|
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 14, 2007, 7:38 pm
>
>>
>>>
>>>>I apologize for "parachuting" into this group but I'm trying to
>>>>learn if
>>>> there is a generally accepted name for the style of housing
>>>> architecture that is currently popular in the USA. These houses are
>>>> typically very vertical with high-pitched roofs. Multiple (often
>>>> unnecessary) roof lines, giving them a layered appearance. Narrow
>>>> eaves. Turrets, gables, etc. They stand in total contrast to modern
>>>> architecture, ranch style houses and the prairie school and seem to
>>>> emphasize form over function. The only names I've
>>>> heard for this style are pejorative, such as "Yuppie Pseudo
>>>> Victorian", "Kitsch Neo Gothic", etc. I was wondering if there is a
>>>> name for this architectural style that is not derogatory?
>>>
>>> I don't think so, unless some uneducated
>>> builder/developer/designer/realtor calls them 'traditional' to
>>> distinguish them from whatever the masses think is the opposite from
>>> that, say 'modern', or 'contemporary', or 'ranch', or any other
>>> reasonably accepted stylistic appellation.
>>>
>>> It isn't a conscious 'style' underpinned by any kind of ideal, other
>>> than any espoused by PT Barnum. It's more of a marketing formula.
>>> It's the architectural equivalent of that stuff graphic designers
>>> put into their mock-ups:
>>>
>>> "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
>>> eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim
>>> ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut
>>> aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
>>> reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla
>>> pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in
>>> culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
>>
>> There is a reason for that. It is used because (1) the text itself
>> does not color a client's perception of the page-layout design, and
>> (2) it allows clients and designers to make consistant and direct
>> comparisons of layouts and typefaces. It allows a page-layout
>> designer to look at the text as a graphic element, rather than being
>> distracted by the text's content. When one is doing page layout
>> (well, if one is even minimally competent, that is...), one looks at
>> the emotional impact of the grapical elements of the page. There are
>> well-established (and well-researched) compositional guidelines that
>> are applicable to all of the visual arts, and
>> involve porportion, position, arrangement (vertical versus horizontal
>> versus diagonal), numbers of elements, and so on. The
>> graphic/page-layout designer is supposed to arrange the graphic
>> elements so that they reinforce
>> the message of the actual text. Having a standardized chunk of
>> nonsense- text allow the designer to do that.
>>
>> At any rate, assuming even a minimal level of visual-graphic
>> competence, the standardized nonsense text is, in reality, quite the
>> opposite from what
>> you indicate. It's actually rather a *good* example of "form follows
>> function" when it comes to page layout and typeface design/choice,
>> because its form was designed to fulfill a very specific function,
>> which it does very well.
>>
>>
>>
>>> BTW, the shine one the 'form follows function' line wore through to
>>> the cheap white metal under it long ago. I don't know anyone with an
>>> architectural education under the age of 80 who sees that as
>>> anything but quaintly naive, or cynically pompous. (I wonder if even
>>> *that* will even get a rise out of someone.)
>>
>>
>> The problem with the saying is that, even in the biological world,
>> "form follows function" holds true only up to a point, and often a
>> rather limited
>> point at that, because even a very specific function ends up having
>> an vast
>> variety of natural solutions (i.e., forms).
>>
>> Certain basic principles exist - such as, a mollusk will have a
>> smooth interior to its shell because that smoothness prevents
>> unnecessary injury. but look at the tremendous variety in the sizes
>> and shapes and colors of shells. OK, yes, all shells are
>> "containers" at their most basic level, but that's as far as the
>> similarities often go. A Mussel shell is a shelter/container, and a
>> Giant Conch shell is also a shelter/container, but
>> they are otherwise dissimilar.
>>
>> Now, it *is* true that some forms are inherently either dysfunctional
>> or even non-functional (such as a cubic shell with an abrasive
>> interior). And, similarly, some floorplans are barely functional, but
>> the arrangements
>> were arrived at using constraints other than pure functionality,
>> including marketing constraints such as the notion that "everyone
>> wants a fireplace",
>> so designers are instructed to ignore how much it might interfere
>> with a room's functionality, or at least, functional efficiency.
>>
>> The point being that one can take a specific function, and arrive at
>> multiple forms/spatial arrangements that will work, albeit better for
>> some people than for others. ANd therein lies teh other
>> complication: different people have different needs, and what is
>> functional for one person can be quite to opposite for another
>> person.
>>
>> So, "form follows function" has good alliteration and rhythm, making
>> it a cute "sound bite", but it's a general guideline more than an
>> absolute law.
>>
>> - K.
>
> My remark was in the context of post-modern architectural context.
> Changing the context changes everything.
>
Changing what context? If you mean the "Lorem ipsum..." part, I made my
comment because your presentation of its useage was not correct, which in
turn made your analogy inaccurate...just trying to clarify, that's all.
As for the rest of what I said, I don't think it strays far at all from
the context of 20th and 21st century architecture.
I'm admittedly not too sure what is meant by "post-modern", because, as
far as I can tell, it can mean anything from design using clean lines but
tastefully including some historical elements/decoration/references, to
designs that look like someone covered a shoebox with glue and then
dumped a box full of knick-knacks over it, to designs that look like a
crushed egg-carton... So, I admittedly was not specifically addressing
"post-modernism", jsut making a few comments re: my thoughts re: the
"form follows function" bit...
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap