Is decon so scupltural that it is an inappropriate architectural form?
I would be interested in any discussion of this question. This question
from the attached article. In my opinion, decon *is* sculpture as a high
art form being done by some architects. Should they be doing sculpture
instead of architecture, or are they doing sculpture instead of archi-
tecture. Again, some discussion would be very interesting... Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Path:
psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!wvn
vms.wvnet.edu!marshall.wvnet.edu!rcbi27
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: Architecture vs Sculpture
Message-ID: <1993Mar9.205235.120017@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: rcbi27@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (DBRUM)
Date: 9 Mar 93 20:52:35 -0500
References: <1993Mar4.205550.119966@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1n9753INN7iq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Marshall University
Lines: 66
In article <1n9753INN7iq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
anderge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Geoff Anderson) writes:
> In article <1993Mar4.205550.119966@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
rcbi27@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (DBRUM) writes:
>>The difference between Sculpture and Architecture:
>>
>> The architect is conserned with building around an inner space.
>>
>> The sculptor with the outer space--how he/she fills this space
>> from the "outside" point of view.
>>
>>Certainly the architect is conserned also with the outer appearance
>>of the building or structure; but this is subservient, in the purist
>>sense, to the main object, which is defining or establishing inner
>>spaces.
>>
>>The sculptor may indeed plan for the inside reaches of his sculpture
>>to be accessible (as a hidy-hole or votive recess, or, if big enough,
>>a stairway leading to some kind of lookout) but this consern is secondary
>>to the outer form and deminsions of the work.
>>
>>Finally, I agree that definitions can be boring and confusing, but one
>>must remember that they are necessary evils for purposes of general
>>order in comunications. You'll agree that "sculptor" and "architect"
>>are not interchangeables!
>
> I'm not so sure about that last comment about interchangeability. The famous
> sculpture and architect,(and general renaissance man), Michelangelo, did
> a lot of sculptoral architecture. He was a sculptor in his blood and this
followed for his arcitecture. I agree that architecture and sculptor are
seperate
> but I don't know if I'd say they are not interchangeable. Much of his work
> for example became not so much for the best possible use for poeple but for
> looks. In the Laurentian Library, Florence, He has a stairway that can be
> described as "flowing Lava" but it doesn't provide the best ease in use by peo
people. One side of it is barely wide enough for someone to get through!
> Of coarse you may think of this in a different way, but that is how I see it.
> The topic of sculpture and architecture is of course debatable or we
> wouldn't be talking about it.
>
> Look forward to a reply -Geoff
That stairway is fantastic! I think it's curious when sculptural and
architectural talents are so fully developed within one person as in the
case of Michelangelo. And there are others of his era also; that time
seemed to spawn such persons; we don't hardly have them today, at least not
with such accomplishment in both field (or sometimes even in one of them :-).
When I say that the two fields are not "interchangeables", what I mean is
that you can't just dismiss the one in favor of the other. You can't just
say: "Well alright, you say you're an architect, so go over there and
make me a sculpture of the president, what are you waiting for!" or "Alright,
you say you're a sculptor, so, go build a building, what's the big holdup?"
The two fields have much in common, yes, but I'll never be one of those
who say they are the same. They have different requirements, they also
share some requirements. What I tried to give was a nutshell definition
of each as opposed to one another by stripping away all the intertangings
and refining each down to its very most basic nature. This is one angle,
I'm sure there are others.
I guess what I would describe as the best of all possible worlds,
architecturally speaking, is one where it would be possible for all
buildings, regardless of their purpose, to receive as much emphasis on
outward appearance as, say, the Notre Dame du Haute (I'm *sure* I've
spelled that wrong, but you know what I mean, the little chapel built in
modern times to go along with the famed cathedral, the one with all that
wonderous excess of outerwork--such fitting extravagance!)
--
"I laughed out loud one time and they turned me in." --Cool Hand Luke
I would be interested in any discussion of this question. This question
from the attached article. In my opinion, decon *is* sculpture as a high
art form being done by some architects. Should they be doing sculpture
instead of architecture, or are they doing sculpture instead of archi-
tecture. Again, some discussion would be very interesting... Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Path:
psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!wvn
vms.wvnet.edu!marshall.wvnet.edu!rcbi27
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: Architecture vs Sculpture
Message-ID: <1993Mar9.205235.120017@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: rcbi27@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (DBRUM)
Date: 9 Mar 93 20:52:35 -0500
References: <1993Mar4.205550.119966@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1n9753INN7iq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Marshall University
Lines: 66
In article <1n9753INN7iq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
anderge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Geoff Anderson) writes:
> In article <1993Mar4.205550.119966@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
rcbi27@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (DBRUM) writes:
>>The difference between Sculpture and Architecture:
>>
>> The architect is conserned with building around an inner space.
>>
>> The sculptor with the outer space--how he/she fills this space
>> from the "outside" point of view.
>>
>>Certainly the architect is conserned also with the outer appearance
>>of the building or structure; but this is subservient, in the purist
>>sense, to the main object, which is defining or establishing inner
>>spaces.
>>
>>The sculptor may indeed plan for the inside reaches of his sculpture
>>to be accessible (as a hidy-hole or votive recess, or, if big enough,
>>a stairway leading to some kind of lookout) but this consern is secondary
>>to the outer form and deminsions of the work.
>>
>>Finally, I agree that definitions can be boring and confusing, but one
>>must remember that they are necessary evils for purposes of general
>>order in comunications. You'll agree that "sculptor" and "architect"
>>are not interchangeables!
>
> I'm not so sure about that last comment about interchangeability. The famous
> sculpture and architect,(and general renaissance man), Michelangelo, did
> a lot of sculptoral architecture. He was a sculptor in his blood and this
followed for his arcitecture. I agree that architecture and sculptor are
seperate
> but I don't know if I'd say they are not interchangeable. Much of his work
> for example became not so much for the best possible use for poeple but for
> looks. In the Laurentian Library, Florence, He has a stairway that can be
> described as "flowing Lava" but it doesn't provide the best ease in use by peo
people. One side of it is barely wide enough for someone to get through!
> Of coarse you may think of this in a different way, but that is how I see it.
> The topic of sculpture and architecture is of course debatable or we
> wouldn't be talking about it.
>
> Look forward to a reply -Geoff
That stairway is fantastic! I think it's curious when sculptural and
architectural talents are so fully developed within one person as in the
case of Michelangelo. And there are others of his era also; that time
seemed to spawn such persons; we don't hardly have them today, at least not
with such accomplishment in both field (or sometimes even in one of them :-).
When I say that the two fields are not "interchangeables", what I mean is
that you can't just dismiss the one in favor of the other. You can't just
say: "Well alright, you say you're an architect, so go over there and
make me a sculpture of the president, what are you waiting for!" or "Alright,
you say you're a sculptor, so, go build a building, what's the big holdup?"
The two fields have much in common, yes, but I'll never be one of those
who say they are the same. They have different requirements, they also
share some requirements. What I tried to give was a nutshell definition
of each as opposed to one another by stripping away all the intertangings
and refining each down to its very most basic nature. This is one angle,
I'm sure there are others.
I guess what I would describe as the best of all possible worlds,
architecturally speaking, is one where it would be possible for all
buildings, regardless of their purpose, to receive as much emphasis on
outward appearance as, say, the Notre Dame du Haute (I'm *sure* I've
spelled that wrong, but you know what I mean, the little chapel built in
modern times to go along with the famed cathedral, the one with all that
wonderous excess of outerwork--such fitting extravagance!)
--
"I laughed out loud one time and they turned me in." --Cool Hand Luke