Date sent: 11-NOV-1992 14:46:22
>From: IN%"[email protected]" "Basic Design (Art and Architecture)" 1-NOV
-1992 09:59:35.04
>To: IN%"[email protected]" "Jennifer Kime", IN%"CARA8789@xxxxxxxxxxx
TNET" "Adam Carangelo"
>CC:
>Subj: ARCHITECTURE: Automobiles/Architecture.
>
>Received: from ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu (MAILER_L@UBVM) by splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu
> (PMDF #12405) id <01GQMT5HF7Q89863TG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun,
> 1 Nov 1992 09:58 EST
>Received: by UBVM (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 6217; Sun, 01 Nov 92 09:58:55 EST
>Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 09:56:37 EST
>From: [email protected]
>Subject: ARCHITECTURE: Automobiles/Architecture.
>Sender: "Basic Design (Art and Architecture)" <[email protected]>
>To: Jennifer Kime <[email protected]>,
> Adam Carangelo <[email protected]>
>Reply-to: "Basic Design (Art and Architecture)" <[email protected]>
>Message-id: <01GQMT5HF7Q89863TG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>X-Envelope-to: CARA8789, KIME9095
>
> - - The original note follows - -
>
>Newsgroups: alt.architecture
>Path: psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!psuvax1!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!
> yale.edu!news.yale.edu!morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu!user
>From: churayj@xxxxxxxxxx (raymond Chung)
>Subject: automotive design and architecture
>Message-ID: <churayj-301092164831@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Followup-To: alt.architecture
>Sender: news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (USENET News System)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu
>Organization: Public Macs, Academic Computing, Yale University
>Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 21:07:28 GMT
>Lines: 32
>
>Has anyone else thought about how automotive design has a totally
>modern-minded design aesthetic and how this aesthetic pertains to
>architecture? It seems obvious to me that everything about a car's design
>(a car built today) is functionally-derived, whether it is actually
>functional or not: hood ornaments have been disposed of; hub caps, most of
>which DO nothing but cover lug-nuts, always look structural, with
>spoke-bracing, or wind-channelling vents; sheet metal has been radically
>rounded so as to suggest aerodynamic efficiency, although it is mostly a
>suggestion and not an operative design; even color decoration is severely
>limited, perhaps because there is no functional cue as to what color a car
>should be, and absolutely no reason to go beyond one color. Etc.
>
>Architecture is similar to the automobile in that it is a functional thing,
>with various designs, and a strong artistic content. But architecture has
>a long tradition of going outside of the function of building, bringing in
>ornaments of plants, people, etc. Then there was the bauhaus, and they
>tried to stick only to the function of building. Mies eventually expressed
>only such things as the vertical supports of his skyscrapers, and that
>seems like the same, modern mentality of car design. But what is it about
>architecture that demands something more than functional expression? Or
>why do cars insist on only functional expression? Market demand? If so,
>why shouldn't architecture be judged according to market demand as well?
>
>
>Some things to think about.
>
> ? = ! > .
>
> r a y m o n d C h u n
>g
>
>someone tell me why we gave up on the bauhaus
Raymond,
Your idea's are very profound. I agree that architecture should be
judged according to market demand just like so many other industries. My
question to you is: Do you think that this will ever change or should it
even change at all? Please reply!
Adam J. Carangelo
>From: IN%"[email protected]" "Basic Design (Art and Architecture)" 1-NOV
-1992 09:59:35.04
>To: IN%"[email protected]" "Jennifer Kime", IN%"CARA8789@xxxxxxxxxxx
TNET" "Adam Carangelo"
>CC:
>Subj: ARCHITECTURE: Automobiles/Architecture.
>
>Received: from ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu (MAILER_L@UBVM) by splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu
> (PMDF #12405) id <01GQMT5HF7Q89863TG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun,
> 1 Nov 1992 09:58 EST
>Received: by UBVM (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 6217; Sun, 01 Nov 92 09:58:55 EST
>Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 09:56:37 EST
>From: [email protected]
>Subject: ARCHITECTURE: Automobiles/Architecture.
>Sender: "Basic Design (Art and Architecture)" <[email protected]>
>To: Jennifer Kime <[email protected]>,
> Adam Carangelo <[email protected]>
>Reply-to: "Basic Design (Art and Architecture)" <[email protected]>
>Message-id: <01GQMT5HF7Q89863TG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>X-Envelope-to: CARA8789, KIME9095
>
> - - The original note follows - -
>
>Newsgroups: alt.architecture
>Path: psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!psuvax1!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!
> yale.edu!news.yale.edu!morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu!user
>From: churayj@xxxxxxxxxx (raymond Chung)
>Subject: automotive design and architecture
>Message-ID: <churayj-301092164831@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Followup-To: alt.architecture
>Sender: news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (USENET News System)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu
>Organization: Public Macs, Academic Computing, Yale University
>Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 21:07:28 GMT
>Lines: 32
>
>Has anyone else thought about how automotive design has a totally
>modern-minded design aesthetic and how this aesthetic pertains to
>architecture? It seems obvious to me that everything about a car's design
>(a car built today) is functionally-derived, whether it is actually
>functional or not: hood ornaments have been disposed of; hub caps, most of
>which DO nothing but cover lug-nuts, always look structural, with
>spoke-bracing, or wind-channelling vents; sheet metal has been radically
>rounded so as to suggest aerodynamic efficiency, although it is mostly a
>suggestion and not an operative design; even color decoration is severely
>limited, perhaps because there is no functional cue as to what color a car
>should be, and absolutely no reason to go beyond one color. Etc.
>
>Architecture is similar to the automobile in that it is a functional thing,
>with various designs, and a strong artistic content. But architecture has
>a long tradition of going outside of the function of building, bringing in
>ornaments of plants, people, etc. Then there was the bauhaus, and they
>tried to stick only to the function of building. Mies eventually expressed
>only such things as the vertical supports of his skyscrapers, and that
>seems like the same, modern mentality of car design. But what is it about
>architecture that demands something more than functional expression? Or
>why do cars insist on only functional expression? Market demand? If so,
>why shouldn't architecture be judged according to market demand as well?
>
>
>Some things to think about.
>
> ? = ! > .
>
> r a y m o n d C h u n
>g
>
>someone tell me why we gave up on the bauhaus
Raymond,
Your idea's are very profound. I agree that architecture should be
judged according to market demand just like so many other industries. My
question to you is: Do you think that this will ever change or should it
even change at all? Please reply!
Adam J. Carangelo