I..Am..Speechless

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by elysium

Speaking of things that are "severely dumbed down," you could at least supplement your highfalutin appreciation of architecture with a basic respect for the English language.

"architecture is so much more advanced than just art." This statement does violence to art. You should strive to be equitable, restrained, cordial, and thoughtful in all your judgments. If you think you know what art is, then you should qualify it with more than an unconsidered sentiment of the form, "This is this."

ok thanks. and i'm not a big fan of art; i think it's highfalutin and obnoxiously pointless, sorry.

[elysium]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

ok thanks. and i'm not a big fan of art; i think it's highfalutin and obnoxiously pointless, sorry.

I don't think you could provide a definition of art that isn't laughably simpleminded. You think it's "highfalutin and obnoxiously pointless." I think "obnoxiously pointless" perfectly sums up your presence here. Ignoring that works of architecture generally *are* considered works of art (especially by architects), and ignoring that the word 'art' today encompasses practically everything, you're basically saying, "My dad is better than your dad." Adults, unlike children, know that certain matters can't be reduced to "this is better than that." Are you an adult or a child?

[malec]

AdrianXSands, you're way too elitist. You can think what you want but please, don't lecture everyone else on what they should and shouldn't like.

Some of these buildings are to architecture what (as an example) this is to music. Sure it's innovative but only to a select few who know what the hell is going on, to most others we couldn't give a shit. As a musician myself I've heard this type of argument tons of times before where people compare this type of stuff to things like film music, etc.
I personally like some of this "weird" music, however I don't go around telling everyone that everything else sucks and that they suck if they don't think every other type of music sucks.

Now there is one big difference with architecture. In music people can switch off the radio if they don't like, with architecture it's there for 50 years and people are forced to look at or interact with the particular building. That's why I think most importantly buildings should be designed for the people who are going to have to actually use it. Unless you're designing a prison, if the people occupying the building hate being in it, then the design isn't good, period!

[elysium]

Originally Posted by malec

AdrianXSands, you're way too elitist. You can think what you want but please, don't lecture everyone else on what they should and shouldn't like.

Saying he is elitist assumes he knows what he's talking about. He just acts elitist.

...That's why I think most importantly buildings should be designed for the people who are going to have to actually use it. Unless you're designing a prison, if the people occupying the building hate being in it, then the design isn't good, period!

I agree. There's nothing worse than an architect imposing his own "visionary" projects on society when they don't conform to basic standards of beauty or function. These standards aren't constraining--they provide for an infinite realm of new design possibilities. There's a difference between being novel/visionary and being iconoclastic. People defy public standards of beauty just for the sake of defying them. That's vanity, not art. There are so many buildings that are a permanent taint on public spaces because of ego. There are plenty of buildings that are both innovative and beautiful, and then there are those that bring attention to the architect. Congratulations to them--they've created monstrosities that will immortalize them as visionaries rather than conformists. The irony is that there's the pile of architects who conform to visionary ideas, which engenders uniformity rather than innovation.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by malec

Unless you're designing a prison, if the people occupying the building hate being in it, then the design isn't good, period!

actually I was planning on staying out of this argument because it tends to go no where, but you commented on something that I wanted to continue with. This is what architecture is about, an architect should be aware of how much natural light is reaching places within and around a building. They should also be aware of how people move through it and use the space. Good architecture should be an intervention on a site at that specific moment in time, thus allowing the user to manipulate the architecture to meet their demands as the times change and different needs arise.

Honesty in design is also an important aspect which is something that usually plagues most starchitects because they are usually more into applying their name or style to a design. Here in Portland, one of my favorite office buildings is a very simple design that allows the tenants to use each floor plate how they feel fit and give them plenty of natural light with floor to ceiling windows without being just another glass building. Across the street from it is Micheal Graves's Portland Building which is the complete opposite in design with tiny windows that forces its tenants to rely on manmade lighting and is poorly laid out when it comes to working with the street and surrounding area, thus making the building a pain to deal with. Now between the two buildings, most people know about the Portland Building, but the building across the street is often forgotten about, not because it isnt good, but because it works well enough for people not to be forced to pay attention to it, allowing people to focus more on what is going on in their lives than the architecture.

Architecture should be about enhancing one's life and making people more aware of aspects within their lives, not say "look at me, I was designed by someone who thinks they are important." Architecture should be about reflecting it region and the people within that region, not the ideals of an architect that isnt from that region. Ideals within design and architecture should be locally grown and designed by people who are influenced by the city on a daily basis. I would understand to design a building better in Portland than I would in Phoenix.

