|
Posted by Kris Krieger on March 23, 2008, 5:55 pm
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [edited]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the same time, tho', taking, for example, the Roman bathsyou
>>>>>>>> mentioned, I find myself doubting that, had the Romans had
>>>>>>>> clear heat- tolerant flooring available, they'd have used it
>>>>>>>> specifically to allow patrons to view the workings of the
>>>>>>>> heating system...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor would I, but those items can often be incorporated within
>>>>>>> the structural structure or other systems devised to move the
>>>>>>> air. Exposing the structure in most minor buildings would just
>>>>>>> be messy. The engineer and the architect should work together
>>>>>>> (or be the same person) from the beginning of a major project to
>>>>>>> make it work. See Calatrava's and Nervi's work for structure and
>>>>>>> architecture working together. To my understanding the MEP
>>>>>>> systems are not a part of the structure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that Santiago Calatrava...? I googled
>>>>>> "Calatrava"+(arcchitect OR archtiecture)
>>>>
>>>> Well, except that I typed them correctly in the search =:-o
>>>>
>>>>>> and got a numer of returns on Santiago Calatrava. I'm
>>>>>> looking through his website now, actually
>>>>>> ( http://www.calatrava.com/main.htm )
>>>>>> and so far, I'm finding the work quite beautiful, so Many Thanks
>>>>>> for that reference :D ! THat articulation is interesting. I'm
>>>>>> not educated in "archispeak", so I don't know what the correct
>>>>>> terminology would be, but Im
>>>>>> reminded of dragonfly wings, diatome skeletons, and otehr
>>>>>> articulated organic/biological structrues. The Tenerife Opera
>>>>>> House is IMO particularly beautiful, along with the bridges in
>>>>>> general. I'm still looking through the site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anway, there, yes, structure as art and art as structure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is entirely possible (and even probable) that what I'd had in
>>>>>> mind was not the "Architect-Artist-Engineer" but rather the work
>>>>>> of people who are trying to be all of that but not quite cutting
>>>>>> it, and resorting to affectations as a result...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, the work of Calatrava is nothing at all like those
>>>>>> peole who seem to think that just letting ductwork and piping and
>>>>>> wiring hang out is "exposing the structure". Calatrava isn't
>>>>>> merely exposing pipes and beams.
>>>>>> There is simply no comparison.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, a lot fo people fall for words rather than looking
>>>>>> at/experiencing the work.
>>>>>> IMO, if something needs 2 pages of polysyllabic (polysyBABBLic!)
>>>>>> jargon to make sense, it isn't art, and IMO isn't good work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, thanks again for the reference, I'm enjoying it quite a
>>>>>> lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think he also designed the Athens Olympic Stadium. I like his
>>>>> work as it transcends architecture and structure.
>>>>> I have only done a few jobs where the structure and architecture
>>>>> worked together. The one I liked the best was in NH, a 25 meter x
>>>>> 6 lane pool with 5' deep gluelam beams, gluelam columns, exposed
>>>>> 1.25" diameter galvanized steel wind bracing with big exposed
>>>>> turnbuckles, and custom galvanized steel connections co-designed
>>>>> with the structural engineer. That complex also had a fieldhouse
>>>>> with 10' deep steel trusses (painted bright red) spanning 132'.
>>>>> In that complex we did attempt to integrate the HVAC into the
>>>>> design. Also used solar heating with oil backup. It was and is a
>>>>> gutsy complex, with systems highlighted in a 1979 DOE conference
>>>>> in Norfolk VA. EDS
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It makes me wonder whether the overall/general American aesthetic
>>>> is generally be more backward-looking than the European. Is it
>>>> useful to sak whether living with History (for example, structures
>>>> that have been inhabited for literally hundreds of years) allows
>>>> Europeans to feel more comfortable with looking towards the future?
>>>> Maybe the general "gestalt" of America still includes a bit of
>>>> insecurity as to where we fit into history, in terms of structures?
>>>> I don't know, I'm asking - not even sure whetehr it's a *valid*
>>>> question, it's just one that occurred to me. For example, it was
>>>> notable to me that Clatrava's most "mundane" looking project was in
>>>> Dallas...
