Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago
im really not. i scoured google and honestly none of them are remotely flattering. its a big, hulking, bureaucratic looking building. hell, i even have a bit of a fondness for old big hulking bureaucratic buildings from that particular era. if you think Tsien's designs are "oppressive" and what you posted isnt, i think we're talking two completely different languages because i honestly have zero clue where your head is at and you appear to be simply applying random descriptions to random buildings that youre pulling out of a hat. you seem to gravitate towards outward symbology...coats of arms, statues, big ass giant seals, taperstries and murals. those things are fine in certain situations, but they do not somehow equal good architecture, nor are they in any way necessary for it.
who said the shapes are random? how are they any more or less random than a "classic", formally structured building? in fact, their designs are in no way some Gehry mess of shredded steel and twisted canopies. in most cases theyre simply rectangles, which you claim to profess some love for.
what that building says is that it respects its surrounding, is conscious of them, and that its intended purpose is not to stand out screaming "look at me!". it says, the important thing is the landscape and how that building fits into it without being rude or intruding. and if you take the time to actually think about it, that says a lot about the architect's view of culture and the way they choose to approach design.
what does a Rothko painting say? well, thats up for you to decide. but that doesnt mean it isnt saying something. the answer is simply coming from within.
if you dont like minimalism, hey thats fine. but i do find it endlessly hilarious youre singling out whats very clearly a maximalist building as your example of what would be appropriate for a contemplative park setting.
is this "dehumanizing" too?
https://minimalplan.files.wordpress....r-1k.jpg?w=584
yeah i dont think so.
basically Williams/Tsien buildings are like an Ozu or a Tarkovsky and you seem to want a George Lucas |
Yes, I think statues, big ass giant seals, tapestries and murals are art and represent the culture and art of the people who created them. The Oslo town hall at the entrance has walls of wood carvings showing Norse mythology which is awesome. They bring humanity and culture to the building. When you strip out the art you have nothing.
When I say classical proportions its the mathematical proportions and symmetry of a building. It could be in any culture, I didn't say it has to be only greek. But there are rules of symmetry that you can follow with different styles.
Rothko says nothing to me, I don't recognize it as art. It's 2 colors, an art palette perhaps. The start of another painting.
Japanese buildings are nice, but it's not my favorite style personally. I don't know who Ozu or Tarkovsky are. I love George Lucas movies.
If your worried about a building fitting into the landscape, all the Obama library does is scream look at me, I'm a giant stone monolith. It's the opposite of fitting in with the landscape.