With this said, no one building will be liked by anyone, this goes with art. I am a bigger fan of art from 1900 to present because I feel I can relate to it more because movements that happened within the art community have more of a relation to my life than things that happened 500 years ago. But someone else is going to say that they dont understand modern art and it shouldnt be considered art.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by elysium

I agree. There's nothing worse than an architect imposing his own "visionary" projects on society when they don't conform to basic standards of beauty or function. These standards aren't constraining--they provide for an infinite realm of new design possibilities. There's a difference between being novel/visionary and being iconoclastic. People defy public standards of beauty just for the sake of defying them. That's vanity, not art. There are so many buildings that are a permanent taint on public spaces because of ego. There are plenty of buildings that are both innovative and beautiful, and then there are those that bring attention to the architect. Congratulations to them--they've created monstrosities that will immortalize them as visionaries rather than conformists. The irony is that there's the pile of architects who conform to visionary ideas, which engenders uniformity rather than innovation.

To add to this point, this is the reason why I hate the Guggenheim in Bilbao. In no way did it reflect the people or the history of Bilbao, it was merely a way for the architect to push his own ideals on a location without finding a way to work that ideal into the fabric of the city. As an architect it is important to have theories and ideals, but it is also equally important to understand a region's fabric and its history before designing anything.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by elysium

I don't think you could provide a definition of art that isn't laughably simpleminded. You think it's "highfalutin and obnoxiously pointless." I think "obnoxiously pointless" perfectly sums up your presence here. Ignoring that works of architecture generally *are* considered works of art (especially by architects), and ignoring that the word 'art' today encompasses practically everything, you're basically saying, "My dad is better than your dad." Adults, unlike children, know that certain matters can't be reduced to "this is better than that." Are you an adult or a child?

heeeeey, let's talk down to people as if we actually know them, their merit, or their knowledge... after all, internet forums are so personal. let's...

dude are you serious? because i don't back my opinions with four paragraphs of rhetoric, means i don't know what i'm talking about or that i am somehow lacking in intellectual thought? hmmm... excuse me for being so childish then. and if you'd like to get more than just opinions from me, you can call me on the phone, and we can talk about art and architecture and whatever else for hours. because, in general i choose to be simply general on internet forums. and i reserve myself to opinions and questions and answers. you can accept what i have to say or dismiss as most people do, but please spare me of the personal insults.

[Zerton]

I start at IIT next month. These people simply don't understand minimalism and years the buildings were built. They were very revolutionary, and in my opinion not at all ugly. I fell in love with Crown Hall.

[Zerton]

And this argument that has been going on is getting repetitive. Time to end it?

[malec]

Originally Posted by elysium

Saying he is elitist assumes he knows what he's talking about. He just acts elitist.



I agree. There's nothing worse than an architect imposing his own "visionary" projects on society when they don't conform to basic standards of beauty or function. These standards aren't constraining--they provide for an infinite realm of new design possibilities. There's a difference between being novel/visionary and being iconoclastic. People defy public standards of beauty just for the sake of defying them. That's vanity, not art. There are so many buildings that are a permanent taint on public spaces because of ego. There are plenty of buildings that are both innovative and beautiful, and then there are those that bring attention to the architect. Congratulations to them--they've created monstrosities that will immortalize them as visionaries rather than conformists. The irony is that there's the pile of architects who conform to visionary ideas, which engenders uniformity rather than innovation.

I don't think he doesn't know what he's talking about, I'm sure he does. It's just that he dismisses buildings that are not innovative, or are built in certain styles just because they're built in those styles instead of judging each building seperately.

Take for example a college campus. What criteria do you need to fulfil as a designer? Just off the top of my head I can think of these:
Needs to provide a good working and studying environment
Needs to have good public areas so students can relax between lectures, etc
Needs to be power efficient
Then each building has its own criteria

Anyway, there are a load more things as well.
If I can design a faux romanesque/gothic/georgian/egyptian mishmash and fulfil all of these criteria well then I don't see why not.

I don't think there's anything wrong with "iconic" either as long as it's still space efficient, energy efficient, looks good, is pleasant to work in or live in, doesn't degrade its environment (ie surrounding area not pollution and this stuff), etc.

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

heeeeey, let's talk down to people as if we actually know them, their merit, or their knowledge... after all, internet forums are so personal. let's...

dude are you serious? because i don't back my opinions with four paragraphs of rhetoric, means i don't know what i'm talking about or that i am somehow lacking in intellectual thought? hmmm... excuse me for being so childish then. and if you'd like to get more than just opinions from me, you can call me on the phone, and we can talk about art and architecture and whatever else for hours. because, in general i choose to be simply general on internet forums. and i reserve myself to opinions and questions and answers. you can accept what i have to say or dismiss as most people do, but please spare me of the personal insults.

