The Architecture Thread

I've always liked the design of the Palais de Tokyo in Paris.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

'70s modular Mario Bellini furniture.

My new hero, Tadao Ando. i was at this Modern Art Museum of Ft. Worth last weekend, and was reminded once again of just how good this design is -inside and out. i've traveled to alot of museums here and abroad -and I put this o ne in the top tier, easily. One good feature is that, sunlight and an open view are usually just a couple of turns away -this makes a big difference for the interior -he avoids trapping the viewer in an endless succession of galleries with no view to the outside world. Spatially it is open and uncomplicated. The cement work and edging is immaculate.

"What is this? A museum for ants?"

That photo is too small to see anything.

Originally Posted by designprofessor

Click to expand...

My new hero, Tadao Ando. i was at this Modern Art Museum of Ft. Worth last weekend, and was reminded once again of just how good this design is -inside and out. i've traveled to alot of museums here and abroad -and I put this o ne in the top tier, easily. One good feature is that, sunlight and an open view are usually just a couple of turns away -this makes a big difference for the interior -he avoids trapping the viewer in an endless succession of
galleries with no view to the outside world. Spatially it is open and uncomplicated. The cement work and edging is immaculate.

Originally Posted by designprofessor

Click to expand...

My new hero, Tadao Ando. i was at this Modern Art Museum of Ft. Worth last weekend, and was reminded once again of just how good this design is -inside and out. i've traveled to alot of museums here and abroad -and I put this o ne in the top tier, easily. One good feature is that, sunlight and an open view are usually just a couple of turns away -this makes a big difference for the interior -he avoids trapping the viewer in an endless succession of
galleries with no view to the outside world. Spatially it is open and uncomplicated. The cement work and edging is immaculate.

There is a fantastic documentary on the making of that building, Inspirations 4, part of a series on different artists.

http://www.amazon.com/Inspirations-T...9482104&sr=8-1

The Pritzker Prize was awarded today to Peter Zumthor, the champion of alpine modernism and therapeutic potential of architecture. Brutalism takes another shot to the temple.

Zumthor was a great choice. Ito would have been good too.

I'd have to think the architects in line to win next are Steven Holl, Toyo Ito, Santiago Calatrava, Kengo Kuma, Diller + Scofidio, SANAA, and Eduardo Souto de Moura.

Zumthor is rather lovely although I daresay he was probably influenced by Brutalism in one way or another.

His architecture has nothing to do with Brutalism.

Originally Posted by StephenHero

Click to expand...

His architecture has nothing to do with Brutalism.

I said influenced by it.

There is no attempt at emulation or a positive reaction from brutalism in Zumthor's work. Have you read his book, Thinking Architecture? His architecture rejects most theoretical positions on architecture in favor of the inherent sensory awareness of people within architecture and the phenomenological potential of material with others like Juhani Pallasma, Steven Holl, and Shigeru Ban. Brutalism is an ideological stance of architecture that neglects sensory perception and material quality for the blatant expression of program in form through repetition of modular elements in homogeneous materiality. It's trying to turn architecture into an expression of objective reality that mimics the mass production within society. It considers architecture that doesn't mimic industrial trends to be unethical, thus it sees mass production-inspired architecture as true. This stance has since been debunked by nearly every theorist on since 1957, starting on an intellectual level with James Stirling's postmodern call for historic contextual awareness and then through the semiotic discussions of Venturi and Eisenman in the 70's. Then it has been debunked many times over on ethical grounds since the 80's by Kenneth Frampton, Hannah Arendt, Pallasma, Kuma, Holl, and....wait for it......Zumthor himself. Please tell me where you see any semblance to Brutalist design in Zumthor. I really think you should support your naive stance. You're obviously supporting Brutalism through your self identity as the fragile aesthete with deeper appreciation than the rest. But you're just uninformed. More Zumthor BTW..

I haven't read his book.

The references you cited are yet more evidence of academic posturing and intellectual trends. The mere fact that there are examples of people refuting Brutalism's intellectual foundations shows how shoddy their theories also are. Look at the Smithsons' arguments for Brutalism. Brutalism, if I recall, was founded upon the notion of mass utopic living, which like any other intellectual exercise turned to practical form, is doomed to failure.

People derided Rococo when it was new and today it is considered classic. People also uniformly condemned Victorian architecture in the 1960s and look at it today. It is the darling of the preservation world.

The trend today, it seems, is to create inoffensive ambient architecture that is built upon dodgy intellectual excuses and that self-sustainability. It cannot overpower the environment or the individual, which I take issue with. I prefer the convulsive myself.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

I haven't read his book. The references you cited are yet more evidence of academic posturing and intellectual trends. The mere fact that there are examples of people refuting Brutalism's intellectual foundations shows how shoddy their theories also are. Brutalism, if I recall, was founded upon the notion of utopic living, which like any other intellectual exercise turned to practical form, is doomed to failure. People derided Rococo when it was new and today it is considered classic.
Shoddy? So you're calling writings "shoddy" simply because they reaction to something? Is that not what criticism is? You're clearly out of your league discussing this. A mere dismissal of something because it is "academic posturing" is a blatant white flag raising that shows your ignorance to the issues and the fact that you're extremely under read on the subject. But I'm sure you saw Brutalist architecture in a magazine once, so I'll let your opinion slide. I don't want you to lose any credibility in your circle of fellow emo hipsters.