Postmodernism & Design
batista
ads. Anyone who'd like to reflect about design philosophy? I am
currently writing a dissertation paper on postmodernism and design.
Anyone here who is into theoretical stuff?
cheers.
Oz Trad
bat...@mac.com (batista) wrote:
> discussing something more challenging than just
> ads
When do we discuss ads here? I wish we would more =)
Oz
- - - - -
Ozman Trad Design
http://www.OzmanTrad.com
Van Zeist
And Christopher, and Brudgers, and Don, and Harvey, and Harvey, and
Paul, and Adam, and Marcello, and Curt, and PC, and ehh....ehh....
Cheers, John.
brudgers
lead it.
"batista" <bat...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:21977ece.01112...@posting.google.com...
Marcello Penso
bat...@mac.com says...
What aspects of postmodernism are you dealing with?
Are any of those aspects still relevant, and if so, in what ways?
Are those ways in any way strongly significant to architecture, or icing
on the cake for a write-up in PA and that's it?
How do those ways tie into aesthetic criteria, and should these criteria
be valid in any design project or not?
Can these criteria be expanded into a language of elements suitable to
today's construction methods, costs, techinques, materials, etc?
Personally, I feel arch theory tends to be unsuccessful by the very
nature of architecture being an 'applied' art/science. At most, it helps
the designer have an attitude about how to approach a project. As far as
the which forms and spaces to choose from, that's an entirely different
story. There is no one single correct form to choose, or even one correct
way of choosing.
Marcello
ghost-sniper
"Marcello Penso" <mpe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.166794c1d...@news.mia.bellsouth.net...
> In article <21977ece.01112...@posting.google.com>,
> bat...@mac.com says...
> > Anyone interested in discussing something more challenging than just
> > ads. Anyone who'd like to reflect about design philosophy? I am
> > currently writing a dissertation paper on postmodernism and design.
> > Anyone here who is into theoretical stuff?
> >
> > cheers.
> >
> A more constructive question would help:
>
> What aspects of postmodernism are you dealing with?
Shouldn't the discussion start with the proper definition of the word
*postmodernism* ?
> Are any of those aspects still relevant, and if so, in what ways?
>
> Are those ways in any way strongly significant to architecture, or icing
> on the cake for a write-up in PA and that's it?
>
> How do those ways tie into aesthetic criteria, and should these criteria
> be valid in any design project or not?
>
> Can these criteria be expanded into a language of elements suitable to
> today's construction methods, costs, techinques, materials, etc?
Whoa, this is starting to look like a college exam.
P.C.
Marcello Penso skrev i meddelelsen ...
>How do those ways tie into aesthetic criteria, and should these criteria
>be valid in any design project or not?
Off caurse Art shuld be incooperatet into any project where human beings will be
around, but these things come by itself, _if_ architecture is art, or the
architect is an artist. aesthetics shuld show when an archict is involved as it
is the job of the architect.
>
>Can these criteria be expanded into a language of elements suitable to
>today's construction methods, costs, techinques, materials, etc?
>
>Personally, I feel arch theory tends to be unsuccessful by the very
>nature of architecture being an 'applied' art/science. At most, it helps
>the designer have an attitude about how to approach a project. As far as
>the which forms and spaces to choose from, that's an entirely different
>story. There is no one single correct form to choose, or even one correct
>way of choosing.
Theory stinks ; all talk and sci.ficion from somone who have to come up with
dull nonsense, never had any real influence ,except in the minds of those, who
think theorie are more important than the visions.
It's the academics that own the theories and the artists that have the visions
and I bet, that if you could ask some of the _real_ grate architects why the
building ended up like this, you proberly get the ansver, that that make a lot
of nice arear, or that the architect allways liked trains. In theorie the art
world is like a pyramide ups.down ; the one ballancing the intire pyramide of
art industrie, art workers, museums, academics and art schools are the single
artist in the bottom ;ballancing the whole circus from one point ; the
creativity and will to create somthing unique. Proberly for artists, a unique
thing reflect a life long refined world, anyway you just know when you se a real
piece of art ; you know instantly that this is special, guess that's part of the
definasion of art.
Then as Architecture deal with other issues than warehouse store rooms,
architecture have to steal from other Arts, as no visionary architect will have
the possibility to make the foults that is a part of the creative process, it's
proberly a wery difficult brance for an artist ; esp when trend amongst
academics make use of self promotet sci.fiction in lack of real visions, and the
only real opposision to that, is boring architecture, that defently not, are
createt for human use. ---- Why do that much modern look like a graveyard
monument , or sound like a lazy academics that earn his way on social skills.
Anyway the academics are proberly the vorse enemies of real art, as with art
it's all up to your own values getting toughed, then if art by princip is
learned in art schools, you once in a while se the same academics claim, that
there is no Art outside the Art schools ; that's how it is in this contry
anyway.
Put a few neo-xxxx collums and a triangle ontop, then copy the trends and you
will have a bigger chance, making a hymn to neo-xxxx that a real visionary
project ; as that is not the trends at the castle where those who decide come
from.
Guess that's why Van.G. had all that trouble ; his art did not look like
Napoleon so it could not be Art, and it proberly was not for those who just
wantet some nice painting on the wall, signaling they knew the social trends.
Culture politics stinks, academics are lazy , anyway they don't have any talent
but a bunch of good social skills ,and that's what count ; not the quality of
the single piece but the productivity of the artist ; as there are many museums
and many clients that need a nice piece of art.
Bad buildings are that heavy ;))
have a nice day.
P.C.
http://w1.1396.telia.com/~u139600113/a
>
>Marcello
>
brudgers
discussion, once again Marcello has touched on a subject about which I have
been thinking and reading a great deal lately, the meta-nature of
architectural theory and the overall relationship of architecture to science
so I'll just snip away to avoid going over some old ground which may be
covered if Batista ever posts again ...
"Marcello Penso" <mpe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> Personally, I feel arch theory tends to be unsuccessful by the very
> nature of architecture being an 'applied' art/science. At most, it helps
> the designer have an attitude about how to approach a project. As far as
> the which forms and spaces to choose from, that's an entirely different
> story. There is no one single correct form to choose, or even one correct
> way of choosing.
>
A little over a year ago I was reading Gombrich's "Art and Illusion: a study
in the Pschology of Pictorial Representation" (ISBN: 0-691-01750-6) and I
came across a quote by the landscape painter John Constable, "Painting is a
science ... of which pictures are but the experiments." and this got me to
thinking about architecture like this.
Suppose that architecture is a science in the same way the painting is, i.e.
it an experimental science not a theoretical one. To flesh this out a
little ...
1. Architecture as a science does not purport to offer a true description
of a unified reality. It instead seeks to create a new reality ... i.e. to
build or renovate.
2. Architecture as a science is not theoretical but experimental. At the
edges of architecture concerned with discovery buildings are experiments.
3. Because buildings at the-edge-of-architecture-conerned-with-discovery
are true experiments they often do not turn out as planned - or better it is
not known exactly how they will turn out ahead of their actual building.
4. The interesting part of the architectural experiment is the by-products
which it generates, all the specific conditions created as a result of the
primary intent of building ... some of which are intended and others which
are not.
5. One of the by-products of this take on architecture-as-a-science is that
architecture is not driven by theory but by experiment, and that the
architects scientific outlook is not one of abstract theorizing about the
true nature of the universe but about observation and intervention.
Architecture is less concerned about "why" than "what if?"
Anyhow this is a first pass at this thing, and it may not be of particular
interest to anyone except me but that's what the usenet is for.
ghost-sniper
"P.C." <per.c...@privat.dk> wrote in
> Why do that much modern look like a graveyard
> monument ,
LOL, I like the way you put that !
*************************
Modernism = Death
Carol Ott
Carol
"Oz Trad" <kah...@YOURUNDERWEARtstonramp.com> wrote in message
news:kahuna-781B79....@newt.tstonramp.com...
batista
ehm, ehm...
What I am discussing in my dissertation paper is the language of
communication used through objects that we carry with us. e.g.
discman, jewellery, Personal assistant... I am not discussing their
pure functionality, but what theu communicate of us to other people.
I beleive that these products 'wearable' products eithe hi or low tech
reflect a paradox of our life in postmodern era and in the new
millenium. How do they objectify us as humans and how they could
fragmentate females bodies (pair of legs...) and what they
communicate.....
batista
London, UK
Matti Vuori
>
> I beleive that these products 'wearable' products eithe hi or low tech
> reflect a paradox of our life in postmodern era and in the new
> millenium.
If there is a paradox in our lives, why is it especially "in postmodern
era and in the new millenium". Does this mean that only postmodern
philosophers see the paradox...
> How do they objectify us as humans and how they could
> fragmentate females bodies (pair of legs...) and what they
> communicate.....
Haven't people worn wearable things for milleniums. It is only recently
when people have learnt to make small things that do something (without
a power cord) that the wearable thing have also begun to do something -
besides showing how much money you have.
--
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori>
Vapaana työmarkkinoilla!
<http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/ammattilainen/vapaana.htm>
Kuvataide-uutta: Uusia kuvagallerioita:
<http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/grafiikka/>
Don Harris
TheDon
"batista" <bat...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:21977ece.0111...@posting.google.com...
Mads Pedersen
Coyne, Richard: "Designing Information Thechnology in the Postmodern Age",
MIT Press 1995
Provides a theoretical/philosophical view on computer systems and
information technology.
I found it well worth a read and would recommend it to anyone interested in
a philosophical treatment of all the Information Technology hype. Very solid
work!!!