So the internet is only a place for daily squabbles of lesser beings such as ourselves. A man of such intellectual greatness as yourself would never reduce himself to the lowlife scum that populate the vast stretches of the internet.

[elysium]

Originally Posted by malec

I don't think he doesn't know what he's talking about, I'm sure he does. It's just that he dismisses buildings that are not innovative, or are built in certain styles just because they're built in those styles instead of judging each building seperately.

I was referring more to his shallow conception of art, not architecture.

Take for example a college campus. What criteria do you need to fulfil as a designer? Just off the top of my head I can think of these:
Needs to provide a good working and studying environment
Needs to have good public areas so students can relax between lectures, etc
Needs to be power efficient
Then each building has its own criteria

Anyway, there are a load more things as well.
If I can design a faux romanesque/gothic/georgian/egyptian mishmash and fulfil all of these criteria well then I don't see why not.

Many colleges have it in their charters/constitutions (whatever they are) that the campus retain its architectural integrity. I think there's value in that (unfortunately, such clauses are completely disregarded). At the University of Washington, we're gutting neogothic buildings to have closed atria while keeping their original facades. I think that's brilliant. This is Mary Gates Hall:



And then look at this monstrosity at Cornell. Completely destroys the college's aesthetic:



I really think it's an injustice to the community. Colleges should at least separate modern buildings from the original campus. Imagine putting one of these monstrosities in Cambridge or Oxford.

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by big T

Being an IIT alum with pictures I took of the campus hanging on the wall I'm looking at right now, this very much feels like a personal insult and pisses me off to no end. The beauty of blogs -- people yapping about things they don't have the first clue about. I suddenly feel Lecom's pain and share his bleak outlook on the Interweb in general (re: Lecom's recent skybar thread for those who've seen it)

BTW thanks for the pictures Adrian

Heh, I was just about to go "what recent thread?", but then I checked the date of your post - December '07.

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

ok thanks. and i'm not a big fan of art; i think it's highfalutin and obnoxiously pointless, sorry.

I take it that you are a big fan of Adolf Loos. "Ornament is crime!"

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by texcolo

I'm amazed that Oral Roberts University didn't make the list.

Personally, I kind of like it. But, it was built entirely in the mid-60's in the Space Age style. It hasn't aged well either.

Whoa, I just looked it up and it seems to be quite a unique place. A gracefully executed unified complex built in a style that's known for its kitsch and lack of grace, no pun intended. Though it's good that this architecture didn't become a mainstay in cities around the country, it's fascinating to see a sanctuary (once again, no pun intended) of that style on such a scale. I'd love to get high/trip and walk around that campus.

http://www.agilitynut.com/modarch/okedu.html

[statler]

Replace 'Literary Criticism" with "Architectural Theory" and there you go.

[1ajs]

anymore shots of the artdeco building with the smoke stack?

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Lecom

I take it that you are a big fan of Adolf Loos. "Ornament is crime!"

loos is one of my architectural idols.

[Samthelima]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

anyone who dismisses mies has NO place having an opinion of architecture. period.

I must be in the wrong profession then.
I have studied and experienced in person most American Mies buildings (Seagram, Farnsworth, all the Chicago ones, including IIT). He had an interesting design philosophy. Simplicity of form, skin and bones, open floor plates, no ornament (except the small vertical I beams on the outside of his columns), less is more. His use of the golden ratio in proportioning is also interesting, though buildings like the IIT chapel demonstrate to most people that while proportioning is good, it is not enough to make a building nice to look at. "Visually pleasing" does not automatically follow "compositionally sound." While Miesian architecture is historically interesting and unfortunately highly influential, it is in no way beautiful (except perhaps on paper). Black steel and glass does not resonate positively with most people or nature, imho. The closest Mies gets to that is the Farnsworth house, which is elegant in its own way, but quite impractical. Taking away a close relationship with the street/sidewalk by raising the body of the building above the lobby removes any sense of human scale at the point which people enter the structure. The absense of lot line engagement at grade also means that these buildings can only be sited in parks or concrete plazas, with no interaction with neighboring buildings. This kills cities. Imagine Chicago with every building independant of its neighbors! Yes, it is good to have open space in cities, but not solely for the glorification/success of a building that would otherwise not work.

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

dislikes the aethetics of a mies building for educated reasons and is able to back up why... okay, i'd accept that... but to ignorantly and arrogantly call it crap?... find a new hobby.

There, I've stated some educated reasons and briefly backed them up. Now, for you.

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

dude are you serious? because i don't back my opinions with four paragraphs of rhetoric, means i don't know what i'm talking about or that i am somehow lacking in intellectual thought?

