|
Posted by Jude Alexander on May 14, 2008, 6:26 pm
>
>>
>>>
>>>> http://vodpod.com/watch/3249-falling-water-hl2?pod=architecture
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Very cool ;)
>>>
>>> ((I've hard all the pros and cons but I still think it's beautiful,
>>> albeit a bit darker inside than I typically prefer ;) ))
>>
>> The exterior is grand and inspiring. The interior, unfortunately,
>> shows Wright's tendency to allow the interior to suffer for the sake
>> of the exterior. I don't like that approach in architecture or in
>> life on any level.
>
> Actually, he paid quite a lot of attention to the interiors. It's jsut
> that interiors are even more a mater of taste than are exteriors and
> structrual elements. Fpr example, his dining room chairs do go with the
> houses overall, but also tend to be very straight-backed, which is
> something i find to be gawdawful uncomfortable.
In the sense of making geometry "artistic" shapes he did spend a lot of
time (i.e. designing awkard built-in counchs with bizarre back cushions)
where he had no business making them, he did not spend the amount of time
(imho) that he should have to make the interior functional and human
friendly. This piece, which is his signature residence, is an almost
complete disaster as much as interior functioning is concerned. LOOK AT THE
PLAN, man! ;0
>
>>
>> Also, have you ever notice that about 30% of the compound is hardly
>> ever shown. It is the "rear" (side opposite the water) and I suppose
>> it's the garage and other spaces.
>
> Prob. becasue the vast majority of poeple have Zero interest in seeing
> utility areas. Personally, I like to see them because IMO, if one i
> spayin gfor a custom house, there is no reason whatsoever why a "utility
> area" can't fit in with th erest of the structure/aesthetic. Esp. given
> how often one 2will end up using (IOW< being in) those areas - IMO, ti's
> goofy to ignore them. But again, the vast majority of people don't give
> these areas any thought, so I'd venture to guess that is why they're
> never shown.
I guessed the same. However, the overall success of any complex depends on
the interrelationship of all of it's parts. Basically, the exterior design
IS "falling water" and nothing else lives up to the exterior.
>
>> The walk from this building is
>> unbelievably long.
>
> It's called "dramatic build-up". Also, the setting is very park-like, so
> I figure that one is also supposed to enjoy the surroundings while
> approaching the house.
Well, one can call it that but it's just a long tedious walk coming in from
work everyday. It's GOT to be around 80 feet long walk (if not more). Have
you seen it?
>
>>
>> I've heard that the place leaked from the very beginning and has had a
>> constant moisture problem as well from the beginning.
>
> That was part of the "cons" I referenced and specifically chose to not
> address, my own comment being about the look of it - I like the massing,
> the visual rhythms; I find it almost fractal in feel, which in turn makes
> it feel, IMO at least, more in-tune with the rocks and otehr natural
> elements, given that natural structures are fractal.
>
>>
>> Beautiful, for sure but behind the exterior beauty is a LOAD of bad
>> design.
>>
>
> What I'd like to see is someone who could do better. Criticism is easy,
> but evidence very strongly suggests that *doing*, and specifically,
> *doing BETTER*, is immensely difficult.
OKAY, hero worshipper. I could have done better on the interior in my first
year. The vast majority of the other students there could have done so as
well. I bet you could do better at student level as well.
>
>
>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap