|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 631
Location: Scotland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:08 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
The function of a building should not simply be to produce energy, as a primary function, and all other functions serve this one, should it?
Besides, I don't feel those rotating sections will move as smoothly as depicted, as you have an enormous amount of weight that needs to be maintained in motion with variable winds. The whole thing may not work and probably will not function as planned.
It is thus, wishful thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 887
Location: Montana, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 631
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My shot is that its function is to stand totem to ludicrous, pompous vulgarity  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
darn it! That was going to be my answer but I changed at the last minute. Do I get partial credit? 
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 887
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Continuing education credits???? 
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 887
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| solidred wrote: | | My shot is that its function is to stand totem to ludicrous, pompous vulgarity |
I agree that would be a good start. Get people thinking, for sure.
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ARC1TEC
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:17 pm Post subject: utilitarian aesthetic is not to everyones taste. |
|
|
| Isn't form follows function a thread of utilitarian philosophy applied to architecture? So FFF is only necessary as part of a design procedure when utilitarian yourself. The root of the idea is that designing a building to perfom a specific function will create it's own aesthetic through being good. Brutalist architects could not agree because the beauty of brutalism is that it is brutal and honest not functional and therefore good. Don't you see the aesthetic causes are different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 631
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
brutalism being an exposure of 'what is' rather than of 'what does'?
A nice, thought-provoking answer, arc1tec. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't form follows function a thread of utilitarian philosophy applied to architecture?
yes
So FFF is only necessary as part of a design procedure when utilitarian yourself.
yes
The root of the idea is that designing a building to perfom a specific function will create it's own aesthetic through being good.
yes
Brutalist architects could not agree because the beauty of brutalism is that it is brutal and honest not functional and therefore good.
yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Don't you see the aesthetic causes are different.
Yes but I am having trouble understanding your point.
That everyone should design how they want to? -Who would disagree with that?
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ARC1TEC
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is it possible to design how you want to when you are working for a large firm? Take FLW as an example he soon left when his houses weren't exactly appreciated by his boss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is it possible to design how you want to when you are working for a large firm? Take FLW as an example he soon left when his houses weren't exactly appreciated by his boss.
In reality it is rarely possible. Even FLW had to please his clients. But I assume we are talking about theory and not reality.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Brutalist architects could not agree because the beauty of brutalism is that it is brutal and honest not functional and therefore good.
yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Don't you see the aesthetic causes are different.
Yes but I am having trouble understanding your point. |
That was interesting...from left field actually but a valid point about the end result of an idea...the causal effects, if you will. Decon and Hi-tech also breeded on this notion of extreme honesty, although many others will claim the same. But the point is Chris, if the function is to be aesthetic, or something as abstract as such, it is not functional...it is aesthetic. Some purists would rather commit hari kari before succumbing to such ideas but many revel in them...can you tell me what the function were any of the forms that Eero Saarinen, Danny Libeskind, Frank Gehry or Moshe Safdie designed without reading the title of the project? If you were honest you would say not.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe I already pointed to the gateway arch as another example of a non-functional structure.
I have never said there are no buildings that function poorly. In fact I have said just the opposite that too many buildings function poorly.
You can no more disconnect function from architecture than you can the property of a vase to contain and hold water.
A vase that does not hold water is a poor vase. It may be a beautiful object in it's own right but it is a poor (hence ugly) vase.
| Quote: |
can you tell me what the function were any of the forms that Eero Saarinen, Danny Libeskind, Frank Gehry or Moshe Safdie designed without reading the title of the project? If you were honest you would say not. |
I don't know. Since I am not familiar with the full scope of all these peoples work I suppose you could show me pictures and see if I can guess correctly.
I'm not sure what that would or would not prove. I suppose if I could, that would prove that form always has some relation to function but I have already stated that this is always the case to some degree.
If I can't, that would either prove that there is no connection or that these
examples are really poor architecture.
Again the Millennium Dome makes a good example If I where to look at it I would have surely thought that it was some sort of covered arena and not a mall.
In oder to test the truth of the concept that the best way to design a building is through a pursuit of function I suspect we would have to make tests designed to prove it and then see if they result in better architecture.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
