At 08:36 PM 5/20/99 -0800, Brian wrote:
> Mark, it has me wondering, in the inter- and multi-disciplinary
> future of architecture theory/practice, what magic combinations
> of studies/beliefs will be combined as prevailing zeitgeists...
The zeitgeist (spirit of the times) is a fluid thing, as the name suggests.
What we knew back in the thirties, is not what we know now. Everything we
make and think and do is a product of its time. All kinds of ideas come
together, bounce around on and off each other and then drift apart seeking
new combinations. The problem is finding what sticks together and serves
best longest. I guess that might be what we call "timeless" design.
But there are different degrees of timelessness. When I look at a Wright
building, it looks, to me, very advanced and forward---from a formal
standpoint. When I look at it more closely, and see that it's just stucco on
lath, poorly flashed and leaky, uninsulated and drafty, I see it more as an
expression of the natural limitations that crop up in a building project. Of
course, in some ways, buildings like some of Wright's probably came close to
being early examples of "green" architecture, as they were conscious of wind
and sun, used the most efficient systems of heating and ventilation
available. In this way, again, they are very advanced.
So, they were not complete successes. The queston becomes, "how do we build
on those successes that DID occur?"
What makes these buildings (partially, at least) "timeless?" Perhaps it's
that they strike a chord down deep in us---we look at them and say, "yeah,
there's something special going on here." It resonates; we understand the
complementary relationship between building and site. It feels proper to us.
Here's a good comparison---Fallingwater and the Villa Savoie (sorry if I
botched the spelling). They both were done around the same time, have
similar programs, even have similar design features to some extent. Why are
they so different? Corbu's house is neutral-colored (turns out it was pretty
colorful on the inside, I hear!) and is designed to be _an object in the
landscape._ We see it as something somewhat apart from the site---it makes
no attempt to be a part of it, it takes an opposing position in the dialogue.
Fallingwater, well we all know about that---every piece of this house is
screaming---"look site, don't you see? I'm trying to talk to you here,
understand you, be a part of you. I'm emulating your stone ledges, your
browns and golds, your motion down the hillside and tumble down the
stream..." And likewise, the user enters into this dialogue and can recreate
the motion on the site inside the house. The relationship between user and
building reflects the realtionship between human and earth.
If you took Fallingwater out of Bear Run and stuck it on that little rise in
France, it would look ridiculous. If you jammed Villa Savoie down in that
little ravine, it would look---probably just look pretty dull. When Wright
was hitting on all cylinders, his buildings were incredibly specific; there
was no claim to universal architecture except as how it embodied the
_principles_ that Wright felt were universal. It was Sullivan's idea of
working from "the specific to the general," or "the rule that would allow no
exception."
> the mathematics/architecture thread is millennia old.. and is
> the organic architecture a rediscovery of biological principles
> in design (?, revived) in the late 19th century..
Yes! Sullivan and a few others were intensely interested in biological
patterns used in architecture. He got it from Owen Jones, Violet-le-Duc, et.
al. He studied and understood plant and animal structures. He combined these
patterns with scared geometries to create his ornament. Wright picked up
where Sullivan left off and saw the BUILDING as following nature's
patterns---especially after the 30s. Bruce Goff went even further toward
what he called "pure architecture" which had nothing to do with building,
but was everything to do with imagination. Maybe if we looked at some of
Goff's most extreme ideas, we might find chaos theory intuitively at work.
The next generation, Art Dyson, and Bart Prince most notably, lie somewhere
between Wright and Goff. The next group yet, perhaps Eugene Tsui, will make
the next leap---he experiments with new materials, new combinations of
processes, and looks to nature for inspiration to make buildings that are
truly interactive membranes.
Shameless plug here. Go to:
http://members.iquest.net/~mdarrall
and download the PDF of my thesis. I try there to find the cultural source
of this philosophy, and have found some interesting links to eastern and
liberal religious tradition, in addition to the usually attributed
Transcendenatalist and Romantic takes.
> and, now what
> i bargain is an anthropologically-based (post-, structuralism,
> linguistics) design, and a psychologically-based (pomo, and
> sociology, cultural studies) architecture... is the future in
> the architect-geneticist.. the architect-astronaut/explorer
> (ala space-stations, mars colonies, biospheres), the religion/
> architecture communion, sacred design... what future combi-
> nations of knowledge will there be in architectural reality..?
