It started out as a means of later modernist design with was hoped to address the shortfalls of modernism but then it basically decided to hell with formalization and went with Venturi to strange new places. You might be confusing late modernism with post modernism. PoMo is meant to be oranmented, stylistic, and witty. Often making a statement about the building, it's use, or just for the hell of it in a fairly literal manner.
So when someone just makes something retardedly bizarre that has no deeper meaning, what's that? Dadaism? Or just "stupid"?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
What are the principles of pomo architecture, exactly?
Essentially it's to make a joke with the building through architectural stylings and design that other people who are versed in arch history, or people who aren't at times, will be able to understand. When a building is shaped like it's name implies, that's a PoMo building. It's huge in Vegas and amusement parks such as some of the crappier new hotels in Disney, many of which were designed by Michael Graves who can choke on a dick.
That being the case, what the hell is the "joke" that Podly's original building is trying to convey? "Ha ha curves!"?
I think moniker's definition of Postmodern architecture is pretty limited, but I am really afraid to say it because I know absolutely nothing, save for a few blips here and there, whereas he has like a thousand degrees and wears cool suits.
I always interpreted pomo as "weird for the sake of being weird", which is somewhat looser than moniker's definition, and encompasses stupid buildings like this one:
That is meant as a slap towards Corbu and his 5 ideals in architecture. The extreme pilotis mock him while the square windows checkered along the sides take his horizontal bands out behind the woodshed. There's probably other stuff too, but I'd rather not look at that for much longer if I can help it.
It started out as a means of later modernist design with was hoped to address the shortfalls of modernism but then it basically decided to hell with formalization and went with Venturi to strange new places. You might be confusing late modernism with post modernism. PoMo is meant to be oranmented, stylistic, and witty. Often making a statement about the building, it's use, or just for the hell of it in a fairly literal manner.
So when someone just makes something retardedly bizarre that has no deeper meaning, what's that? Dadaism? Or just "stupid"?
You're probably of some Deconstructivist buildings. Gehry is big with that, so's Libeskind and Zaha. Some of their buildings are actually impressive and pretty nice aesthetically and spatially, but others are just stupid.
It started out as a means of later modernist design with was hoped to address the shortfalls of modernism but then it basically decided to hell with formalization and went with Venturi to strange new places. You might be confusing late modernism with post modernism. PoMo is meant to be oranmented, stylistic, and witty. Often making a statement about the building, it's use, or just for the hell of it in a fairly literal manner.
So when someone just makes something retardedly bizarre that has no deeper meaning, what's that? Dadaism? Or just "stupid"?
But the problem is lots of people are quick to label shit as retardedly bizarre when in fact it has some kind of coherent meaning that they're just not willing to take the time to understand, thus leading to all kinds of shit -- meaningless or no -- getting labled post-modern.
I think the real thing is that people need to learn that post-modernism isn't a slur word, it's a wholly legitimate philosophical and aesthetic insight even if it does often just lead to empty, hedonistic navel-gazing. Like many things, the foundation is perfectly solid, it just gets over-extended when people start catching on.
I always interpreted pomo as "weird for the sake of being weird", which is somewhat looser than moniker's definition, and encompasses stupid buildings like this one:
bah!
You've got no taste.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
I'm having a hard time coming up with a better word to describe the act of making an entire building into a giant, concrete in-joke than "stupid".
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The one that Jeffe linked? Also, architects don't always stick to one aesthetic and pound it into the ground until its wimpering husk prays for death. 'Starchitects' tend to, but not all of them.
I Renzo Piano
moniker on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited June 2007
Hrmm...you make it sound like some sort of neo-Rococo, PC.
Wit and play are certainly an element of Gehry's MIT housing space,the Strata building. However, there is a definitive assertion of the buildings autonomy from its environment. It is almost antagonistic.
Buildings like that just look like wasted space to me. Unnecessary complication, extra space taken up, greater cost.
