• It's easy to sign up and post! Register with a working email address (we won't give it to others, or spam you), or through Facebook, Twitter, or a Microsoft ID. Google and LinkedIn coming soon. 🙂

Distinguishing traditional from modern architecture in one easy step

Messages
1,507
Likes
0
Points
0
#41
Wanigas? said:
It also hit me while driving through the hills of Wisconsin the impact the computer has had on architectural design. It's clear Andrea Palladio didn't have the latest design application to help him create the Villa Rotonda. Computer technology is to modern architecture as "edge detail" is to red herrings.
Mies van der Rohe didn't have a computer either.

BKM said:
I would love a Pierre Koenig house, myself. :)
Alright, let me be clear on what I meant. Modern architects, even Pierre Koenig, did not understand what people's wives wanted their house to feel like

THX0097 said:
NOT TO MENTION HOW DOES EDGE DETAILING IMPROVE PEOPLES LIVES,
Why does it have to improve people's lives? Does chocolate improve people's lives? Why can't it just be enjoyable?
 

bud

Cyburbian
Messages
194
Likes
0
Points
0
#42
Decoration, etc.

Wanigas? said:
How important is "edge detail" to planning and the built environment, anyway?

I spent the week-end in Madison, Wisconsin, at a family reunion and I had a chance to go to Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin. What a beautiful house! At least from the road. Once inside, the ceilings were low and made me feel uncomfortable and uninvited.
I never noticed that but I am the same height as FLW. The ceilings were of varying heights as I recall when I was there in 1958. At the doorway it was 6’-4” but inside the ceiling was higher. If you are a tall person I understand. When FLW designed a house for a tall person he made appropriate height adjustments such as the house for _____ in Dallas.

Ornamentation is a part of our environment and we could use a lot more or it – as I referenced above - http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/grammar/propositions.html . It seems the lack of it anymore has to do with the fact that architecture is financed by borrowing. To borrow money to build means that what is built will be to the Banker’s delight – that would of course be to save or to make money. So we have sterile, plain vanilla buildings for the most part. What is the remedy? Maybe the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation could help us out.

This is properly called Contemporary Architecture which is a usually a hybrid of some Classical forms expressed in terms of current technology . It is a misnomer to call it Modern which is a true expression of the most advanced technology in terms of materials, machinery and methods of construction, as I tried to explain in my first reply to this thread.
 
Last edited:
Messages
26
Likes
0
Points
0
#43
Wanigas? said:
Why does it have to improve people's lives? Does chocolate improve people's lives? Why can't it just be enjoyable?
WHO SAID IT'S ENJOYABLE.

bud said:
This is properly called Contemporary Architecture which is a usually a hybrid of some Classical forms expressed in terms of current technology . It is a misnomer to call it Modern which is a true expression of the most advanced technology in terms of materials, machinery and methods of construction, as I tried to explain in my first reply to this thread.
MODERN ART AND ARCHITECTURE WAS A SPECIFIC MOVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ART AND ARCHITECTURE. CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE HAS YET TO BE DEFINED.

Moderator note:


Please, enough with the double replies. Please consolidate multiple replies in a single post. And also, please stop shouting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Messages
26
Likes
0
Points
0
#44
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/grammar/propositions.html .
DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THIS?

It seems the lack of it anymore has to do with the fact that architecture is financed by borrowing. To borrow money to build means that what is built will be to the Banker’s delight – that would of course be to save or to make money.
NOT NECESSARILY. WHEN PEOPLE BORROW TO BUY A HOME THE BANK HAS NO SAY IN HOW MUCH "DECORATION" THEY CAN HAVE OR IF THEY CAN HAVE "EDGE DETAILING" OR NOT. PEOPLE VOTE WITH THEIR WALLETS AND CHOOSE LESS RATHER THAN MORE WHEN IT COMES TO DECORATION. AGAIN I WOULD SAY THAT THE MASSES CHOOSE MODERN OVER TRADITIONAL WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR OWN HOMES.
HOW MANY HOMES WERE BUILT LAST YEAR WITH "EDGE DETAILING" LUCA & JAWS. HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT WHICH SO FAR HAS ONLY BEEN BASED ON YOUR OPINIONS. GO OUT ON THE WEB AND PRODUCE FOR US HERE SOME EXAMPLES OF HOMES THAT WERE BUILT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS WITH EDGE DETAILING. I CHALLENGE THAT YOU CAN'T AND WON'T AND HAVE NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN FEELINGS TO SUPPORT YOU. THEREFORE YOUR THEORIES ARE WRONG AND NO GOOD. THE CHALLENGE HAS BEEN MADE LET'S SEE IF THEY CAN RESPOND........

