HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 3:53 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
720 is a poopyface
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,484
Quote:
see architecture as ideas, and not just appearance, and to help you appreciate modernism, so that you can enjoy it.
This is a big problem. Architecture is not art. Architecture has real constraints based on actual programmatic, functional needs of habitation and urbanism.

I am extremely cautious of anyone who tells me that aesthetically speaking, architecture isn't about style. Architecture is never abstract. Sculpture is abstract, but architecture must first be functional. Architects are artisans, charged with making functional items beautiful, not artists, who are charged with creating abstract beauty from nothing. The difference is not semantic. You can include abstract art in architecture, but the bottom line is that whatever art you include has to be just another kind of style, or else you're not doing architecture, you're doing sculpture.

Occasionally sculpture writ large is the functional program. The Sydney Opera House is more valuable as an iconic sculpture than it ever will be as an Opera House. In those very rare cases, it is acceptable to put art first. For most buildings, it isn't appropriate to go beyond style.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 4:35 PM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 1,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Architecture is not art.
You can't be serious. I'm a 'form follows function' guy all the way, and I despise most modern architecture, but come on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 9:01 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
720 is a poopyface
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,484
I am totally serious. Art is part of architecture, but architecture is not art. That difference is absolutely essential.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 9:58 PM
jetsetter's Avatar
jetsetter jetsetter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Occident
Posts: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
I am totally serious. Art is part of architecture, but architecture is not art. That difference is absolutely essential.
Indeed. Many of Frank Gehry's buildings are "art" (terrible art at that but I digress) and because of that fact or perhaps because of his incompetence many of those buildings are falling apart or are maintenance nightmares due to bad design. For him it is just a piece of large sculpture.

Look, this whole thing is about legitimacy. I feel that a new building in the gothic style is just as legitimate as a building constructed centuries ago in the gothic style. That is what I believe.
__________________
"If there is anything to be gained by honesty, then we shall
be honest; if we must dupe, then let us be scoundrels.”
- Frederick the Great

Last edited by jetsetter; Jun 2, 2010 at 10:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2010, 5:32 AM
Jasoncw's Avatar
Jasoncw Jasoncw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
Perhaps you didn't read what I posted. No matter how you word your argument, you are still obsessed with style. What is "right" to you may be wrong to someone else. No building is perfect. Some excel in areas where others fail. This is like passing value judgments on art or music. You can hate hip hop but love classical, but when it comes to execution you see value in both genre.
So are you saying that architecture is only a matter of executing styles?

Quote:
In all due respect, you know I value your opinions. But if it's all subjective then why come into this discussion. Do you expect to enlighten us or just want to hear all the push-back?
I'm not saying it's subjective. I don't believe in subjectivity (I believe that individuals make rational conclusions based on their personal knowledge, and that if everyone had super-brains with access to all the knowledge in the universe, and the ability and willingness to process it, everyone would come to the same conclusions). You were saying that my own position wasn't legit, because it's an armchair position, and you were saying that the debate itself wasn't legit, because the issue is a subjective one. I wasn't saying that positions are subjective, although looking back I can see how what I wrote could read that way.

Quote:
This is a big problem. Architecture is not art. Architecture has real constraints based on actual programmatic, functional needs of habitation and urbanism.
imo, art is defined as the expression of emotions and ideas (philosophies, ideologies, principles, etc.). The definition of art has and will always be debated, but I think on a basic level that is an agreeable definition. Form follows function is a principle, and if you design a building where form follows function, then that is an expression of that principle. Form follows function is an integral part of several movements.

However, I think your statement is a fair one, because if architecture is not art, then ideas are a non-issue, and my critiques of the ideas of neo-traditional architecture would also be non-issues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2010, 9:50 AM
TANGELD_SLC's Avatar
TANGELD_SLC TANGELD_SLC is offline
The World Is Welcome Here
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SL,UT
Posts: 886
My own philosophy is ANYTHING that mankind creates or designs is an art-form and expression, so architecture is no exception. It might be BAD art, but it is still art.
__________________
Espavo!

Plyg, Metrosexual, & AVENian
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 9:50 PM
jetsetter's Avatar
jetsetter jetsetter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Occident
Posts: 424
Quote:
Classical Architecture: Three Fallacies
7 May, 2010 | By Robert Adam

Classicism has been wronged, argues Robert Adam. Although its longevity proves people still want classical buildings, three fallacies about style, relevance and authenticity are used to justify the hostility it receives from the profession

In Europe, the Americas, the Antipodes and even India you can’t get away from classical architecture. It’s been around for 2,000 years and has had an unbroken run in Europe for 500 years. Classical forms are so deeply lodged in our collective subconscious that every time an architect designs a building with a row of columns, square or round, and puts a beam over them, there seems to be something classical about it. Some contemporary architects, like Eric Parry, say this is deliberate, while others, like David Chipperfield, claim it isn’t. Classicism can even be attributed to its antagonists: RoberVenturi claims that Mies van der Rohe was a classicist and architectural historian Colin Rowe famously linked Le Corbusier’s houses with Palladio’s villas.

