Architecture

[Christmas In A Submarine.]

Thanks for the photos Franklin... though I agree with your sentiments those shots remind me how much more I enjoy Mies' work, by and large.

What was it that FLW said about Mies? "It's not enough just to negate what came before?*" I imagine Mies feels the same way about PJ.

*or something to that effect.

[FranklinCosgrove]

Wright is a crazy person. Too much to discuss there at the moment.

I wouldn't say Johnson negates what came before, he references history in order to acknowledge the field but at the same time give it no relevance. For instance, when he wrote about his AT&T building, he mentions that the scale and human references of the base of the tower was based off Brunelleschi. Except he puts the word in parenthesis and adds a question mark, as in: (Brunelleschi?). He's just playing with it. Another example: "The middle a shaft from the twenties (Raymond Hood?) and the top of a broken pediment complete with cornice (late Roman?)" History is evoked but disappears. It highlights his post-Opus sans Arbeit attitude.

Edit: I too enjoy Mies' work better than Johnson for the most part but I enjoy Johnson as a sort of precursor to people like Peter Eisenman and Louis Kahn.

AT&T Building:

This picture makes me laugh:

[MrBurns]

At Farnsworth Mies worked on liberating architecture from constructive restraints such as, among others, pillars on the outside corners, something Johnson so heavy-handedly forgot or didn't see.

You can see that in the photos you posted.

No more arguments from me.

[FranklinCosgrove]

^ What point are you trying to make there? That Johnson is bad? That the Glass House is poor design? That Mies is better? I already stated that I enjoy Mies' work better than Johnson but I just wanted to point out that there is more to him than just poor design. Which is what I think you are trying to argue but I'm not exactly sure on that one anymore.

[po_boy_fuuma_hatesbargerz]

Can't rep franklin, but you be single-handedly rescuing this thread man. Keep it up.

[FranklinCosgrove]

I recently saw a lecture by Minsuk Cho and I thought I'd share one of his projects. It's called Art Trap and was a proposal for the Guggenheim Museum in New York by Wright. Where Wright sees the space as an endless spiral of motion around the void, Cho wants to trap people in this membrane where they can pause and sit. These people then become their own art exhibit when you are standing down inside the void looking up. So good for a museum since generally you go to museums to obverse but this makes you interact.

Like looking up at a fresco painted on a dome but with real people! Brilliant! This has so much potential for hilarious and amazing situations. Does architecture need to start incorporating their audience like this more? I think so.

This project is so hilarious. I love it. Especially the 4th picture down.

Brunelleschi Dome at The Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore:

[curemyself]

Can anyone recommend some books on architecture, this thread is inspiring and i have always been interested in it.

[FranklinCosgrove]

^^ Sure. What kind of things are you interested in? There are a lot of books on architecture...

[bencap]

It is NOT the pinnacle of architecture for this generation and will NOT define the era in which it was built. There is nothing groundbreaking about this. They have to be joking about that. After looking up the bio for the architect though it only makes sense. He designs for A-list celebs in LA. He doesn't build for himself he builds for the rich like a spineless slave. I guess real life Peter Keatings do exist. End rant.

Sorry to bring up something from a while back, but I had to point out that a huge majority of architecture has the almighty "client" as master and ruler. Not to say architects don't have a lot of input, I just think its silly to deride this guy for being a capitalist in a capitalist society. The rest of your post is totally fucking spot on though, that house is bullshit.

[bencap]

I just read The Architecture of Happiness by Alain De Botton, and it's a pretty good book, should be easy to pick up for anyone who hasn't read architecture literature before.

[FranklinCosgrove]

Sorry to bring up something from a while back, but I had to point out that a huge majority of architecture has the almighty "client" as master and ruler. Not to say architects don't have a lot of input, I just think its silly to deride this guy for being a capitalist in a capitalist society. The rest of your post is totally fucking spot on though, that house is bullshit.

It's fine if that's what he wants to do. Build as a capitalist. But don't call your shit new. That was my main issue with this guy. It is sooo clearly not new that it's almost insulting. I just associated him with being a whipped bitch after reading his bio. He is either disillusioned into think his stuff is new. Or he is very successfully duping people who know nothing about architecture into liking his shit. Probably more of the latter, unfortunately.