This is properly called Contemporary Architecture which is a usually a hybrid of some Classical forms expressed in terms of current technology . It is a misnomer to call it Modern which is a true expression of the most advanced technology in terms of materials, machinery and methods of construction, as I tried to explain in my first reply to this thread.[/QUOTE]...GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL IMAGES, SO WHERE DO YOU PLACE GHERY THEN?

THX0097 said:
WHO SAID IT'S ENJOYABLE.


MODERN ART AND ARCHITECTURE WAS A SPECIFIC MOVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ART AND ARCHITECTURE. CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE HAS YET TO BE DEFINED.

Moderator note:


Please, enough with the double replies. Please consolidate multiple replies in a single post. And also, please stop shouting.
I'M MOVING BETWEEN WORK AND THIS POST, THE SOFTWARE I'M USING REQUIRES CAPITALS. I'M NOT SHOUTING. IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU WOULD INTERPRET THIS AS SHOUTING THOUGH...LOL...I APOLOGIZE IF I HURT ANYONES FEELINGS.

What Is The Issue With Double Replies?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Messages
1,507
Likes
0
Points
0
#45
THX0097 said:
HOW MANY HOMES WERE BUILT LAST YEAR WITH "EDGE DETAILING" LUCA & JAWS. HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT WHICH SO FAR HAS ONLY BEEN BASED ON YOUR OPINIONS. GO OUT ON THE WEB AND PRODUCE FOR US HERE SOME EXAMPLES OF HOMES THAT WERE BUILT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS WITH EDGE DETAILING. I CHALLENGE THAT YOU CAN'T AND WON'T AND HAVE NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN FEELINGS TO SUPPORT YOU. THEREFORE YOUR THEORIES ARE WRONG AND NO GOOD. THE CHALLENGE HAS BEEN MADE LET'S SEE IF THEY CAN RESPOND........
http://www.qftarchitects.net

Also see the new house in this thread: http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=24782

Now if you'll excuse us, we're trying to have a discussion with facts that are already common knowledge. If you're not in touch with them you should start by doing your own reading before taking an accusatory tone.
 
Messages
26
Likes
0
Points
0
#46
jaws said:
http://www.qftarchitects.net

Also see the new house in this thread: http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=24782

Now if you'll excuse us, we're trying to have a discussion with facts that are already common knowledge. If you're not in touch with them you should start by doing your own reading before taking an accusatory tone.
and this is your response....a web site of a firm that builds traditional buildings and a bunch of pictures of old (except for one) traditional homes. Now lets compare that to the tens of thousands of new homes built last year and I think we'll see how home owners have voted with their wallets, decoration is overated and for the most part unnecessary and obviously the majority of homeowners agree, except for the obviously incredibly wealthy clients of the firm you give as an example. I wonder if those clients choose that style of architecture as a symbol of their power, wealth and stature.....the regular guy as you put it certainly doesn't live there. I find it incredibly sad that on a forum for public planning these homes are romanticized so....nobody could ever afford to own one of those homes except for a very small elite minority....how do you see this as good public planning when the majority of the public can't live here???
your so called facts are being challanged and you're yet to defend your argument...where's the proof that the public wants homes and buildings with "edge detailing"? Because some firm caters to the romantic tastes of some elite clients doesn't support your argument as a matter of fact not only were more homes built with modernist ideals for the low to middle classes but more homes were built in the modern style for the rich and elite than the traditional style....again you fall short in your supporting argument...I somehow get the feeling you really don't know what your talking about...once you get beyond what you personally like and the romantic notions of traditional homes and french boulevards your unable to defend you broad stroked statements about what people want in their public and private spaces...I understand you like them but that's as far as it goes and that's as far as your able to take it.....I love how the gist of your opening argument was how buildings today don't have edge detailing and that's what people desperately really desire and that's why new construction and modernism has failed the "regular guy" and if only more public projects were but traditional then things would be better...but the reality is that society has moved beyond the "traditional" architectural style, partly because it's a more rigid style and doesn't relate to the contemporary world...it's not a a living style, it's rules don't apply, it's construction methods are antiques...it's dead and rigid...the proof can be seen in that firms portfolio, the amount of resources required to build one of those homes is grotesque...how can this be seen as an example of an architectural style for the common man? You might as well erect a pyramid....you're talking about the minority like it was the majority and it's simply not my friend your argument is flawed and you refuse to see it...the facts that you say are common knowledge, that you base your argument on are wrong and you refuse to see it...you only want to have a discussion in a bubble with people of like mind who will reinforce your opinions with out challenging them. What is the purpose of this forum if not to challenge your own preconceived notions and grow intellectually...seriously do you really think you've got the answer to any of the issues that face public planning? I mean could "edge detailing" really be the answer...I mean how many years ago was it used..and the problems still exist..if it were the answer would we be having this discussion? wouldn't it have stood the test of time by now? I mean are you proposing giving it another shot because it worked so well the first time? It's like the pyramids man..let it go, it doesn't fit todays society, it was appropriate in it's time and that's it....do you get what I'm saying?
 

