The image above reminds me of Frank Lloyd Wright and his aesthetically pleasing, but problematic buildings (on the utilitarian front).
I love this BibliOdyssey blog, though - and this post in particular reminds me of an intriguing old map/book/art store in Wyoming that disappeared a month later...
I love this BibliOdyssey blog, though - and this post in particular reminds me of an intriguing old map/book/art store in Wyoming that disappeared a month later...
6 comments:
Hi akubi,
Architects used to drive me crazy. I remember one, he said: "I want you to take out all those interior columns." I said: "Okay, but it's going to cost you a lot of money". To which he replied: "Why should I pay extra when I am taking out columns? It should cost less, not more". Grrr!!
While they're not always as efficient as possible, at least they aren't f-ing attorneys or investment bankers or lobbyists...At least they are attempting to do _something_ constructive.
True, and they have neat penmanship too. ;-) Oh yeah, First, murst, liverwurst!
There was a time when I thought I wanted to be an architect. It didn't last. Later, when I was in the engineering department, I got to talk to some structural engineers. They did not have a very high opinion of architects, thinking of them much the same way I'd think of someone who asked for software with conflicting requirements, vast gaps in the specificaiton, and security holes built in. "They design beautiful things, sure, but none of it would stand up if they had their way."
What really bothered me was the veneration all of the architecture professors had for Le Corbusier. He did beautiful work but we now recognize that he batted somewhat less than 1000 in creating good livable spaces. At one point we had to analyze the Villa Savoye, pointing out all the great aspects of the design. Almost all of the students had the same reaction to the house: beautiful in a sterile early modern kind of way, but nobody would want to live there and the roof probably leaked (it did). The faculty still saw it as a great building even though it failed as a house.
It didn't help that several of the ugliest buildings on campus were very clearly designed by taking the basic elements of the Villa Savoye and forcing them into completely different proportions.
What I just wrote sort of comes off as a slam against a whole profession. I didn't intend that. Obviously there are lots of good architects -- most of us live and work in reasonably attractive buildings that don't leak or fall down. But the academic side of it really left me cold, and I think it would've been hard to continue even if I'd shown any aptitue for it.
Frank Lloyd Wright? Aesthetically pleasing? Hmm.
I'm sure the Wright devotees are comfortable in their assurance that he'll be immune to the de-ugly-ification process that's resulting in the demolition of huge numbers of hideous creations from the 50's, 60's, and 70's, but I wouldn't be so sure. I think one of these days his number will be up and it'll be "So Long, Frank Lloyd Wright".
I too once had an interest in architecture, but at a certain point I realized I'd never make it, as I came to the conclusion that very little of lasting value has been created since the last neo-Classical and neo-Gothic revivals of the 20's / 30's / 40's.
@PV,
Did you read the NYT article I referenced on EN this AM (apparently, you're not alone among the Second Life/Snow Crashers in this opinion of FLW ;):
“The average person wants a ranch house or a beach house,” she said. “They don’t want even Frank Lloyd Wright.” (She added, “These people are my customers, so I respect that.”)
I do tend to believe architecture captures history better than just about anything else - whether it be good or bad...But it seems everything has been a cheap revival of a revival of a revival of the same old crap for well over half a decade (for the most part).
Why the hell would anyone want a ranch house, POS McMansion, etc. in a virtual reality? I simply do not get it.
Post a Comment