[I have to admit that I know very little about Ralph Erskine and his work.
Sorry.]
Brian wrote:
(or other things,
such as energy efficiency, aesthetics, planning, etc.)
could be in support of a larger idea of architecture,
its purpose, where people who are skilled at building
of buildings are not presumed to be great thinkers by
default, where one architect is not all architecture,
yet there is some singularity to the idea of what it
can encompass, varied and variegated. it is very hard
to find a middle-ground,
Steve replies:
Yesterday's post delivered FORMS AND FUNCTIONS OF 20TH CENTURY
ARCHITECTURE--
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=4533441573
I remember these books from my student days in the 1970s, but haven't looked
through them since then. I kind of remember thinking these books were not
"inspirational" enough (for me) back then. After seeing them so cheaply
available at eBay, I went to the library to look them over again, and
decided I definitely want these book. I found them to now be very inspiring!
They very much manifest what Brian wrote about above.
It's also interesting to compare these four heavy 1952 volumes ("prepared
under the auspices of the School of Architecture of Columbia University")
with the slim 2003 INDEX ARCHITECTURE: A COLUMBIA BOOK OF ARCHITECTURE.
Where in 1952 there are lengthy and well illustrated topics beginning with
"The Elements of Building: Introduction" through to "The Architect and Urban
Planning" and a whole volume dedicated to "The Principles of Composition"
and vols 3 and 4 fully devoted to addressing the designs of a great variety
of building types (including Catholic Churches, Protestant Churches, and
Synagogues), the 2003 INDEX ARCHITECTURE curtly covers topics like
'abstraction' 'film' 'form' 'multiple' 'real' 'style and symmetry' etc.
Over a year ago I wrote (at archinect) that a lot of INDEX ARCHITECTURE is
pretty much useless and more like sophisticated advertising copy than
anything else. Now, relative to FORMS AND FUNCTIONS..., I see INDEX
ARCHITECTURE as not just a missed opportunity to 'build' further upon
architecture, but a sign of how overly pretentious the study of architecture
can be(come).
What I particularly like about FORMS AND FUNCTIONS... is how lessons from
architecture's past are well integrated with newer architecture design
practice up to the mid 20th century.
[Of course, I get a kick out of the fact that the first building illustrated
in FORM AND FUNCTION... is the Basilica of Constantine in Rome, which began
construction under Maxentius, and was finished (I believe) under the design
supervision of Eutropia (Maxentius' mother) and Helena (Constantine's
mother).
Plus, there is this great little diagrammatic drawing demonstrating a scale
comparison with the Sphere and Pylon of the 1939 New York World's Fair--
http://www.quondam.com/temp/scale01.jpg
--from left to right: the Great Pyramid, Parthenon, Pantheon (Which looks to
me a bit bigger than it actually is), Santa Sophia, Constantinople, St.
Mark's Venice, Chartres, St. Peter's Rome, the Sphere and Pylon.]
FORMS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE 20TH CENTURY really should be a free online
resource now, and the volumes might just begin positively informing
Quondam's overall agenda.
Anyone have any personal experience utilizing FORMS AND FUNCTIONS OF 20TH
CENTURY ARCHITECTURE?
Sorry.]
Brian wrote:
(or other things,
such as energy efficiency, aesthetics, planning, etc.)
could be in support of a larger idea of architecture,
its purpose, where people who are skilled at building
of buildings are not presumed to be great thinkers by
default, where one architect is not all architecture,
yet there is some singularity to the idea of what it
can encompass, varied and variegated. it is very hard
to find a middle-ground,
Steve replies:
Yesterday's post delivered FORMS AND FUNCTIONS OF 20TH CENTURY
ARCHITECTURE--
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=4533441573
I remember these books from my student days in the 1970s, but haven't looked
through them since then. I kind of remember thinking these books were not
"inspirational" enough (for me) back then. After seeing them so cheaply
available at eBay, I went to the library to look them over again, and
decided I definitely want these book. I found them to now be very inspiring!
They very much manifest what Brian wrote about above.
It's also interesting to compare these four heavy 1952 volumes ("prepared
under the auspices of the School of Architecture of Columbia University")
with the slim 2003 INDEX ARCHITECTURE: A COLUMBIA BOOK OF ARCHITECTURE.
Where in 1952 there are lengthy and well illustrated topics beginning with
"The Elements of Building: Introduction" through to "The Architect and Urban
Planning" and a whole volume dedicated to "The Principles of Composition"
and vols 3 and 4 fully devoted to addressing the designs of a great variety
of building types (including Catholic Churches, Protestant Churches, and
Synagogues), the 2003 INDEX ARCHITECTURE curtly covers topics like
'abstraction' 'film' 'form' 'multiple' 'real' 'style and symmetry' etc.
Over a year ago I wrote (at archinect) that a lot of INDEX ARCHITECTURE is
pretty much useless and more like sophisticated advertising copy than
anything else. Now, relative to FORMS AND FUNCTIONS..., I see INDEX
ARCHITECTURE as not just a missed opportunity to 'build' further upon
architecture, but a sign of how overly pretentious the study of architecture
can be(come).
What I particularly like about FORMS AND FUNCTIONS... is how lessons from
architecture's past are well integrated with newer architecture design
practice up to the mid 20th century.
[Of course, I get a kick out of the fact that the first building illustrated
in FORM AND FUNCTION... is the Basilica of Constantine in Rome, which began
construction under Maxentius, and was finished (I believe) under the design
supervision of Eutropia (Maxentius' mother) and Helena (Constantine's
mother).
Plus, there is this great little diagrammatic drawing demonstrating a scale
comparison with the Sphere and Pylon of the 1939 New York World's Fair--
http://www.quondam.com/temp/scale01.jpg
--from left to right: the Great Pyramid, Parthenon, Pantheon (Which looks to
me a bit bigger than it actually is), Santa Sophia, Constantinople, St.
Mark's Venice, Chartres, St. Peter's Rome, the Sphere and Pylon.]
FORMS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE 20TH CENTURY really should be a free online
resource now, and the volumes might just begin positively informing
Quondam's overall agenda.
Anyone have any personal experience utilizing FORMS AND FUNCTIONS OF 20TH
CENTURY ARCHITECTURE?