How to Join
the Fashion Spot / Front Row / Fashion... In Depth
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Rules Links Mobile How to Join
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
06-05-2004
  91
front row
 
Orochian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally posted by banana@May 6th, 2004 - 12:03 am
Aldo Rossi- Architecture of the city. I don't really feel like looking for my book right now but maybe tomorrow.

Also, Frank Lloyd Wright's prairie houses weren't extremely functional. His clients would often complain about the roofs leaking and his response was "move the dining room table".
I don't think you're interpreting Rossi's position on this quite correctly:

I happen to have the book right beside me and I found the following excerpt on page 48:

"So conceived, function, physiological in nature, can be likened to a bodily organ whose function justifies its formation and development and whose alterations of function imply an alteration of form. In this light, functionalism and organicism, the two principal currents which have pervaded modern architecture, reveal their common roots and the reason for their weakness and fundamental ambiguity. Through them form is divested of its most complex derivations: type is reduced to a simple scheme of organization, a diagram of circulation routes, and architecture is seen as possessing no autonomous value. Thus the aesthetic intentionality and necessity that characterize urban artifacts and establish their complex ties cannot be further analyzed."

It would take far too lengthy an explanation (not to mention out of topic) to translate his theoretic discourse into common English, but Rossi's views, along with those other theorists termed "rationalists" by critics, are simply an effort to resolve the seemingly dichotomous nature of form and function (something which almost all architectural academics try and try to do...). In absolutely NO WAY is he stating that form is of a higher priority than function in architecture.

As for Wright, he belonged to an entirely different era, and while he was a staunch opponent to the International Style and modernism in general, he was one of the first architects to raise the issue of the need for a structure to be of, and reconcile with, its site. That was a distinctly functional notion, and paved the way to modern architecture's concern with environmental sustainability. The incident you described simply reflects a construction defect on his houses, and his notorious aversion to any form of criticism to his work.

  Reply With Quote
 
06-05-2004
  92
backstage pass
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 961
The prairie house leaking was not result of a construction defect but of his design. The prairie house is known for having a flatter roof which allows water to collect and rot out the material causing it to leak.

Obviously everything is created with an intended use. Even monuments that have been built solely to be admired serve a purpose. Rossi critiques the classification of built forms by their functions. From my perspective having (if one compares architecture to urban planning), the rejection of classification implies that a well designed form can serve various functions without serious alteration to the structure of the building itself. But yes, this is going WAY off topic and I don't agree with Rossi's views on urban design anyway.

  Reply With Quote
06-05-2004
  93
no tom ford, no thanks.
 
mikeijames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: closer than you think.
Gender: homme
Posts: 5,899
without journeying into the theoretical (bc i think everyone here can acknowledge your obvious [and ostentatious] display of architectural jargon), can you clarify your position?

you say that the issue of a shower head fashioned in the shape of a lion is an ornament, but the larger structure is design? where do aesthetics fit in for you? most interior designers i know use art quite liberally to shape the idea of a room -- not only the classic arts but use aesthetics of a situation to guide wall placement and how pipes will look and where doors should go -- instead of the simple functionality of it. the functionality limits the art much in the same way a canvas limits and artist. i've seen engineers hired and design projects take several months bc the designer has rejected the pragmatic approach and decided against things that have obvious function (removing a load bearing column for example) simply because it didn't fit into the picture they made.

leaving the scholarly (and pedantic) out of your discourse, what do you suggest inspires unique design outside of mere function?

__________________
everything is never quite enough.
  Reply With Quote
06-05-2004
  94
front row
 
Orochian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeijames@May 6th, 2004 - 6:57 am
without journeying into the theoretical (bc i think everyone here can acknowledge your obvious [and ostentatious] display of architectural jargon), can you clarify your position?

you say that the issue of a shower head fashioned in the shape of a lion is an ornament, but the larger structure is design? where do aesthetics fit in for you? most interior designers i know use art quite liberally to shape the idea of a room -- not only the classic arts but use aesthetics of a situation to guide wall placement and how pipes will look and where doors should go -- instead of the simple functionality of it. the functionality limits the art much in the same way a canvas limits and artist. i've seen engineers hired and design projects take several months bc the designer has rejected the pragmatic approach and decided against things that have obvious function (removing a load bearing column for example) simply because it didn't fit into the picture they made.

leaving the scholarly (and pedantic) out of your discourse, what do you suggest inspires unique design outside of mere function?
You're a funny guy. You asked for me to draw a line in a theoretical issue as a trained and practicing architect, and you actually expected me not to draw from my training in my explanation?

What I said wasn't even strictly architectural design terms - anyone familiar with art and architectural history would be able to comprehend them.

But clearly you're not getting the key difference between an ornament, a superficial form of sculptural practice with cues and shapes taken referentially, such as a lion shower head (or a French dormer window, or a Corinthian column), and the result of conscious, original design, with forms derived specifically from the subject's role and function.

To put it in even more simplistic terms, a lion head does not affect the hardware's function - it may actually very well hinder it. A "designed' shower head would possess a form integral to its function - a larger base would result in a wider distribution of water streams, a thicker depth might yield a higher water pressure.

You can't be more wrong in stating that function "limits" the potential for fruitful, constructive design. On the contrarty, it fuels it. The yearning for better functioning archifacts, and our ever changing needs, are the sole reason why the discipline of design exists in the first place.

