Selene Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 There is no such extant as "bad" weather.Weather is.Some folks love ice and snow.Others love pouring rain.Some folks love oceans of sand and 130 degree heat.That's what feet, cars, trains and planes type stuff exists.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 In case you haven't noticed, "modern" architecture since the days of Frank Lloyd Wright and his fictional counterpart Howard Roark, has entered a long decline of sterile, fabricated sameness.Personally, I think Wright created some works that were uglier:There was far more innovation and diffentiation in the traditionalism that Roark was rebelling against than there is in the average city skyline today.I don't think that that image represents what the "average city skyline" looks like.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Ferrer Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 I don't think that that image represents what the "average city skyline" looks like.JThen never mind the picture. I've visited most of America's 20 largest cities in the past ten years, and I don't see much individuality or originality among the largest structures. The early 20th century gave us an exciting and necessary design revolution. But since World War II we've been in a holding pattern. I realize there are some important exceptions, as shown by contributors above, but the look of the average residence and workplace has not changed significantly in the past 50 years.Not everything in Wright's portfolio was a work of art. But he offered a boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose that is for the most part gone today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I've visited most of America's 20 largest cities in the past ten years, and I don't see much individuality or originality among the largest structures.The largest structures -- towers -- have never been very conducive to artistic expression.The early 20th century gave us an exciting and necessary design revolution. But since World War II we've been in a holding pattern. I realize there are some important exceptions, as shown by contributors above, but the look of the average residence and workplace has not changed significantly in the past 50 years.Exciting new designs happen all the time, but, as has always been true, most residences and workplaces will not be much different from all other residences and workplaces. And contrary to what you say, postmodern architecture has been very innovative. Today's architects are creating structures that Wright would not have thought possible.Not everything in Wright's portfolio was a work of art. But he offered a boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose that is for the most part gone today.I disagree, and on many levels.Wright talked a lot about respect for place and purpose, but the talk didn't always translate into reality. The Guggenheim being one glaring example. He was easily talked out of his original "low, crawling vision" by his client, and then he arbitrarily resurrected a Tower of Babel concept that had nothing to do with anything. The building isn't well suited to its purpose or site, but it's nevertheless a great work of art to a hell of a lot of people.Contrary to your opinion, boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha Hadid, etc.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha HadidGehryCalatravaHadidNo useful interior space, not scaled to man's size or needs, no control of the sun, sky-high budgets for what?Cartoon architecture. Joke architecture. Monumental masturbation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Practical, efficient, affordable contemporary architecture: Houston Medical Center Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha Hadid Gehry Calatrava Hadid No useful interior space, not scaled to man's size or needs, no control of the sun, sky-high budgets for what? Cartoon architecture. Joke architecture. Monumental masturbation. Are you pretending to be an expert on architecture now, Pup? You've never visited the buildings of the architects that I listed, nor have you studied them or the usefulness of their spaces. You're talking out of your ass. As usual, you're posing. Btw, if you'd like to see architecture that isn't "scaled to man's size or needs," you should visit Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings. There's a reason that photos of Wright's work are usually shots with wide lenses and from heights much lower than eye level: his buildings are under-scaled; they're very pretty when photographed properly, but they're known for not being easy to live in in reality. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 This isn't about Wright, or me, or anything else except a flamboyant waste of space that's unfit for any practical purpose,compared to examples of excellence I showed you in Hong Kong, Singapore and Houston where people work for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 This isn't about Wright, or me, or anything else except flamboyant waste of space that's unfit for any practical purpose.You don't know what you're talking about. You're making shit up, or believing nonsense that you read online.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Ferrer Posted July 22, 2014 Author Share Posted July 22, 2014 I've visited most of America's 20 largest cities in the past ten years, and I don't see much individuality or originality among the largest structures.The largest structures -- towers -- have never been very conducive to artistic expression.That has not stopped me from loving 70 Pine St. (1932), 40 Wall St. (1930), the GE Building (1933), or the Woolworth Building, among many others in New York.The early 20th century gave us an exciting and necessary design revolution. But since World War II we've been in a holding pattern. I realize there are some important exceptions, as shown by contributors above, but the look of the average residence and workplace has not changed significantly in the past 50 years.Exciting new designs happen all the time, but, as has always been true, most residences and workplaces will not be much different from all other residences and workplaces. And contrary to what you say, postmodern architecture has been very innovative. Today's architects are creating structures that Wright would not have thought possible.I guess it's a matter of taste. Post-modern buildings, to me, look like architecture in search of a gimmick.Yes, Gehry is quite original, and I do like some of his work. But his designs are hardly shaping the look of America's downtowns:Not everything in Wright's portfolio was a work of art. But he offered a boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose that is for the most part gone today.I disagree, and on many levels.Wright talked a lot about respect for place and purpose, but the talk didn't always translate into reality. The Guggenheim being one glaring example. He was easily talked out of his original "low, crawling vision" by his client, and then he arbitrarily resurrected a Tower of Babel concept that had nothing to do with anything. The building isn't well suited to its purpose or site, but it's nevertheless a great work of art to a hell of a lot of people.Contrary to your opinion, boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha Hadid, etc.JI guess I'm part of that hell of a lot of people. I never miss the Guggenheim when I'm in the city or Wright's Xanadu Gallery in San Francisco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 There is no bad weather in BC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Ha! Try pipelining in January north of Fort Nelson! (-45 to -50c every morning for 3freaking weeks straight until it warmed up to a balmy -30!