|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 550
Location: SW Ohio
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:39 am Post subject: Re: internecine battles |
    |
|
| RSCarcht wrote: | | How can one "design" without knowing the differences between Georgian and Federal Colonial styles or between Art Deco and Art Nouveau? How can one understand the current design trends without having read the manifestoes of the Futurists or the Constructivists? |
I not sure reading the manifestoes are as important as reading Derrida. That's another thread. Besides, that's the whole problem with the Modern Movement and it's recent reincarnations. You have to own the manual to "get it." So much of the present work is self-referential that its meaningless.
Do we really propose to hand our clients copies of Vers Une Architecture or Saarinen's Search for Form? Or should they read Dadaist or Oswald Spagler as to understand the dematerial, technocratic world of Mies? But that's the intent of the Modern Movement. You have to own the book to understand the work. (Obviously, I am a post-modernist at heart) And this stance has damaged any position that Architects had in the residential world.
Don't get me wrong, I would prefer to be designing Case Study houses, but in 20 years of business .... not here. You have a great advantage on the east coast of finding a few clients who will want Modern.
| RSCarcht wrote: | | In the German language there is a differentiation between "Bauen" and "Architektur." They both involve structure and design but they are different things entirely—the first is utilitarian and the other aspirational. |
Yes, but...... While the industrial work of Albert Kahn inspired Corbu and his followers, were his buildings any less architecture. Absolutely not. We only look at Corbu because the historians have determined his work is more worthy of note. (Factory as house). The historians want us to believe that Kahn was in the "Bauen" tradition.
This is wrong. Kahn revolutionized the industrial building in particular the plants he did for Ford. Not only in terms of decentralized manufacturing (Dearborn Engineering Lab), but centralized manufacturing (River Rouge). He used modern materials to create large open spaces for the production of products on the scale of the great train sheds of the mid-19th C.
I like Kahn because he was not fixed to a Style, but his work was appropriate for its context and program. To the opposite, Dublin, Ohio has strict architectural guidelines. All very tradiional. I remember asking a friend what she thought. She hated it. She said everything looked the same. "The MacDonalds looks like a house as does the local gas station, you can't tell what building is what. It all looks the same." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Contextural design aside, post-modern-ism is far too vague of a "style" for me to be considered a good movement to adhere to, study or even admit one is one, but otherwise I agree with the rest of phansford's ideas. Certainly the notion that most work is self-referential and thus meaningless, is an important concept of design that the general public is seemingly not interested in understanding. It's more about "what is the most that can I get for my money"? (see Walmart)...
But regardless of styles, movements and other -isms throughout history, two things are critical to good design, which lies solely in the hands of the designer: contextual response and comfort. One is macro and the other is more personal. One is for the village and the other for the dweller. Should either be missing, the architecture is weak...which is what most designs are demonstrating more and more simply because it is an economic-driven industry now, as opposed to an intellectual one.
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 |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
jeez louise..."contextual"!
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 |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 550
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe I should define post-moderism; I don't think of it as a style. But post-Modernism encompasses a lot of "Styles". You have the American version(s) which ranges from historical allusion (Graves) to traditionalism (Duany et al - Greenberg?). Early tigerman and beeby fit somewhere in between...... You have Venturi, which is hard to catogorize. The Eurpopean movements, the Tendenza (Rossi, Botta) and the Kreir Brothers up north, O.M. Ungers. Ungers work is much more modern than you would guess.
I would place Anthony Ames, Steven Holl and Gehry into post-moderism. Love Ames Five Houses.....Holl's Pamplet Architecture books are important. Gehry is just a freaking mannerist to the hilt.
I like the work(both written and built) of the Texas Rangers (Colin Rowe, Fred Koetter, Michael Dennis, Werner (Last name excapes me)
The Decons fall into post-modernism as Eisenman does try to be contextual (Wexner) and they are breaking the rules of the Modern Canon.
I am never really sure where to place Louis Kahn. Is he a Modernist or is he the start of post-Modernist.
The common thread like you said is contextualism or an Urban Design approach to design. An understanding of where we have been and where we are going. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RSCarcht
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 92
Location: USA: RI, CT, NY, MA, FL
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Modernism is essentially an affirmation of invention and hopefulness in the future. "Post-modernism" if its name is to mean anything is a rejection of the modernist ideals, whether it be by a R.A.M. Stern or an Eisenman. I have long thought that the Vietnam War was the great impetus behind Post-modernism as a reaction to the failure of "technology" to win the war. Kahn and Rudolph are perhaps that last of the 60's modernists at Yale and were overtaken by Philip Johnson (but the 1970's fully transformed from his Miesian beginnings) and his accolytes (Stern, Tigerman etal).
Phandford complains that there is not much modern work to be done in Ohio. I have always believed Midwesterners to be a hopeful people (in therefore open to the possiblity of brighter possibilities through the power of technology) but perhaps I am projecting. Midwesterners also seem less tied to a class consciousness that lies at the heart of creating grand structures and edifices built in the sorts of places that I work (Newport / Hamptons / Palm Beach) and therefore I am actually surprised there isn't more modern work being done in the Midwest. I am starting a house renovation in LA (Mecca of new architecture) next to Wilshire Country Club but it, too, will be largely traditional in character. Still, a house is often an anchoring element of lives of clients and people often think of family traditions of domesticity so it is not surprising that residential architectural models frequently look to the past. A man's home truly is his castle--in every sense of the word!
This is in marked contrast to retail or office spaces where traditional models of domesticity hold much less sway and where modern models of design are much more likely to be employed. The general lack of creativity in the residential area is one reason why many architects are anxious to work on commercial projects more open to creative solutions. The other reason is that commercial projects can offer economies of scale where a higher profit margin is possible.
_________________
Ross Sinclair Cann, AIA APA
http://www.a4arch.com
Last edited by RSCarcht on Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:02 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1840
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think post modernism was the realization that people do not want to throw away every thing that came before modern.
I don't see a great deal of creative solutions in commercial buildings in general most of the interesting work is in public buildings. I think commercial and residential buildings both suffer from the same problems.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 550
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RSCarcht wrote: | | Modernism is essentially an affirmation of invention and hopefulness in the future. I have long thought that the Vietnam War was the great impetus behind Post-modernism as a reaction to the failure of "technology" to win the war. |
Complexity and Contradiction, long considered the post-modern manifesto was published in 1966. Guild House, considered by many to be the first post-modern building was begun in 1960. Troop elevations did not begin until 1965/66 with 1968-72 being the highest troop levels. Prior to 1965, we basically had 500 "observers" in 'Nam.
I think your stretching the use of technology in Viet Nam. It was really a jungle - guerilla war. There was almost no use of tanks (like on the scale of WWII) The Cobra gun ship maybe... but that's stretching it.
Anyway, post-Modernism isn't a rejection of Technology. It's about the use of precedence, historical allusion, contextualism.
| RSCarcht wrote: | | I have always believed Midwesterners to be a hopeful people who are less tied to a class consciousness that lies at the heart of creating grand structures and edifices built in the sorts of places that I work (Newport / Hamptons / Palm Beach) and therefore I am actually surprised there isn't more modern work being done in the Midwest. I am starting a house renovation in LA (Mecca of new architecture) next to Wilshire Country Club but it, too, will be largely traditional in character. Still, a house is often an anchoring element of lives of clients and people often think of family traditions of domesticity so it is not surprising that residential architectural models frequently look to the past. |
You can find lots of Modern residences in the Midwest. The modern stuff will be in and around the large cities like Chicago. Check out Nagle/Hartray. These guys go awesome modernist houses.
I worked for a gentleman named Richard Levin, who early in his Dayton career did a series of modern houses in the 60's and early 70's. Award winning stuff.
But the bulk of residential is BFH's (Big F'g House) and those are not typically designed by architects.
| RSCarcht wrote: | | This is in marked contrast to retail or office spaces where traditional models of domesticity hold much less sway and where modern models of design are much more likely to be employed. The general lack of creativity in the residential are is one reason why many architects are anxious to work on commercial projects more open to creative solutions. The other reason is that residential project infrequently offer economies of scale where a higher profit margin is possible. |
I think what you are trying to say is two-fold. People are willing to have modern office building constructed but want their home to be traditonal. Secondly, architects don't pursue houses because they are not lucrative and they don't like working with residential clients per se.
