9/11 inspires architect

2011-12-15 07:11:38

#26

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

your sense of aesthetics are culturally and geographically predetermined, though. thank fuck every city in the world doesn't look like new york, or chicago. architecture needs to experiment and move on to be relevant. if every building was of the same style then our cities would be bland and monotonous. what is an eyesore to you is bold, daring and (most importantly) beautiful to someone else. you can't really compare your taste in architecture as an american with the asians. they have a completely different set of aesthetic values and principles.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-15 07:13:21

#27

hocSiciliano: Member; +6|4793|New York

Uzique wrote:
your sense of aesthetics are culturally and geographically predetermined, though. thank fuck every city in the world doesn't look like new york, or chicago. architecture needs to experiment and move on to be relevant. if every building was of the same style then our cities would be bland and monotonous. what is an eyesore to you is bold, daring and (most importantly) beautiful to someone else. you can't really compare your taste in architecture as an american with the asians. they have a completely different set of aesthetic values and principles.

NYC is full of win. Dont hate. haha.

2011-12-15 07:15:34

#28

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5418|Sydney

-Whiteroom- wrote:
Uzique wrote:
your opinion. somewhere an architect has designed something for a client that is obviously happy with the building designed to their specification. what's the problem here? a terrorist attack that happened on the other side of the world is going to direct architectural art-styles in asia? get over it butthurt yanks.
agreeing with uzique.

2011-12-15 07:21:05

#29

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

hocSiciliano wrote:
Uzique wrote:
your sense of aesthetics are culturally and geographically predetermined, though. thank fuck every city in the world doesn't look like new york, or chicago. architecture needs to experiment and move on to be relevant. if every building was of the same style then our cities would be bland and monotonous. what is an eyesore to you is bold, daring and (most importantly) beautiful to someone else. you can't really compare your taste in architecture as an american with the asians. they have a completely different set of aesthetic values and principles.
NYC is full of win. Dont hate. haha.

to you, living in nyc, sure. to someone from venice with a taste for venetian architecture, i'm sure all that art deco, gothic revival and generic international-style stuff is nauseating. it's all a matter of perspective. just because you guys had a terrorist attack 10 years ago doesn't mean the world's art and architecture must forever pay attention to your sensitivities or aesthetic tastes. get over it.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-15 09:51:14

#30

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
your sense of aesthetics are culturally and geographically predetermined, though. thank fuck every city in the world doesn't look like new york, or chicago. architecture needs to experiment and move on to be relevant. if every building was of the same style then our cities would be bland and monotonous. what is an eyesore to you is bold, daring and (most importantly) beautiful to someone else. you can't really compare your taste in architecture as an american with the asians. they have a completely different set of aesthetic values and principles.

Of course.

That building is still ugly as a bowling shoe.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-12-15 09:52:54

#31

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

i don't think so.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-15 09:54:19

#32

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

I'd hate to be in the 'cloud' if an earthquake ever hit

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-12-15 09:57:13

#33

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
i don't think so.

You've proven over and over again you don't have a problem being wrong.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-12-15 09:57:48

#34

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

doubt it would make a difference.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-15 09:58:07

#35

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

FEOS wrote:
Uzique wrote:
i don't think so.
You've proven over and over again you don't have a problem being wrong.

right. methinks art is not your forte. jog on.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-15 10:16:32

#36

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Uzique wrote:
i don't think so.
You've proven over and over again you don't have a problem being wrong.
right. methinks art is not your forte. jog on.

You should avoid thinking along those lines, then.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-12-15 10:19:21

#37

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6462|Escea

It looks like something from the Soviet Union.

