Personification of Art Deco...
Palo Meano
As an offshoot of the Tamara Lempicka
thread now running amok in this forum,
I haven't seen a single post that says
how "dated" the Art Deco look is, in
all it's manifestations. But particularly
in architecture. I personally abhor the
use of glass brick that was so dominate
a feature of Art Deco construction. Combined
with the sterile stucco look, it's about
the most displeasing architectural style
to come along in the last century-plus, IMO.
And Tamara Lemicka's stylized figures are
the epitomy of that style in figurative
painting. There was an artist (illustrator?)
named Rockwell Kent - and another whose name
I can't recall at the moment who created
the figures in Rockefeller Plaza - who were
the male counterparts of Lempicka in that era.
The question we, as contemporaries, should be
asking ourselves is what are we doing today
that could be considered the equivalent of
the Art Deco movement in trying to depict the
future???
Flying_Naked_People
> The question we, as contemporaries, should be
> asking ourselves is what are we doing today
> that could be considered the equivalent of
> the Art Deco movement in trying to depict the
> future???
>
It's already being done. It's called "fantasy art"?
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>The question we, as contemporaries, should be
>asking ourselves is what are we doing today
>that could be considered the equivalent of
>the Art Deco movement in trying to depict the
>future???
You know, the funny thing is that Art Deco is often used in SF movies
as the style of the future (Gattaca of 1997 for example).
But I don't really see some dominant stylistic movement depicting the
future right now. It seems to me nowadays styles are not really that
concerned with the future.
Mani Deli
>As an offshoot of the Tamara Lempicka
>thread now running amok in this forum,
>I haven't seen a single post that says
>how "dated" the Art Deco look is,
It isn't nearly as dated looking as the contemporary antiquated
repetition of Dada crap hanging and strewn on the floors of the
modern sections of museums.
The Deco period was in my opinion the last of any consequence and is
now being revived and added to. It is giving birth to a lot of valid
artwork to follow.
> in
>all it's manifestations. But particularly
>in architecture. I personally abhor the
>use of glass brick that was so dominate
>a feature of Art Deco construction.
That's really a Bauhaus offshoot which is really outhouse. The best
architecture in NYC is Deco. Although I really like Deco I would say
that the last really great style was Art Nouveau of which Deco is a
squared off simplified version. Check out.
http://www.retropolis.net/links.html
> Combined
>with the sterile stucco look, it's about
>the most displeasing architectural style
>to come along in the last century-plus, IMO.
>
>And Tamara Lemicka's stylized figures are
>the epitomy of that style in figurative
>painting. There was an artist (illustrator?)
>named Rockwell Kent - and another whose name
>I can't recall at the moment who created
>the figures in Rockefeller Plaza
Paul Manship See http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/a/artdeco.html and
decide for yourself.
- who were
>the male counterparts of Lempicka in that era.
During the period it was Picasso and Leger who are the lousy exponents
of Deco.
>The question we, as contemporaries, should be
>asking ourselves is what are we doing today
>that could be considered the equivalent of
>the Art Deco movement in trying to depict the
>future???
>
Learn your craft and the public will respect you. Then, if you have
any worthwhile ideas at least you will be able to carry them out.
Forget about being modern its unavoidable.
Tired of Modern Art? check
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Palo Meano
says...
>That's really a Bauhaus offshoot which is really outhouse.
You're correct. But it found it's greatest
use (glass brick) in the pre-WWII housing
industry in the USA, which is my reference
when I speak of my dislike for the "style."
>The best architecture in NYC is Deco.
No disagreement from me, but once more it is
a "dated" style. I'm not sure, but suspect it
may have some influence on the currently
popular "flights of fancy" architectural styles,
which I like immensely for the most part, in
spite of the huge costs involved in their execution.
>Although I really like Deco I would say
>that the last really great style was Art Nouveau of which Deco is a
>squared off simplified version. Check out.
Art Nouveau was another "decorative" style rather
than an art movement per se. I still enjoy the
Nouveau stuff immensely - it's VERY collectible too.
IOW's, still very much "in vogue."
The way I compare the two decorative styles
is to say that I get a warm fuzzy feeling from
much of Nouveau while finding most Deco stuff hard,
cold and unfeeling (frosty and insensitive).
Geez, I finally had a reasonable exchange with Mani!
Thur
So, can you point us to a style which we can
say is more contemporary, or is Nouveau the
last style which was recognisable in it's own day?
Thur
"Palo Meano" <gi...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3fba...@news.zianet.com...
Flying_Naked_People
koan...@earthling.net says...
> Does that mean painting is stupid waste of time, fit for terrorists alone?
NO!
