beautiful work. i have met frank years ago when he was designing a house for his grandmother which i don't know if it ever got built.
i would not compare their work to lautner. why?
does anyone else find it strange and sad that work that resembles mid-century modernism is still garnered the label "futuristic" even though the technology of the house is quite conventional and banal?
I'm referring to the writer's description of the Pearson/Trent house, not the chemosphere of course, which never disappoints.
i don't know.. why call something well done and comfortable banal?
i agree there is some (maybe a lot) fluff in the written piece. but alluding the architect's work banal is a little misunderstanding in terms of what goes in los angeles. that is the method people use to build things around here.
their work is not about invention of the wheel, which is okay.
nothing wrong with designing nice spaces for human habitation. maybe that is what architecture has to do more of.
orhan, i read odb comment as 'the technology of THE HOUSE' being conventional/banal - as in all houses generally.
i didn't think he was picking on these guys, just that house-making these days has very little to do with the future and more to do with the standards set by the construction industry.
From the slideshow:
"The architects are expanding their sensibility with the green-oriented Dwell Home II in Topanga Canyon: Along with reducing multiple design demands to their essence, they incorporated solar energy and gray water systems."
well, i was referring to both the technology and the design. Maybe I was being a little harsh--I have no problem with comfortable, nice spaces for human habitation--it was more a response to the label of futuristic posited by the critic. I love mid-century modernism as much as the next guy, but I don't think that work that resembles work from the 1950's/1960's should be labelled futuristic. It's even more appalling when you look at some of the plumbing fixtures in the open kitchen. Maybe there are some behind-the-scenes technologies that are not shown in the photos.
to take a contrarian perspective, maybe it's the lack of technology that makes it futuristic--good design has a better relationship to the environment and therefore requires less mechanical assistance to maintain a comfortable interior climate.
but, much like your original comment, orhan, I don't understand the article's comparison to Lautner--here is a guy definitely with an eye to the future, creating space-age type dwellings and innovative spatial experiences, and I just don't see it in the work of Escher and GuneWardena. but there's nothing wrong with that, just questioning the writing and the positioning of the work.
Jul 15, 08 2:52 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.
7 Comments
beautiful work. i have met frank years ago when he was designing a house for his grandmother which i don't know if it ever got built.
i would not compare their work to lautner. why?
does anyone else find it strange and sad that work that resembles mid-century modernism is still garnered the label "futuristic" even though the technology of the house is quite conventional and banal?
I'm referring to the writer's description of the Pearson/Trent house, not the chemosphere of course, which never disappoints.
i don't know.. why call something well done and comfortable banal?
i agree there is some (maybe a lot) fluff in the written piece. but alluding the architect's work banal is a little misunderstanding in terms of what goes in los angeles. that is the method people use to build things around here.
their work is not about invention of the wheel, which is okay.
nothing wrong with designing nice spaces for human habitation. maybe that is what architecture has to do more of.
orhan, i read odb comment as 'the technology of THE HOUSE' being conventional/banal - as in all houses generally.
i didn't think he was picking on these guys, just that house-making these days has very little to do with the future and more to do with the standards set by the construction industry.
odb if i misunderstood you, apologies... thanks steven.
From the slideshow:
"The architects are expanding their sensibility with the green-oriented Dwell Home II in Topanga Canyon: Along with reducing multiple design demands to their essence, they incorporated solar energy and gray water systems."
well, i was referring to both the technology and the design. Maybe I was being a little harsh--I have no problem with comfortable, nice spaces for human habitation--it was more a response to the label of futuristic posited by the critic. I love mid-century modernism as much as the next guy, but I don't think that work that resembles work from the 1950's/1960's should be labelled futuristic. It's even more appalling when you look at some of the plumbing fixtures in the open kitchen. Maybe there are some behind-the-scenes technologies that are not shown in the photos.
to take a contrarian perspective, maybe it's the lack of technology that makes it futuristic--good design has a better relationship to the environment and therefore requires less mechanical assistance to maintain a comfortable interior climate.
but, much like your original comment, orhan, I don't understand the article's comparison to Lautner--here is a guy definitely with an eye to the future, creating space-age type dwellings and innovative spatial experiences, and I just don't see it in the work of Escher and GuneWardena. but there's nothing wrong with that, just questioning the writing and the positioning of the work.
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.