Luca

Cyburbian
Messages
1,147
Likes
0
Points
0
#47
Wanigas? said:
How important is "edge detail" to planning and the built environment, anyway?.
Well...this IS the sub-forum titled Design, Space and Place...

To try to answer your question: you will have doubtlessly observed that there are places that, beyond their immediate 'practical' use attract people. More than a few people have tried to study what it is about such places that attracts lots of people, what sort of patterns are present. What could be described as 'objectively attractive'* architecture organized spatially to provide a mix of sense of enclosure as well as some vistas (terminated or leading) tends to be a common denominator. This is in fact the reason I became interested in urban form and architecture.

* By 'objectively attractive' I mean attractive in the way that certain face types are shown by cognitive researchers tot be thought attractive by a vast majority of the population polled (especially in a properly conducted experiment). In a properly conducted experiment, my guess (I have yet to test this), is that a building like this would come out well



AND it has edge detailing :)

BKM said:
I would agree with this argument and throw in poor cornice detailing-overly simplified, almost cartoonish brackets, for example. I don't understand why, with modern production technology, good detailing is "too expensive." I would simply argue that modern commercial institutions don't care. Wal Mart doesn't care as much as a local merchant family, small regional chain, or individual. And, a population raised in post-war suburbia doesn't care, either. A few brackets attached to a rancher doesn't make a traditional environment.
I think that, sadly, most can't even tell any more; that taste has been debased by exposure to substandard archtiecture so long that it has devolved. It's a bit liek a brutalized/absued person turning inward. As foir teh affordability, I agree. We're much richer than renaissance Itaqlians and yet...

BKM said:
II would love a Pierre Koenig house, myself. :)
Plees to show peecture?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wannaplan?

Galactic Superstar
Messages
3,072
Likes
1
Points
19
#48
Luca said:
AND it has edge detailing :)
But that is only one design feature of many more. What is the point of defining a "litmus test" for structures in order to help you, me, or anyone else to distinguish traditional architecture from modern architecture? That is the point of this thread, right?
 

NHPlanner

Forums Administrator & Gallery Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
7,956
Likes
0
Points
23
#49
THX0097 said:
<snipped>

It seems the lack of it anymore has to do with the fact that architecture is financed by borrowing. To borrow money to build means that what is built will be to the Banker&#8217;s delight &#8211; that would of course be to save or to make money.
NOT NECESSARILY. WHEN PEOPLE BORROW TO BUY A HOME THE BANK HAS NO SAY IN HOW MUCH "DECORATION" THEY CAN HAVE OR IF THEY CAN HAVE "EDGE DETAILING" OR NOT. PEOPLE VOTE WITH THEIR <snipped>

I'M MOVING BETWEEN WORK AND THIS POST, THE SOFTWARE I'M USING REQUIRES CAPITALS. I'M NOT SHOUTING. IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU WOULD INTERPRET THIS AS SHOUTING THOUGH...LOL...I APOLOGIZE IF I HURT ANYONES FEELINGS.