  Reply With Quote
06-05-2004
  95
front row
 
Orochian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally posted by banana@May 6th, 2004 - 1:01 am
The prairie house leaking was not result of a construction defect but of his design. The prairie house is known for having a flatter roof which allows water to collect and rot out the material causing it to leak.

Obviously everything is created with an intended use. Even monuments that have been built solely to be admired serve a purpose. Rossi critiques the classification of built forms by their functions. From my perspective having (if one compares architecture to urban planning), the rejection of classification implies that a well designed form can serve various functions without serious alteration to the structure of the building itself. But yes, this is going WAY off topic and I don't agree with Rossi's views on urban design anyway.
Flat roofed structures have existed ever since the dawn of the modern age. What we call a "flat roof" is actually invariably very gently sloped to faciliate the drainage of water. A leakage problem in a flat roofed house is much more likely a problem on behalf of the drainage system, and not that of the design of the house itself. A "flatter" roof does not inherently result in such problems - because if so the International Style would've been known as a leaking nightmare from hell, not the design icon (for better or for worse) it has become.

  Reply With Quote
12-05-2004
  96
backstage pass
 
clay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Jersey City
Gender: homme
Posts: 950
I believe that certain frms of fashion such as couture, embriodery work, even hand tailoring can be considered fine art. The fact that these things are done by hand are one thing but the outcome can be simply amazing. Yes there is a huge degree of skill needed and the end result has to be functional to some degree, but i say these things can be works of art. Manipulating fabric, surface design, draping, pattern making- some people can do these things and others are pure genius at it. I am fashion designer and I have seen things that i could never in a million years do. Just take a look at couture from the last century and if you do not see art anywhere you must be blind.

  Reply With Quote
15-05-2004
  97
no tom ford, no thanks.
 
mikeijames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: closer than you think.
Gender: homme
Posts: 5,899
Quote:
Originally posted by Orochian@May 6th, 2004 - 2:26 pm
You're a funny guy. You asked for me to draw a line in a theoretical issue as a trained and practicing architect, and you actually expected me not to draw from my training in my explanation?

But clearly you're not getting the key difference between an ornament, a superficial form of sculptural practice with cues and shapes taken referentially, such as a lion shower head (or a French dormer window, or a Corinthian column), and the result of conscious, original design, with forms derived specifically from the subject's role and function.
quite the contrary, i think that your training and practice as an architect has limited your view on the artfulness of many different aspects of life ....my point is that when objects (including garments) are designed not for their function but purely for their artfulness and aesthetic and happen to have a function (a verdura gold bracelet that has a watch charm...a watch which happens to actually function as a real time piece)...they do fall under the umbrella of art. we're not talking about embellishing something functional with ornamentation or adorning it with other objets d'art; we're talking about things thought up for no other reason than their appearance and then trying to bring those into the real world.

__________________
everything is never quite enough.
  Reply With Quote
03-07-2005
  98
front row
 
maverick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 201
What is art?
Again, answer however you like...

  Reply With Quote
03-07-2005
  99
fashion icon
 
PradaBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Athens & London
Gender: homme
Posts: 3,265
Its a way to express yourself. To tell things you cant in other aspects of life.

__________________
*Greeks Do It Better*

  Reply With Quote
03-07-2005
  100
backstage pass
 
kween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Gender: femme
Posts: 579
It is a way of expressing your deep and inner feelings and emotions. Many people do this throuhg different kind of art. Andy Warhol turned to painting, Christina Aguilera does it through her music. Poetry, sculpture, writing, design, fashion, etc. are all examples of art.

__________________

A man sees in the world what he carries in his heart.
- Johann Wolfgang Goethe, from "Faust"
  Reply With Quote
03-07-2005
  101
fashion icon
 
PradaBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Athens & London
Gender: homme
Posts: 3,265
it can be performance too.

__________________
*Greeks Do It Better*

  Reply With Quote
03-07-2005
  102
front row
 
rach2jlc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US&Japan
Gender: homme
Posts: 258
In keeping with the "What is beauty?" thread... where I felt that beauty was something that connected meaningfully with our own experience, art is simply the manifestation in an object of that "beauty."

In other words, taking the experience of beauty and making it into something, crystalizing it materially and thus making it last. It is an object, but it is also a "copy", once removed, of an intangible experience. So, it is "artificial"... or art.

This is certainly true for actual objects like paintings or poems, but this also holds for performances, songs, etc. Anything "rendered."

John

  Reply With Quote
03-07-2005
  103
fashion icon
 
PradaBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Athens & London
Gender: homme
Posts: 3,265
Everyone can express himseld through different aspects of art.
"That" could be "art" for me and not for "you"

I think that if someone "sees himself" in an object, song, poem, thats art!

__________________
*Greeks Do It Better*

  Reply With Quote
03-07-2005
  104
front row
 
rach2jlc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US&Japan
Gender: homme
Posts: 258
Agree completely. Since no two people's experience (or experience of beauty) is the same, by necessity their art would always be different and expressed in different ways. As you said, if someone doesn't see himself/herself in something... then it certainly isn't art. It is just any other object.

John


Last edited by rach2jlc; 03-07-2005 at 07:04 PM.
  Reply With Quote
03-07-2005
  105
fashion icon
 
PradaBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Athens & London
Gender: homme
Posts: 3,265
Indeed

__________________
*Greeks Do It Better*

  Reply With Quote
Reply
Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Tags
art, design, fashion, meet
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"


 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TheFashionSpot.com is a property of TotallyHer Media, LLC, an Evolve Media LLC company. 2014 All rights reserved.