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I've visited most of America's 20 largest cities in the past ten years, and I don't see much individuality or originality among the largest structures.The largest structures -- towers -- have never been very conducive to artistic expression.That has not stopped me from loving 70 Pine St. (1932), 40 Wall St. (1930), the GE Building (1933), or the Woolworth Building, among many others in New York.The early 20th century gave us an exciting and necessary design revolution. But since World War II we've been in a holding pattern. I realize there are some important exceptions, as shown by contributors above, but the look of the average residence and workplace has not changed significantly in the past 50 years.Exciting new designs happen all the time, but, as has always been true, most residences and workplaces will not be much different from all other residences and workplaces. And contrary to what you say, postmodern architecture has been very innovative. Today's architects are creating structures that Wright would not have thought possible.I guess it's a matter of taste. Post-modern buildings, to me, look like architecture in search of a gimmick.Yes, Gehry is quite original, and I do like some of his work. But his designs are hardly shaping the look of America's downtowns:Not everything in Wright's portfolio was a work of art. But he offered a boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose that is for the most part gone today.I disagree, and on many levels.Wright talked a lot about respect for place and purpose, but the talk didn't always translate into reality. The Guggenheim being one glaring example. He was easily talked out of his original "low, crawling vision" by his client, and then he arbitrarily resurrected a Tower of Babel concept that had nothing to do with anything. The building isn't well suited to its purpose or site, but it's nevertheless a great work of art to a hell of a lot of people.Contrary to your opinion, boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha Hadid, etc.JI guess I'm part of that hell of a lot of people. I never miss the Guggenheim when I'm in the city or Wright's Xanadu Gallery in San Francisco.Not bad. And it has curves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha HadidGehryCalatravaHadidNo useful interior space, not scaled to man's size or needs, no control of the sun, sky-high budgets for what?Cartoon architecture. Joke architecture. Monumental masturbation.The item marked Gehry looks like it has been visited by a wrecking ballBa'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I was raised in snow and ice, long dark winters, wind-whipped thunderstorms, hail and tornado.Sunshine was pickled in Mason jars and poured out once a year on the 4th of July to grow mosquitos.After a while Annette Funicello and Frankie Avalon looked pretty groovy in sunglasses, and then...77 Sunset Strip was an epiphany. They had convertibles! God bless episodic television. Life without galoshes was possible.The most beautiful Ford ever made--the 1963 Thunderbird convertible.--BrantThe 1960s Lincolns were great lookers too--at least until 1967--mechanically better than Chrysler worse than GM, any car in the mid 1960s started falling apart before 100,000 miles, but that '63 is the only convertible I could drive with the top down, being a social metaphysician and all (and afraid of skin cancer), for only an idiot would be looking at me instead of the carthat show had a great intro theme tune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 http://youtu.be/WrrcSieqMH8http://youtu.be/WrrcSieqMH8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I visited Wright's Fallingwater in 1973. Great job. I suspect, since it hit the cover of Time as an architect's pre-construction rendition, it inspired the abandoned house the hero of Anthem and his mate retreated to end of story.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I guess it's a matter of taste.Indeed, it's a matter of taste.Post-modern buildings, to me, look like architecture in search of a gimmick.Generally, people don't like the new, especially in architecture. They seem to need a lot of time to adjust. Psychologically, people seem to need architecture to be their sturdy connection to the past and to the concept of endurance and stability.Future generations will be puzzled to hear today's judgments of postmodern architecture, in the same way that critics of Wright's time now sound silly and panicked (they thought that his work was "extremely ugly...a monster of awkwardness," "stark, unmodelled...rude, incomplete, unfinished," and merely an "interesting experiment...without grace or ease...at times even bizarre." ) Yes, Gehry is quite original, and I do like some of his work. But his designs are hardly shaping the look of America's downtowns:His designs are influencing a lot of downtown America. Other architects borrow from him. They're a bit more conservative, but they are being influenced by him.I guess I'm part of that hell of a lot of people. I never miss the Guggenheim when I'm in the city or Wright's Xanadu Gallery in San Francisco.Great! I'm glad to hear that you don't let dedication to an architectural theory stand in your way of loving architecture which doesn't fit the theory.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 http://youtu.be/WrrcSieqMH8http://youtu.be/WrrcSieqMH8bad link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 One way to judge a building is to imagine something else in its place. Another whether it is interesting. Ugly is interesting. I think more about ugly than beautiful. Maybe because if I were an architect ugly would be easier to come up with--and to get praise from Toohey. (Praise from Toohey would be intellectual fun--fun because what he says only has to do with what's in his mind, not on the ground. Rand had the most fun with that guy in that novel. Damn good that way in the movie too as a sophisticated rendition of villian mustache twirling.)