>>>>
>>>> I'd be interested in peole's thoughts about that. It's entirely
>>>> possible that I just don't know enough about American architecture,
>>>> but ti does seem to me that, when I think of
>>>> futuristic/foreward-looking architecture, I don't think first about
>>>> American projects.
>>>>
>>>> Related recommended reading references (alliteration not
>>>> intentional!) would also be great :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You have an interesting theory. Our oldest surviving buildings,
>>> except in the Southwest and Mexico date only to the 17th century,
>>> and most of those were domestic. The house in my town from 1638
>>> looks not that different than present day structures (although the
>>> construction is quite different). Maybe we need a few more centurys
>>> of cooking before we begin to accept radical ideas.
>>> EDS
>>>
>>
>> THis is what I'm wondering. Maybe there is a sort fo subconscious
>> emotional (and maybe intellectual?) security that is created by
>> "knowing your roots" so to speak. OK, you know ho whard it is for me
>> to resist a gardening metaphor ;) so here goes - maybe it's analagous
>> to a tree, where the branches can't spread wide until the roots have
>> grown deep and stable.
>>
>> It's interesting in that one mgiht expect the opposite - IOW< that,
>> given the US is a country of immigrants, Americans would be the most
>> foreward- looking/"avant garde" of all peoples, but it sometimes
>> seems that the opposite is true.
>>
>> Or maybe it's a matter of land - Americans still have the idea tht
>> land is limitless, so less importance is placed upon inspirational
>> architecture - OTOH, Europe can't really afford to turn over much
>> more of its agricultural land to housing, so, since the population is
>> so highly urbanized, maybe it's more important there to have the
>> built environment be beautiful and even inspiring...?
>>
>> Just wondering.
>>
>> Which of course is not to say that *all* American architecture is
>> "traditional", it just seems that, when it comes to creating
>> breathtaking and inspirational, the US has fallen behind (or perhaps
>> has fallen further behind?)
>>
>> Again, that's not based upon any study, it's just an impression I
>> have regarding both residential architecture and public architecture,
>> and I'm not even sure *how* to study it.
>>
>>
> Keep following it, this concept looks interesting.
I'm not sure whether just looking into books re: architectural history
would cover it, either, esp. if it's a new trend. But it struck me while i
was looking through the website of Calatreva as a follow-up to a reference
made by someone on this newsgroup. And I started thinking baout other work
that I like or find interesting, and that got me wondering about how styles
(over the past couple decades) might or might not "cluster", and that idea
just occured to me, that it seems as tho' mature cultures seems to be less
"traditional" in many ways.
> I can even imagine
> a sci-fi story that follows the idea of more ingenious structures
> (growing them to plan?) as a society matures.
Now,there you have me ;) Only I need to partner with someone who can write
characters - I totally stink at "doing characters"!
Seriously, tho', aside from "The FOuntainhead", is there any literature
which has ARchitecture (and related sociocultural matters) as its central
theme...?
> But the most ingenious
> and interesting major buildings now are in Asian and Near East City
> States.
I've seen images of some of it. My impression is that a lot of pele would
cite the recent influx of money, but it's got to be much more than that -
after all, why is it that, in some places, the influx of money leads to
tacky McMansions, but in other areas, leads to innovative and fascinating
architecture? What does the difference say about society?
((Would those questions even be of much interest, or am I wasting my brain-
space... ... ))
> I foresee an almost Hellenic feeling about the revision of
> mankind's cultures within these small Petri dishes of concentrated
> urbanism.
I'm going to have to mull that over a bit, let it percolate so to speak.
It's a fascinating idea.
Perhaps related - I've seen a little bit (models and sketches) by some
different futurists here and there (books, documentaries, etc.), so I have
to let your interesting idea mix in with that.
