Benoit,
>Attending a Charrette headed by Gehry 5 or 6 years ago in Montreal, It
>became obvious to me that is work procedure is of the "rainman" kind. It's
>strong relyance(?) on formal relations makes it uncommunicable and thus of
>no learning value.
>
Have you ever taken an art class? A compelling work procedure does not
necessarily render a compelling architecture. Note, Eisenman's career of ,
IMHO interesting procedures and writings, but lacking in their built form.
>You can say you like it - like .BR - or you don't.
>
>But the debate can go no further. Unlike, for example other formalists like
>Calatrava and Nervi ( his mentor), where discussions can be ventured on the
>relations between structure, forces and form. Unlike also Portzamparc who's
>work can also be approch thru an urban context standpoint.
>
>But with Frank, it's either "hmmmm" or "yurk".
>
I don't think you can say there is no discussion to be had. Why can't there
be discussions about the relationships of form and their ability to
communicate? Can you not make judgement about proportions, for example? Does
it always have to be about rational matter, structure, forces, etc?
Scott
>Attending a Charrette headed by Gehry 5 or 6 years ago in Montreal, It
>became obvious to me that is work procedure is of the "rainman" kind. It's
>strong relyance(?) on formal relations makes it uncommunicable and thus of
>no learning value.
>
Have you ever taken an art class? A compelling work procedure does not
necessarily render a compelling architecture. Note, Eisenman's career of ,
IMHO interesting procedures and writings, but lacking in their built form.
>You can say you like it - like .BR - or you don't.
>
>But the debate can go no further. Unlike, for example other formalists like
>Calatrava and Nervi ( his mentor), where discussions can be ventured on the
>relations between structure, forces and form. Unlike also Portzamparc who's
>work can also be approch thru an urban context standpoint.
>
>But with Frank, it's either "hmmmm" or "yurk".
>
I don't think you can say there is no discussion to be had. Why can't there
be discussions about the relationships of form and their ability to
communicate? Can you not make judgement about proportions, for example? Does
it always have to be about rational matter, structure, forces, etc?
Scott