What Is The Issue With Double Replies?
Moderator note:
Looks like the capitalization thing is intentional, since part of your post is in all caps, and portions are not. All caps is the 'net equivalent of shouting, please stop.

Multiple consecutive replies is post padding, and is against the Board rules. See: http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showpost.php?p=181129&postcount=3

Rules & Guidelines said:
2.6 Post padding / low content posts
Post padding should be avoided. Post padding is making a post with no real purpose or content, out of laziness or just to increase post count stats. Post padding includes:
&#10033; "Roll call," "consecutive number game", "last poster wins", "99 bottles of beer", "control-v", and "increase your post count" type threads and posts.
&#10033; A URL alone, with little or no commentary.
&#10033; Two or more consecutive messages in a thread to reflect one train of thought ("Oh, and one more thing ..."). Users can amend and edit their posts up to six hours after posting. Staff may consolidate or delete posts to improve readability of a thread.
&#10033; Short followup messages that contribute nothing to a thread, such as "I agree" or "Me too"
 
Messages
26
Likes
0
Points
0
#50
NHPlanner said:
Moderator note:
Looks like the capitalization thing is intentional, since part of your post is in all caps, and portions are not. All caps is the 'net equivalent of shouting, please stop.

Multiple consecutive replies is post padding, and is against the Board rules. See: http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showpost.php?p=181129&postcount=3


ACTUALLY YOUR WRONG (SORRY AT WORK AGAIN AND I'M NOT SHOUTING BUT RATHER SITTING QUIETLY TYPING) THE LOWER CASE WAS THE ORIGINAL QUOTE, MY RESPONSE WAS THEN IN CAPS DUE TO MY WORK SOFTWARE...THEN MY SECOND POST (WHICH APPARENTLY IT'S HORRIBLE TO HAVE A SECOND THOUGHT ABOUT A TOPIC RIGHT AFTER YOU HIT THE SEND BUTTON AND REREAD YOUR OWN ORIGINAL POST) WAS DONE IN LOWER CASE AFTER SHUTTING DOWN MY OTHER PROGRAM.

WHY WOULD SOMEONE INTENTIONALLY USE CAPS? TO INDICATE YELLING?
 

Luca

Cyburbian
Messages
1,147
Likes
0
Points
0
#51
Wanigas? said:
But that is only one design feature of many more. What is the point of defining a "litmus test" for structures in order to help you, me, or anyone else to distinguish traditional architecture from modern architecture? That is the point of this thread, right?
Dude... the edge detail comment was ironic. I agree that it's a bit 'systemic' to try to make it all about or absolutely abotu 'edge detail', as I 've already said in my posts.
 

bud

Cyburbian
Messages
194
Likes
0
Points
0
#52
Repose

If the product of Art is Beauty and the effect of beauty is repose as stated in the Propositions in Owen Jones', Grammar of Ornament (referenced above) it may account for the restlessness and high mobility in our society; would that not prove the proposition? This book is a classic in the literature of Art and Architecture and present conditions warrant its coming back into print in recent years. What are your objections?

Furthermore, if the product of Science is Knowledge and the effect of that is technological advancement (indeed “knowledge has been greatly increased and many run to and fro” in the past 200 years) that accounts for the possibility if not demand for the new and more efficient and economical forms of construction which has engendered Modern Architecture. Owen Jones influenced Architects such as H.H. Richardson, Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright who were the prime movers in Modern Architecture; these are now the classical forms, American Architecture, along with Greek and Roman (as in the International style) from which Contemporary Architecture arises.

My concentration has been in City Planning rather than Building Design so I have not had much time to study Gehry (I need to see plans and sections - not just facades), and must refrain from judging him; however someone has already said in this thread that he does not claim to be Modern. I don’t know if any Architect does, other than one who has a profound sense of responsibility such as yours truly – sadly, there is no demand for that in the current marketplace.