If nothing else, I certainly *like* it a heck of a lot better than the
whole "post apocalyptic brutality" theory of the future ;)
But I do have to say that, if any sort of "new Rennaisance" or as you put
it, a sort of "New Hellenism", I very highly doubt that it will come out of
North America, or at least, from teh US - it seems to me that the US's
"moment" or turning point has come and gone, and Americans are in a mindset
that' a weird combination of narcissism, and "digin in the heels", i.e. not
merely conservatism (keeping the status-quo) but reactionism (trying to
turn back the clock), the problem being that what a lot of people imagine
is "the way things were", is actually "what people wish the way things
were".
A few weeks ago, ther ewas a discussion in this grou regarding
individuality and what I suppose one might be able to call a sort of
"kibbutzism" - both have positives, but as with anything, taking eitehr to
an extreme is a negative. It seems to me that what we have in the US today
is not individualism, not a belief/confidence in individuality, but rather,
a weird colloidal mix of narcissim and groupthink/tribalism.
I think part of what's ahppening is tat, as tribalism's negative side
expands (gangs, criminal organizations), people who are not
> Have you ever read "Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind"?
> From the late 80's I think, about a theory that the brain naturally
> mutated as man became urbanized and had to work with others, so that
> by around 1200 BC the present mental layout became more dominant.
I read excerpts but I can't recall having read the whole thing.
> Prior to that time the sides of the brain were more connected,
> allowing "voices and orders from the gods" to circulate unhindered
> between the left and right sides of the brain. Kris, you are
> interested in all kinds of stuff.
That's one way of putting it - I like your description much better than
"scatterbrained loony" <LOL!!>
;)
Sometimes it's pretty hard on the ego, tho' in that it's personally risky
to reach out and try to grasp new ideas, because it means one ends up in
serious disagreements with more and more people, esp. when those new
ideas/new information questions long-held beliefs and/or long-standing
power structures. It can be tiring, sometimes even exhausting, to put up
with so frequently being called, directy or via implication, guano-for-
brains, because of questioning that which many or sometimes even most
people believe. Which is why, as I age, I'm becomeing a *crotchety* old
fart <L!>
> My cousin (only 84 yrs old) and I
> regularly have 2 hour telephone conversations on this sort of
> interesting but useless (to us) information.
Cool! As for useless, is it less useful than talking about Brittany's lack
of underwear or Paris' latest foolishness? Really, all of that is "bread
'n' circuses". Except today, it's Donuts 'n' PopTube (or for the snootier
types, Croissants).
Whcih sort-of ties back into a REactionary mindset - to look towards the
futture, epole have to look outwards - i.e. look away from the Home
Shopping Channel, and then open the blinds and look outside their own
cacoons. How often has it been said that AMericans are "cacooning"? Well,
unfortunately, innovative solutions to problems are not solved by everyone
pupating - after all, part of they psychology of cacooning is to *not look
at* problems. Which in turn is tied into the fact that complex human
problems aren't solved by a person, but by people. So individuals feel
overwhelmed, helpless, and therefre, withdraw, cacoon.
So maybe that's reflected in architecture?
Like, think of castles and associated villages - that refelcts not only the
uinsecurity of htt age, but also, the social structure and cultural
attitudes.
Thre is an interaction - architecture does influence peole, but culture
influences architecture, if only because one person can't create
architecture - it might be one person's vision, but the achievement of it
takes, not a person, but people, plural. If a People/Nation has a group
psychology that looks backwards, tehn a person whose vision looks forward
is not going to have what is necessary (funding, official aproval or
permission) to create a forward-looking architecture...
Well, that's pretty rouch, mostly off the top of my head becasue this idea
ony occurred to me recently. But maybe it's of some minor interest ;)
> Keeps the old neurons
> hopping.
That they do, sometimes too much for my own good <L!>
> Other good books you might find interesting are "Germs, Guns,
> and Steel" and "Collapse" by Jonathan Diamond, interesting theories of
> why we are where we are as a civilization.
> EDS
Cool, thanks - here is the Amazon.com link, in case anyone else would like
it:
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Braden-Doane/dp/B0009GX1EM
((THe advantage of using my credit cards rather than cash or <bleh> checks:
it's paid off every month anyway, and I accumulate points that I can then
convert into all these nifty Amazon.com gift certificates ;) ))
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap