John,
Sorry that header bugged you like that; I guess that just shows how lazy
we are---unwilling to retype the address and subject as the topic
evolves! I, too have noticed how much that happens and just kind of
ignore it. I'll try to be a good boy next time---honest.
Anyway, on to your content:
The topic of "green" architecture actually faded out as others finished
discussing dikes and such and eventually evolved into this arch. history
discourse on the meanings of the Schroeder house and the De Stijl in
general. However, "green"---and I really dislike the use of buzzwords,
myself, but they're a convenient handle---architecture is really an
important topic! I'm no fanatical tree-hugger, eco-warrior, or whatnot,
but I feel it IS within the realm of good design to not be wasteful of
resources, be they natural, human, or economic. Actually, if you approach
all your design work with economy of material, labor and resources in
mind, you will have already done much to "green-up" architecture.
A couple weeks ago, some schmoe signed on to the list with the sole
intention of finding an architect to design his 12,000 sf villa, in a
"traditional" mode, on his 2.2 A spread near Chicago. One doesn't even
have to be a "green" architect to realize this was an incredibly wasteful
idea, not to mention a vulgar display. Now, he'll probably get an architect,
all right, and he'll get his villa, but the loser in the deal will have no
say in the matter. When we started discussion on this guy's post, my
first reaction was to tell the guy to plant a few hundred trees on the site,
leave it alone, and invest the $2M the house would've cost in a business
and at least create some long-term jobs---much better all around, right?
About De Stijl:
Unless it goes further, Frampton is leaving out the role of Theosophy, and
religion in general, as an influence to these artists. As we've been hashing
out here, the De Stijl art has much to do with seeking some essential spirit
in art. This is EXACTLY why Mondrian worked so hard to minimalize his painting.
In fact he once wrote that the ultimate art would have no canvas, no paint,
nothing but its essence. Well, of course, he couldn't realize such an art,so
he made do by de-emphasizing the canvas (no frames), eliminating elements
(fewer lines, fewer colors), and eliminating evidence of craft (trying to
eliminate brush strokes). Of course, he couldn't really accomplish the
last, especially as he was making changes to the paintings "on the fly,"
painting over some black lines to make new ones, etc. Some
historians have said he worked to a mathematical proportioning system,
but it has been recorded that a friend watched Mondrian paint---and try
different positionings by _eye_, working empirically.
John, you're right. Seeing the paintings in person (at Chicago), I can
agree that the paintings lose all their purely graphic quality, and become
real products of hand work---paintovers, tape marks, brush strokes, and all.
I don't think anyone really intended for there to be a connection between
"green" arch. and Mondrian, though, except as an example that try as we
might, as long as a human is involved, some evidence of his or her
presence will remain behind. That, in itself, should be enough to make us
more considerate of what we do when we build.
Take care, all,
Mark
Sorry that header bugged you like that; I guess that just shows how lazy
we are---unwilling to retype the address and subject as the topic
evolves! I, too have noticed how much that happens and just kind of
ignore it. I'll try to be a good boy next time---honest.
Anyway, on to your content:
The topic of "green" architecture actually faded out as others finished
discussing dikes and such and eventually evolved into this arch. history
discourse on the meanings of the Schroeder house and the De Stijl in
general. However, "green"---and I really dislike the use of buzzwords,
myself, but they're a convenient handle---architecture is really an
important topic! I'm no fanatical tree-hugger, eco-warrior, or whatnot,
but I feel it IS within the realm of good design to not be wasteful of
resources, be they natural, human, or economic. Actually, if you approach
all your design work with economy of material, labor and resources in
mind, you will have already done much to "green-up" architecture.
A couple weeks ago, some schmoe signed on to the list with the sole
intention of finding an architect to design his 12,000 sf villa, in a
"traditional" mode, on his 2.2 A spread near Chicago. One doesn't even
have to be a "green" architect to realize this was an incredibly wasteful
idea, not to mention a vulgar display. Now, he'll probably get an architect,
all right, and he'll get his villa, but the loser in the deal will have no
say in the matter. When we started discussion on this guy's post, my
first reaction was to tell the guy to plant a few hundred trees on the site,
leave it alone, and invest the $2M the house would've cost in a business
and at least create some long-term jobs---much better all around, right?
About De Stijl:
Unless it goes further, Frampton is leaving out the role of Theosophy, and
religion in general, as an influence to these artists. As we've been hashing
out here, the De Stijl art has much to do with seeking some essential spirit
in art. This is EXACTLY why Mondrian worked so hard to minimalize his painting.
In fact he once wrote that the ultimate art would have no canvas, no paint,
nothing but its essence. Well, of course, he couldn't realize such an art,so
he made do by de-emphasizing the canvas (no frames), eliminating elements
(fewer lines, fewer colors), and eliminating evidence of craft (trying to
eliminate brush strokes). Of course, he couldn't really accomplish the
last, especially as he was making changes to the paintings "on the fly,"
painting over some black lines to make new ones, etc. Some
historians have said he worked to a mathematical proportioning system,
but it has been recorded that a friend watched Mondrian paint---and try
different positionings by _eye_, working empirically.
John, you're right. Seeing the paintings in person (at Chicago), I can
agree that the paintings lose all their purely graphic quality, and become
real products of hand work---paintovers, tape marks, brush strokes, and all.
I don't think anyone really intended for there to be a connection between
"green" arch. and Mondrian, though, except as an example that try as we
might, as long as a human is involved, some evidence of his or her
presence will remain behind. That, in itself, should be enough to make us
more considerate of what we do when we build.
Take care, all,
Mark