WHEN PEOPLE BORROW TO BUY A HOME THE BANK HAS NO SAY IN HOW MUCH "DECORATION" THEY CAN HAVE OR IF THEY CAN HAVE "EDGE DETAILING" OR NOT.
Are you aware of the power of Money? There is an axiom, "The borrower is servant to the lender". There is pressure on the borrower merely from that; but also Bankers will not finance innovation and since they are the chief financiers in the building industry they are in effect like a heavy handed client; or the lender assumes to be and is (de facto) the Architect, especially since they control the site selection process through land ownership. I guess society has a lot of catching up to do and I do not want to blame the Bankers or anyone - it is a matter of social evolution - let us be aware of these things and everything will work out for the best, I hope.

By the way, Architects do less than 10% of all building.
 
Last edited:
Messages
26
Likes
0
Points
0
#53
bud said:
If the product of Art is Beauty and the effect of beauty is repose as stated in the Propositions in Owen Jones', Grammar of Ornament (referenced above) it may account for the restlessness and high mobility in our society; would that not prove the proposition? This book is a classic in the literature of Art and Architecture and present conditions warrant its coming back into print in recent years. What are your objections?

Furthermore, if the product of Science is Knowledge and the effect of that is technological advancement (indeed &#8220;knowledge has been greatly increased and many run to and fro&#8221; in the past 200 years) that accounts for the possibility if not demand for the new and more efficient and economical forms of construction which has engendered Modern Architecture. Owen Jones influenced Architects such as H.H. Richardson, Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright who were the prime movers in Modern Architecture; these are now the classical forms, American Architecture, along with Greek and Roman (as in the International style) from which Contemporary Architecture arises.

My concentration has been in City Planning rather than Building Design so I have not had much time to study Gehry (I need to see plans and sections - not just facades), and must refrain from judging him; however someone has already said in this thread that he does not claim to be Modern. I don&#8217;t know if any Architect does, other than one who has a profound sense of responsibility such as yours truly &#8211; sadly, there is no demand for that in the current marketplace.

Are you aware of the power of Money? There is an axiom, "The borrower is servant to the lender". There is pressure on the borrower merely from that; but also Bankers will not finance innovation and since they are the chief financiers in the building industry they are in effect like a heavy handed client; or the lender assumes to be and is (de facto) the Architect, especially since they control the site selection process through land ownership. I guess society has a lot of catching up to do and I do not want to blame the Bankers or anyone - it is a matter of social evolution - let us be aware of these things and everything will work out for the best, I hope.

By the way, Architects do less than 10% of all building.
THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION AND BIAS EMBEDDED IN YOUR RESPONSE.
FIRST OFF THE PRODUCT OF ART IS BEAUTY...IS IT? THAT IS CERTAINLY AN OLD IDEAL AND WAY OF DEFINING ART ROOTED IN TRADITIONAL VALUES AND JUDGEMENTS. TODAY'S SOCIETY VALUES AND VIEWS ART DIFFERENTLY THAN THAT.1.ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT A LACK OF BEAUTY IS SOME HOW THE REASON FOR RESTLESSNESS AND HIGH MOBILITY IN TODAY'S SOCIETY. ALSO CAN YOU ELABORATE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY RESTLESSNESS AND MOBILITY? IN WHAT FORM? MENTALY PHYSICALLY ECONOMICALLY?

2.WHAT PRESENT CONDITIONS WARRANT THE REPRINTING OF THIS BOOK?

3. NONE OF THE 3 NAMED ARCHITECTS WAS A MODERN ARCHITECT LET ALONE A PRIME MOVER OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE. WALTER GROPIUS, MIES VAN DER ROHE, LECORBUSIER WERE PRIME MOVERS IN ARCHITECTURE.

4.YOU DEFINE BEING MODERN AS HAVING A PROFOUND SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY? THAT'S A VERY LIMITED AND NARROW DEFINITION NO? WOULDN'T YOU SAY THAT ALL ARCHITECTS HAVE A PROFOUND SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY HENCE THE NEED FOR LICENSES? BEING RESPONSIBLE IS NOT LIMITED TO ONE STYLE.
5.IF SOMETHING IS TRADITIONAL IT IS BY DEFINITION NOT INNOVATIVE, THEREFOR HOW COULD EDGE DETAILING BE PRESSURED OUT OF HOMES AND BUILDINGS BY THE BANKS. IT'S DROPPED TO THE WAYSIDE BECAUSE IT IS NO LONGER RELEVANT TO TODAYS SOCIETY. PEOPLE DON'T NEED OR WANT IT. IT'S TIME HAS COME AND GONE.