I mean obviously they are considered "art". It just seems like stupid art to me. You can be artistic in architecture without being retarded. See: that massive sailboat shaped hotel in Dubai.
It started out as a means of later modernist design with was hoped to address the shortfalls of modernism but then it basically decided to hell with formalization and went with Venturi to strange new places. You might be confusing late modernism with post modernism. PoMo is meant to be oranmented, stylistic, and witty. Often making a statement about the building, it's use, or just for the hell of it in a fairly literal manner.
So when someone just makes something retardedly bizarre that has no deeper meaning, what's that? Dadaism? Or just "stupid"?
But the problem is lots of people are quick to label shit as retardedly bizarre when in fact it has some kind of coherent meaning that they're just not willing to take the time to understand, thus leading to all kinds of shit -- meaningless or no -- getting labled post-modern.
I think the real thing is that people need to learn that post-modernism isn't a slur word, it's a wholly legitimate philosophical and aesthetic insight even if it does often just lead to empty, hedonistic navel-gazing. Like many things, the foundation is perfectly solid, it just gets over-extended when people start catching on.
No, PoMo isn't a very good basis for design in architecture. Philosophically it may be an okay frame of mind, but not when you're putting pencil to paper. Same thing goes for most Decon, especially since noone can explain just what the hell Decon is or is meant to be. I enjoy the critical regionalism approach and then throw in some modern design aesthetics to make it work. I think the big lesson people need to learn is that modernism wasn't all bad and you don't have to repeat the mistakes of Mies if you want to be considered modern. Also, that making everything look like a house is stupid and office parks shouldn't look like subdivisions.
Plus, it makes giving directions so much easier. "Drive down until you reach a fucked-up building that looks like it's going to fall down on you. I'm room 504."
Richy on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited June 2007
Architecture is the art most closely linked with capitol. Not all artistic statements should be statements of grace or bliss.
Thus, MIT, rolling in dough and not needing to impress anyone, can give the citizens of Boston a good, almost crude laugh.
I think the real thing is that people need to learn that post-modernism isn't a slur word, it's a wholly legitimate philosophical and aesthetic insight even if it does often just lead to empty, hedonistic navel-gazing. Like many things, the foundation is perfectly solid, it just gets over-extended when people start catching on.
No kidding, a lot of the things that people love are post-modern and they don't even know it.
Hrmm...you make it sound like some sort of neo-Rococo, PC.
Wit and play are certainly an element of Gehry's MIT housing space,the Strata building. However, there is a definitive assertion of the buildings autonomy from its environment. It is almost antagonistic.
That's not PoMo that's Decon. Personally I'm kinda iffy towards it. His rowhouse in Prague is really kickass, though.
You have to remember that this is at the end of a wall of like 50 of the exact same looking classical house.
It started out as a means of later modernist design with was hoped to address the shortfalls of modernism but then it basically decided to hell with formalization and went with Venturi to strange new places. You might be confusing late modernism with post modernism. PoMo is meant to be oranmented, stylistic, and witty. Often making a statement about the building, it's use, or just for the hell of it in a fairly literal manner.
So when someone just makes something retardedly bizarre that has no deeper meaning, what's that? Dadaism? Or just "stupid"?
But the problem is lots of people are quick to label shit as retardedly bizarre when in fact it has some kind of coherent meaning that they're just not willing to take the time to understand, thus leading to all kinds of shit -- meaningless or no -- getting labled post-modern.
I think the real thing is that people need to learn that post-modernism isn't a slur word, it's a wholly legitimate philosophical and aesthetic insight even if it does often just lead to empty, hedonistic navel-gazing. Like many things, the foundation is perfectly solid, it just gets over-extended when people start catching on.
No, PoMo isn't a very good basis for design in architecture. Philosophically it may be an okay frame of mind, but not when you're putting pencil to paper. Same thing goes for most Decon, especially since noone can explain just what the hell Decon is or is meant to be. I enjoy the critical regionalism approach and then throw in some modern design aesthetics to make it work. I think the big lesson people need to learn is that modernism wasn't all bad and you don't have to repeat the mistakes of Mies if you want to be considered modern. Also, that making everything look like a house is stupid and office parks shouldn't look like subdivisions.
