also unsurprisingly, the "House of Tomorrow" seems like Buckminster Fuller was involved.
The sexism was added later.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF TOMORROW!
Unsurprisingly, my interest in watching old Tex Avery shorts on Youtube is directly related to my not going to the gym.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
No Method to Our Madness, Just Manner in our Manors
In this month’s issue of Vanity Fair, there was a quite seductive reason for me to lay down the $5.99 (plus tax) to get the goods. It wasn’t Angelina Jolie doing her best Sophia Loren or the bright pink 72 point helvetica saying “SEX”, no, it was the article title of “50 TOP ARCHITECTS pick THE GREATEST BUILDINGS of the Last 30 YEARS”
(though I’m not going to lie, the “SEX” did initiate the interest, turns out it was about Maureen Dowd vacationing in Saudi Arabia, I keep forgetting that Vanity Fair is not Cosmopolitan and vice versa).
I was really interested to see what the crème de la crème picked as the best examples of their generation. This top ten is as follows:
#10
Architect: Sir Norman Foster Structure: Millau Viaduct, France Year Completed: 2004 Number of Votes: 4
#9
Architect: Maya Lin Structure: Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Washington, D.C. Year Completed: 1982 Number of Votes: 5
#8
Architect: Tadao Ando Structure: Church of the Light, Osaka, Japan Year Completed: 1989 Number of Votes: 6
#7
Architect: Sir James Stirling Structure: Neue Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart, Germany Year Completed: 1984 Number of Votes: 6
#6
Architect: Toyo Ito Structure: Mediatheque building, Sendai, Japan Year Completed: 2001 Number of Votes: 6
#5
Architect: Rem Koolhaas (Office for Metropolitan Architecture) Structure: Seattle Central Library Year Completed: 2004 Number of Votes: 6
#4
Architect: Sir Norman Foster Structure: HSBC Building, Hong Kong Year Completed: 1985 Number of Votes: 7
#3
Architect: Peter Zumthor Structure: Thermal Baths, Vals, Switzerland Year Completed: 1996 Number of Votes: 9
#2
Architect: Renzo Piano Structure: Menil Collection, Houston Year Completed: 1987 Number of Votes: 10
#1
Architect: Frank Gehry Structure: Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao, Spain Year Completed: 1997 Number of Votes: 28
I looked through the article and it was actually pretty even handed. Acknowledging that we are in the age of STARCHITECTURE but not criticizing it too harshly, that is except for Peter Eisenman who wrote to as his top five:
#1: Firminy, Le Corbusier
#2: Nothing else, All PM junk
Eisenman always gets to me, one the one hand, I hate that he only likes dead people, but at the same time he includes himself amongst the wretched living. Intellectuals man, go fig.
Though, I think Bilbao did deserve to win.
Frank Ghery often gets criticized for his buildings being “fluff” or “dumb” and that if you are looking for more serious architecture, you should opt for the more conservative and far more cerebral, Renzo Piano. However, as Piano quotes himself “ People say “ok. Renzo Piano is the opposite of Frank Ghery” … I think all this is just silly.”
This article was certainly interesting as a window into contemporary architecture. It reminds us that in the post-postmodern, Robert Venturi's mantra found in Complexity and Contradiction has become the unspoken (and certainly never-admitted to) law.
Vanity Fair stated that we are living in the "Age of Ghery", I have to disagree - We are not in the age of Ghery as much as we are in the age of "inclusive architecture" over "exclsive architecture."
This makes the whole business tougher because the core concepts of freedom and self-expression require ingenuity rather than the perfection of a tried and true method.
Not only do you have to re-invent the wheel, you have to explain that it rolls, like, all the time.
Keeping that in mind, it’s easy to blame your Daniel Burnhams or Bernard Maybeks for keeping the “revolutionary architects” back, but part of "inclusive architecture" means we have to admire their work just as much as a Koolhaas or a Foster . It may be apples and oranges, but in the end they're both fruit. I’m glad that as a field we have come to accept that.
