Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus
Uh huh. And British neo-classicism isn't any more related to Russian neo-classicism than contemporary modernism (or whatever you want to call it) like this Morphosis proposal is related to the modernism of Meis. That was the whole point. If you're going to make ridiculous generalizations about neo-classicism and expect everybody to take them seriously, then I'm going to make similarly ridiculous generalizations about modernism and likewise expect them to be taken seriously.
|
I'm not making ridiculous generalizations. I'm telling you what I read out of history and architecture's progress and relevance through it. Pre-modernist design philosophy focused on a building's potential as sculpture, but centred on preservation of classical forms taken from antiquity. This manner of architecture lent itself to colloquialism. Modernism is different from this in that it is concerned with making buildings, not with making them art. This philosophy can be applied anywhere for reasons I'll address a bit later on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cirrus
Or we can speak like adults. Your call.
By the way, thanks for making the point that the Morphosis proposal *isn't* designed to function, and *is* designed to "look like something". That dome sure is hard to support except in terms of "it's supposed to look like a dome". Although I'm not really sure how "it's supposed to look like a dome, but new" is any better or any more Alaskan than "it's supposed to look like a dome, but old". Of course, if you're just trying to force everything into a contemporary fad cabinet, then I suppose it doesn't much matter, eh?
|
I openly criticized the Mayne proposal, don't put words into my mouth. And also don't condescend me by claiming to be the 'adult' and then put words in my mouth.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cirrus
Also, unrelated to this particular discussion but in a more general sense, I'd love to hear an explanation for what "the building should shape itself" even means. I'd really love to hear an explanation for how that would somehow support building in whatever fad style is currently in vogue. After all, if the program really shapes itself without intrusion from egotistical designers, it would be one heckuva coincidence for the current fad to liek omygawd just happen to be the best one for the program and context of any given building... Or, y'know, we could be intellectually honest and admit that all that architectspeak is malarky, and that some people just like things that are new and different (which, again, is OK.)
|
The reason Neoclassicism is inappropriate is because it lays down a program that is inflexible. When you sit down and say 'the first thing I want is to make this building look Colonial' you have just limited the capability of the building you are designing to react with the unique condition the site provides. To this effect Neoclassicism can be considered a stamp; an architectural standard which automatically precludes itself from context.
A building should 'shape itself' in the manner that a certain set of needs should be layed out and compiled into a solid statement, and the building should adapt to address that criteria. Let's lay out some criteria to design our capitol building:
-It should have a rotunda. The rotunda is an important programmatic element; symbolically it places a visitor of the public into the centre of the building, the 'centre' of the state and emphasizes it with a grand, vaulted space visible from the exterior. It is a '
functional' part of the building's design philosophy, but not the building's structure.
-It should be accessible. The entries should be placed where the public can easily enter the building and through which the public can enter gracefully, as in, they shouldn't be tucked off to some remote corner of the building. Or, perhaps it is your personal opinion the user should be guided through some sort of outdoor space (another discussion altogether). Maybe it's your philosophy to align these entries with majour roads outside the building and to continue those axes into the building; those spaces can later inform where offices and chambers can be located.
-The offices and chambers should be full of sunlight. Sunlight plays an enormous role on us as humans. Science shows us it plays an unmistakable role in the stability of our mental health. The rooms, offices and galleries that call for great use should be open to lots of sunlight. This does not mean simply putting a bunch of windows around it: it calls for a thorough investigation of the building's context and location. Where does the sun track across the building? How long does it take the sun to track across a space at a certain day of the year? Where do shadows from neighbouring buildings fall on the proposed building? Perhaps some solutions call for strangely placed windows to capture the best possible light.
One more, just to keep it short:
-The building should be built from local materials. In keeping with the theme of 'Alaska,' the architects should look into popular building materials for the area in contemporary and historic times, and look into the availability of new materials unique to the region and work to incorporate them into the design while keeping in mind the structural, textural, corrosive and long term visual conditions of the material.
When you have defined this set of criteria, the architect should work to resolve these issues through a coherent system that creates a building. It is, in effect, designed from the inside out; the inverse of pre-modernist architecture. If the architect said at the start, 'it should look like this,' the enormous opportunities the building has to address certain 'functions' has just been severely limited. But if you choose to address the above issues with the 'modern' approach then you will create an infinitely unique building that works with its surroundings and works to serve its purpose. In that sense, designing a building to address a unique set of challenges is hardly adherence to a 'fad,' but providing the building with substance.
I'm not defending all 'modern' buildings. More often than not architects choose to make glitzy, self centered buildings that serve more as flashy portfolio fodder than habitable building. More often than not, it is impossible to see just from an exterior photo or a rendering if the building's design principles are for real or just for show. But just because those buildings exist in the guise of 'modernism' does not mean we should revert our thinking to 1700s ideas that provide no flexibility of program, structure or aesthetic.
I really hope this can help give some insight into 'modern' architecture. I'm not trying to be condescending or rude, just trying to provoke some thought about what makes buildings look like they do. In truth it goes far beyond pulling some dusty old design from Michaelangelo.
Prev
Linear Mode
