SU?

solo · 6 Jun 2008, 10:59

@unknownuser said:

But I prefer something new and 'good'

Yup the delicate balance between form and function.

Alan Fraser · 6 Jun 2008, 11:17

Either they are Photoshopping or that house is one heck of a Transformer.

solo · 6 Jun 2008, 11:23

LOL

The 1st one has some shadow discrepancies.

linea · 6 Jun 2008, 11:34

The people that have bought that house must have very deep pockets. In the current economic climate, once the design has been "value engineered" the contractors can usually only afford to build something cheaper and simpler. It is happening all over the UK at the moment.

lewiswadsworth · 6 Jun 2008, 13:22

@kwistenbiebel said:

...architecture isn't just the form. More important are the why's and the how's.

I just make them up as I go along.

It gets built or it doesn't--the client says yes or they don't--and after a certain point you die, it gets torn down, and in time everyone forgets about it completely.

kwistenbiebel · 6 Jun 2008, 15:10

Fffw...the optimistic one.

Anssi · 6 Jun 2008, 19:22

@unknownuser said:

Frankly, I think you're right. This is a surprisingly ugly design. Mental exercise: picture this house, if you like, next to a Neutra. May put things into perspective.

I think Bruce Goff did this in the 1940s already - using partly recycled materials.

Anssi

Stinkie · 7 Jun 2008, 10:34

@kwistenbiebel said:

...And also, the Art Nouveau examples you show are more than just 'lets do flowers'. Art Nouveau as a movement was a reaction to the cold industrial age of prefabrication, standardisation and the loss of 'the natural' and 'tradition', typical for that era.

Not to mention Horta's stuff is much more elegant. It's like a well-choreographed ballet of organic forms, not just a blob like the house that's being discussed here. A decent composition relies heavily on a "hierarchy of forms" (I cannot explain this better in Eengleesh) - and there just doesn't seem to be one here.

Unlike Fred, I am not very willing to give the architect of this house props for trying. Harsh as it may sound, I reserve my appreciation for those, be it architects, artists, composers or writers, who succeed. If I wouldn't, what would my appreciation be worth?

kwistenbiebel · 7 Jun 2008, 11:05

Actually I do give credits to the architect for 'trying'.
It's just that this experiment should not have left her backroom.

Pure form experiments are fun and good to learn from (see Freds nice setups).
However, when going from 'form study' to a real 'project', the form needs to be supportive to a concept and never the subject itself.

One of the best examples of this are the studies of the Bauhaus artist Moholy Nagy. Pure form studies but the actual built projects had so much more besides the formalistic.

johnsenior1973 · 7 Jun 2008, 11:44

@unknownuser said:

Unlike Fred, I am not very willing to give the architect of this house props for trying. Harsh as it may sound, I reserve my appreciation for those, be it architects, artists, composers or writers, who succeed. If I wouldn't, what would my appreciation be worth?

What do you think your appreciation is worth? I think it's worth the same as your derision - nothing.

To only reserve your appreciation for those who succeed seems pretty simplistic to me. What if the architects, writers or composers who "fail" push the boundaries so that later artists "succeed" later on? Without the failures you won't have the successes.

Stinkie · 7 Jun 2008, 23:06

@johnsenior1973 said:

@unknownuser said:

Unlike Fred, I am not very willing to give the architect of this house props for trying. Harsh as it may sound, I reserve my appreciation for those, be it architects, artists, composers or writers, who succeed. If I wouldn't, what would my appreciation be worth?

What do you think your appreciation is worth? I think it's worth the same as your derision - nothing.

To only reserve your appreciation for those who succeed seems pretty simplistic to me. What if the architects, writers or composers who "fail" push the boundaries so that later artists "succeed" later on? Without the failures you won't have the successes.

Oh no. I once again dove head first into yet another senseless meta discussion with an ideological heir of the seventies' soft edged "jedermann ist ein künstler, we're all great and the process is all that counts" approach.

I haven't said my appreciation or derision's worth anything, now have I? I just wanted to point out I'd rather throw roses at Bach than at Jon Bon Jovi. I wish mr. Bon Jovi all the succes he desires, but I insist on maintaining a very clear distinction between quality and mediocrity.

Of course, to each his own. Tastes do differ, and I have no problem with that. Quite the contrary. But, as Alain Finkielkraut points out quite eloquently in the last chapter of the "The Defeat Of The Mind ", there's a difference between a nice pair of boots and Shakespeare.

Now I throw in the towel. No more meta discussion.

kwistenbiebel · 7 Jun 2008, 23:37

Don't mock Jedermann. I love his work.
Wuahahaaaaaa

I love those experiments of the seventies where they put some monkeys in front of a virgin canvas, let them tangle with a brush and paint, and then show the produced 'paintings' to the established art critics (without telling them some apes made it). Most of those art guys were convinced the art was sublime.

So yeah, let me be a 'Jedermann'
Actually, the name sounds very 'artistique'.

Sincerely yours,
the true mister Kleidermann

...err...I mean Jedermann.

(or was it Jagermeister?.....hell , I need to get some sleep )

johnsenior1973 · 8 Jun 2008, 05:48

@unknownuser said:

I haven't said my appreciation or derision's worth anything, now have I?

So what exactly did you mean when you said, "Harsh as it may sound, I reserve my appreciation for those, be it architects, artists, composers or writers, who succeed. If I wouldn't, what would my appreciation be worth?"

To me that seems to be very clear that you are making out that your appreciation is worth something.

@unknownuser said:

I just wanted to point out I'd rather throw roses at Bach than at Jon Bon Jovi. I wish mr. Bon Jovi all the succes he desires, but I insist on maintaining a very clear distinction between quality and mediocrity.

But as you reserve your appreciation for those who succeed, surely if Mr. Bon Jovi gets all the success he desires you will then appreciate him?

Stinkie · 8 Jun 2008, 07:15

@johnsenior1973 said:

So what exactly did you mean when you said, "Harsh as it may sound, I reserve my appreciation for those, be it architects, artists, composers or writers, who succeed. If I wouldn't, what would my appreciation be worth?" To me that seems to be very clear that you are making out that your appreciation is worth something.

Oh, but it is worth something. But I wasn't talking about absolute value. I was referring to the relative value of my appreciation as opposed to my derision. Hope this makes sense.

@johnsenior1973 said:

But as you reserve your appreciation for those who succeed, surely if Mr. Bon Jovi gets all the success he desires you will then appreciate him?

I was referring to artistic merit, not worldly succes (though there's nothing wrong with the latter). Thought that one was clear.

@ Kwist: you are gonna need some aspirin in the morning.