5.OWEN JONES'S PROPOSITIONS ARE AS RELEVANT AS THE PYRAMIDS. ANY STYLE WHICH IS LAID OUT WITH A POINT BY POINT WAY OF DESIGNING IS DOOMED TO FAIL. THERE IS NO ONE ANSWER OR THESIS FOR DESIGN AND IF THE GRAMMAR OF ORNAMENT WERE THE ASWER WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS DEBATE, THE POINT WOULD BE MOOT.
 

bud

Cyburbian
Messages
194
Likes
0
Points
0
#54
Peter Behrens

THX0097 said:


1.WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY RESTLESSNESS AND MOBILITY? IN WHAT FORM? MENTALY PHYSICALLY ECONOMICALLY?

2.WHAT PRESENT CONDITIONS WARRANT THE REPRINTING OF THIS BOOK?

3. NONE OF THE 3 NAMED ARCHITECTS WAS A MODERN ARCHITECT LET ALONE A PRIME MOVER OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE. WALTER GROPIUS, MIES VAN DER ROHE, LECORBUSIER WERE PRIME MOVERS IN ARCHITECTURE.

4.YOU DEFINE BEING MODERN AS HAVING A PROFOUND SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY? THAT'S A VERY LIMITED AND NARROW DEFINITION NO? WOULDN'T YOU SAY THAT ALL ARCHITECTS HAVE A PROFOUND SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY HENCE THE NEED FOR LICENSES? BEING RESPONSIBLE IS NOT LIMITED TO ONE STYLE.
.
1. I had in mind the Corporate practice of moving people around the country and indiviuals who change jobs for various reasons that result in a lot of real estate exchange - that demands resell value. Banks would not finance houses designed by FLW because they "had no resell value". Today Wright's buildings are rare and precious gems of art while the other is in the landfill.

2. Ask the publisher - referenced in my first reply to this thread.

3. When Wright's work was published in Germany, it was picked up on by Peter Behrens who introduced it to his young students Mies, Gropius and Corbu. I believe they all acknowledged Wright, et al as the leader.

4. See my original post, "Introduction" on Cyburbia - http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showpost.php?p=305676&postcount=2 . There is more to Architecture than designing buildings. I find that Architects neglect the site selection process - that is professionally irresponsible because, as they say, "We have to make a living". Kevin Lynch in the book Site Planning, which is required reading for architects seeking registration and license to practice, has an article on Site Selection, page 64 (ibid.) or see "site selection" in the index to the book. Lynch said, "It sometimes happens and should happen more often that the site is not yet selected before a designer is called in.... Although site selection and "best use" analysis are somewhat less common than the analysis of a given site for a given purpose, site designers always engage to some degree in both of these modes of thinking, or at least they should do so. That is, they must be prepared to advise a client that his chosen site is (mistaken or) inadequate for his purpose and that he must seek a new one... While advice of this kind may terminate the designer's employment still it is his responsibility." It is a long story which I have tried to explain on my website.
 
Last edited:

RSW

Member
Messages
74
Likes
0
Points
0
#55
bud said:
Owen Jones', Grammar of Ornament ... is a classic in the literature of Art and Architecture and present conditions warrant its coming back into print in recent years. What are your objections?
Speaking for myself only, of course, my curiosity is now piqued and I wouldn't mind seeing it come back into print - simply as a peculiar artefact of history. Whether a dated set of seemingly arbitrary and dictatorial rules has any implication or use in today's relativistic society is another question, of course.
 

bud

Cyburbian
Messages
194
Likes
0
Points
0
#56
Grammar of Ornament

RSW said:
Speaking for myself only, of course, my curiosity is now piqued and I wouldn't mind seeing it come back into print - simply as a peculiar artefact of history. Whether a dated set of seemingly arbitrary and dictatorial rules has any implication or use in today's relativistic society is another question, of course.
Re:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/07...r=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/002-1605022-7943206?n=283155
and
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/grammar/propositions.html

It has been back in print for about the last 30 years. Before that it was available in some large libraries and in rare book stores.

