- - The original note follows - -
Path:
psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!sen
ator-bedfellow.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!tsuchiya
From: tsuchiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Naoki J Tsuchiya)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: Fractal Architecture
Date: 7 Mar 1993 07:04:10 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1nc6paINNmj2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1993Mar3.022725.8898@xxxxxxxxxxx> <C3EBCJ.2rH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m66-080-12.mit.edu
Regarding the statements "simples shapes are the signature of man" (Andrew
Noble) and that "simple shapes are inhuman" (Glieck) in two previous articles
about "Fractal Architecture", they really don't conflict with each other:
while architects design with extremely simple shapes (pyramids, rectangles,
hyperbolic paraboloids, etc.) and thus they are our "signature", a simple shape
is "inhuman" since it doesn't reflect anything inate in, or part of humans
and our needs. To give an example:
A plain (you can insert "International-style" here) box is only beautiful when
it serves the function of a box-- such as STORAGE something that fits
into that sized box. A complex structure as human shelter (or for that matter,
ANYTHING serving a human need) inherently needs a form as complex as its
functions (human movements, human mind included, of course), more than a mere
simple shape-- to distort and disfigure the needs of a human shelter into a box
is NOT beautiful! A Frank Lloyd Wright building, although clearly made up of
simple shapes, is in total nowhere near one simple shape! Its total complex
shape is beautiful because it fits the function of the building.
A Mies van der Rohe "box" does not even approach the needs of the building
and is clearly not beautiful. Compare, for example, Wright's Price Tower or
Larkin Building (two buildings which were certainly NOT considered ugly by
those who I have ever asked) and Mies' and Johnson's Seagram building (whose
beauty is often subject to debate-- i.e., of those who I have ever asked,
only architects thought it "beautiful"....).
Every beautiful form in nature is as complex or as simple as its functions need
them to be. And remember that humans are a part of nature (like everything in
the universe) and that we are animals, too (for example, we share over 95% of
our genes with chimpanzees). So, every beautiful form created by man is as
complex or as simple as its functions need them to be!
N. John Tsuchiya
Path:
psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!sen
ator-bedfellow.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!tsuchiya
From: tsuchiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Naoki J Tsuchiya)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: Fractal Architecture
Date: 7 Mar 1993 07:04:10 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1nc6paINNmj2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1993Mar3.022725.8898@xxxxxxxxxxx> <C3EBCJ.2rH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m66-080-12.mit.edu
Regarding the statements "simples shapes are the signature of man" (Andrew
Noble) and that "simple shapes are inhuman" (Glieck) in two previous articles
about "Fractal Architecture", they really don't conflict with each other:
while architects design with extremely simple shapes (pyramids, rectangles,
hyperbolic paraboloids, etc.) and thus they are our "signature", a simple shape
is "inhuman" since it doesn't reflect anything inate in, or part of humans
and our needs. To give an example:
A plain (you can insert "International-style" here) box is only beautiful when
it serves the function of a box-- such as STORAGE something that fits
into that sized box. A complex structure as human shelter (or for that matter,
ANYTHING serving a human need) inherently needs a form as complex as its
functions (human movements, human mind included, of course), more than a mere
simple shape-- to distort and disfigure the needs of a human shelter into a box
is NOT beautiful! A Frank Lloyd Wright building, although clearly made up of
simple shapes, is in total nowhere near one simple shape! Its total complex
shape is beautiful because it fits the function of the building.
A Mies van der Rohe "box" does not even approach the needs of the building
and is clearly not beautiful. Compare, for example, Wright's Price Tower or
Larkin Building (two buildings which were certainly NOT considered ugly by
those who I have ever asked) and Mies' and Johnson's Seagram building (whose
beauty is often subject to debate-- i.e., of those who I have ever asked,
only architects thought it "beautiful"....).
Every beautiful form in nature is as complex or as simple as its functions need
them to be. And remember that humans are a part of nature (like everything in
the universe) and that we are animals, too (for example, we share over 95% of
our genes with chimpanzees). So, every beautiful form created by man is as
complex or as simple as its functions need them to be!
N. John Tsuchiya