// Mads [ http://www.doubleloop.dk ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site news 08-08-2001: New images by René Asmussen in Freestyle / People and
Freestyle / Places. Also some wonderful transfer art by Jane Linders in
Freestyle / Things and a scary image by Roy Celine in Digital Dreams. Go
check them out @ If thine eye offend thee... http://www.madspedersen.com
andrew
Van Zeist
thanks for the addition.
> What I am discussing in my dissertation paper is the language of
> communication used through objects that we carry with us.
<snipped>
>what theu communicate of us to other people.
up to here there's nothing new to what accesories do/ever did, but
<snipped>
> How do they objectify us as humans
can be related to mass media/industry, brands-marketing and even
globalisation. You may want to identify yourself to these aspects in
your dissertation.
> and how they could
> fragmentate females bodies (pair of legs...) and what they
> communicate.....
and again here, that is of all ages, in a male-society ;-)
Cheers, John.
Adam Weiss
>
> batista wrote:
> >
> > I beleive that these products 'wearable' products eithe hi or low tech
> > reflect a paradox of our life in postmodern era and in the new
> > millenium.
>
> If there is a paradox in our lives, why is it especially "in postmodern
> era and in the new millenium". Does this mean that only postmodern
> philosophers see the paradox...
A paradox of technology is that I came home last night with a new
friend's address and first wrote it down in a black book, then saved it
in a PDA, and then saved it on my cell-phone.
>
> > How do they objectify us as humans and how they could
> > fragmentate females bodies (pair of legs...) and what they
> > communicate.....
>
> Haven't people worn wearable things for milleniums.
> It is only recently
> when people have learnt to make small things that do something (without
> a power cord)
That sentence could get you into trouble. We've been able to make small
things do something for centuries, without power cords. Finger nail
clippers are small and they do something. A swiss army knife is small
and it does many things. Even some handguns are quite small and are
capable of doing earth-shattering things.
What you're talking about is electronics and the presence of computers
in our lives. And as such what has happened is the burrowing into of
electronic devices on our lives. Before we might have had a computer at
the house and we might have used it to type papers (as a student) or
play games, or whatever. Now we have a computer that we carry with us.
There's certainly something powerful there, and I think the key in the
dissertation will be to find those.
Of course this is a person doing his masters thesis offering suggestions
to someone doing a doctoral dissertation, so it should be read as such.
> that the wearable thing have also begun to do something -
> besides showing how much money you have.
>
--
Adam Weiss
--
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the juice of Safu that thoughts acquire speed,
The lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion."
--
Adam Weiss
<<snipped>>
> Shouldn't the discussion start with the proper definition of the word
> *postmodernism*?
>
I had the same initial reaction. What is "postmodernism". Is it simply
"that which follows modernism" as the word "-post-modernism" would
suggest? Or is "postmodernism" a defined style with writings and
specific design elements associated with it?
But I fear that this, too looks too much like a college exam essay
quesetion.
P.C.
Carol Ott skrev i meddelelsen ...
>I tried a couple of times, but nobody responded to the posts.....
>
Just need some new and refreshing inputs ;))
P.C.
Carol Ott
Carol
"P.C." <per.c...@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:3bfe7d2c$0$761$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
ghost-sniper
"Adam Weiss" <aw...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:385927BB8A24ACBF.86148C92...@lp.airnews.net...
> ghost-sniper wrote:
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> > Shouldn't the discussion start with the proper definition of the word
> > *postmodernism*?
> >
>
> I had the same initial reaction. What is "postmodernism". Is it simply
> "that which follows modernism" as the word "-post-modernism" would
> suggest? Or is "postmodernism" a defined style with writings and
> specific design elements associated with it?
I've seen the term thrown around so much over the past few years, that maybe
it has a different meaning from it's original.
When did *modernism* cease, and therefore *post-modernism* begin ?
Who coined the term *postmodernism* and why ?
Is *postmodernism* the lazy mans way, ie. Lethal Weapon IV, etc. ?
Each era is marked somehow, how is PM marked ?
> But I fear that this, too looks too much like a college exam essay
> quesetion.
I don't believe discussion on this topic can take place WITHOUT it seeming
like an exam, to at least establish the boundaries.
(Is PM the exposed concrete and steel that has become so popular ?)
What all does PM encompass ?
Carol Ott
of friends. When I buy something (like say a cellular phone) I wonder "what
it can do for me, how can this thing enhance my life"....*not* "what will
people think when they see me with this?" Good grief -- how shallow can
people be??
Carol
"Don Harris" <dpha...@mentalsoup.com> wrote in message
news:tvsrrct...@corp.supernews.com...
Carol Ott
Carol
"ghost-sniper" <10-...@deadcenter.com> wrote in message
news:53yL7.129751$zK1.34...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
ghost-sniper
We're now in a new paradigm circle, it's a new epic, and that's quite
exciting, although I think we're at the beginning of it and you can see as
with all new things it's producing a lot of rubbish in its wake and you have
to really separate the wheat from the chaff.
"Carol Ott" <cs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BvyL7.720$WC1....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
batista
theoretical both through its processes of building and through its
princips as aesthetical elements in our landscapes communication of
identity.
It is clearly experimental, since the scientific method includes
experimentation as one of its steps.
Architectural practices innovate (at least the ones i know)
underpining their work on the language of the identity they try to
assume at the moment of being located in a city or any other context.
Baudrillard in his interview with Nouvel described the NY former twin
towers as the representation of our highly advanced West world through
the icon of 'clones' they symbolised. Representation of molecular
science capable of cloning everything. Even represented in the
architectural language.
Batista, London, UK, Student. (Writing my dissertation....ufff.....)
Sara Shanagher
ornament strippers, particularly in UK people like the swirling take on
'antiquity' bits. This seems to apply to products as well, some like the
high tech, but the mass like their flowers etc. Welcome to the comfort
zone. So called trend designers don't always allow for the comfort
factor, yes the chair may be very comfortable to sit in but
aesthetically and visually it is uncomfortable.
True post modernism as a progression from the ideals of modernism I
think was brutallism, forget the comfort zone, all you get is the bare
bones, raw steel, concrete etc. Very true to itself, but not perhaps
what the heart of man(wo) yearns for in the immediate environ, it
appears a bit too war torn. I don't think there's a parallel in the
product market, but there is too much plastic.
In article <2ZqL7.104036$Yb.25...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, brudgers
<nom...@tampabay.rr.com> writes
--
Sara Shanagher
i Design: Interior Design Consultancy & Project Management
Preswylfa, Llanfechain, POWYS SY22 6UU WALES UK
Tel & Fax: 0 (44) 1691 828 168 Mobile:07970 042 386
Carol Ott
"paradigm". They're too "Fast Company Magazine" for me......
Carol
"ghost-sniper" <10-...@deadcenter.com> wrote in message
news:1KzL7.107936$Yb.26...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Carol Ott
the inner mechanisms? Like phones, computers, etc -- with their clear
plastic cases. Very postmodern, if you ask me. It certainly follows your
"bare bones" theory.
Carol
"Sara Shanagher" <sa...@idesign.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0wSXYKAJms$7E...@idesign.demon.co.uk...
batista
>
> Cheers, John.
Hey John,
I was getting into trying to analise the role of product designers as
'female body shapers' and Im talking in all its senses.
I was having a look at Seymour-Powell's last year design -the bra, the
bioform i think it is called. Do you think that SP can decide about
women's shape. What do thier shape have to look like? I think their
design is not really about creating a bra that is comfortable, but
more about feeling they are so powerful as designers that they can
reshape female bodies to their wish, assuming the belief that design
is about 'humans imposing our will on materials'. That is my example
of the postmodern paradoxical design, example of virtuality and body
nearly permanent modification.
uffff,
batista, London, UK, Student, typing dissertation paper...
Thomas G. Baker
batista wrote:
Oh, semiotics! (Did I get the spelling correct? )
Adam Weiss
>
> Have you noticed that a lot of electronics are stripped down so you can see
> the inner mechanisms? Like phones, computers, etc -- with their clear
> plastic cases. Very postmodern, if you ask me. It certainly follows your
> "bare bones" theory.
>
> Carol
From a purely industrial design standpoint, yes. But there's also the
actual design of the GUI (Graphic User Interface) and software that
matters, too.
And that by and large isn't stripped down. If anything it's covered up
more and more. Think about web design. You can either encode the html,
actually programming the website in its own language, or you can use a
program like Netscape's composer or Flash to write that code for you.
All you have to do is draw using the program's 'paintbrush' function.
Marcello Penso
bat...@mac.com says...
US (Graves, Venturi, Meier, Moore, etc.- mid 60s I believe), was to
recapture some 'lost' meanings of architectural elements to render the
urban environment meaningful (putting it grossly in a single sentence).
One of their 'references' was Giulio Romano, who took architectural
elements of the greco-roman language and played with them
(odd proportional relationships, unusual overlaying and violating other
rules of the 'grammar' of the language). Palazzo del 'The', in Mantova
was an example of this starting point. It was a more extreme Mannerism
than that practiced by Michelangelo (would thought nothing of making a
scozia into a screaming face (!))
Whether the re-introduction of greco-roman elements in architecture has
lead to a more meaningful urban environment is actually questionable. If
I look at recent buildings here in south Florida, I can see that if
anything, the language is being used poorly, with no concept as to the
grammar and how elements OUGHT to go together.
That there is an ought comes about from years of use in Greek and Roman
architecture, and ultimately codified by the likes of Serlio, Palladio,
Scamozzi, Vignola, Serrault, Chambers, etc. all the way down to William
Ware, after which it was abandoned in the 1920s.