2011-12-15 10:24:42

#38

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

it reminds me of brutalism

https://cassiuseyewear.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/3003507918_3cd4e7c8ef_o.jpg

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-15 10:27:30

#39

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Why would anyone want to live or work in that?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-12-15 10:55:40

#40

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

architecture is the most immediate and public of artforms; it shapes spatiality itself. it has the ability to functionally and physically influence our lives in multiplicand ways. that's the philosophical-aesthetic pedestal of architecture, anyway, and that is why buildings like the above ^ are made: as part of a radical aesthetic or towards a protopolitic. the argument, basically, is that to change the social or politics conditions of life in a society, you must also change or effect its culture-- and the most immediate, effective and radical form of changing the superstructure of society is through its buildings and public spaces.

that idea that you would find that undesirable to live and work in is perhaps the point. all of the modernist subsets of art and architecture start out with the fundamental imperative to 'make it new' (in the words of ezra pound). make of that what you will.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-15 10:58:53)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-15 10:57:54

#41

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6740|so randum

there was an interesting piece on BBC4 recently iirc about the architecture + how it influences the workforce behind the new lotus facility. not really relevant to ^ this, but i'm all about sharing

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2011-12-15 10:58:24

#42

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

That's fine, I still wouldn't want to live or work in that building. Travel within it would be a needless pain in the ass.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-12-15 10:59:16

#43

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

Jay wrote:
That's fine, I still wouldn't want to live or work in that building. Travel within it would be a needless pain in the ass.

look up psychogeography.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-15 11:09:01

#44

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Uzique wrote:
Jay wrote:
That's fine, I still wouldn't want to live or work in that building. Travel within it would be a needless pain in the ass.
look up psychogeography.

1) I grew up in the most hyper-organized city on the planet.

2) I'm an engineer that gravitates towards symmetry.

3) I think experiences should be organic, not forced upon me by some invisible hand.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-12-15 11:10:24

#45

Trotskygrad: бля; +354|6239|Vortex Ring State

Uzique wrote:
architecture is the most immediate and public of artforms; it shapes spatiality itself. it has the ability to functionally and physically influence our lives in multiplicand ways. that's the philosophical-aesthetic pedestal of architecture, anyway, and that is why buildings like the above ^ are made: as part of a radical aesthetic or towards a protopolitic. the argument, basically, is that to change the social or politics conditions of life in a society, you must also change or effect its culture-- and the most immediate, effective and radical form of changing the superstructure of society is through its buildings and public spaces.

that idea that you would find that undesirable to live and work in is perhaps the point. all of the modernist subsets of art and architecture start out with the fundamental imperative to 'make it new' (in the words of ezra pound). make of that what you will.

hmm, so you would say that the large number of "new" looking buildings in Beijing, such as the CCTV television center, National Center for the Performing Arts, etc, are part of an attempt to change the social and political climate there?

2011-12-15 11:13:19

#46

Kampframmer: Esq.; +313|5082|Amsterdam

I don't mind it at all, I've seen Dutch architects design much, much worse (our post-modernistic architecture was basically concrete and hard to reach passages).
Two very simple and conservative towers (like you would see in NYC) but broken up by the eye-catcher (the 'cloud') in the middle; connecting the two.
And as for the 'cloud'-areas being hard to reach/navigate, I'm pretty sure they thought about that before making detailed artist renderings of it. Believe it or not, architect here have actually learned from our horrendous po-mo period.

2011-12-15 11:13:32

#47

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

Jay wrote:
Uzique wrote:
Jay wrote:
That's fine, I still wouldn't want to live or work in that building. Travel within it would be a needless pain in the ass.
look up psychogeography.
1) I grew up in the most hyper-organized city on the planet.

2) I'm an engineer that gravitates towards symmetry.