For all this, 60 years of anti-traditional architectural education have created profession largely ignorant of the history and vocabulary of classical architecture. Although they don’t know much about them, few architects will condemn great buildings of the past. To give their designs some sort of classical pedigree, architects sometimes claim they’ve used classical proportions (often of dubious provenance) or have drawn inspiration from the abstract qualities of a classical building. When dealing with literal new-classical designs, however, there’s little sympathy, and they’re frequently attacked as being ‘pastiches’ or ‘not of our time’.

Justifying this hostility, and fuelled by ignorance, architects entertain three common fallacies about classical architecture. The first is that classicism is just one style. While there is a common ancestry in ancient Greece and Rome, the differences between the renaissance, baroque, rococo and early 20th-century ‘Swedish Grace’ styles (to name only the most obvious) are profound and very visible. Use-types have moved from temples to churches, huts to palaces, and offices to airports. Following the single-style fallacy is the idea that classicism inevitably represents some distasteful political regime that corresponds with one period in its history. But such is the variety, flexibility and ubiquity of the type that it has, in its time, been used to express democracy in the USA, autocracy in Nazi Germany, civic pride in the 19th century, paganism in antiquity, Christianity from the renaissance onwards, and much more besides.

The second fallacy is that, due to its antiquity and origins in ancient building technology, classicism simply doesn’t belong in the modern world
. But this can only be claimed if you have some determinist theory of what the modern world ought to be. Classical architecture is a part of the modern world. It continues to be widely demanded and supplied (both well and badly) around the world. It’s never been limited to one form of construction: the ancient Greeks imitated wood; the Romans not only added the arch, but made brick structures look like marble; renaissance domes introduced tension members and the industrial revolution cast-iron; early skyscrapers were classical; and glass walls date back to the 16th century. Now, to the surprise of many, the traditional construction at the source of classical design turns out to be the most sustainable.

The idea of obsolescence often leads to a comparison with dead languages – usually Latin. As any linguist will tell you, however, a language is only dead if no one uses it.

Most architects may have abandoned it,but in the wider world the classical language is alive and well. The overwhelming desire for traditional and classical houses has been established beyond doubt and the sale of classical cast stone, plaster mouldings and plastic details (regardless of how well they are produced) continues apace. These things mean something to those who want them. Research would be required to find out what this might be, but we can be fairly sure it’s not an association with the Greek Dorian tribe or animal sacrifice. In all languages meanings change, but this doesn’t mean the language has died. In fact it is exactly this quality that gives languages their richness and complexity.

The third fallacy is that it’s no longer possible to build ‘proper’ classical buildings, due to a lack of skills or the expense of decoration. In the first place, the skills are available and modern technology helps to deliver what was once complicated and labour-intensive. Classical buildings need be no more or less expensive than any building. In the second place, and most significantly, a lack of design practice has led to the idea that classicism is only the application of decoration, and the more of it the better. In fact, classical design is as much about what’s omitted as what’s included. Due to its complete familiarity, when decoration is stripped away there’s still the lingering impression that it could be put back. This gives classical design great flexibility, but it can also lead people to believe that buildings such as Foster + Partners’ Carré d’Art (1993) in Nîmes, France, are classical when they’re not.

This ambiguity is evidence of the underlying persistence of the classical ideal, which should be exploited rather than ignored. The architectural establishment often freezes out the few practising classicists or locks them safely in a box marked ‘reproduction’. For their part, too many classicists see modernity as the enemy. Neither attitude is healthy. A public desire for both the benefits of modernity and the depth of tradition is commonplace. A liberal profession should accept and even combine the energy of invention and the wisdom of classicism. The creative potential is enormous.

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/b...217216.article
...................
__________________
"If there is anything to be gained by honesty, then we shall
be honest; if we must dupe, then let us be scoundrels.”
- Frederick the Great
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 10:39 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,564
.

Last edited by Hed Kandi; Jun 29, 2016 at 3:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 10:56 PM
Hayward's Avatar
Hayward Hayward is offline
North Center
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,686
^ Hmmm, pot call kettle black?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2010, 5:16 AM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,564
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 5:00 PM
Zerton's Avatar
Zerton Zerton is offline
Ω
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hed Kandi View Post
This is little more than a trite article by a foolish author who believes his opinion to be fact. Yet more foolish are those who adopt others opinions and allow them to become their own self-imposed reality.

This thread is for photos, take your critique elsewhere.

That critique was in your favor
__________________
If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. -Orwell
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 7:05 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zerton View Post
That critique was in your favor
Yeah, I was gonna say...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2010, 11:48 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,564
Wat Luang Por To - Korat, Temple




Last edited by Hed Kandi; Jul 4, 2010 at 11:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2010, 12:01 AM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,564
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2010, 3:07 AM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,564
Phra Maha Chedi Chai Mongkol - Noi, Thailand




http://www.flickr.com/photos/thirdbe...5001/lightbox/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #196  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2010, 3:08 AM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,564
Wat Khiri Wong - Nakhon Sawan, Thailand



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #197  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2010, 6:36 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,564
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #198  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2010, 6:48 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,564

Last edited by Hed Kandi; Jul 11, 2010 at 1:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #199  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2010, 7:56 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,564
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #200  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2010, 11:54 PM
jetsetter's Avatar
jetsetter jetsetter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Occident
Posts: 424
__________________
"If there is anything to be gained by honesty, then we shall
be honest; if we must dupe, then let us be scoundrels.”
- Frederick the Great
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:27 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.