All of the above, mein Freund!
Mark
> Mark, it has me wondering, in the inter- and multi-disciplinary
> future of architecture theory/practice, what magic combinations
> of studies/beliefs will be combined as prevailing zeitgeists...
The zeitgeist (spirit of the times) is a fluid thing, as the name suggests.
What we knew back in the thirties, is not what we know now. Everything we
make and think and do is a product of its time. All kinds of ideas come
together, bounce around on and off each other and then drift apart seeking
new combinations. The problem is finding what sticks together and serves
best longest. I guess that might be what we call "timeless" design.
But there are different degrees of timelessness. When I look at a Wright
building, it looks, to me, very advanced and forward---from a formal
standpoint. When I look at it more closely, and see that it's just stucco on
lath, poorly flashed and leaky, uninsulated and drafty, I see it more as an
expression of the natural limitations that crop up in a building project. Of
course, in some ways, buildings like some of Wright's probably came close to
being early examples of "green" architecture, as they were conscious of wind
and sun, used the most efficient systems of heating and ventilation
available. In this way, again, they are very advanced.
So, they were not complete successes. The queston becomes, "how do we build
on those successes that DID occur?"
What makes these buildings (partially, at least) "timeless?" Perhaps it's
that they strike a chord down deep in us---we look at them and say, "yeah,
there's something special going on here." It resonates; we understand the
complementary relationship between building and site. It feels proper to us.
Here's a good comparison---Fallingwater and the Villa Savoie (sorry if I
botched the spelling). They both were done around the same time, have
similar programs, even have similar design features to some extent. Why are
they so different? Corbu's house is neutral-colored (turns out it was pretty
colorful on the inside, I hear!) and is designed to be _an object in the
landscape._ We see it as something somewhat apart from the site---it makes
no attempt to be a part of it, it takes an opposing position in the dialogue.
Fallingwater, well we all know about that---every piece of this house is
screaming---"look site, don't you see? I'm trying to talk to you here,
understand you, be a part of you. I'm emulating your stone ledges, your
browns and golds, your motion down the hillside and tumble down the
stream..." And likewise, the user enters into this dialogue and can recreate
the motion on the site inside the house. The relationship between user and
building reflects the realtionship between human and earth.
If you took Fallingwater out of Bear Run and stuck it on that little rise in
France, it would look ridiculous. If you jammed Villa Savoie down in that
little ravine, it would look---probably just look pretty dull. When Wright
was hitting on all cylinders, his buildings were incredibly specific; there
was no claim to universal architecture except as how it embodied the
_principles_ that Wright felt were universal. It was Sullivan's idea of
working from "the specific to the general," or "the rule that would allow no
exception."
> the mathematics/architecture thread is millennia old.. and is
> the organic architecture a rediscovery of biological principles
> in design (?, revived) in the late 19th century..
Yes! Sullivan and a few others were intensely interested in biological
patterns used in architecture. He got it from Owen Jones, Violet-le-Duc, et.
al. He studied and understood plant and animal structures. He combined these
patterns with scared geometries to create his ornament. Wright picked up
where Sullivan left off and saw the BUILDING as following nature's
patterns---especially after the 30s. Bruce Goff went even further toward
what he called "pure architecture" which had nothing to do with building,
but was everything to do with imagination. Maybe if we looked at some of
Goff's most extreme ideas, we might find chaos theory intuitively at work.
The next generation, Art Dyson, and Bart Prince most notably, lie somewhere
between Wright and Goff. The next group yet, perhaps Eugene Tsui, will make
the next leap---he experiments with new materials, new combinations of
processes, and looks to nature for inspiration to make buildings that are
truly interactive membranes.
Shameless plug here. Go to:
http://members.iquest.net/~mdarrall
and download the PDF of my thesis. I try there to find the cultural source
of this philosophy, and have found some interesting links to eastern and
liberal religious tradition, in addition to the usually attributed
Transcendenatalist and Romantic takes.
> and, now what
> i bargain is an anthropologically-based (post-, structuralism,
> linguistics) design, and a psychologically-based (pomo, and
> sociology, cultural studies) architecture... is the future in
> the architect-geneticist.. the architect-astronaut/explorer
> (ala space-stations, mars colonies, biospheres), the religion/
> architecture communion, sacred design... what future combi-
> nations of knowledge will there be in architectural reality..?
All of the above, mein Freund!
Mark