Charles, how about favoring us poor knuckleheads with some guidance about why to you the Cincinnati thing which, I dunno, looks a little brutal to me, is good, whereas the Cagliari museum (sail? wave? shark? cloud?) is just cheesy?
At least the first one has right angles...
I think the SeaRay design is lovely Charles. Please do let us know why you think it's Krap Maccaroni & Cheese.
yes, and its form follows its function I suppose. Whereas the other one, like EMP (ugh), is perhaps form for form's sake. So what, would that all by itself mean it's bad?
the first building is architecture, the the second one is not. The second one is simply a sculpture you can walk into. The second, if you look from the top, is also inhuman. it may as well have been the product of the dumb sea and all of its stupid waves.
A little more explanation, please?
I happen to agree with you in part, though the quality of the first one (Cincinnati) is simply that it is an ordinary street-enfronting urban building. It is NOT "special" which is one of the reasons it is good.
Didn't we ourselves crawl out of the dumb sea? Didn't humans evolve from sea life?
Sculpture cannot be architecture or vice versa?
I like the SeaRay design, but not for an arts center (I'm guessing the title " arts center" implies performing arts or education, and it's not going to be a, art museum? Neither fit the architecture).
It would a fantasic train station in my opinion, with its implication of flow and fowardness.
jesus fucking christ charles, what's with the fucking pronouncements? you're pulling them straight out of your ass. I swear they're not even wrong. the exact opposite of everything you say makes about as much sense.
The first isn't ugly but it's nothing that would make me stop and say, "wow!"
The second I think is interesting. I might be a touch gimmicky but it's no worse than the EMP.
I'm less offended by an attempt at an artistic building as opposed to a big box with windows.
I saw her exhibit at the Guggenheim in NYC a couple months ago. I think she's doing a lot more architecture with fluid elements than in the past, so if you don't like this, you don't have much to look forward to from her.
Both buildings seem pretty pedestrian to me, but the latter is, at least, curious, where the former is simply modern post-functionalism at its most Home Depot.
I like the Italian job. It looks like a Bond villain's lair.
Dumb though the sea may be, try winning an argument with it.
You'd critique a fucking grocery list, Charles.
I don't get the argument at all. Architecture traditionally has been limited by the structural tools available to a particular culture or civilization; just as internal steel skeletons all but sent the Doric column the way of the Dodo, so newer materials are allowing contemporary architects to completely redefine the relationship between form and function.
To me it's the nature of that particular dialogue, which in the process creates a tension between form and function that is expressed in the design of the building that I personally find interesting, and I think both buildings accomplish this in different ways.
tnx, Comte. Now we're getting somewhere.
Only architects think that buildings are about a dialog between materials and function. Real people know that buildings are places to do stuff. The first building pictured works because it's in a place; it has square corners, which means it can fit into its community, and you can buy furniture that fits in it. The second building, as a statement of pure art, is expressing contempt for the idea of the practicality of living. It has no neighbors; indeed cannot have them. It can produce dramatic feelings of art in its occupants but cannot ever serve a useful function for them.
Why can't an art museum also be art itself? The first building could just as easily contain a Crate & Barrel or a large fitness center; the second evokes a confluence of sea and sky upon terra firma and is futuristic in an Arthur C. Clarke kind of way.
Nice Clarles imitation, Fnarf. Dead on!
I mean, "Charles"
fnarf has hit on the truth: "The second building, as a statement of pure art, is expressing contempt for the idea of the practicality of living. It has no neighbors; indeed cannot have them." The second building is not architecture because to be such is to be among (and communicate with) other forms of architecture. at root, architecture is a public art--it must meet the public and public must meet the art. the second building shuts down all meeting points and conversation; it speaks to itself in a language that has meaning only to itself.
Exactly. Charles, you are a wise man regardless of what these people say about you. Plus, you used "poshlost" in a sentence. If ever our paths cross I will treat you to a glass of wine.
Hadid's Cagliari, Italy project looks like she's doing a variation on Santiago Calatrava's usual schtick.
Sorry, but I have to completely disagree Charles; we are indeed having a conversation about the building, one that isn't exclusive to the building itself at the expense of either its immediate environment (which others have indicated - and which I agree - it complements quite well), not to mention the fact that the overall design seems eminently appropriate considering the proposed contents, which incidentally are not intended to include living spaces if I read the prospectus correctly, so I don't see how FNARF's comments in that regard are even relevent to this discussion.
Nor do I buy the assertion that it cannot nor does not have a relation to other buildings, since the entire basis of this discussion is the comparison of it to another similarly functioned, but quite different in form building located almost half way around the world. Apparently, the panel that approved this felt otherwise, in that it met their requirements in this regard, as outlined in the original competition prospectus:
The conversation IS occuring; it's just not going in a direction you may have prefered, is all.
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Can you see this. Do not hesitate to choose. Look
Hi guys its me again. Can you look
Please do not hesitate to choose. This
I must win this battle. You should help
Nice but look below
Nice but this too
Och beautifull site below too
Be so kind and click
I am looking for better life
If you have a minute check this.
Dont be angry please
Sorry for that.
Check this places please.
Please dont be angry
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).