3) I think experiences should be organic, not forced upon me by some invisible hand.

you list those things as if they aren't self-evidently contradictory. most times symmetrical buildings or cities are proof of organisation by an 'invisible' hand. you clearly aren't taking my reading list recommendations (in several threads). it's quite frustrating when you come here to debate and yet never want to read or think about anything that doesn't corroborate with your pre-existing worldview. 'hyper organized' cities normally mean organisation by a human agent, or at least a mastermind architect- e.g. the hausmann's of the world. and all architecture, on the level of the building and on the level of the public plan, is ideological in slant.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-15 11:15:41

#48

Kampframmer: Esq.; +313|5082|Amsterdam

Trotskygrad wrote:
Uzique wrote:
architecture is the most immediate and public of artforms; it shapes spatiality itself. it has the ability to functionally and physically influence our lives in multiplicand ways. that's the philosophical-aesthetic pedestal of architecture, anyway, and that is why buildings like the above ^ are made: as part of a radical aesthetic or towards a protopolitic. the argument, basically, is that to change the social or politics conditions of life in a society, you must also change or effect its culture-- and the most immediate, effective and radical form of changing the superstructure of society is through its buildings and public spaces.

that idea that you would find that undesirable to live and work in is perhaps the point. all of the modernist subsets of art and architecture start out with the fundamental imperative to 'make it new' (in the words of ezra pound). make of that what you will.
hmm, so you would say that the large number of "new" looking buildings in Beijing, such as the CCTV television center, National Center for the Performing Arts, etc, are part of an attempt to change the social and political climate there?

Having something other than tall glass rectangle's can completely change everyone's view on that city.
It can look very off and out of place, or break the boring design and structure of an antire city(-centre)

2011-12-15 11:15:56

#49

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

Trotskygrad wrote:
Uzique wrote:
architecture is the most immediate and public of artforms; it shapes spatiality itself. it has the ability to functionally and physically influence our lives in multiplicand ways. that's the philosophical-aesthetic pedestal of architecture, anyway, and that is why buildings like the above ^ are made: as part of a radical aesthetic or towards a protopolitic. the argument, basically, is that to change the social or politics conditions of life in a society, you must also change or effect its culture-- and the most immediate, effective and radical form of changing the superstructure of society is through its buildings and public spaces.

that idea that you would find that undesirable to live and work in is perhaps the point. all of the modernist subsets of art and architecture start out with the fundamental imperative to 'make it new' (in the words of ezra pound). make of that what you will.
hmm, so you would say that the large number of "new" looking buildings in Beijing, such as the CCTV television center, National Center for the Performing Arts, etc, are part of an attempt to change the social and political climate there?

almost definitely. most radical 20th century architectural movements originate in artistic avant-gardes with political agency. look at the various movements of socialist architecture in eastern-europe and the former soviet states, not to mention the u.s.s.r. itself. architecture is an artform, just as firmly cemented and just as thought-out and intended as sculpture, painting, drama, music or literature. the people who design these things know what they're doing... it's not incidental. the average layman doesn't understand and isn't educated on architecture, but that's almost the point. by walking through it and 'experiencing' another architecture, you are the phenomenological subject in the ideological construct of another mind.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-15 11:16:59

#50

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Uzique wrote:
Jay wrote:
Uzique wrote:

look up psychogeography.
1) I grew up in the most hyper-organized city on the planet.

2) I'm an engineer that gravitates towards symmetry.

3) I think experiences should be organic, not forced upon me by some invisible hand.
you list those things as if they aren't self-evidently contradictory. most times symmetrical buildings or cities are proof of organisation by an 'invisible' hand. you clearly aren't taking my reading list recommendations (in several threads). it's quite frustrating when you come here to debate and yet never want to read or think about anything that doesn't corroborate with your pre-existing worldview. 'hyper organized' cities normally mean organisation by a human agent, or at least a mastermind architect- e.g. the hausmann's of the world. and all architecture, on the level of the building and on the level of the public plan, is ideological in slant.

Right, I dislike planning boards, and forced symmetry. I'm well aware that my list was conflicted, I was just using it as an example of what I'm used to, and thus gravitate towards. If I had my druthers, city planning offices would be abolished.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

BF2S Forums 9/11 inspires architect

Uzique wrote:

-Whiteroom- wrote:

Uzique wrote:

hocSiciliano wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Board footer