In regards to literature, there is such a huge difference between architectural literature and literature on architecture. If you haven't read anything before then you should definitely start with something that is just about architecture. Most canonical texts are dense as fuck and nearly incomprehensible to say the least. Unless you're Peter Eisenman or something. But yeah, I recommend something like Devil in the White City by Eric Larson or The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand as interesting books with a lot of architectural influence.

If you want to just dive right in then I'd look into books like Towards a New Architecture by Le Corbusier, Learning From Las Vegas by Robert Venturi, or Delirious New York by Rem Koolhaas. If you're looking for more recent stuff then look into Form[/] by Greg Lynn or From Control to Design by Michael Meredith.

Architects write a lot in short essays so if you have an architect you enjoy just look up some of their writing and you should be able to find stuff. Might be better since it's shorter and more easily accessible.

[Arsenal!]

Delirious New York is a splendid read. If you want something a little more accessible that deals with how people interact with a city, Jane Jacobs Death and Life of Great American Cities is brilliant. If you want something weirder, but still fascinating, Fuller's Operating Manuel for Spaceship Earth and a new English translation of Taut's Alpine Architektur are more than worth the read.

Hope these help.

[curemyself]

^^ Sure. What kind of things are you interested in? There are a lot of books on architecture...

Im an art major. Recently my painting teacher, who is from venezuela. He told me what most art majors there did was major in architecture then come to the states and get a degree in art.

I guess Im more interested in the drawing/painting aspects of landscapes and architecture. Are there any good books that focus on such a thing that you know of?

-Mike

[curemyself]

and to Franklin, of those listed, I have only read devil in the white city.

[FranklinCosgrove]

Oh man. If you want to look at some amazing architectural drawings then get Graphic Anatomy by Atelier Bow Wow. Unfortunately most of the text is in Japanese but the drawings are spot on. They are generally very well know for having great looking drawings.

[curemyself]

Excellent, Ill have to check that out, maybe theyll have it at my library.

Here is a link to my professors site for anyone interested.

http://rafaelevera.com/home.html

[FranklinCosgrove]

In terms of paintings, Zaha Hadid does some impressive work:

This is probably her most known painting. The Peak:

[curemyself]

Im going to have to dabble with some similar styles on a painting im starting tonight in class. I have a 22x28 canvas to use these last few days of class!

Who are some of the more popular artists with styles like this, Franklin? Btw, thx for the help, much appreciated!

[FranklinCosgrove]

Zaha is pretty much the only one to do painting like that, that I'm aware of. She does a pretty decent amount though so just look into it.

[Christmas In A Submarine.]

Coincidence: (?) I just started reading Devil in the white city a few days ago. I've only been able to read it in fits and starts thanks to school, but it's pretty enjoyable so far, and definitely an interesting perspective on the Prairie folks versus Beaux Arts/East coast.

I also never realized there was such a personal schism between Burnham and Sullivan. Fascinating stuff.

Oh, and if you're really just wanting a quick read as a primer to architecture in general both The Architecture of Happiness, which was already mentioned, and A Place of My Own by michael pollan both give interesting but far from thorough overviews of history and a bit of theory.

If you can find a copy also try Peter Zumthor's Thinking Architecture. Definitely an interesting take on contemporary practice... though it's mostly his alone.

[Appleseed]

Talking about painting; look at Lebbeus Woods. About as literal as Zaha.

And if we're going to start throwing shit into the Guggenheim, I'd much rather see Denari's proposal:

[Christmas In A Submarine.]

is this for real?

if so, Assange: u ballin.

[FranklinCosgrove]

I've been meaning to make some more posts in here but had to finish up a project these last past few days. Functioned on about 2-3 hours a night last week. Got 3 hrs on Monday night, was awake for about 40 hours from Tuesday morning to Wednesday night finishing work. Got a good nights sleep Wednesday night only to have to pull another all nighter last night. If anyone is looking to go into the field, that's whats up.

And if we're going to start throwing shit into the Guggenheim, I'd much rather see Denari's proposal:

Denari is great. I've seen him lecture multiple times and it is always very interesting. Sadly he kind of lives in Thom Mayne's shadow. Saw them give a lecture together where it was a dialog between the two and Denari just kept making comments about how much better Mayne was. Rather funny. I enjoy Denari's Alan-Voo House and High Line 23. Both really interesting projects. Too bad the Alan-Voo House burnt down. The High Line 23 House makes a great addition to the already great High Line by Field Operations and Diller, Scofidio + Renfro.

is this for real?

if so, Assange: u ballin.