It is just strange, people want technology and modern design in their cars, iPods, computers, TV, you name it.... but want to live in a colonial salt-box  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
comfort...is the big word most designers keep overlooking. It is comfort (or lack thereof) that was the demise of modern-ism...which is housed in memories of what is "comfortable", particularly as a home, where one wants to feel safe and "warm". Modern-ism was always a "- spammed by idiots -" of the traditional elements of what constituted comfort and not just in the tactile sense, but more importaly in the visual appeal...hence, gables and clay barrel tiled roof, or shakes...
Not to mention, there is a quality to elaborate detail that is depicted by layers of molding, etal. that has been stripped away from modern-ism. Modern tenets were too concentrated on the machine of the house, but post-modernism did little to move forward. Instead, post-modernism has now become the catchall phrase for anything contemporary that's not so evidentl retro, or neo-...it's also the fact that individualism has reigned supreme in a very materialistic global economy. Look at me, says the world!! I'm unique! But that unique-ness has translated to I-podesque buildings, ie. Gehry and the "blobists"...but even that has the same problem as all post-modern objects: it's meaningless, except unto itself. However, there is potential...maybe next year. 
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 |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't even remember what I wrote that got *spamminated*...how funny! I assure you all, it was innocent...[fill in the blanks]
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 |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 550
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just like Modernism was killed by the hacks, I think post-modern as we know it 20 years ago has been co-oped and bastardized. Every mall in america has a pediment, every house has a round top window.
I think the architectural fashion press are the biggest contributors to this problem. Looks of glossy photos, no substance (critically written essays). Inland architect of the 1980s- early 90's was a GREAT magazine. Harry Weese was the publisher. Great essays and articles. I really looked reading the Chicago Architecture Police column by Howard Decker and Philip Bess. Some of those articles have been collected in Inland Architecture: Subterranean Essays on Moral Order and Formal Order in Chicago |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmapro
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | People are willing to have modern office building constructed but want their home to be traditonal. Secondly, architects don't pursue houses because they are not lucrative and they don't like working with residential clients per se.
|
I will agree with you on this to a tee.
I think people want their work place to be modern for convenience and inspiration. Studies have shown that when people are in an environment inspired by imaginative design, it promotes creative thinking. Workplaces are created in this fashion to promote free thinking and to keep the creative mind flowing.
In contrast, people want their home to be comfortable and something they are used to. A home is a place to unwind after a long hard dayt at the office. It is not necessarily the place for the creative mind to be meandering through the thoughts...unless you are on the toilet.
People, for the most part, want clean comfortable lines in the home...a relaxing atmosphere. They are not really in to the abstract design work you can find in an office building.
Now there are a few who have more money than they know what to do with and they provide lots of entertaining in their home. These are the people who go for the abstract design trends...the WOW factor if you will.
I believe most architects (just building on your comment phans) do not want to deal with residential projects because people usually don't really know what they want.
A business is going to have meetings after meetings to discuss their needs for the office place. When they go to an architect, they know what they want and then place it in the architects hands to create their vision.
Typically, a homeowner has an idea about what they want, but that is about it. They may look through a plan book and find an exterior look that they like...a style that they like, but then they want that same style catered to their wishes and desires. Unfortunately, this is not always feasible for the design.
Now, I have never designed anything commercial, so the next comment is made out of perception and not necessarily a true statement.
For the reasons listed above, I would think that designing a commercial structure would be easier than a residential dwelling. That is not a comment intended to undermine the work of an architect, I am just saying that when a client comes to an architect for a workplace design, they are more informed and know more about what they want than a homeowner coming in for a home design.
Of course, my comment above was factoring out all of the legwork behind the design - coding - zoning and all of the other considerations involved with commercial design - accessibility requirements and extensive research on material and connections and such.
I think architects prefer to work with someone who knows exactly what they want against someone who just has an idea. It makes their job easier. They have enough on their plate with the design than to have to deal with "guessing" at what the customer wants.
I may be way off base with this and if I am, please correct me. As I have mentioned, I have never designed commercial structures.
I would also think that an architect prefers commercial because it comes with a larger budget and allows more creativeness than a residential design. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1840
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think commercial customers know what they want any more than residential it always varies from person to person.