--Brantwhat I hate is sameness and overbearing, intimidating, concrete bulk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 In case you haven't noticed, "modern" architecture since the days of Frank Lloyd Wright and his fictional counterpart Howard Roark, has entered a long decline of sterile, fabricated sameness.Personally, I think Wright created some works that were uglier:There was far more innovation and diffentiation in the traditionalism that Roark was rebelling against than there is in the average city skyline today.I don't think that that image represents what the "average city skyline" looks like.JUnfortunately Wright's work took a dog-leg turn under the temporary but considerable influence of Mexico-Central America pre-historic substantial. You have to build this way for lack of modern materials. Materials were not a problem for him, so WTF?In terms of the author's written claims, implicit and explicit, Roark was consistently great and creative. In terms of how his mind worked Roark was not creative at all; it was basically the mind of an engineer which is one big step below the mind of an innovator which is another big step below creative genius. Wright had a sometimes creative genius and was consistently, as far as I can tell, creative. Rand herself seemed to be inbetween engineer and creative genius who forced creation then pretty much gave it up after Atlas Shrugged, the writing of which must have been post-genius--the genius that conceived of the novel, its plot-structure, major characters and the idea of the hero being tortured with the demand that he be the dictator of the whole damn country. After that it was incredible focus and will power. Wright got the job of designing and building Fallingwater, visited the site and went back to Wisconsin. The client arrived in Chicago on his way to see the preliminary drawings of which none had been done. As Edgar Kaufmann drove north for two to three hours, Wright began steadily drawing, one page after another. When EK got there the drawings were ready. I think this house is the most outstandingly beautiful in the world, ever. Untoppable.www.fallingwater.orgIn the last ten years of his life Wright shook his architectural work "out of my sleeve." Even though Rand seemed to have had a very good and interesting idea for a post-Atlas novel, she never wrote it. I think it would have been great. I could see a glimmer of that here and there in her non-fictional work.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I've been a guide at two of the three Wright buildings in #27 (quoted in #46), so I have predictably more affection for them than most here. The post makes its point largely by selecting unflattering photos, like those no-makeup ambush shots of tv and movie stars we see in the supermarket tabs. Ennis was much altered for the worse in the building (after Wright had moved back to Wisconsin and left his son in charge). As drawn it was far more delicate and angled to fit the landscape without so many opressive right angles. The jarring contrast between natural dark-grey concrete and off-white. The Hollyhock photo dates, I suspect, from during or shortly after the 2000-2005 restoration, when the lawn was neglected (and the lawn is the really ugly part of the photo). The jarring two-tone color scheme juxtaposes the original color (grey-green, above the cornice) with the inauthentic sandstone pink of an earlier restoration. Imagine all the stucco in grey-green. More importantly, see these buildings inside if you get a chance.Finally, German is a warehouse. It should be secure and well-insulated and should look it. By those criteria it succeeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I've been a guide at two of the three Wright buildings in #27 (quoted in #46), so I have predictably more affection for them than most here. Wonderful! I'm glad that you find joy in things that don't do much for me aesthetically. I've been a guide at two of the three Wright buildings in #27 (quoted in #46), so I have predictably more affection for them than most here. The post makes its point largely by selecting unflattering photos like those no-makeup ambush shots of tv and movie stars we see in the supermarket tabs. The same is true of this thread's initial post. People are giving examples of what they think are ugly. It wouldn't make sense for us to post flattering photos to illustrate ugliness, would it? The Hollyhock photo dates, I suspect, from during or shortly after the 2000-2005 restoration, when the lawn was neglected (and the lawn is the really ugly part of the photo). The jarring two-tone color scheme juxtaposes the original color (grey-green, above the cornice) with the inauthentic sandstone pink of an earlier restoration. Imagine all the stucco in grey-green. It's not the lawn or the building's colors that I find to be especially ugly, but the forms and proportions. More importantly, see these buildings inside if you get a chance. Ditto all works of architecture. I think that good advice for everyone is: Don't be a Pup; don't prejudge and make shit up just because you want to pretend that there's more to your subjective tastes than subjective taste. Finally, German is a warehouse. It should be secure and well-insulated and should look it. By those criteria it succeeds. Yes. And anyone can instantly come up with criteria by which to claim that any and all works of architecture "succeed" in one way or another, including the modernist and brutalist examples posted on this thread: "They're government office buildings and therefore should project a feeling of security and seriousness and absolutely no frivolity. By those criteria, they succeed!" J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Wright got the job of designing and building Fallingwater, visited the site and went back to Wisconsin. The client arrived in Chicago on his way to see the preliminary drawings of which none had been done. As Edgar Kaufmann drove north for two to three hours, Wright began steadily drawing, one page after another. When EK got there the drawings were ready. I think this house is the most outstandingly beautiful in the world, ever. Untoppable. I think that Wright did quite a lot of last-second work, and improvised much more than what his theorizing and preaching would suggest. I think his genius was as much due to his following wild hunches as it was to his conscious planning. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Brant try this - it should have a sequence of the openings.The episodes appear to be on YouTube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now