Originally Posted by
petromax
Jesse Hartley is no Calatrava. Firmness and Commodity maybe... but then Vitruvius is no model either. There are hotels in Mozambique re-built after the floods every year. Ice hotels in Scandinavia. Firmness? no. Commodity? just about. Delight? oh yes
I take your point about transitory forms of architecture, and agree - it's almost as though they rise up and become whole for a brief, harmonious moment, and then fall back down again, separate, like an ice crystals, or snow flakes. Very nice.
On Vitruvius and others scholars. I've never really been satisfied with any definition of architecture that I've heard of, or read. I think the problem lies with attempting a definition in the first place, rather than just experiencing the moment, or the building directly itself.
Originally Posted by
petromax
I think it's important to question why buildings are liked, even if you then choose to do otherwise.
Often, we don't know why we like certain buildings, it's as if we've harmonising to the frequency struck by a tuning fork. I'm not saying it's as simplistic as that. But it does have something of that quality. The questioning [of why we like something], is a response to the experience.
div>
Originally Posted by
petromax
Pyramids are the architecture of immortality - permanence without decay [sic]; nothing else, despite the millions of words on the subject - razor blades, star gates... so much moonshine.
Whatever the Pyramid's original purpose, or function was for, ie: a tomb for 'immortality' is incidental to what the building [or structure] actually communicates to us. In this sense, it has a very great sense of power, regardless of it's original purpose, be it a house, a palace, or an exchange.
Bookmarks