Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva
wow, you sound idiotic. phillip johnson building a large church in garden grove singlehandedly exonerates all the other "suburbanite culture" influenced crap that local developers spew across the entire expanse of the LA basin? sure, and phillip johnson is also an LA architect (sarcasm intended, folks)
and where did you learn to write? you sound like a thirteen year old. "suburbanite culture"?
|
Your argument in the City Compilation thread was that LA lacks the educated urbanites to make the right architectural choices. Yet, look at the choice some suburbanite made, in Garden Grove no less. After Johnson's glass house, there are very few masterpieces. Great architect, but he went commercial and kitschy too fast. See the AT&T Building and the Lipstick building. Still, somehow, the "suburbanite" hick who hired Johnson to build a church in Garden Grove got him to do some of his best work. Go figure.
As to my choice of words, that was on purpose. I wanted to reference your argument about educated "urbanites." As to where I learned to write, it seems that you missed the hint I dropped earlier. So, let me repeat it. Vincent Scully taught my modern architecture course. (Google his name.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva
Well, for starters, fentress were inspired by ocean waves, and your attempt to ascribe roof shingles to them is probably purely out of your own imagination, because fentress said themselves, they were inspired by ocean waves.
finally, my simple point was, paneling is a false image. amidst all that sophistic garbage you spewed about the progressive banality of "structural elements" through time, you've pretty much backhandedly debunked your own assertion that LAX is a departure from that, since Fentress' efforts at paneling all those elements in LAX is the most aesthetically conscious acknowledgement of the impact of "structural elements" to their design.
p.s. please don't go into architectural writing. you're incoherent, and obviously don't understand half of what you're talking about.
|
Architectural symbolism is not as neat and precise as you want to make it. Good architects make buildings that mean more than what they say they mean. For example, what does the LA Cathedral look like on the outside? A CA Mission church, a rock, a crystal (maybe even the Crystal Cathedral)? Did I miss something? What about the floating planes near the cross window? What about the color of the building itself? What about the concrete material? So, yes, the explicit reference of the exterior of TBIT West may be to ocean waves, but there are other possible associations as there were influences.
As to the rest, it is not as clear cut as you want to make it. Paneling or covering up structural elements is not categorically bad and the industrial/mechanical look or structural transparency is not categorically good. Plus, this debate is quite old by now and no architect really thinks that way anymore. Heck, Richard Meier panels his buildings and he is a formalist.
(In general, let me say your recourse to personal attacks on my writing does you no favors.)