So, if Giulio were to visit south Florida, more than likely he would
cringe at the ignorance, rather than laugh at the distortions.
Nevertheless, it is ultimately a formal exercise. An exercise in building
beautification, which Alberti considered most important. (Loos wrote that
ornament was a crime, but there have been some who have shown his
magazine article on the subject to actually have been a satire- Loos
utilized ornament in his own work as well.)
All of this, though, seems to have little to do with your topic which I
guess is looking at products of technology as either informative and
useful, or merely status symbols which can be misleading (?)
Note that buildings are more complex than a single product. They can have
multiple functions, and be utilized in ways not originally intended. They
last longer, are more monumental in nature, and can require many more
systems that what would go into any single gadget.
Marcello
Marcello Penso
bat...@mac.com says...
> I disagree with the author saying 'is not theoretical'. It is indeed
> theoretical both through its processes of building and through its
> princips as aesthetical elements in our landscapes communication of
> identity.
Two different things. There is theory of design (a debatable point, as
brudgers points out, since the process of design is essentially problem
solving.)
Then there is the interpretation of what is built. Again, this can occur
without any theory. It can be a prima facie appreciation of the buildings
beauty, or ugliness. There will be some understanding of a building's
parts (door, window, column, wall, canopy, etc.) but not much theory is
needed here either. (and it would be of a linguistic type, or a 'how do
we perceive' type of theory, not an 'architectural' one.)
>
> It is clearly experimental, since the scientific method includes
> experimentation as one of its steps.
>
> Architectural practices innovate (at least the ones i know)
> underpining their work on the language of the identity they try to
> assume at the moment of being located in a city or any other context.
The identity of what? If you mean a certain style (selection of materials
and ornamental elements) there is no theory involved. 'The client wants a
'colonial-looking' house.' 'All right, we need to have siding, a nice
porch, etc.') If the identity is of a specific client, that's usually
achieved by a sign ('BellSouth' on an otherwise anonymous and windowless
central office building). You can also make some geometric/ material/
ornamental associations and disassociations with the context. But again,
those are choices made by the designer. No theory. Just options.
In some (rare) instances, there is a push for a monumental structure, to
make a monumental statement (WTC, baths of Diocletian, Arch of
Constantine, etc.) But these are rareties in the vast urban environment.
The monumentality is achieved through proportion, size and material.
Again, it's about choosing, solving the what-if, solving the program.
>
> Baudrillard in his interview with Nouvel described the NY former twin
> towers as the representation of our highly advanced West world through
> the icon of 'clones' they symbolised. Representation of molecular
> science capable of cloning everything. Even represented in the
> architectural language.
Interpretation is a never-ending (and ultimately ineffectual) process
that does not involve theory, but only analogies of one sort or another
(such as the one you point out).
This doesn't contribute to the architecture, since it has already been
built. It may add some kind of passing meaning, but then again, the
architecture speaks for itself, even when all of us have died. (See the
pyramids as an example, or pueblo dwellings, as another.)
Marcello
ghost-sniper
Todays woman : a bra with shoulder boards ?
ghost-sniper
> cringe at the ignorance, rather than laugh at the distortions.
Ignorance ?
Or chasing the dollar ?
A drive in the *real* south Florida, along 41 south, will reveal a
resurgence of the past.
A marvel of detail and distinction, colors and textures.
But even distinction looks the same after awhile.
I mean, how long can you peer at a fractal, they're all similar.
Variety tonight.
ghost-sniper
> If you want to have a real conversation, please don't use words like
> "paradigm". They're too "Fast Company Magazine" for me......
picky, picky, picky
I never heard of that magazine, but if I do, I'll avoid it.
ghost-sniper
...and get away sticks down to he-yay-ah......
ghost-sniper
"Marcello Penso" <mpe...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> Interpretation is a never-ending (and ultimately ineffectual) process
> that does not involve theory, but only analogies of one sort or another
> (such as the one you point out).
> This doesn't contribute to the architecture, since it has already been
> built. It may add some kind of passing meaning, but then again, the
> architecture speaks for itself, even when all of us have died. (See the
> pyramids as an example, or pueblo dwellings, as another.)
How can you say interpretation is ineffectual ?
Have you never been influenced by the design of others ?
Are all of your designs unique, never before seen ?
While interpretation cannot effect the past it surely carves the present and
future.
Dimitri
> Cheers guys for all replies,
>
> ehm, ehm...
>
> What I am discussing in my dissertation paper is the language of
> communication used through objects that we carry with us. e.g.
> discman, jewellery, Personal assistant... I am not discussing their
> pure functionality, but what theu communicate of us to other people.
>
People have latched onto technological 'adornment' throughout history.
Accordingly I don't see how postmodern gadgetry could be made culturally
distinctive unless you *do* discuss function. Afterall, isn't application
the true gauge of cultural evolution, and not the ambiguous
reconsititutions of design?
IMHO whether it's an 18th century man showing off his new stereoscope and
wooden matches, or a technosavvy music hound jogging with his MP3 player,
both probably share one of two (or both) motivations: ego, practical
benefit. Therefore, what people want to express, inwardly or outwardly,
at the most fundamental level, is unaffected by the current '-ism'.
Seems to me.
Dimitri
>
> >
> > Architectural practices innovate (at least the ones i know)
> > underpining their work on the language of the identity they try to
> > assume at the moment of being located in a city or any other context.
Architecture has always involved theory at the conceptual level. There are many
examples of architectural experimentation--new products / application, population
planning, space planning and traffic patterns, for example. In practice,
innovatation is always a 'wait and see'.
Carol Ott
100 random women on the street, they would tell you that lingerie isn't
designed for real women, but for the ideal women the designers picture.
Hence, most lingerie is itchy, uncomfortable, and not good for much.
Carol
"batista" <bat...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:21977ece.01112...@posting.google.com...
Carol Ott
are far removed from the user (unless you're writing programs using C++ or
some such). And to take your example of the internet a step further -- how
many of you remember what the "internet" of the 80s and early 90s looked
like? Programs like Outlook and Internet Explorer have covered up and
"softened" (?) the technical aspects.
For every movement, there is a backlash.....
Carol
"Adam Weiss" <aw...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:5DEAEBE15DBB7B98.6FD2FFCE...@lp.airnews.net...
Carol Ott
come around until the early 70s.
Carol
"Marcello Penso" <mpe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1668e2631...@news.mia.bellsouth.net...
> In article <21977ece.0111...@posting.google.com>,
> bat...@mac.com says...
Carol Ott
fleeting dot-com era. Thankfully, it seems to be quickly disappearing from
the vernacular. ;-)
Carol
"ghost-sniper" <10-...@deadcenter.com> wrote in message
news:YcFL7.110977$Yb.27...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Carol Ott
tech-dullard.....but I don't know many people who buy the "latest" in
gadgets unless it's solely for convenience.
Carol
"Dimitri" <pla...@the-spa.com> wrote in message
news:3BFF3784...@the-spa.com...
joe jackson
Carol Ott wrote:
My perception of the SP project was that they were actually trying to make
bras better and more comfortable by applying more recent technology to the
'problem'. By offering a better product the theory is that it will sell. Not
sure how commercially succesful the bioform has been....?
I seem to remember some discussion at the time as to notion that the whole
idea of bras was a male-pleasing body mod forced upon women. I believe there
is some recent research evidence to support the view that there may be higher
breast cancer incidence in bra wearers compared with those who don't. So I
guess you could argue that those who have most to gain from Bras are not women
but those who design manuafacture and perpetuate the idea that they are
'necessary'.
As for the motivation of designers/engineers - I don't think you can
generalise but it may be fair to say that designers are not all altruistic
individuals focused on the greater good of humanity and the planet...
Marcello Penso
cs...@earthlink.net says...
PostModernism's manifesto, was published in 1966.
Marcello
Carol Ott
Carol
"Marcello Penso" <mpe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.166974a61...@news.mia.bellsouth.net...
Marcello Penso
ri...@deadcenter.com says...
>
> "Marcello Penso" <mpe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> >
> > So, if Giulio were to visit south Florida, more than likely he would
> > cringe at the ignorance, rather than laugh at the distortions.
>
> Ignorance ?
In the (mis)use of greco-roman elements, yes.
> Or chasing the dollar ?
> A drive in the *real* south Florida, along 41 south, will reveal a
> resurgence of the past.
> A marvel of detail and distinction, colors and textures.
Achieving a more 'vernacular' flavor is perfectly fine. My gripe is about
using greco-roman elements with no rhyme or reason, or real knowledge, as
to how the 'language' ought to be applied. A shame, since a copy of
Palladio's 4 Books only costs $12.00 (Dover publications).
> But even distinction looks the same after awhile.
> I mean, how long can you peer at a fractal, they're all similar.
> Variety tonight.
>
>
>
Marcello
Marcello Penso
ri...@deadcenter.com says...
>
> "Marcello Penso" <mpe...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> > Interpretation is a never-ending (and ultimately ineffectual) process
> > that does not involve theory, but only analogies of one sort or another
> > (such as the one you point out).
> > This doesn't contribute to the architecture, since it has already been
> > built. It may add some kind of passing meaning, but then again, the
> > architecture speaks for itself, even when all of us have died. (See the
> > pyramids as an example, or pueblo dwellings, as another.)
>
> How can you say interpretation is ineffectual ?
> Have you never been influenced by the design of others ?