I agree that the buildings it produces aren't the best, but I'm always of the mindset that if it's there, someone is going to explore it, and instead of just labeling it 'stupid' and moving on you can try to understand what produced it.
I dunno -- I think I just get annoyed when people say 'post-modern' to mean 'worthless' when that's just lazy thinking.
That's like saying De Stilj and Modernism are completely different things.
They are. We aren't talking about philosophy or the design intent, we're talking about aesthetics and teh grouping/catalogueing thereof. Unless you want to break it down to brass tacks of 'they had a formalized structure' there's a huge difference between
Yeah I'm with Poldy -- since when was deconstruction not post-modern?
Since we're talking about architecture and design, not philosophy, it never was. It may have grown from post modernism, but it is something that is different from it.
moniker on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
That's like saying De Stilj and Modernism are completely different things.
They are. We aren't talking about philosophy or the design intent, we're talking about aesthetics and teh grouping/catalogueing thereof. Unless you want to break it down to brass tacks of 'they had a formalized structure' there's a huge difference between
and
Ok, but Rohe could also be considered a futurist/minimalist, no?
Yeah I'm with Poldy -- since when was deconstruction not post-modern?
Since we're talking about architecture and design, not philosophy, it never was. It may have grown from post modernism, but it is something that is different from it.
That building looks like it's trying to transform into a giant robot so it can destroy downtown.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Ok, but Rohe could also be considered a futurist/minimalist, no?
Yes, Mies was very much a minimalist. In fact he was a big proponent of the ideals of De Stijl philosophy which you can see in a few of his buildings, however, he never was tied too much to the formalization of De Stijl design.
I agree that the buildings it produces aren't the best, but I'm always of the mindset that if it's there, someone is going to explore it, and instead of just labeling it 'stupid' and moving on you can try to understand what produced it.
I dunno -- I think I just get annoyed when people say 'post-modern' to mean 'worthless' when that's just lazy thinking.
My stance is that whatever the merits of pomo as an art style or a philosophy, it almost invariably results in a stupid, ugly, inefficent, eyesore when applied to architecture. I mean hey, yeah, minimalism is cool too, but that doesn't mean I want a building that consists of nothing but a ceiling.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yeah I'm with Poldy -- since when was deconstruction not post-modern?
Since we're talking about architecture and design, not philosophy, it never was. It may have grown from post modernism, but it is something that is different from it.
Yeah fuck architecture.
The fact that you said that while in the confines of an architect's design made me giggle.
I agree that the buildings it produces aren't the best, but I'm always of the mindset that if it's there, someone is going to explore it, and instead of just labeling it 'stupid' and moving on you can try to understand what produced it.
I dunno -- I think I just get annoyed when people say 'post-modern' to mean 'worthless' when that's just lazy thinking.
My stance is that whatever the merits of pomo as an art style or a philosophy, it almost invariably results in a stupid, ugly, inefficent, eyesore when applied to architecture. I mean hey, yeah, minimalism is cool too, but that doesn't mean I want a building that consists of nothing but a ceiling.
Well I guess I can agree with that. If I had my druthers we would just apply the Jetsons design philosophy to everything and call it a day.
I agree that the buildings it produces aren't the best, but I'm always of the mindset that if it's there, someone is going to explore it, and instead of just labeling it 'stupid' and moving on you can try to understand what produced it.
I dunno -- I think I just get annoyed when people say 'post-modern' to mean 'worthless' when that's just lazy thinking.
My stance is that whatever the merits of pomo as an art style or a philosophy, it almost invariably results in a stupid, ugly, inefficent, eyesore when applied to architecture. I mean hey, yeah, minimalism is cool too, but that doesn't mean I want a building that consists of nothing but a ceiling.