Long story short: not a lot of surprises, except for two
Firstly, Le Corbusier made the top 30 even though he hasn’t been practicing for 45 years (being dead has its disadvantages). A church , Firminy, as previously mentioned, was built in 2006 based off of one of his later designs - there is just no escaping the raven-like one or this mystique that the architectural elite seem to have of fearing a god long since dead.
Secondly, I noticed there wasn’t ONE residential listing in the top 20 (with the possible exception of the Peter Zumthor entry). Maybe there was a misunderstanding on my part, as this compedium consists of “buildings” and not “houses” but let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?
It seems the humble architecture of the home isn’t very popular right now. If you did the same article in 1970, it would be nothing BUT houses. Not to wax nostalgic, but in that era, people could afford a Khan or a Wright and the larger scale projects were typically the punched-hole big-box variety. That seems to have all changed with Bilbao, suddenly the perfect house is'nt as appealing as public glory.
I guess the rich are different from you and me, they rent.
Overall, Starchitecture does a few funny things. This kind of architecture (and yes, for this article they are all being lumped together) is simultaneously extremely public and snobbishly exclusive. Massive structures that seem indifferent as to whether or not the are human-scale or even percieved as beautiful for that matter. The references and concepts behind the building may be "inclusive", that is drawings from many different styles to form their own, but the dependence on wide-spread public admiration is shattered.
Sure - Anyone can go, but not everyone can get it.
For the slide-show see link --> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/08/architecture-survey-list-201008
(though I’m not going to lie, the “SEX” did initiate the interest, turns out it was about Maureen Dowd vacationing in Saudi Arabia, I keep forgetting that Vanity Fair is not Cosmopolitan and vice versa).
I was really interested to see what the crème de la crème picked as the best examples of their generation. This top ten is as follows:
#10
Architect: Sir Norman Foster Structure: Millau Viaduct, France Year Completed: 2004 Number of Votes: 4
#9
Architect: Maya Lin Structure: Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Washington, D.C. Year Completed: 1982 Number of Votes: 5
#8
Architect: Tadao Ando Structure: Church of the Light, Osaka, Japan Year Completed: 1989 Number of Votes: 6
#7
Architect: Sir James Stirling Structure: Neue Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart, Germany Year Completed: 1984 Number of Votes: 6
#6
Architect: Toyo Ito Structure: Mediatheque building, Sendai, Japan Year Completed: 2001 Number of Votes: 6
#5
Architect: Rem Koolhaas (Office for Metropolitan Architecture) Structure: Seattle Central Library Year Completed: 2004 Number of Votes: 6
#4
Architect: Sir Norman Foster Structure: HSBC Building, Hong Kong Year Completed: 1985 Number of Votes: 7
#3
Architect: Peter Zumthor Structure: Thermal Baths, Vals, Switzerland Year Completed: 1996 Number of Votes: 9
#2
Architect: Renzo Piano Structure: Menil Collection, Houston Year Completed: 1987 Number of Votes: 10
#1
Architect: Frank Gehry Structure: Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao, Spain Year Completed: 1997 Number of Votes: 28
I looked through the article and it was actually pretty even handed. Acknowledging that we are in the age of STARCHITECTURE but not criticizing it too harshly, that is except for Peter Eisenman who wrote to as his top five:
#1: Firminy, Le Corbusier
#2: Nothing else, All PM junk
Eisenman always gets to me, one the one hand, I hate that he only likes dead people, but at the same time he includes himself amongst the wretched living. Intellectuals man, go fig.
Though, I think Bilbao did deserve to win.
Frank Ghery often gets criticized for his buildings being “fluff” or “dumb” and that if you are looking for more serious architecture, you should opt for the more conservative and far more cerebral, Renzo Piano. However, as Piano quotes himself “ People say “ok. Renzo Piano is the opposite of Frank Ghery” … I think all this is just silly.”
This article was certainly interesting as a window into contemporary architecture. It reminds us that in the post-postmodern, Robert Venturi's mantra found in Complexity and Contradiction has become the unspoken (and certainly never-admitted to) law.