I'm looking at interpretation of the semiotic variety that batista is
driving at in his thesis. Influence by others involves appreciation of
some aesthetics/design criteria which "seem 'good' or meaningful to me",
but not in the way that arch theory involving semiotics would want. This
appreciation can simply be 'skin deep', like humming a piece of Mozart,
without carrying all the 18th century baggage that might give a deeper
appreciation of Mozart, but which, then again, might not.
Also, the architect, as artist, like Per points out, does not need to
justify his choices, and this is what arch theory (about the creative
process) is ultimately driving at. Tomas Maldonado had a very strict
design by logic process, but ultimately this fails because no logic
'OUGHT' to force an architect to choose a specific form or color. It is
all about attitude, attitude about how to relate to context, how to deal
with the program, which materials to use, how drastic to make the slope,
how large to make the windows, how many nooks to have in the floor plan,
how wide to make the living room versus the width of the bedroonm. These
are all highly personal choices, and do not need justification of any
sort.
Note that even Vignola, who issued the mosty publicized canon of the five
orders, readily admitted that the greco-roman ornament was a purely
formal exercise. He did not need to show that the triglyph and metopes
came from the use Greek (and later Roman) symbols. One can appreciate
these elements without the cultural baggage or the ancient historical
meaning. Does having that meaning enrich the experience? Yes. Is it
REQUIRED to APPRECIATE the architecture. No.
As an example, once at the university, I presented a museum project were
the layout 'followed' an idea of a nautilus (spiral circulation), leading
to a core display area. The area was two stories, and the front facade
looked onto a central plaza. The facade had no specific 'reason' or
criteria for determining where windows and clerestories should be placed.
So, I placed them at random, and I presented the project, underscoring
that I liked it that way.
Incredibly, the professor who always advocated a child-like approach
design (innocence?) attacked this notion, though I did get a 'B+' on the
project. Even in a silly event like this, appreciation and evaluation
(how closely did he stick to his design concept of 'I like it') can be
skin deep, and there is nothing wrong with that.
> Are all of your designs unique, never before seen ?
> While interpretation cannot effect the past it surely carves the present and
> future.
>
In fact, interpretations of the semiotic sort show that histories can be
rewritten. But, would a write up in PA really influence your appreciation
of a Gehry building, or of Dr. Seussland at Islands of Adventure? I don't
believe that. And if one needs a write up in PA to appreciate the
architecture, then they are not appreciating it for themselves, which is
the same as not appreciating at all.
Marcello
Marcello Penso
Versace stores) doesn't involve theory. Only creating and tweaking a
piece of furniture until the proportions are right. Or in the case of a
new product, it's simply a choice to use it.
As far as population planning and traffic patterns, that adheres to
functional requirements of a program, or tries to set new standards with
very real pragmatic reasons. No theory there either.
Space planning looks at the efficiency of space usage versus circulation.
No theory there either.
Note that I'm talking about theory of the semiotic sort that batista is
looking at in his dissertation, which involves the creative process of
choices, which does not need to be JUSTIFIED by any reason except how
well it adheres to the given program or desired goal. And those are
reasons of practicality, not reasons of 'multiple relevancy through
multiple interpretation in the current multi-cultural zeitgeist' (UGH!)
Marcello
batista
No.
Batista, London, UK, Student writing dissertation...
P.C.
joe jackson skrev i meddelelsen <3BFFAEDF...@ntlworld.com>...
>As for the motivation of designers/engineers - I don't think you can
>generalise but it may be fair to say that designers are not all altruistic
>individuals focused on the greater good of humanity and the planet...
Then from my point of view, they are not "real" designers.
But I must agrea, that that is _my_ personal point of view. Guess you can work
being without a clue about why and how, as long as it's your obsession. Or you
can work with "good for all mankind" build into your creations and both could
turn out being art.
Still M.V.R is not that much a person as a craft or a way to se things. If you
first grasp the idear and expression, you can produce all the Van de Rohe
buildings you need ;))
P.C.
http://w1.1396.telia.com/~u139600113/a
ghost-sniper
And thats exactly why it normally ends up on the floor, pronto !
ghost-sniper
> justify his choices, and this is what arch theory (about the creative
> process) is ultimately driving at. Tomas Maldonado had a very strict
> design by logic process, but ultimately this fails because no logic
> 'OUGHT' to force an architect to choose a specific form or color. It is
> all about attitude, attitude about how to relate to context, how to deal
> with the program, which materials to use, how drastic to make the slope,
> how large to make the windows, how many nooks to have in the floor plan,
> how wide to make the living room versus the width of the bedroonm. These
> are all highly personal choices, and do not need justification of any
> sort.
Interesting. With the original posters message I was going to suggest that
PoMo is not necessarily a phase or era but rather an attitude.
"Rules be damned, I'm gonna do it MY way".
> Note that even Vignola, who issued the mosty publicized canon of the five
> orders, readily admitted that the greco-roman ornament was a purely
> formal exercise. He did not need to show that the triglyph and metopes
> came from the use Greek (and later Roman) symbols. One can appreciate
> these elements without the cultural baggage or the ancient historical
> meaning. Does having that meaning enrich the experience? Yes.
Depends on what "enrich" means.
Knowing that a corinthian column is way out of scale may effect the way you
percieve the application on say, a home or commercial building where the
designer had no knowledge of such things (or didn't care).
You can't unlearn things and ever since I read Vitruvius I am accutely aware
of things I never had reason to suspect before.
I must confess though that I am constantly trying new things/concepts simply
because I like them.
Is it
> REQUIRED to APPRECIATE the architecture. No.
Of course, but that appreciation can be influenced by education.
> As an example, once at the university, I presented a museum project were
> the layout 'followed' an idea of a nautilus (spiral circulation), leading
> to a core display area. The area was two stories, and the front facade
> looked onto a central plaza. The facade had no specific 'reason' or
> criteria for determining where windows and clerestories should be placed.
> So, I placed them at random, and I presented the project, underscoring
> that I liked it that way.
>
> Incredibly, the professor who always advocated a child-like approach
> design (innocence?) attacked this notion, though I did get a 'B+' on the
> project. Even in a silly event like this, appreciation and evaluation
> (how closely did he stick to his design concept of 'I like it') can be
> skin deep, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Placing the windows at random sounds scary.
Did not the interior layout dictate where windows could/should be placed ?
Did the prof explain why you got a B rather than an A ?
> > Are all of your designs unique, never before seen ?
> > While interpretation cannot effect the past it surely carves the present
and
> > future.
> >
> In fact, interpretations of the semiotic sort show that histories can be
> rewritten. But, would a write up in PA really influence your appreciation
> of a Gehry building, or of Dr. Seussland at Islands of Adventure?
While being the visual animal that I am, I like what looks good, to me.
Reading a write up in PA or elsewhere may change my thoughts about details
but I will still either like or dislike and given building.
I don't
> believe that. And if one needs a write up in PA to appreciate the
> architecture, then they are not appreciating it for themselves, which is
> the same as not appreciating at all.
Lets approach this from 2 angles.
1) If I read about a building that I have never seen, the written article
most likely will propel me to find reference to the building quickly so I
might form my own opinion..
I read a short piece on the Tupperware building in Orlando (I think) at an
engineers office. It was described as looking like a haggard housewife
enroute to another Tupperware party. I wondered how true that opinion was.
When I got back to my office I promptly logged on to find a picture.
I was inspired by the article to look further. I didn't particularly like or
dislike the Tupperware building, but found the concept interesting.
2) I read an article by Charles Jencks, that was negative, of Mies van der
Rohe's Chicago Civic Centre.
I already mainly dislike Modern buildings (they are bland) and there is
little likelihood the CCC is going to change that.
However when I eventually view the CCC I may dislike it even more because of
Jencks write up.
(as of yet I have not been able to find a photo online)
All in all write ups don't influence me much, and quite frankly I don't read
many.
As I said, I like what I like, regardless of the opinions of others.
Don Harris
"Carol Ott" <cs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KgNL7.1914$WC1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Interesting point. Most lingerie designers are men.....I think if you ask
> 100 random women on the street, they would tell you that lingerie isn't
> designed for real women, but for the ideal women the designers picture.
> Hence, most lingerie is itchy, uncomfortable, and not good for much.
That's because it's designed to be taken off as soon as possible... IMHO.
TheDon
Carol Ott
Carol
http://home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Don Harris" <dpha...@mentalsoup.com> wrote in message
news:tvvg6fr...@corp.supernews.com...
Carol Ott
architect's name now) that places the windows and doors at random, with no
clear (to the untrained eye) reason or pattern. All of them are painted
different colours and given different treatments. Some call it a complete
eyesore (too conditioned to strict patterns, I suppose) and some call it
pure genius.
I call it a mixture of both, with the architect giving all of us the finger,
so to speak. "Theory, schmeory -- rules, schmules," it seems to say. The
ultimate in postmodernism?
Carol
http://home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Marcello Penso" <mpe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.166979c7...@news.mia.bellsouth.net...
Mike Minovski
> I was getting into trying to analise the role of product designers as
> 'female body shapers' and Im talking in all its senses.
>
> I was having a look at Seymour-Powell's last year design -the bra, the
> bioform i think it is called. Do you think that SP can decide about
> women's shape. What do thier shape have to look like? I think their
> design is not really about creating a bra that is comfortable, but
> more about feeling they are so powerful as designers that they can
> reshape female bodies to their wish, assuming the belief that design
> is about 'humans imposing our will on materials'. That is my example
> of the postmodern paradoxical design, example of virtuality and body
> nearly permanent modification.
>
Batista,
I'd suggest you look into social science and see what reasoning you can find
there. May be quite interesting - and I'll try to explain what I mean.
Regardless of my curiosity about theory, I'm not a theoretician and would
not risk plunging into theoretical generality - so I'd take your bra example
as a starting point. IMO it should be consedered: a) an exploration, and b)
an attempt to create identity - and this is, I believe, what is most
essential about it in philosophical terms.
One of the most important (if not *the* most important) characteristic of
the new millenium is the globalization of human society. This has two basic
consequences:
1) sharply increasing need for fast and efficient communication; and
2) sharply increasing need for fast and efficient identification of the
communicating parties.
Communication has never been easier, and will be even easier in the times to
come. OTOH, identification has never been more difficult, and will continue
to be even more difficult, given that the area covered by an identity is
growing to be less local and more global - where it has to stand out among a
rapidly increasing number of similar identities.
The available fast means of communication, just as the increased intensity
of human interaction (both direct and indirect) set new identity standards -
conciseness being an essential requirement. This presumes both visual (as
opposed to alphanumeric or spoken) representation, and relying on the
incorporating of predefined values/conventions capable of carrying complex
notions.
Thus, an identity becomes an increasingly complex set of details, each
detail carrying in turn a pretty complex notion 'compressed' as much as
possible. This determines the increasing importance of detail. Back to your
example, a person interested in / buying / wearing / demonstrating such a
bra actually sends an identity message - and the potential for radiating
such a message is becoming an often more important value of an object than
its utility value. The car, the watch, the garments, the accessories - as
well as your bank, your lawyer, even your ISP and the place where you do
your food shopping - are more and more becoming means of identifying oneself
rather than a means for transportation, showing time, etc. They tell about
belonging to certain group, preaching certain beliefs, sticking to certain
principles, assuming certain values etc. You find proofs of this
everywhere - and extending far beyond utility objects.
Actually, this is a basic property of the consumerist approach, too - but
there the importance of the non-utility value of objects is a result of
vague experimenting caused by frustration, alienation, confusion, crisis of
values etc., while in the new millenium (or post-modern era, if you call it
that) it is the result of intentional and focused exploration of ways to
express values for the purpose of identification - identification of
individuals, groups of people, structures, statements, environments, ideas
etc. IMHO this is a trend that has been gradually taking over product
design - thus what seems to be a deviation from pure functionalism in favour
of formalism in many cases would turn out to be simply functionalism at a
new level.
I'm intendedly not dwelling on what post-modern is, as I've always
considered this term to be a source of confusion - not that it is so vague,
it's just that it can be interpreted in so many contexts that require
clarification. Anyway, I'd be glad if you could discover some food for
thought in the rough concept that I tried to outline.
Good luck with your dissertation.
mike m.
Christopher K.Egan
>
> Does the name Charles Jencks mean anything to you? <hint hint hint>
>
> Carol
Yes...as in old ideas from the 1980s?
Christopher
>
> "ghost-sniper" <10-...@deadcenter.com> wrote in message
> news:53yL7.129751$zK1.34...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > Who coined the term *postmodernism* and why ?
--
............................................................
Egan-Martinez designs
San Antonio, Texas &
Mexico City, Mexico
Christopher Egan, Architect
Ana Martinez, Graphic Designer & Food Stylist
E-MAIL: ce...@egan-martinez.com
WEBSITE: http://www.egan-martinez.com
Christopher K.Egan
Carol...thanks for the honest reaction.
We mihgt also remember Robert Stern's 1967 book "New Directions in
American Architecture" and Colin Rowe's "Five Architects" (1967?) in
which he argues that his "NY5" were actually post-modern in that they
were referring to the early work of Corb in a purely esthetic and
historicist manner....in other words they were replicating an
architecture that was, for them, historical, instead of pursuing the
Labrouste-Sullivan-Wright-Kahn modernist method of seeking form through
the task and materials at hand.
We might also go back to Team X of the CIAM in the years after
WWII...the early work of the Smithsons and James Stirling...and to some
of the Dutch housing work in the 1950s...to see a reaction against the
artificial orthodoxy of Johnson and Hitchcock's fabrication of a single
"modern" style...that completely cut off the richness inherent in the
work of the 1890s throught the 1920s. I have written about this
repeatedly in this newsgroup since at least 1996, so my fingers get
tired after a while!
For me the culprit was the intentional imposition of a single modern
"style" by Johnson and Hitchcock in the 1930s, through the power of MOMA
and corporate funding...that cut short many of the explorations within
modern architectural thought.
One additional point....(sorry, but I am trying to focus on my clients'
projects right now)...I am really tired of hearing Loos misused...based
on the extremely self-serving presentation of his work and ideas by
Hitchock and Zevi...I thought this had been cleared up in the 1980s with
the publication of Gravagnuolo's book on Loos and the MIT Press
publication of "Spoken into the Void." Loos was a much more complex
character than was convenient for the ideologues...and his thinking and
architecture are much richer and more "romantic" than Johnson wanted the
world to think during his love affair with Miesian minimalism....which
was itself watered down when Mies came to the US.
OK...enough for now...back to work.
Christopher
Van Zeist
There are two points in your mail I'd like to discuss:
- the role of product designers as 'female body shapers'
- Seymour-Powell's last year design -the bra, the bioform.
I never expected someone making me study the design of a bra,
but ok, it's a good point of reference in your paper, and in a
way humorous too. In my thesis I also pointed out the importance
of humour in design.
As a designer I BELIEVE in the importance of first understanding/
knowing the essence of oneself. From there you can be your own
reflection-material. Understanding the male and female aspects
in human behaviour will produce a more balanced/complete design.
Knowing and respecting these aspects will give you a wide
horizon to get inspiration from and, in the other direction,
create from.
I'll try to keep it on a general level:
- I'm sure there are designers who get a kick out of having
the power to direct peoples lives, no matter the ethical aspects.
I love to see a beautifull woman, but to me a beauty is "from the thing,
not on the thing", compare Frank Lloyd Wright on ornament (women are not
an "object"), therefore it feels very strange/arrogant to see myself as
a "female body shaper". There has been a time I thought of also getting
into fashion design, but then again it would be out of respect for the
person, the material, the technique, the
effect. Gotten into a phase of having a "integrated personality"
will create a bra far different from what we see now, maybe even
none at all: from a short-term point of view I can imagine the
"importance" of a bra giving "a desired effect", but from a
long-term point of view I can imagine a bra having a "weakening"
effect, therefore, even for the male-view, could be a "bad thing".
(Am I really having this discussion ? guess so ;-)
- The Bioform: from what I learned about the design(ers) I have
the impression they honestly tried to make a "better bra", but
not one-for-all-sizes ! It was designed for larger busts, hence
special "3D construction". In that case it is even a kind of
medical solution, resulting in "short-term-point-of-view"
"impressive looks". (Is this still alt.architecture ?)
Is this all "Postmodern" ? No, I think this still is of all ages.
The postmodern aspect maybe your remark of 'humans imposing our will on
materials', which I can imagine has a special meaning related to todays
range of "plastics", "naturally" also in textiles.
Well Batista, it's saturday night: a wonderfull opportunity to
discuss the subject "life", good luck ;-).
Cheers, John.
(beauty is genuity, truth is devine)
batista wrote:
>
> > and again here, that is of all ages, in a male-society ;-)
> >
> > Cheers, John.
>
> Hey John,
>
> I was getting into trying to analise the role of product designers as
> 'female body shapers' and Im talking in all its senses.
>
> I was having a look at Seymour-Powell's last year design -the bra, the
> bioform i think it is called. Do you think that SP can decide about
> women's shape. What do thier shape have to look like? I think their
> design is not really about creating a bra that is comfortable, but
> more about feeling they are so powerful as designers that they can
> reshape female bodies to their wish, assuming the belief that design
> is about 'humans imposing our will on materials'. That is my example
> of the postmodern paradoxical design, example of virtuality and body
> nearly permanent modification.
>
Dimitri
> Maybe I'm just a
> tech-dullard.....but I don't know many people who buy the "latest" in
> gadgets unless it's solely for convenience.
You don't know anyone who runs out to buy the latest gadget, only to have it
collecting dust a year later? Oh, man..I do.
Carol Ott
should mention "corporate funding" and the death of architectural thought.
I always thought it was institutional design that destroyed any true
artistic advancements in recent commercial architecture. Universities and
government buildings in particular haven't had any real innovative design
applied to them since.......when?
Carol
http://home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Christopher K.Egan" <ce...@egan-martinez.com> wrote in message
news:3BFFE2...@egan-martinez.com...
Carol Ott
Carol
http://home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Dimitri" <pla...@the-spa.com> wrote in message
news:3BFFED86...@the-spa.com...
Marcello Penso
ri...@deadcenter.com says...
Then you have a good understanding of HOW to correctly (proportionally)
apply the greco-roman language, which 'ought' to guarantee visually
pleasing results. Not for nothing several key Renaissance architects
sought to codify the greco-roman language. In it they saw something that,
if properly done, could 'ensure' to some extent a result that was
visually appealing.
But you can do all this without having the archeological/ anthropological
or cultural meanings that went into creating the ionic capital (for
example). It's nice to know it, but that's pudding on the cake, as far as
the experience of architecture is concerned. And you don't need that
ancient meaning to justify using such elements today.
We are all past the point of requiring an arch theory to 'prop up' the
why of a given space, form, decorative program. Like in other fields of
art, there is a multiplicity of styles to choose from. One can
be sympathetic to a client's wishes, to the context, or both, and use the
language that one feels is most appropriate, or one can damn the client
and the context and make glass boxes. There is no right or wrong to the
look or method of choosing, and to say theory is needed to justify the
choice is, if anything, medieval(!)