Well, that's the thing. Architecture is a discipline which draws on so much of everything in the surrounding culture that its design could probably be a field of philosophy all its own. Besides, there are fairly objective and useful metrics that you can apply to architecture to see if a building fails or not in various respects. Aesthetics are subjective, but architecture is more than just sculpture at a grand scale.
moniker on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Ok, but Rohe could also be considered a futurist/minimalist, no?
Yes, Mies was very much a minimalist. In fact he was a big proponent of the ideals of De Stijl philosophy which you can see in a few of his buildings, however, he never was tied too much to the formalization of De Stijl design.
is Modernism, but also has it's own tradition, correct? It is the same throughout the arts: minimalism and abstract expressionism come from very different traditions, but are both thoroughly modern.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Ok, but Rohe could also be considered a futurist/minimalist, no?
Yes, Mies was very much a minimalist. In fact he was a big proponent of the ideals of De Stijl philosophy which you can see in a few of his buildings, however, he never was tied too much to the formalization of De Stijl design.
is Modernism, but also has it's own tradition, correct? It is the same throughout the arts: minimalism and abstract expressionism come from very different traditions, but are both thoroughly modern.
We aren't discussing traditions or even design philosophy. The style which a building gets categorized into (rather loosely, often, since it probably has a handful of things it could rightfully be called) is based on the aesthetics of that building. The actual design and finished construction that came out of it. If you want to get semantic, yes, 'modernism' was a very loose and catch-all term for the time, but that hardly justifies calling a Decon design a Post Modernist building.
Architecture is something that I don't understand. My roommate in college is an art major and he would explain certain buildings on campus to me. And...I could understand what he said and how the buildings were different but I didn't entirely care.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I've grown to really hate the Empire State Building. When you see both of them on a day to day basis, you can't help but wish the Chrysler building were taller.
I have to say that the Times Building REALLY disappoints in real life.
Eh, the aesthetic of it wasn't all that impressive from the renderings (although it was an interesting concept) but the building is extremely green, which is almost impossible for skyscrapers. When it comes to cool looking towers that are fairly recent I'd have to say that the Hearst and the upcoming Chicago Spire are two of my favorites.
And, yeah, Chrysler totally kicks the Empire State Building's ass.
I've grown to really hate the Empire State Building. When you see both of them on a day to day basis, you can't help but wish the Chrysler building were taller.
The Chrysler building was really a sight to behold. The ESB was kind of blah. In all ways but height.
Posts
So when someone just makes something retardedly bizarre that has no deeper meaning, what's that? Dadaism? Or just "stupid"?
That is meant as a slap towards Corbu and his 5 ideals in architecture. The extreme pilotis mock him while the square windows checkered along the sides take his horizontal bands out behind the woodshed. There's probably other stuff too, but I'd rather not look at that for much longer if I can help it.
You're probably of some Deconstructivist buildings. Gehry is big with that, so's Libeskind and Zaha. Some of their buildings are actually impressive and pretty nice aesthetically and spatially, but others are just stupid.
I think the real thing is that people need to learn that post-modernism isn't a slur word, it's a wholly legitimate philosophical and aesthetic insight even if it does often just lead to empty, hedonistic navel-gazing. Like many things, the foundation is perfectly solid, it just gets over-extended when people start catching on.
bah!
You've got no taste.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
The one that Jeffe linked? Also, architects don't always stick to one aesthetic and pound it into the ground until its wimpering husk prays for death. 'Starchitects' tend to, but not all of them.
I
Wit and play are certainly an element of Gehry's MIT housing space,the Strata building. However, there is a definitive assertion of the buildings autonomy from its environment. It is almost antagonistic.
I mean obviously they are considered "art". It just seems like stupid art to me. You can be artistic in architecture without being retarded. See: that massive sailboat shaped hotel in Dubai.