What style a company uses has a lot to do with the type of business. Banks are almost always fairly conservative even when the design is modern.
The problem with using the term post modern in my opinion is that it is still being defined. Certainly you can look at some of the architects phansford mentioned and say that was post modern but I think it is also fair to expect the ideas to trickle down into the common vocabulary and become somewhat diluted. I think it is the ideas behind post modern that are important and not the look.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is interesting to read what others think architects do. It would be only in a dream, kmapro, that any client ever knows what they want and just hands it over to us and we're free to just work on developing it. The issue with residential clients contrasted with commercial clients is in the scope:fee. There's an emotional aspect for residential clients and tighter budgetary constraints that lead to actually more work for the architect but at a much smaller fee (per square foot, if you will). The commercial clients typically have pre-detrmined budgets and must answer to either their boards, their CEO's or maybe just their investors/bankers. So, the scope to fee is clear cut however, the pressure to finish qukcly and under budget is great AND often these corporate entities are muddled with beaucratic obstacle courses, and they constantly change the scope of services (ie, re-design). The experienced architect is prepared for all cases and handles any situation with ease and to the total satisfaction of these high-demanding clients, but nothing compares to the homeowner. The homeowners anecdote is generally based on the couple who can't agree on many critical items, always think they're paying way to much for A&E (but will spend tens of thousands on furnishing and lanscape), want to micro-manage your work, question everything you do, is late on fee payments, can halt a project at anytime for a variety of reasons such as divorce, no money, or decided to buy another house instead (happened to me twice), and then basicaly listens to everything the contractor says during construction (and we know what the contractor is after)...
And best of all...in contrast to commercial work...it's for pennies. Oh, and then they sue for any stupid little thing that was not perfectly built by the contractor, and guess who gets dragged into court to defend themselves because the lawyer sees a $$$$ liability insurance pot of gold. Even if you win, you spend a few grand. Commercial clients only sue for gross negligence at which case the architect deserves to be sued.
As for post-modernism, the ideas behind it was the de-rationalization of modernism and responding more to context. It flip-flopped which is just as bad as modernism but the reason it excels so well is that it isn't anything in particular...it's basically "not-modernism" or any other notable and recognizable design style or movement. It's akin to what many critics first said about the painting style of "abstract art"...it's non-representational...it's "anything goes"! A free for all with no end in sight...it's all about exuberance and lack of rules. So if there is no standard to be met, then that's what we get: a hodgepodge of ideas all mixed in one big bag of tidbits of recognizable elements, and no true sensitivity to the rest of the world...
Post-Modern-ism. I can't wait for something to overshadow it...I was hoping blob would lead the way, but neo-modernists destroyed all merits and no one took the reigns... so it falls the way of PoMo as well...
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 |
|
|
kmapro
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I stand corrected...I think.
While I never really got in to what I think an architect does...it almost sounds as if you agree with me that a commercial project would be esier to design than a residential. Mainly due to the factors you listed.
Now by design, I am not speaking of the actual "design". maybe I should say..easier to work with....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's a case of semantics...I do agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. Residential projects are not more difficult to design, nor less difficult, but more importantly, residential clients DO know what they want; they're simply more difficult to work with because of their nature as a client and it's for less money. It's not that an architect who does commercial work cannot deal with difficut clients, as many of these bureaucratic coporate dipshits can really make life stressful, nor is that they don't like to design residential projects (it's the most enjoyable type of project to design: homes), it's that the architect that does get commercial work regularly ends up spending more time on them, making more money with less interference and residential work becomes less attractive work.
A side anecdote, as an example, one client of ours wanted to build an addition and convert his garage to interior space. The one thing (among many) that still haunts me to this day is that he dictated the design of his bathroom and bedroom, despite all recommendations and appeals to good design sense...the end result was quite a ridiculous mish-mash of oversized rooms and awkward details, including a hidden private bathroom where he could install his previously purchased prized possession: a 10"High backed handcarved bas-relief wooden toilet, complete with padded velvet arms and gold tank pull chain...
Argh...oh, and this a typical miami modern house, mind you...strange. Very strange...and of course, client gets what client wants. Strange client...
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 |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