It is significant that the treatises of the Renaissance deal with the
basic practical requirements of architecture and ornament in a very 'how-
to' way. In Palladio and Alberti, you also get their take on the
very Renaissance idea that everything is based on certain numbers and
fractions favored in nature. (Music of the spheres type of thing.) That's
really all that needs to be said, I believe. To go any further, you begin
to speak in circles (and that's what I meant by interpretation being
fruitless. It could be carried on ad nauseum, when architecture can also
be experienced quite viscerally- like the way a couple finds a house and
fall in love with it at first sight, no questions asked.)
> I must confess though that I am constantly trying new things/concepts simply
> because I like them.
>
> Is it
> > REQUIRED to APPRECIATE the architecture. No.
>
> Of course, but that appreciation can be influenced by education.
Yes, but the education is personal and does not need to be 'dictated' by
an arch theory that posits that the creative process 'ought' to produce
forms and spaces which have 'X' amount of meaning in order for the
architecture to be appreciated.
>
> > As an example, once at the university, I presented a museum project were
> > the layout 'followed' an idea of a nautilus (spiral circulation), leading
> > to a core display area. The area was two stories, and the front facade
> > looked onto a central plaza. The facade had no specific 'reason' or
> > criteria for determining where windows and clerestories should be placed.
> > So, I placed them at random, and I presented the project, underscoring
> > that I liked it that way.
> >
> > Incredibly, the professor who always advocated a child-like approach
> > design (innocence?) attacked this notion, though I did get a 'B+' on the
> > project. Even in a silly event like this, appreciation and evaluation
> > (how closely did he stick to his design concept of 'I like it') can be
> > skin deep, and there is nothing wrong with that.
>
> Placing the windows at random sounds scary.
> Did not the interior layout dictate where windows could/should be placed ?
No. It was a two story wall, and could have been all glass. But that
would have brought to much light into the museum. So, I just punched some
holes at random (kind of like Ronchamp, though I wasn't thinking about it
at the time.)
> Did the prof explain why you got a B rather than an A ?
The prof who critiqued my 'attitude' did not grade me. In university crit
sessions, the prof assigned to a studio typically invites other profs
during a crit session so that the student is exposed to different
viewpoints. My studio prof notched me down because I changed my
overriding concept midstream (from 'nautilus' to 'I like it').
Nevertheless, they didn't fail me, so the 'theory-less' result had some
merit somewhere, I guess.
>
> > > Are all of your designs unique, never before seen ?
> > > While interpretation cannot effect the past it surely carves the present
> and
> > > future.
> > >
> > In fact, interpretations of the semiotic sort show that histories can be
> > rewritten. But, would a write up in PA really influence your appreciation
> > of a Gehry building, or of Dr. Seussland at Islands of Adventure?
>
> While being the visual animal that I am, I like what looks good, to me.
> Reading a write up in PA or elsewhere may change my thoughts about details
> but I will still either like or dislike and given building.
Exactly.
>
> I don't
> > believe that. And if one needs a write up in PA to appreciate the
> > architecture, then they are not appreciating it for themselves, which is
> > the same as not appreciating at all.
>
> Lets approach this from 2 angles.
> 1) If I read about a building that I have never seen, the written article
> most likely will propel me to find reference to the building quickly so I
> might form my own opinion..
> I read a short piece on the Tupperware building in Orlando (I think) at an
> engineers office. It was described as looking like a haggard housewife
> enroute to another Tupperware party. I wondered how true that opinion was.
> When I got back to my office I promptly logged on to find a picture.
> I was inspired by the article to look further. I didn't particularly like or
> dislike the Tupperware building, but found the concept interesting.
And I think this simple analogy is fine to guide interest. But it
certainly isn't a theory. Only an analogy, with which you can agree or
disagree. No 'oughts' involved.
> 2) I read an article by Charles Jencks, that was negative, of Mies van der
> Rohe's Chicago Civic Centre.
> I already mainly dislike Modern buildings (they are bland) and there is
> little likelihood the CCC is going to change that.
> However when I eventually view the CCC I may dislike it even more because of
> Jencks write up.
> (as of yet I have not been able to find a photo online)
>
> All in all write ups don't influence me much, and quite frankly I don't read
> many.
> As I said, I like what I like, regardless of the opinions of others.
>
Correct. And even if a project did try to 'ape by analogy' some sort of
theory, (like they way decon arch likes to look fragmented to, I guess,
visually simulate some sort of chaos(?)), your knowing about such
analogies would not be 'REQUIRED' for you to appreciate the building,
whether positively or negatively.
Marcello
Marcello Penso
says...
Architectural Theory by Hanno-Walter Kruft. I have not Gravagnuolo's
book, but from what Kruft has to say about Loos, it surely does seem that
ol' PJ has made a mess of things... again.
Marcello
Van Zeist
<snipped>
> One additional point....(sorry, but I am trying to focus on my clients'
> projects right now)...I am really tired of hearing Loos misused...based
> on the extremely self-serving presentation of his work and ideas by
> Hitchock and Zevi..
Hello Christopher,
Your "one additional point" touches the very heart of what I think in
general is wrong with how great ideas are being appreciated by
media/industry/shellcopiers. And again I wouldn't be surprised if that
were of-all-times.
"Originality is an unbeatable quality of a great mind" a friend told me
last year when I discussed the protection of new ideas by patents, just
to not have them abused. In essence I believe he's right, and that gives
me energy, but it also wears me down seeing the load of misuses of
original design and then being claimed as being fresh and new:
post-post-modern being the new age in design.
Maybe we could (should ?) write a contest concerning the most abused
original thoughts/ideas, or has that been done allready ? ;-)
Cheers, John.
ghost-sniper
>
>
>
> No.
>
> Batista, London, UK, Student writing dissertation...
Fortunately, yes.
ghost-sniper
> (sigh).
Was that a sigh of resolve ?
Or an acknowledgement ? heh-heh
ghost-sniper
Hey now, you're infringing on copywritten material....LOL
ghost-sniper
> There is a public housing scheme in Vienna (sorry, I've forgotten the
> architect's name now) that places the windows and doors at random, with no
> clear (to the untrained eye) reason or pattern. All of them are painted
> different colours and given different treatments. Some call it a complete
> eyesore (too conditioned to strict patterns, I suppose) and some call it
> pure genius.
I take exception to this *random* idea.
Even random requires some direction.
Things don't happen on their own.
Carol Ott
Carol
http://home.earthlink.net/~csott
"ghost-sniper" <10-...@deadcenter.com> wrote in message
news:48ZL7.136504$zK1.36...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Carol Ott
Carol
http://home.earthlink.net/~csott
"ghost-sniper" <10-...@deadcenter.com> wrote in message
news:B6ZL7.136503$zK1.36...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
ghost-sniper
like one on occassion..... ;-)
"Carol Ott" <cs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_d7M7.4653$Kc2.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
brudgers
"Adam Weiss" <aw...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:D4183D882B4C29B0.3C67D9ED...@lp.airnews.net...
> Matti Vuori wrote:
> >
> > batista wrote:
> > >
> > > I beleive that these products 'wearable' products eithe hi or low tech
> > > reflect a paradox of our life in postmodern era and in the new
> > > millenium.
> >
> > If there is a paradox in our lives, why is it especially "in postmodern
> > era and in the new millenium". Does this mean that only postmodern
> > philosophers see the paradox...
>
> A paradox of technology is that I came home last night with a new
> friend's address and first wrote it down in a black book, then saved it
> in a PDA, and then saved it on my cell-phone.
> >
> > > How do they objectify us as humans and how they could
> > > fragmentate females bodies (pair of legs...) and what they
> > > communicate.....
> >
> > Haven't people worn wearable things for milleniums.
>
>
> > It is only recently
> > when people have learnt to make small things that do something (without
> > a power cord)
>
> That sentence could get you into trouble. We've been able to make small
> things do something for centuries, without power cords. Finger nail
> clippers are small and they do something. A swiss army knife is small
> and it does many things. Even some handguns are quite small and are
> capable of doing earth-shattering things.
Or a spoon?
>
> What you're talking about is electronics and the presence of computers
> in our lives. And as such what has happened is the burrowing into of
> electronic devices on our lives. Before we might have had a computer at
> the house and we might have used it to type papers (as a student) or
> play games, or whatever. Now we have a computer that we carry with us.
> There's certainly something powerful there, and I think the key in the
> dissertation will be to find those.
>
> Of course this is a person doing his masters thesis offering suggestions
> to someone doing a doctoral dissertation, so it should be read as such.
>
> > that the wearable thing have also begun to do something -
> > besides showing how much money you have.
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Adam Weiss
>
> --
>
> "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
> It is by the juice of Safu that thoughts acquire speed,
> The lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
> It is by will alone I set my mind in motion."
>
> --
>
brudgers
> In article <EkFL7.110981$Yb.27...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, 10-
> ri...@deadcenter.com says...> > > So, if Giulio were to visit south Florida, more than likely he would
> > > cringe at the ignorance, rather than laugh at the distortions.
> >
> > Ignorance ?
>
> In the (mis)use of greco-roman elements, yes.
> > Or chasing the dollar ?
> > A drive in the *real* south Florida, along 41 south, will reveal a
> > resurgence of the past.
> > A marvel of detail and distinction, colors and textures.
