Does the function necessarily produce the form in architecture?
Is the function of sculpture purely visual design in 3D?
Are both sculpture and architecture combined for a purpose related
to expressing meaning insome symbolic way? [Semantics...] Both the
material of architecture and sculpture (including sculpted buildings)
can in themselves impart a meaning related to quality. The nature of
the material, at best, determines its formal characteristics...its
expressive potential.
Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Path:
psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar
.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!haynes
From: haynes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: architecture, not sculpture
Date: 22 Feb 1993 20:27:24 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <1mbcvcINN7qr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <churayj-190293220344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<C2tx3L.2DL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu
I'd argue that in architecture and some other things there is a goal of
producing a utilitarian object which is esthetically pleasing. (or
esthetically meaningful, if it isn't supposed to be pleasing) There is
a tension here. If utility gets the upper hand then you get buildings
as dull as those you'd see on a military base. If art gets the upper
hand then you get sculpture - a building that is striking to look at
but is unsuitable for the purposes of its occupants. We have the same
tension on a smaller scale in the field of "industrial design" where things
smaller than buildings have utilitarian purpose but are designed (we hope) by
people with artistic sensibility to have pleasing appearance.
Of course perspective enters into this too. An old barn or mill may be
architecturally uninteresting yet esthetically pleasing in its setting.
In this sense there is nothing so beautiful, and nothing so ugly, as a
steam locomotive.
Then there are objects where the utility and esthetics are tightly locked
together. I'm thinking of a jet airliner, where nothing is spared to make
it aerodynamically as fit as possible yet the result is esthetically
clean and sleek and fast. All the industrial designer gets to add is the
paint job (to the exterior; of course there is lots of design freedom
about the interior).
Another category is represented by, say, the computers of the 1960s.
What goes on inside is invisible; and the machine would work just as well
if it were as ugly as a sack of doorknobs. But IBM and other companies
spent a lot of money on industrial design of the consoles and panels and
lights and switches and things to get the "right" look. (I was working for
a computer company at the time, and complained to the guy designing the
maintenance panel of our machine that it looked like something that belonged
in a machine shop, not a computer room.) This was the era when computer
rooms were designed as fishbowls to show off the wonderful and expensive
machines to the managers and guests.
Still another category covers objects which were originally utilitarian and
have become sculpture. Maybe the steam locomotive fits that category
today; or artillery guns used in a military memorial and that sort of thing.
Being an engineer I have around my house various pieces of electronic or
electrical equipment which are not functional but which I find pleasing
to look at. In some cases the pleasure comes from seeing how neatly the
designer packaged the internal parts for ease of maintenance or something;
in some cases they are very old things interesting to look at for their
antiquity; and in some cases I find them pleasant to look upon just because,
oh, I dunno, maybe symmetry, a pleasing arrangemnt of things on the front
panel, or maybe just thinking about how they worked when they were in use.
--
haynes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[email protected]
"Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint! But ya gotta know the territory!"
Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"
Is the function of sculpture purely visual design in 3D?
Are both sculpture and architecture combined for a purpose related
to expressing meaning insome symbolic way? [Semantics...] Both the
material of architecture and sculpture (including sculpted buildings)
can in themselves impart a meaning related to quality. The nature of
the material, at best, determines its formal characteristics...its
expressive potential.
Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Path:
psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar
.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!haynes
From: haynes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: architecture, not sculpture
Date: 22 Feb 1993 20:27:24 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <1mbcvcINN7qr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <churayj-190293220344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<C2tx3L.2DL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu
I'd argue that in architecture and some other things there is a goal of
producing a utilitarian object which is esthetically pleasing. (or
esthetically meaningful, if it isn't supposed to be pleasing) There is
a tension here. If utility gets the upper hand then you get buildings
as dull as those you'd see on a military base. If art gets the upper
hand then you get sculpture - a building that is striking to look at
but is unsuitable for the purposes of its occupants. We have the same
tension on a smaller scale in the field of "industrial design" where things
smaller than buildings have utilitarian purpose but are designed (we hope) by
people with artistic sensibility to have pleasing appearance.
Of course perspective enters into this too. An old barn or mill may be
architecturally uninteresting yet esthetically pleasing in its setting.
In this sense there is nothing so beautiful, and nothing so ugly, as a
steam locomotive.
Then there are objects where the utility and esthetics are tightly locked
together. I'm thinking of a jet airliner, where nothing is spared to make
it aerodynamically as fit as possible yet the result is esthetically
clean and sleek and fast. All the industrial designer gets to add is the
paint job (to the exterior; of course there is lots of design freedom
about the interior).
Another category is represented by, say, the computers of the 1960s.
What goes on inside is invisible; and the machine would work just as well
if it were as ugly as a sack of doorknobs. But IBM and other companies
spent a lot of money on industrial design of the consoles and panels and
lights and switches and things to get the "right" look. (I was working for
a computer company at the time, and complained to the guy designing the
maintenance panel of our machine that it looked like something that belonged
in a machine shop, not a computer room.) This was the era when computer
rooms were designed as fishbowls to show off the wonderful and expensive
machines to the managers and guests.
Still another category covers objects which were originally utilitarian and
have become sculpture. Maybe the steam locomotive fits that category
today; or artillery guns used in a military memorial and that sort of thing.
Being an engineer I have around my house various pieces of electronic or
electrical equipment which are not functional but which I find pleasing
to look at. In some cases the pleasure comes from seeing how neatly the
designer packaged the internal parts for ease of maintenance or something;
in some cases they are very old things interesting to look at for their
antiquity; and in some cases I find them pleasant to look upon just because,
oh, I dunno, maybe symmetry, a pleasing arrangemnt of things on the front
panel, or maybe just thinking about how they worked when they were in use.
--
haynes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[email protected]
"Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint! But ya gotta know the territory!"
Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"