In your opinion, which are the most interesting topics?

[Richard Haut]

Solid's example is very good - it has sense to it. "unless there is a good reason not to ...".

however, I live in a town where decoration was an intrinsic part of the culture, of the architecture, right up to the 1950's. Paint, ceramics, mosaic, bas-relief, sculpture, stained glass ... everywhere.

I recently found a quite rare book about the architecture of Nice in the 50's. Some good building, but ......

there has been a reaction against the blankness. There are the vernacular styles: modern houses that look slightly Provençal and have the appropriate colouring (exact equivalent of what happened in Britain about thirty years ago); there have been multiple shapes in vivid colours, completely sculptural buildings, and - the one continuing factor down here - the active use of sculpture as part of the urban design.

however, the return to actual decoration does not seem to have happened, except in the restoration of some of the painted decorations on older properties. Except for something recent: student housing (in appropriately contemporary design) with massive murals.

have the skills been lost ? I doubt it because the decoration on many of the 1920's and 1930's buildings are remarkable.

I believe that the use of decoration is returning because people like it.

[csintexas]

You really can't get away from FFF in architecture. Even blobs have to comply to some extent so the phrase is somewhat redundant. To me it is a simple reminder that we are not "aesthetist" (In other words only concerned with looks) Also I consider the phrase simple hierarchy. Function comes first form follows that. And if you look at Vitruvian Triad you see that beauty is only one of three aspects the other two dealing with function.

I don't see where function precludes decoration. I would imagine that most of those early examples in Nice functioned well. Any house designed before air conditioning had to function pretty well or be even more uncomfortable.

SDR, I find it confusing that on one hand you are against mixing occult and science but on the other hand seem to attribute occult properties to architecture which is mostly science.

I guess the reason I think it is a particular pertinent phrase now a days is because I feel architecture has been dumbed down. Reduced to the aesthetic.

[solidred]

This thread topic seems to have grown legs. And I’m one of the worst culprits but hey, I’ll acknowledge that and carry on…
Obviously I’m no woman, but it strikes me that there’s a male/female divide over ornamentation. For males, ornament = clutter whereas for females ornament = adornment. Men enjoy the exposed operational logic of a thing - its objective presence if you like - on which ornament reduces its extensiveness; its abstraction and instead renders the thing as over-particular; over-wrought; somehow demeaned.
Women, on the other hand, recognize the subjective power of ornament. Particular isn’t ‘small’ but ‘specific’ or ‘bestowed with care’.

[csintexas]

I guess I am effeminate then because I like ornament. Also I think men tend to be geometric whereas women tend to be floral. But women in my experience are more conscious of symmetry.

I think the whole notion of FFF excluding ornamentation came from minimalism.

[Richard Haut]

Eileen Gray.

[solidred]

Perhaps it would help if I instead referred to masculine and feminine aspects of the psyche, as individual men and woman have varying proportions of both. If you accept the concepts referred to in quasi-psychology. I don't think you can measure this, or point to parts of the brain so-labelled

I'll have to Google Eileen Gray as I'm not so familiar with her work as to be able to know what you mean there Richard...

[Richard Haut]

I think that you may be in for a pleasant surprise if you are not familiar with Eileen Gray's work.

however I am baffled about your masculine/feminine distinction. (Stonemasons might not be flattered).

we are not talking about soft furnishings, nor are we talking about a reaction to the extreme use of decoration (as Loos was in reaction to Art Nouveau).

if you are saying that by leaving buildings blank it displays "the exposed operational logic of a thing", then I would disagree completely. I can understand such a notion applied to engineering, but in a block of flats ?

I regret that my view is the precise opposite: the lack of decoration is a display of timidity.

[solidred]

Heh, don't assume I'm siding with the men when it comes to the distinction I drew.

[Richard Haut]

I am not really assuming where you stand on this issue - it was not intended personally.

it is something that I have noticed over the last couple of decades that decorative features - even colour - have been introduced in many schemes in an extremely timid manner. A sort of fear of decoration.

why ? I suspect that it is more the fear of being accused of a lack of purity than a display of a feminine side.

anyway from what I understand of their "Brutalist" reputation, it was Alison Smithson who was more feared than Peter.

[birgco]

[SDR]

The FFF thing seems to come down to "architecture is by nature grounded in function." We know that, so what's the point in either trumpeting or disagreeing with the point ? That's why I think (finally) that it's meaningless.

Architecture at its best has always been a delightful (or sober) demonstration of the interplay of art and science, form and function.




It takes a real man to acknowledge his feminine side ?

I don't dislike ornamentation; I've designed plenty of ornament. But I'm happy (like Herr Loos ?) to let the color and texture of material, and the arrangement of form, light and shadow, become the ornament of a building or piece of furniture.

SDR

[birgco]

[solidred]

[mx2]