Nobody's asking for four paragraphs, but if you're going to ask others for educated reasons why they don't like certain pieces of architecture, please give some yourself.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Samthelima

I must be in the wrong profession then.
I have studied and experienced in person most American Mies buildings (Seagram, Farnsworth, all the Chicago ones, including IIT). He had an interesting design philosophy. Simplicity of form, skin and bones, open floor plates, no ornament (except the small vertical I beams on the outside of his columns), less is more. His use of the golden ratio in proportioning is also interesting, though buildings like the IIT chapel demonstrate to most people that while proportioning is good, it is not enough to make a building nice to look at. "Visually pleasing" does not automatically follow "compositionally sound." While Miesian architecture is historically interesting and unfortunately highly influential, it is in no way beautiful (except perhaps on paper). Black steel and glass does not resonate positively with most people or nature, imho. The closest Mies gets to that is the Farnsworth house, which is elegant in its own way, but quite impractical. Taking away a close relationship with the street/sidewalk by raising the body of the building above the lobby removes any sense of human scale at the point which people enter the structure. The absense of lot line engagement at grade also means that these buildings can only be sited in parks or concrete plazas, with no interaction with neighboring buildings. This kills cities. Imagine Chicago with every building independant of its neighbors! Yes, it is good to have open space in cities, but not solely for the glorification/success of a building that would otherwise not work.

wow... i guess for starters... one of, what seems to be, the main difference between you and me is that black steel and glass, as you put it, or any well crafted celebration of materials is beautiful to me. i think many people lose site of what buildings really are. to me, they are a composition of materials that come together to define space, and they should celebrated as such. i don't understand when many people look for the materials of a building to be dressed up, disguised, or decorated in some way. that is, concrete is a beautiful material with lots of nuance, why paint it? steel is beautiful too, from corten to all the many different stainless varieties, it just BREATHES raw beauty like no other material can. stone is a wonderful thing to, why carve it? my point is, a building can be harmonious and FULL of detail simply through a powerful composition of materials. so for you to say modern architecture is in no way beautiful is beyond me and makes me wonder, what is beautiful architecture? i think that is the fundamental difference between all you guys so badly wrapped up in an archaic notion of architectural beauty and people like me.

another thing that i've noticed is that many of you look for a high level of complexity on the exterior of a building. can a plain concrete and glass facade not hold you interest in the same way an extravagantly flourished rococo chapel would? for me, what makes mies' and modern architecture in general so wonderful, is that it is a simple and honest celebration what architecture is. looking at a building's facade to be a work of art is something that seems so antiquated to me. i find works of art inside the museum, not outside on the side of the building. it's 2008. architecture should reflect this. and every decade henceforth, architecture advance and progress.

about your comments about mies at iit and the farnsworth: watch out, because the mies police are gonna come knocking at your door.

but seriously, how can you say that about farnsworth???

Taking away a close relationship with the street/sidewalk by raising the body of the building above the lobby removes any sense of human scale at the point which people enter the structure.

wow, first of all, farnsworth was designed to be a secluded, small, glass summer house. it was raised because of the floodplain of the fox river. so you're comments about it were beyond strange to me.

The absense of lot line engagement at grade also means that these buildings can only be sited in parks or concrete plazas, with no interaction with neighboring buildings. This kills cities. Imagine Chicago with every building independant of its neighbors!

without insulting your intelligence, i have to ask: are you serious? the WHOLE point of the modernist plaza was to create an intimate outdoor room. and intended always to be placed amongst a dense center. that is, the modernism plaza ONLY works if you have four 'walls' to create the 'room'. and i don't think any modernist ever envisioned a city of plaza after plaza after... in fact, i would say that is more of an early postmodern thing. in my home town of houston, the downtown core is non-stop plaza. and all those buildings were built in the late 70's to the late 80's. but the great urban space such as federal plaza and daley plaza are VITAL aspects of urban life and gifts to us from the great modernists. whenever i design anything... i approach the site independently from anything i've ever done. and i assess what the site needs and try to give the site what i think it needs. and i think that is something that many of you have misunderstood about the modernist way of thinking.

...

[Amanita]

I think one of the biggest problems with Mies is just how much his work was copied. Mies Van Der Rohe took great pains with proportions, and a lot of care in choosing high quality materials and finishes, most of his imitators did not.

Therefore, we ended up with a lot of buildings built on the cheap, by architects who did not understand Miesan principles and ideals, and the whole modernist movement suffered for it.
I like Mies's TD center, it was one of my favourite hangout spots in downtown toronto. Yet I also marvel when I see pictures of the inside of Los Angeles City hall- the beautiful, rich ornament conveying a spirit of civic pride woven right into the very fabric of the building.