let's not forget anne tyng, louis kahn's collaborator and proponent of a
mathematical basis for architectural form. her contributions are
overlooked relative to her mentor's, but she was an important influence on
him, and an interesting theorist in her own right (actually, still teaching
at penn, i believe).
At 02:02 AM 5/22/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sat, 22 May 1999, Mark Darrall wrote:
>> > 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 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.
>
>One of the things to remember here is that the use of biological form in
>architecture is ancient; what chaos theory and fractals do is simply
>provide analytical tools which can comprehend such form. Now, this is of
>very great potential value, but that potential is far from realized.
>Meantime, I suspect that means that this "new" ideal is in fact going to
>look very old when finally achieved...like Alexander's aesthetics,
>perhaps?
>
>I also think you are forgetting that biological form has always been a
>pre-occupation of architects: gothic cathedrals have something of northern
>European forests in them, Greek temple columns remember bundles of reeds
>and wooden frames. Aalto was a biomorphic designer--perhaps as much as
>Gaudi. Le Corbusier was known to copy a natural form now & again. The
>only recent major designer I can think of who didn't, ultimately, deal
>with such things was Mies van der Rohe--Mr. Pure Geometry himself.
>
>All this leads me to suspect that the study of biological form should be a
>part of architectural education--that would be quite a change! Well,
>perhaps I can *make* it part of mine.
>
>R.
>
>
Ronald Evitts
90-96 Stanton St. 3A
New York, NY 10002
212-674-6329
mathematical basis for architectural form. her contributions are
overlooked relative to her mentor's, but she was an important influence on
him, and an interesting theorist in her own right (actually, still teaching
at penn, i believe).
At 02:02 AM 5/22/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sat, 22 May 1999, Mark Darrall wrote:
>> > 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 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.
>
>One of the things to remember here is that the use of biological form in
>architecture is ancient; what chaos theory and fractals do is simply
>provide analytical tools which can comprehend such form. Now, this is of
>very great potential value, but that potential is far from realized.
>Meantime, I suspect that means that this "new" ideal is in fact going to
>look very old when finally achieved...like Alexander's aesthetics,
>perhaps?
>
>I also think you are forgetting that biological form has always been a
>pre-occupation of architects: gothic cathedrals have something of northern
>European forests in them, Greek temple columns remember bundles of reeds
>and wooden frames. Aalto was a biomorphic designer--perhaps as much as
>Gaudi. Le Corbusier was known to copy a natural form now & again. The
>only recent major designer I can think of who didn't, ultimately, deal
>with such things was Mies van der Rohe--Mr. Pure Geometry himself.
>
>All this leads me to suspect that the study of biological form should be a
>part of architectural education--that would be quite a change! Well,
>perhaps I can *make* it part of mine.
>
>R.
>
>
Ronald Evitts
90-96 Stanton St. 3A
New York, NY 10002
212-674-6329