These are propositions, not arbitrary and capricious rules. The Author sets out to prove them in the content of the book leaving it to the reader to judge and use them as they saw fit - a trained Designer would understand that better than a novice. FLW's Unit system and abstract geometrical machine age ornamentation (e.g., Midway Gardens) as well as Sullivan's (e.g., Carson Pirie Scott) reflect that influence. I find them useful. I think Gropius probably derived his Modular system from Wright if not from Owen Jones.

http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s98/kruty.html
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Midway+Gardens&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226761363/002-1605022-7943206?v=glance&n=283155
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=lo...e=n-2690410580_q-R30GIx4I8k3zlW9N8hL.BgABAA@@


Now days, Science assumes too much, Art is impoverished, Religion is smug and degenerate. These essential elements of human Culture are apparently out of balance. Let us be aware of that and seek a solution. When Science produces Truth, Art produces Beauty and Religion produces Goodness. This imbalance is probably rooted in the love of Money, which produces avarice and greed.
 
Last edited:
Messages
276
Likes
0
Points
0
#57
3. When Wright's work was published in Germany, it was picked up on by Peter Behrens who introduced it to his young students Mies, Gropius and Corbu. I believe they all acknowledged Wright, et al as the leader.

Though Wright was important, Behrens was more influenced Albert Kahn and the everyday architecture of silos and industrial buildings. That was the driving force behind early Moderns.
 

bud

Cyburbian
Messages
194
Likes
0
Points
0
#58
Cost of Money

Howard Roark said:
... architecture of silos and industrial buildings. That was the driving force behind early Moderns.
Wright was ahead of Kahn in that type of structure and ornamentation was integral to FLW buildings. A building can be modern but it should not be called architecture if it doesn't fully employ the principle of Art including the fine detailing of painting, poetry and sculpture as an integral part of the building - that is what makes it come alive, giving it a spiritual quality.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Larkin_Building.html

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=La...Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

Thomas Jefferson, as architect, advocated an original architecture indigenous to America not in the Classical tradition as in Europe; he observed that there was a malevolent spirit of architecture gripping America. Emerson, Whitman and Thoreau and others carried on with that theme. Developing an indigenous form of Architecture was what the Modern Movement at the end of the 19th Century was all about.

And thou, America!
Thou too surroundest all
Embracing, carrying, welcoming all, Thou too, by pathways broad and new,
Approach the Ideal

The measur&#8217;d faiths of other lands&#8212;the grandeurs of the past,
Are not for Thee&#8212;but grandeurs of Thine own;
Deific faiths and amplitudes, absorbing, comprehending all,
All in all to all
.

Transcribed from Walt Whitman
http://www.bartleby.com/142/254.html

Can the impoverishment of Art have anything to do with the fact that the cost of the money to finance it can be equal to the cost of the building itself? Thereby doubling the cost of construction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_money
 
Last edited:
Messages
276
Likes
0
Points
0
#59
Wright was ahead of Kahn in that type of structure and ornamentation was integral to FLW buildings.

Kahn was not really in to ornament outside of some decorative brick work, his job was to make really large quality buildings for industry, Behrens was impressed by the amount of natural light and open space and to a lesser extent mass and form. A look at many 19th century buildings will explain why this interested him.

A building can be modern but it should not be called architecture

Errrr…. And what authority grants this power,

Thomas Jefferson, as architect, advocated an original architecture indigenous to America not in the Classical tradition as in Europe;

What was indigenous? All the builders and primary ideas came from Europe, evolved here in a different climate (social and practical) Lots of Jefferson’s stuff is Classical and Palladian in nature, where is source for this?
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,468
Likes
0
Points
0
#60
Howard Roark said:
Thomas Jefferson, as architect, advocated an original architecture indigenous to America not in the Classical tradition as in Europe;

What was indigenous? All the builders and primary ideas came from Europe, evolved here in a different climate (social and practical) Lots of Jefferson’s stuff is Classical and Palladian in nature, where is source for this?
I wondered about that statement (UVA MURP Grad here). What was indgenous? Log cabins, perhaps. Maybe southwestern Pueblo architecture. Not really considered architecture or known by Jefferson.

Heck, the UVA Rotunda was not "inidgenous" in any way-it's basically the Pantheon. Monticello is Palladio
 
Top