> It means -- and I quote myself -- "create something radically new with your
> paints and brushes" -- transcend the fucking photograph -- "or languish in
> obscurity, a hobbyist, irrelevant." Is it wrong to languish in obscurity, a
> hobbyist, irrelevant? Six billion people beg the answer no.
>
> However, if you want to play the "I want to be a famous artist" game, steel
> yourself against the possibility you will lose. I feel qualified to comment
> on that outcome, neutrally, without participating in the game itself. I
don't
> believe in "artists."
>
> --
> Leo Papandreou
>
Some points:
(i) Everyone wants something to hang on their walls.
(1) Millions of people still consider paint-by-number compositions "art" and
will *pay* for it.
(2) Hundreds of thousands of those millions play "Art-opoly" - using specific
pieces of art as tokens. (In other words, it's an avenue for your "artist" -
not to mention an interesting system of economics.)
(3) The public as a whole is not always ready for something new and radical.
So, I think you're jumping the gun in implying "Art is dead." As long as these
types of markets exist, there is really no need to justify (or necessarily
expand or improve) their "desirables".
Palo Meano
says...
>
>
>So, can you point us to a style which we can
>say is more contemporary, or is Nouveau the
>last style which was recognisable in it's own day?
>Thur
I asked that same question, perhaps in a different
way and I wasn't well understood. Art Deco was,
in its day, a forward-looking attempt to emulate
the "modern" or "futuristic" look that was then
taking industry and trade by storm as the world
rapidly adopted "modern" inventions and innovations.
Perhaps we've stagnated going into the 21st Century.
Or maybe it's to the point where we've done about
all we can do as humans to "modernize" ourselves.
In the 20th Century there seemed to be a consensus
on what the "future" would look like. Today I don't
know of a similar agreement on "forseeing," as we even
now question the viability of having humans in space.
In fact it seems to me that we are now looking back
at what we once had that is now lost, including
looking back at trends in art that had a lasting
impact - like Art Nouveau. It's "nostalgia" time,
perhaps?!
Mani Deli
wrote:
>In article <72virv4v7q0kmdgl2...@4ax.com>, ma...@sympatico.ca
>says...
>
>>That's really a Bauhaus offshoot which is really outhouse.
>
>You're correct. But it found it's greatest
>use (glass brick) in the pre-WWII housing
>industry in the USA, which is my reference
>when I speak of my dislike for the "style."
>
>>The best architecture in NYC is Deco.
>
>No disagreement from me, but once more it is
>a "dated" style.
I agree, but dated doesn't mean that its best works should be
rejected. I believe styles in present times are often fusions of the
past. A little Barock, Nouveau, etc with the addition of an
unavoidable contemporary flavor.
I might add that the absence of that flavor is what I dislike about
many of the ARC artists. Note that I respect them for their ability
but feel that the are so engrossed in the masterful work of the 19th
C. that many locked themselves exclusively into that subject matter.
> I'm not sure, but suspect it
>may have some influence on the currently
>popular "flights of fancy" architectural styles,
>which I like immensely for the most part, in
>spite of the huge costs involved in their execution.
I agree. Some things in architecture should express beauty beyond just
utility.I think the real reason for the let-it-all hang out
essentially funcctional style of the present is really because it cost
less.
>>Although I really like Deco I would say
>>that the last really great style was Art Nouveau of which Deco is a
>>squared off simplified version. Check out.
>
>Art Nouveau was another "decorative" style rather
>than an art movement per se.
Agreed. Art styles are really a name for the look of a particular time
regardless what is said. There was no Deco school as such.
> I still enjoy the
>Nouveau stuff immensely - it's VERY collectible too.
>IOW's, still very much "in vogue."
>
>The way I compare the two decorative styles
>is to say that I get a warm fuzzy feeling from
>much of Nouveau while finding most Deco stuff hard,
>cold and unfeeling (frosty and insensitive).
Not all but a lot of it. I think this is technically due to the
dominance of straight lines and sharp angles as opposed to flowing
curves with a careful use of inflections and abstraction.
>Geez, I finally had a reasonable exchange with Mani!
If you look at my responses you'll notice that I answer in kind.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservative." -John Stuart Mill
Mani Deli
wrote:
>In article <hdqub.2365$MP5....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>, a@spamless.z
>says...
>>
>>
>>So, can you point us to a style which we can
>>say is more contemporary, or is Nouveau the
>>last style which was recognisable in it's own day?
>>Thur
I look at styles some what differently than most. Each style can be
technically analyzed. A person can say he likes something but it is
the business of the artist to understand what makes that possible from
an analytical viewpoint.