No, PoMo isn't a very good basis for design in architecture. Philosophically it may be an okay frame of mind, but not when you're putting pencil to paper. Same thing goes for most Decon, especially since noone can explain just what the hell Decon is or is meant to be. I enjoy the critical regionalism approach and then throw in some modern design aesthetics to make it work. I think the big lesson people need to learn is that modernism wasn't all bad and you don't have to repeat the mistakes of Mies if you want to be considered modern. Also, that making everything look like a house is stupid and office parks shouldn't look like subdivisions.
Plus, it makes giving directions so much easier. "Drive down until you reach a fucked-up building that looks like it's going to fall down on you. I'm room 504."
Thus, MIT, rolling in dough and not needing to impress anyone, can give the citizens of Boston a good, almost crude laugh.
No kidding, a lot of the things that people love are post-modern and they don't even know it.
Pretty expensive navigation reference though.
That's not PoMo that's Decon. Personally I'm kinda iffy towards it. His rowhouse in Prague is really kickass, though.
You have to remember that this is at the end of a wall of like 50 of the exact same looking classical house.
Oh that, yeah. I really don't like Libeskind's designs either.
I dunno -- I think I just get annoyed when people say 'post-modern' to mean 'worthless' when that's just lazy thinking.
They are. We aren't talking about philosophy or the design intent, we're talking about aesthetics and teh grouping/catalogueing thereof. Unless you want to break it down to brass tacks of 'they had a formalized structure' there's a huge difference between
and
Since we're talking about architecture and design, not philosophy, it never was. It may have grown from post modernism, but it is something that is different from it.
Ok, but Rohe could also be considered a futurist/minimalist, no?
That building looks like it's trying to transform into a giant robot so it can destroy downtown.
Yes, Mies was very much a minimalist. In fact he was a big proponent of the ideals of De Stijl philosophy which you can see in a few of his buildings, however, he never was tied too much to the formalization of De Stijl design.
I accept your apology.
My stance is that whatever the merits of pomo as an art style or a philosophy, it almost invariably results in a stupid, ugly, inefficent, eyesore when applied to architecture. I mean hey, yeah, minimalism is cool too, but that doesn't mean I want a building that consists of nothing but a ceiling.
The fact that you said that while in the confines of an architect's design made me giggle.
Well, that's the thing. Architecture is a discipline which draws on so much of everything in the surrounding culture that its design could probably be a field of philosophy all its own. Besides, there are fairly objective and useful metrics that you can apply to architecture to see if a building fails or not in various respects. Aesthetics are subjective, but architecture is more than just sculpture at a grand scale.
Not really what I was going for though.
Cubusm:
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Praha,_Výtoň,_kubistická_vila.jpg/800px-Praha%2C_Výtoň%2C_kubistická_vila.jpg[/IMG]
is Modernism, but also has it's own tradition, correct? It is the same throughout the arts: minimalism and abstract expressionism come from very different traditions, but are both thoroughly modern.
That's awful.
Why would you show me something so awful?
Someone needs to bring back art deco. Srsly.
We aren't discussing traditions or even design philosophy. The style which a building gets categorized into (rather loosely, often, since it probably has a handful of things it could rightfully be called) is based on the aesthetics of that building. The actual design and finished construction that came out of it. If you want to get semantic, yes, 'modernism' was a very loose and catch-all term for the time, but that hardly justifies calling a Decon design a Post Modernist building.
That Rand used an architect to embody her stupid screed is one of the primary, among many, reasons that I hate her so.
I have to say that the Times Building REALLY disappoints in real life.
I've grown to really hate the Empire State Building. When you see both of them on a day to day basis, you can't help but wish the Chrysler building were taller.
Eh, the aesthetic of it wasn't all that impressive from the renderings (although it was an interesting concept) but the building is extremely green, which is almost impossible for skyscrapers. When it comes to cool looking towers that are fairly recent I'd have to say that the Hearst and the upcoming Chicago Spire are two of my favorites.
And, yeah, Chrysler totally kicks the Empire State Building's ass.
The Chrysler building was really a sight to behold. The ESB was kind of blah. In all ways but height.