Vanity Fair stated that we are living in the "Age of Ghery", I have to disagree - We are not in the age of Ghery as much as we are in the age of "inclusive architecture" over "exclsive architecture."
This makes the whole business tougher because the core concepts of freedom and self-expression require ingenuity rather than the perfection of a tried and true method.
Not only do you have to re-invent the wheel, you have to explain that it rolls, like, all the time.
Keeping that in mind, it’s easy to blame your Daniel Burnhams or Bernard Maybeks for keeping the “revolutionary architects” back, but part of "inclusive architecture" means we have to admire their work just as much as a Koolhaas or a Foster . It may be apples and oranges, but in the end they're both fruit. I’m glad that as a field we have come to accept that.
Long story short: not a lot of surprises, except for two
Firstly, Le Corbusier made the top 30 even though he hasn’t been practicing for 45 years (being dead has its disadvantages). A church , Firminy, as previously mentioned, was built in 2006 based off of one of his later designs - there is just no escaping the raven-like one or this mystique that the architectural elite seem to have of fearing a god long since dead.
Secondly, I noticed there wasn’t ONE residential listing in the top 20 (with the possible exception of the Peter Zumthor entry). Maybe there was a misunderstanding on my part, as this compedium consists of “buildings” and not “houses” but let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?
It seems the humble architecture of the home isn’t very popular right now. If you did the same article in 1970, it would be nothing BUT houses. Not to wax nostalgic, but in that era, people could afford a Khan or a Wright and the larger scale projects were typically the punched-hole big-box variety. That seems to have all changed with Bilbao, suddenly the perfect house is'nt as appealing as public glory.
I guess the rich are different from you and me, they rent.
Overall, Starchitecture does a few funny things. This kind of architecture (and yes, for this article they are all being lumped together) is simultaneously extremely public and snobbishly exclusive. Massive structures that seem indifferent as to whether or not the are human-scale or even percieved as beautiful for that matter. The references and concepts behind the building may be "inclusive", that is drawings from many different styles to form their own, but the dependence on wide-spread public admiration is shattered.
Sure - Anyone can go, but not everyone can get it.
For the slide-show see link --> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/08/architecture-survey-list-201008
Friday, August 13, 2010
made in 'muricah
I know it's over a month late, but I've be meaning to get together a bunch of america-type buildings. So enjoy some cowboys, capitals and commerce.
As much as I like domes, and stuff on domes- I want it to be made clear that I have never liked "The Apotheosis of George Washington" I just don't think the American mindset can identify with perfection in our leaders; living or dead. George Washington was a field agent not an infallable God and he knew that.
As much as I like domes, and stuff on domes- I want it to be made clear that I have never liked "The Apotheosis of George Washington" I just don't think the American mindset can identify with perfection in our leaders; living or dead. George Washington was a field agent not an infallable God and he knew that.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Philip Johnson Comics
For some reason the full comic was not loading - so follow the link here for the meeting of FLW and P.J.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Place Setting
So I'm at work today and an interesting, and completely unwarranted email arrived in my mail-box.
Right now I'm living in Baltimore and it seems that they are trying to make the downtown area more accessable through a series of huge civic overhalls. The first one being the Charm City Circulator.
As the ads state it is "fast, friendly and free" and while this is all true, it seems to good to be true. It arrives every ten minutes and goes everywhere you would want. If there is no other agenda other than tourism, this might be the most noble gesture ever made. Also far too good for the likes of me.
Another step taken by the city of Baltimore's Downtown Partnership is the joining the "Project for Public Spaces"
In this case, there is an open survey to all Baltimorians (or ballimurns to use the accent) on their favorite and least favorite parts of the city
It's all very Jane Jacobs (which is'nt necessarily a bad thing), However, I'm just worried about the contrived nature of this expieriment. It's the continual arguement of will of the individual vision vs. the democratic creative process. One technique is not better than the other, but for me personally, civic planning that takes no responsibility for its own actions is either lazy or scared of dissent.
That being said I did participate and will keep an eye on it.
Favorite place: 
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)