>I asked that same question, perhaps in a different
>way and I wasn't well understood. Art Deco was,
>in its day, a forward-looking attempt to emulate
>the "modern" or "futuristic" look that was then
>taking industry and trade by storm as the world
>rapidly adopted "modern" inventions and innovations.
>Perhaps we've stagnated going into the 21st Century.
We haven't, there was as much fine art then as ever. It just is rarely
represented in the modern sections of museums.
>Or maybe it's to the point where we've done about
>all we can do as humans to "modernize" ourselves.
This statement is rather meaningless. One can't avoid being modern.
>In the 20th Century there seemed to be a consensus
>on what the "future" would look like. Today I don't
>know of a similar agreement on "forseeing," as we even
>now question the viability of having humans in space.
Futurism is a subject as viable as ever.
>
>In fact it seems to me that we are now looking back
>at what we once had that is now lost, including
>looking back at trends in art that had a lasting
>impact - like Art Nouveau. It's "nostalgia" time,
>perhaps?!
Changed, fused, not lose. Art in a sense is an unavoidable melting pot
of former styles. It reminds me of the statement that all Ingres
wanted to do is become like Raphael. I believe that Raphael was what
made him more like Ingres. (its a metaphor please don't ask for a
technical explanation.)
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservative." -John Stuart Mill
Tired of Modern Art? check
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <hdqub.2365$MP5....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>, a@spamless.z
> says...
>
>>
>>So, can you point us to a style which we can
>>say is more contemporary, or is Nouveau the
>>last style which was recognisable in it's own day?
>>Thur
>
>
> I asked that same question, perhaps in a different
> way and I wasn't well understood. Art Deco was,
> in its day, a forward-looking attempt to emulate
> the "modern" or "futuristic" look that was then
> taking industry and trade by storm as the world
> rapidly adopted "modern" inventions and innovations.
>
> Perhaps we've stagnated going into the 21st Century.
> Or maybe it's to the point where we've done about
> all we can do as humans to "modernize" ourselves.
> In the 20th Century there seemed to be a consensus
> on what the "future" would look like. Today I don't
> know of a similar agreement on "forseeing," as we even
> now question the viability of having humans in space.
Hey, do your remember "Criswold Predicts" from early TV? According to
him, we were supposed to be dressing up like the Emporer Ming (of Flash
Gordon) by 1970. Instead, I think "peggers" are making a comeback.
>
> In fact it seems to me that we are now looking back
> at what we once had that is now lost, including
> looking back at trends in art that had a lasting
> impact - like Art Nouveau. It's "nostalgia" time,
> perhaps?!
Architecture kind of sneaks up on you. You usually see the buildings
before anything like a style or genre is coined. Most of what's being
done right now (on the cutting edge) is still designated "post modern"
but a departure seems evident to me. Take a look at these (among many,
of course):
Frank O. Gehry and Associates
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Experience_Music_Project.html
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Guggenheim_Bilbao.html
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Vitra_Design_Museum.html
http://www.structurae.de/en/structures/data/str02139.php
und:
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature123.htm
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature122.htm
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature101.htm
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature60.htm
And so on...
Erik
>
>
Palo Meano
>Architecture kind of sneaks up on you. You usually see the buildings
>before anything like a style or genre is coined. Most of what's being
>done right now (on the cutting edge) is still designated "post modern"
>but a departure seems evident to me.
I was really thinking about the drastic changes
that have taken place in, specifically, the design
of buildings that function as centers for art.
For example, compare two award-winning designs for
their day, and those "days" weren't all that many
years ago, to two more recent designs. The first
two are highly functional buildings with very little
"exciting" architecturally unless one has a discerning
eye. The latter two are WOW!, LOOK AT THAT buildings
in and of themselves that have features that do not
necessarily function to enhance the purpose for which
the buildings were designed.
The earliest of these four examples is the Kimble
in Ft. Worth, Texas, designed by Louis I. Kahn.
http://www.kimbellart.org/building/kahn_bio.cfm?id=7
Then came the Menil in Houston.
The Menil was designed by a joint venture of Renzo Piano/Building Workshop,
Genoa, Italy and Richard Fitzgerald & Partners, Houston.
http://www.menil.org/background.html
The earliest of the WOW! constructions,
the Sidney Opera House was
designed - initially - by Jørn Utzon.
http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/h/t_virtual_tour_fs2.html
And last but certainly not least is the
newly opened Milwaukee Museum of art,
the first Santiago Calatrava-designed building
in the United States.
http://www.mam.org/site/buildingfuture.asp
In between are those Gehry designed buildings
Erik refers to - the Bilbao Art Museum, etc.
So where do you go with WOW! from here???
