have no respect for him, but he seems not to grasp that simple concept. And he thinks I didn't recognize his fucking photos of Venturi projects! Oh Lord, I'm going to bust a gut. He doesn't even get sarcasm. Ok, I'll post four pictures of an architect he admires and below I'll put...let's see...This architect has been oversold like cheap wine; it's about time everyone saw through the pretensions of this modernist hack. Perfect, job done. What a criticism!
You know Jeeves, I'm about 2 minutes away from posting about 10 or so pages of commentary on Venturi, most of it from this site, a lot of it from written by me, sprinkled in with pertinent wisdom from other sources; I could turn this thread into a book and I could fucking bury him; but again, what is the fucking point? His moldy corpse would just skip over the pages and go to the end and post a "criticism", something like "Venturi sucks balls"...I mean, how could I compete with that kind of intellect."
In trying to reread "Leaning from Las Vegas" for the first time in years I am convinced it is a just an insiders attempted put down of Las Vegas. The joke, however, is on Venturi. He studied in the second worst cesspool on the east coast and then taught in the worst. If he was seeking cheap, tawdry, and tacky , (like his buildings) marinated in a high crime rate, there was no need to cross the country; he could just have walked out his front door in Philadelphia or New Haven. At least the people in Las Vegas can and do walk the streets of their city at night. Care to try that in New Haven, Connecticut? If you asked most Americans where they would like to spend the rest of their lives, Philadelphia, New Haven or Las Vegas, I imagine most would chose the desert climate, outdoor life-style, and the reasonable cost of living and housing in Las Vegas, even among those opposed to gambling.
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.