>
> Achieving a more 'vernacular' flavor is perfectly fine. My gripe is about
> using greco-roman elements with no rhyme or reason, or real knowledge, as
> to how the 'language' ought to be applied. A shame, since a copy of
> Palladio's 4 Books only costs $12.00 (Dover publications).
Palladio describes what ought to be done? Give me a break, Marcello - now I
have to through out my Alberti!
>
> > But even distinction looks the same after awhile.
> > I mean, how long can you peer at a fractal, they're all similar.
> > Variety tonight.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Marcello
>
>
brudgers
tentents of modernism is a belief that history progresses teleologically,
each successive stage being a more refined evolutionary stage toward some
ultimate rational end. The treatment of Loos by H&J is consitent with this
view.
Loos's role in modern architecture was far more profound than the stylistic
attributions of H&J. He one of the earliest to equate a new set of
architectural values with moral imperative to reformulate society, much like
the slightly later soviet constructivists, the glass chain, and Gropius's
Bauhaus or even Le Corbuiser. Loos the earlier Vienna secessionist ideas
and applied them where they could truely remake the physical world, in
architecture.
It is only because H&J wished to wind up with the amoral classical stylings
of Meis, that working within the modernist paradigm forced them to recast
Loos in this way.
As a side note, It is not surprising that in the context of a discussion of
postmodernism the word "paradigm" ishould come up, the popularization of
this term (especially as "paradigm shift") can be found in one of the
earliest works to critique notions of progress in this way, Thomas Kuhn's
"Structure of Scientific Revolution."
Furthermore it is also interesting to realize that medeival scholars such as
Aquinas considered themselves to be working within a context of Modernism.
This makes Gothic architecture modern, and everything since ... including
the renessance and more recent styles .... postmodern.
"Christopher K.Egan" <ce...@egan-martinez.com> wrote in message
news:3BFFE2...@egan-martinez.com...
brudgers
> theoretical both through its processes of building and through its
> princips as aesthetical elements in our landscapes communication of
> identity.
>
> It is clearly experimental, since the scientific method includes
> experimentation as one of its steps.
There is a meta-theory of scientific method - the sort of thing which if
occuring among "uncivilized" people would be called a superstition - which
describes a scientific method of the sort you mention. This superstition
can be traced back to Bacon.
However, more recent views of science and its processes recognize that this
is just myth. There is a methodological and intellectual difference between
the experimenter and the theoretician. Refer to Kuhn and Ian Hackings
"Representing and Intervening," as a starting point.
>
> Architectural practices innovate (at least the ones i know)
> underpining their work on the language of the identity they try to
> assume at the moment of being located in a city or any other context.
>
> Baudrillard in his interview with Nouvel described the NY former twin
> towers as the representation of our highly advanced West world through
> the icon of 'clones' they symbolised. Representation of molecular
> science capable of cloning everything. Even represented in the
> architectural language.
That this is what someone may take them to mean today, doesn't mean that
this is the meaning that their author intended them to represent ... as you
know a representation of cloning would hardly have made for compelling
architecture when the buildings were designed in the late 60's.
Standardized mass production is another matter ... There's nothing
inherently wrong with the ascription of a post-structuralist semosis to the
WTC, so long as one has the wits to understand that that's what he is doing.
>
> Batista, London, UK, Student. (Writing my dissertation....ufff.....)
>
> > 2. Architecture as a science is not theoretical but experimental. At
the
> > edges of architecture concerned with discovery buildings are
experiments.
>
Oz Trad
"ghost-sniper" <10-...@deadcenter.com> wrote:
> I have been accused of acting
> like one on occassion
So has Geoge Costanza
Oz
- - - - -
Ozman Trad Design
http://www.OzmanTrad.com
P.C.
Van Zeist skrev i meddelelsen <3BFFE3...@wxs.nl>...
compare Frank Lloyd Wright on ornament (women are not
>an "object"),
Now if things was just that simple ; I guess the hole deal is about expanding
further than that.
Guess a woman would be even more beautifull, in right surroundins. As you all
know, weman like much of the same;))
Still as designer, I would not check for shape unless that's what's on my mind ;
I rather decide from what I learned.
Shaping design need a porpous, politics provide need ; still that's politics.
Postmodernism did _not_ hit WTC, somthing else did.
I have my oppions about what still my oppion is my own. A deconstructive
structure, are easyli made in 3D-Honeycomb , just mixing different structuresin
different scale mesh are creating a unit, make enough ornaments for a building,
With 3D-Honeycomb you never will be looking for decoration, as there are plenty
allready. Now I guess you all exchouse that it's difficult to join the
theoretic discussions ; if I don't agrea, my only "words" could be a
graphics --- is it possible to ansver a discussion with a graphics ?
I told you Romans ; there is a way out of here ;))
Sure postmodernism will provide a perspective, still technology change human
beings more than how we se the world , like trains of all things, occour just in
time a new technology could change our perspective. I mean before humans would
have moved the legs, now they start engine's. we are on the way to mars, and
can't respect eachothers religion
Postmodernism have nothing to do with God. It's just humans reaching to the
sky's ; ------ I hoped to gain more of that respect for other peoples religion
after Afg. --- personally have doubts about many facts, that my head can't make
into logic ; but maby I been expecting the wrong thing, and need to ask what I
se.
Have a nice day.
http://w1.1396.telia.com/~u139600113/a
brudgers
> In article <21977ece.01112...@posting.google.com>,
> bat...@mac.com says...
> > I disagree with the author saying 'is not theoretical'. It is indeed
> > theoretical both through its processes of building and through its
> > princips as aesthetical elements in our landscapes communication of
> > identity.
>
> brudgers points out, since the process of design is essentially problem
> solving.)
I'm certainly not an advocate of treating design as problem solving. To
elaborate, problem solving is trying to answer the question "How do I?" I
believe architecture is more driven by "What if?"
The what-if? may involve intermediate how-do-I's but they are secondary.
Architectural design may utilize mitigation of problems rather than their
solution, i.e. the screening of undesirable views rather than the correction
of them, or the masking of undesirable noise by white noise, or the
mitigation of a poor street room by an alternative parallel path. Indeed
this is a far more common practice, especially within existing contexts or
during renovation. It is only when one has the sort of idealized suburban
green field conditions loved by the modernists that one can pretend to
problem solve.
>
> Then there is the interpretation of what is built. Again, this can occur
> without any theory. It can be a prima facie appreciation of the buildings
> beauty, or ugliness. There will be some understanding of a building's
> parts (door, window, column, wall, canopy, etc.) but not much theory is
> needed here either. (and it would be of a linguistic type, or a 'how do
> we perceive' type of theory, not an 'architectural' one.)
>
> >
> > It is clearly experimental, since the scientific method includes
> > experimentation as one of its steps.
> >
> > Architectural practices innovate (at least the ones i know)
> > underpining their work on the language of the identity they try to
> > assume at the moment of being located in a city or any other context.
>
> The identity of what? If you mean a certain style (selection of materials
> and ornamental elements) there is no theory involved. 'The client wants a
> 'colonial-looking' house.' 'All right, we need to have siding, a nice
> porch, etc.') If the identity is of a specific client, that's usually
> achieved by a sign ('BellSouth' on an otherwise anonymous and windowless
> central office building). You can also make some geometric/ material/
> ornamental associations and disassociations with the context. But again,
> those are choices made by the designer. No theory. Just options.
>
> In some (rare) instances, there is a push for a monumental structure, to
> make a monumental statement (WTC, baths of Diocletian, Arch of
> Constantine, etc.) But these are rareties in the vast urban environment.
> The monumentality is achieved through proportion, size and material.
> Again, it's about choosing, solving the what-if, solving the program.
Ah once again Marcello you have sparked my thought ... consider that those
architects who are considered the most "theoretical" are also the most
experimental ... e.g. Eisenman, Liebskind, Tschumi, or even Perault, Alberti
... etc. On the otherhand those making little claim on theory such as Meir
or Meis, also experiment little, having a more fixed aesthetic. Considering
the range of Corbu's or FLW's styistic variations seems only to add strength
to the apparent correlation between being seen as a theoretician and actual
experimentation.
>
> >
> > Baudrillard in his interview with Nouvel described the NY former twin
> > towers as the representation of our highly advanced West world through
> > the icon of 'clones' they symbolised. Representation of molecular
> > science capable of cloning everything. Even represented in the
> > architectural language.
>
> Interpretation is a never-ending (and ultimately ineffectual) process
> that does not involve theory, but only analogies of one sort or another
> (such as the one you point out).
> This doesn't contribute to the architecture, since it has already been
> built. It may add some kind of passing meaning, but then again, the
> architecture speaks for itself, even when all of us have died. (See the
> pyramids as an example, or pueblo dwellings, as another.)
>
> Marcello
brudgers
"Carol Ott" <cs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kNPL7.2651$Kc2.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> architect's name now) that places the windows and doors at random, with no
> clear (to the untrained eye) reason or pattern. All of them are painted
> different colours and given different treatments. Some call it a complete
> eyesore (too conditioned to strict patterns, I suppose) and some call it
> pure genius.
>
Huntervasser?
> I call it a mixture of both, with the architect giving all of us the
finger,
> so to speak. "Theory, schmeory -- rules, schmules," it seems to say. The
> ultimate in postmodernism?
No more in keeping with the other form of modernism which is largely
forgotten, expressionism.