Argon3
Love the comment about us all dressing like the Emperor Ming! Check out the
fashion statements in Lang's Metropolis...some parachute pants that pre-dated
MC Hammer by seventy or eighty years. Remember the Rudi Gernrich future
fashions that appeared in Time Magazine sometime in the Sixties? Male and
female both topless and old people wearing floor length mu-mu's to spare the
rest of the population from having to look at their aging bodies! I've always
thought that "futurists" speculations are more for entertainment value than any
real significant predictions of actual trends.
Technology changes. This affects design in a very direct way. Lots of spun
aluminum in the 20's and 30's because it became technologically feasible.
Bakelite...the wonder material! Some Scandinavian furniture from the middle of
the 20th century was made possible by the use of plywood.
The advancement of futuristic design is almost always followed by a
counter-trend of nostalgia. Consider the trend in the late sixties in America
from the jet-age, streamlined Eisenhower era stuff to the revival of the
Victorian - Tifany lamps, flocked wallpaper and Edwardian period styled men's
suits, etc. Glass and metal became symbolic of faceless dehumanization and
wood and thing organic became symbols of the new era of the "individual".
Best example to me was on Doctor Who...we went from the white, very well lit
control room of the Tardis to the "old" control room (which we hadn't seen
before) which was a duplicate of the "new" one but done in dark wood and with
warm, moody lighting. Who says that Time Lords don't have decorating problems?
argon
Erik A. Mattila
Both Mars and the Moon have lower gravity. Does that give you some ideas?
BTW, Arthur C. Clark's "Rendevouz with Rama" featured a elvator to
space...remember? Just this year a major nanotech breakthrough in
carbon nanofibres make it possible. Going up? Find "Space Elevator" at
this link: http://www.niac.usra.edu/studies/
And that's what it boils down to, I think. New technology and materials
will change the face of architecture. I'm already thinking of building
a "papercrete" adobe like that got out there in your direction.
Erik
Erik
>
>
>
E.R.
> BTW, Arthur C. Clark's "Rendevouz with Rama" featured a elvator to
> space...remember? Just this year a major nanotech breakthrough in
> carbon nanofibres make it possible. Going up? Find "Space Elevator" at
> this link: http://www.niac.usra.edu/studies/
Nit pick - the novel you're thinking if (probably) 'The Fountains of
Paradise', which is _about_ building a space elevator. I don't think
'Rama', which took place aboard an ET vehicle, had a space elevator.
ER
Palo Meano
>And that's what it boils down to, I think. New technology and materials
>will change the face of architecture. I'm already thinking of building
>a "papercrete" adobe like that got out there in your direction.
I just finished installing a type of flooring
in my kitchen that is (I think) made from
recycled paper. It's not unlike taking Masonite
to the next technical level - durable enough
to be used as flooring.
As for "papercrete" I'm unfamiliar with it.
What there are a few of in my area are straw
bale homes, but that really isn't new
technology either. Rather old technology taken
to new levels made possible by high-tech materials.
I won't live to see it, but at some point in
the not-too-distant future there is going to
be a REAL energy shortage that will impact
all of manufacturing, home heating and lighting etc.
At least people will still have adobe bricks
heated and dried by the sun to build with. And
straw and such. Maybe "back" to the future, eh!
Erik A. Mattila
By golly you're right. Funny, too. If someone asked me "Did you ever
read "Fountains of Paradise?" I would have said "no." After reading the
synopsis of "Rama" I don't think I've read it.
Erik
Dilettante
> In article <3FBB2B8D...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
> >Architecture kind of sneaks up on you. You usually see the buildings
> >before anything like a style or genre is coined. Most of what's being
> >done right now (on the cutting edge) is still designated "post modern"
> >but a departure seems evident to me.
Louis Kahn's Kimble building looks like someone trying to copy Moslem
architecture but only coming up with another warehouse.
It is hard to see the Menil building from the website you posted
(architecture sites are notorious for not giving good views,
especially of bases), but there is nothing spectacular.
People are impressed by the Sydney Opera house because it is an
unusual shape, but once we get beyond that, it not very impressive. A
really good building must be pleasing, not just flashy. It must
project balance, tranquility, and dignity, as well as beautiful
proportion.
Calatrava designed a bridge in Britain somewhere or Ireland with two
of his sweeping arches pointing outward toward a footpath.
Uncomfortable to walk across I suspect. Calatrava is another architect
who impresses because his work might be good scupture, but not
necessarily good building.
A good building must first of all make its users and spectators feel
good about themselves.
If you want to see a really good building, look up the Crown
Zellerbach building in San Francisco. Better yet, go to see it. It
has excellent landscaping despite having not much space. Also--there
are very small mosques in Malaysia that completely enchant the
spectator. Almost all western architects seem to full of ......
Dilettante