This doesn't seem true to me. It may be. But it's still whatever. I mean, It's cool but it relies on the fact that it looks like the Bat Cave. And the Bat Cave is pretty cool.

[FranklinCosgrove]

Neil Denari | Alan-Voo House:

Neil Denari | High Line 23:

Lot's of different aspects of the High Line. It's 1.5 miles long so hard to summarize in a few pics. Check it out though. It's a park built on a stretch of old railroad that runs through the meat packing industry of New York. If you live in New York you have no reason not to go visit. By Field Operations and Diller, Scofidio + Renfro:

[FranklinCosgrove]

Talking about painting; look at Lebbeus Woods. About as literal as Zaha.

Speaking of Lebbeus Woods. It seems appropriate that he comes up after talking about Piranesi. Where most people think Piranesi never did any built work, and only worked in the realm of drawing, he actually did the Knights of Malta project discussed earlier. Woods on the other hand, literally has zero built work. Everything he has ever done remains in the realm of representation. Super interesting stuff though. I think it is past his time though. I'd say he'd be sort of a precursor to people like Hernan Diaz Alonso who has very prominently taken over the realm of the unbuildable and is very effectively creating clones of himself over at Sci-Arc.

Lebbeus Woods:

[FranklinCosgrove]

Posting pics for genealogy sake. Where Woods is all drawing, Hernan is all digital. Serious digital overload. Hernan Diaz Alonso:

[VuONG]

finally glad to see this thread be brought into the contemporary...

without all that cliche discussion on modern architecture...

Denari is by far one of my favorite architects, but as a professor you can see that his level of intellgence isnt on the same level as thom maynes.

Mayne as a way of understanding thing without effort

Denari on the other hand just wont get things if his not his own work.

[FranklinCosgrove]

finally glad to see this thread be brought into the contemporary...

without all that cliche discussion on modern architecture...

Denari is by far one of my favorite architects, but as a professor you can see that his level of intellgence isnt on the same level as thom maynes.

Mayne as a way of understanding thing without effort

Denari on the other hand just wont get things if his not his own work.

^^ You go to school at UCLA? Both of them teach there so I'm just assuming.

Yeah Mayne is brilliant, and looks like Steve Jobs. I ran into him at a coffee shop in LA about a week ago. I was nerding out pretty hard but didn't have time to go chat with him. Plus he looked busy. I realized that even if you're a famous architect, no one will ever recognize you unless they are in the field as well. I'm not talking about starchitects like Gary. I mean, Mayne won the Pritzker Prize. Yet he can just walk into a coffee shop anonymously. Amazing.

[Appleseed]

FranklinCosgrove where'd you hear the A-V house burnt down?

Neil is a fairly humble dude, and I think that figures heavily in on how he talks about his own work. While the designs are about as un-personal as possible, ('world-sheet', anyone?) they are clearly identifiable as his and often the conversation errs toward the anecdotal. This all being in very heavy contrast to how he used to write and 'explain' the work. Pick up a GA or A+U from 20 years ago. One of the reasons for the evolution in his style and form has stemmed directly from the fallout in relying so heavily on technical nomenclature to describe processes that he didn't necc. fully grasp or relate too.

However in my mind, none of this really lands him in Mayne's shadow. Their personalities are just fundamentally different. Thom has always been a self-described bad boy (he just wears cashmere scarfs and doesn't sleep in his car anymore) and Neil has always tried very hard to placate and be a supporter. Frankly I've always been a fan of their respective work, both old and new. The themes and issues that Neil has played with academically over the past 25 years resonate with me, in a slightly more appealing manner then Morphsis' decon. Thom, however, is a talker, and a very good one at that. He is charismatic when needed and he can argue like a mother fucker. They are both very good at what they do, but have very different skill sets.

[FranklinCosgrove]

^^ One of my professors mentioned it the other day.

I guess I mean in terms of achievements. Mayne is clearly more accomplished than Denari in terms of the number and size of commissions he gets. But I agree, this doesn't make Denari's work any worse or less interesting than Mayne's. Both are great for what they are worth.