Carol Ott
worked out. ;-)
Carol
http://home.earthlink.net/~csott
"ghost-sniper" <10-...@deadcenter.com> wrote in message
news:9j8M7.139079$zK1.36...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Carol Ott
Carol
http://home.earthlink.net/~csott
"brudgers" <nom...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5zbM7.118704$Yb.29...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Marcello Penso
nom...@tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> "Marcello Penso" <mpe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1669744e1...@news.mia.bellsouth.net...
> > In article <EkFL7.110981$Yb.27...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, 10-
> > ri...@deadcenter.com says...
> > >
> > > "Marcello Penso" <mpe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> > > >
> > > > So, if Giulio were to visit south Florida, more than likely he would
> > > > cringe at the ignorance, rather than laugh at the distortions.
> > >
> > > Ignorance ?
> >
> > In the (mis)use of greco-roman elements, yes.
> > > Or chasing the dollar ?
> > > A drive in the *real* south Florida, along 41 south, will reveal a
> > > resurgence of the past.
> > > A marvel of detail and distinction, colors and textures.
> >
> > Achieving a more 'vernacular' flavor is perfectly fine. My gripe is about
> > using greco-roman elements with no rhyme or reason, or real knowledge, as
> > to how the 'language' ought to be applied. A shame, since a copy of
> > Palladio's 4 Books only costs $12.00 (Dover publications).
>
> Palladio describes what ought to be done? Give me a break, Marcello - now I
> have to through out my Alberti!
>
Actually, if you want to have a good comparison of the treatises on the
orders, look for Robert Chitham's The Classical Orders of Architecture,
Architectural Press Ltd. London 1985.
Another good comparison is in Branko Mitrovic's Canon of the Five Orders
of Architecture (by Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola)- Acanthus Press 1999.
The order of the 'orders' is: Vitruvius, Serlio, Vignola, Palladio,
Scamozzi, Perrault, Gibbs, Chambers, Ware. Each of them had their
slightly modified version of a 'good' order. Lutyens also had his own
variation on the orders for all his work in India.
Alberti didn't go into the orders as much, though his 10 books is
probably the most complete work of what is to be an architect... in the
Renaissance, anyway.
Marcello
brudgers
Five orders? Doric, Ionic, Corinthean, Tuscan, and Facist ... like all
those buildings in EUR?
brudgers
conditions "problems" extend far beyond the individual building site and are
not easily reconciled with a fence, a curb cut, some shrubs, and a traffic
signal ... so to speak. To put it another way, urban buildings must address
important points that lose meaning when defined as problems, i.e. context.
And to go further, such sites have constraining conditions which are
irreconcilable, such as proximity and density.
And this only touches the physical side of the issue ... on the social side
of the issue, there is no counterpart to the issues of access, renewal,
replacement, and displacement which occurs in the urban environment. The
greenfield project only requires paying the farmer and putting in a parking
lot. When access only requires figuring out where to put the sidewalks and
how to layout the parking, then it can be treated as problem solving without
any great loss.
The love of the modernists for the green field can be seen in their
treatment of cities. One need only look to Brazillia or Chandagar to see
how bad the problem solving approach usually winds up being in an urban
context ... I'll leave domestic urban disasters such as those that
accompanied the Interstate system to your own personal experience. I'm not
saying that modernism is bad, but that in so far as its practitioners treat
architecture as problem solving it tends to be when applied to cities. You
can judge its results when applied to the countryside for yourself. You may
decide that moving cars and spurring development is enough, and that Tyson's
Corners is a wonderful place which everyone should have the pleasure of
enjoying daily.
To come back to architecture as an experimental, not theoretical, science,
most experiments fail. Failure in the greenfield is easier to accept or to
write off. The only real criteria for its success are short term traffic
effects and economic viability - we are all prepared to assume its inherent
sprawl and isolation as functions of its non-context.
The criticism of modernism and its love of the suburban can be found in
Klaus Herdeg's "The Decorated Diagram: Harvard Architecture and the Failure
of the Bauhaus Legacy."
"Carol Ott" <cs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:UfeM7.5343$WC1.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
ghost-sniper
"Marcello Penso" <mpe...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>
> The order of the 'orders' is: Vitruvius, Serlio, Vignola, Palladio,
> Scamozzi, Perrault, Gibbs, Chambers, Ware.
Why did you place Vitruvius first ? Age ?
ghost-sniper
"Oz Trad" <kah...@YOURUNDERWEARtstonramp.com> wrote in message
news:kahuna-44D24C....@newt.tstonramp.com...
> In article <9j8M7.139079$zK1.36...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "ghost-sniper" <10-...@deadcenter.com> wrote:
>
> > I have been accused of acting
> > like one on occassion
>
>
> So has Geoge Costanza
Art VanDelay ?
Dimitri
>
> I'm certainly not an advocate of treating design as problem solving. To
> elaborate, problem solving is trying to answer the question "How do I?" I
> believe architecture is more driven by "What if?"
>
Exactly, which is theorizing, as I mentioned.
Carol Ott
gigantic eyesore -- and it only gets worse as time goes by. Perhaps in its
inception, it was a good idea....but as is typical with American
architecture as it relates to planning, it's gone awry. The people who live
there consider its "urban" feel -- and of course it's far from being such.
It's definitely an experiment that failed -- miserably.
Carol
http://home.earthlink.net/~csott
"brudgers" <nom...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PXgM7.140239$zK1.37...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Carol Ott
Carol
http://home.earthlink.net/~csott
"ghost-sniper" <10-...@deadcenter.com> wrote in message
news:eHiM7.140563$zK1.37...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> Art VanDelay ?
brudgers
> LOL! I used to live in McLean, and considered Tyson's Corner to be one
> gigantic eyesore -- and it only gets worse as time goes by. Perhaps in
its
> inception, it was a good idea....but as is typical with American
> architecture as it relates to planning, it's gone awry. The people who
live
> there consider its "urban" feel -- and of course it's far from being such.
> It's definitely an experiment that failed -- miserably.
I had a feeling it would strike a chord ... clues from your website. I
spent part of my childhood in Springfield, back when Burke was a post
office, general store, and volunteer fire department -- on a two lane road.
Van Zeist
I'm not sure if I understand, but I'll give it a try:
First, the F.Ll.Wright quote is about ornament only; being an integral
part OF the thing, not ON the thing. It's that simple, and that complex.
Then I agree on the design of a shape, a shape can be esthetical only,
if
that was the initial purpose/goal, in that case it would become "just"
a piece of art.
(Ludwig Mies Vander Rohe's I-beams on the outside of the Chicago Lake
Shore Drive
Appartments (?) were said NOT to be functional, his reply was that it
had a visual
function, "that's function enough".)
I don't understand the WTC in this context.
I understand your comment on (the lack of) global, mutual respect, but
than again I don't see the strict relation with Postmodernism.
Have a nice day too,
Cheers, John.
Carol Ott
mid-late 60s and never stopped....and don't even get me started on the
concept of "Reston". Talk about function with absolutely no form....!
Carol
http://home.earthlink.net/~csott
"brudgers" <nom...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:j2kM7.140678$zK1.38...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Jim Patrick
>They really destroyed Fairfax County, didn't they? Started building in the
>mid-late 60s and never stopped....and don't even get me started on the
>concept of "Reston". Talk about function with absolutely no form....!
Actually, I'd love to see your comments (or rant!) about Reston. I
was hailed as the 8th "wonder of civilization" when it was started,
and field trips were obligatory for any urban planning classes to
worship at the vision of the future. Hahaha!
IMHO it's the result of 'scientific planning' running over common
sense; almost an intelligentsia-v-bourgeois struggle. I'd be the
first to admit that there's more to it than the one mistake, but it
appears to be the major flaw. But I'm interested in other opinions.
Steve Miller
plastics.
Carol Ott wrote:
> Have you noticed that a lot of electronics are stripped down so you can see
> the inner mechanisms? Like phones, computers, etc -- with their clear
> plastic cases. Very postmodern, if you ask me. It certainly follows your
> "bare bones" theory.
>
> Carol
>
> "Sara Shanagher" <sa...@idesign.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:0wSXYKAJms$7E...@idesign.demon.co.uk...
> > True post modernism as a progression from the ideals of modernism I
> > think was brutallism, forget the comfort zone, all you get is the bare
> > bones, raw steel, concrete etc. Very true to itself, but not perhaps
> > what the heart of man(wo) yearns for in the immediate environ, it
> > appears a bit too war torn. I don't think there's a parallel in the
> > product market, but there is too much plastic.
Marcello Penso
Now that's funny! Piacentini would have been proud!
But, for those who don't know, it's Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian and
Composite, which is basically Corinthian but with more elaborate capitals
and bases. Composite capitals usually have large volutes and acanthus
leaves, but the volutes can be replaced with statuary, animals or other
motifs.
Marcello Penso
ri...@deadcenter.com says...
Vitruvius'
De Architectura 30-20 BC
L.B. Alberti (1404-1472)
De Re Aedificatoria 1450
S. Serlio (1475-1552)
I sette libri di architettura 1537
G.B. da Vignola (1507-1573)
Regola degli cinque ordini di architettura 1562
Andrea Palladio (1508-1580)
I Quattro libri dell'architettura 1570
Vincenzo Scamozzi (1552-1616)
Dell'idea dell'architettura universale 1615
Claude Perrault (1613-1688)
Ordinnance des cinq especes de colonnes... 1683
James Gibbs (1682-1754)
Rules for Drawing Several Parts of Architecture 1732
Sir William Chambers (1723-1796)
A Treatise on Civil Architecture 1759
William Ware (1832-1915)
The American Vignola 1903
There are probably others as well, but these are the most notable
versions. Dates can vary.
Marcello