Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianXSands
i know everything. |
Is that supposed to be some sort of jab at me?
You don't to be in architecture school to understand the philosophy of architecture and design. When I see something that is clearly sculptural, I'm going to call it out as bullshit because I don't believe the shapes of buildings should be purely sculptural like that. Its merely looking cool for the sake of looking cool, has nothing to do with reason or functionality.
BTW, I realize that parts of that design are determined by the structure, but the point is, building the structure like that in the first place is entirely pointless. I have a hard time believing that the structure there is any more efficient than a box or circle or any other basic geometric shape. Also I don't see that building making radical use of any sort of new materials in an efficient innovative way. So, Mr know it all, tell me how it is Progressive in any way other than "ooo look at me I can be a weird shape"...
Ultimately 99.8% of the buildings on this thread are going to be ignored by history because they are simply weird for the sake of being weird. This is just like Romantic and Second Empire art in the 19th century, it is an artistic dead end. The random shapes we are building today are just as superfluous as the random cherubs and mythic themes of romanticism and second empire. There is nowhere for this thread of design to go because it has no philosophical underpinnings. Its all fluff. What I am looking for is the next Réalisme to this Romanticism. When are we going to see the next impressionism or the next modernism in design? This stuff sure isn't headed anywhere its devoid of higher thought. Its not like these crappy firms are obsessed with shape like Monet was obsessed with light and are just trying to experiment with the subtleties of form.
So tell me Adrian, what philosophical motive is behind the form of this building?