Architecture -- art or not?? (2006)

[BaalChatzaf]

Architecture may or may not be an art, but it is certainly a craft.  And a very handy one at that.  All questions of aesthetics aside,  construction must be planned and costed out.

[Jonathan]

Cross-posting from the Microcosm thread:

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I  would love to see someone in this thread go off and gather some art, select some items for discussion, and 're-set.'  Roger's introduction reads to me like a laissez-passer to an Invitational, an event, an intellectual event.

That won't happen. Rand's followers know that they need to strictly stick with theory and avoid applying it to reality at all costs. Asking them to demonstrate their theory by applying it to real works of art always results in either their failing miserably or evading the challenge because they know they'll fail miserably.

 

Here's an "apply the theory to reality" challenge that I issued more than a decade ago in an O-forum (still no takers, no champions brave enough to accept the challenge):

Objecivism holds that "As a re-creation of reality, a work of art has to be representational; its freedom of stylization is limited by the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not present an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art."

Objectivism also holds that architecture is a valid art form.

Identify the "intelligible subject" in this work of architecture:

Objectively identify the "artist's meaning" of the artwork, and demonstrate how to objectively measure and rate the architect's technical skills/merits in conveying his meaning through his art.

J

[Jonathan]

On June 10, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jonathan said:

Cross-posting from the Microcosm thread:

That won't happen. Rand's followers know that they need to strictly stick with theory and avoid applying it to reality at all costs. Asking them to demonstrate their theory by applying it to real works of art always results in either their failing miserably or evading the challenge because they know they'll fail miserably.

 

Here's an "apply the theory to reality" challenge that I issued more than a decade ago in an O-forum (still no takers, no champions brave enough to accept the challenge):

Objecivism holds that "As a re-creation of reality, a work of art has to be representational; its freedom of stylization is limited by the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not present an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art."

Objectivism also holds that architecture is a valid art form.

Identify the "intelligible subject" in this work of architecture:

Objectively identify the "artist's meaning" of the artwork, and demonstrate how to objectively measure and rate the architect's technical skills/merits in conveying his meaning through his art.

J

Hahaha!!! Still no one brave enough to answer the above?

Um, will someone please notify His Royal Published Highness, Roger Bissel, and his supremely aesthetically knowledgeable and sensitive wife, that I've posted the above challenge? His Majesty is blocking my posts here as a means of evading all of my questions and challenges that he can't answer, but I'd love to see him (and his wife -- "Give me break!") take a shot at this one, since, in his prestigious scholarly essays, he presents himself as a sage on architecture's qualifying as a valid art form, its means, causes and effects, and as someone who has acquired the intellectual stature to teach an audience of readers on the subject.

Well, let's see all of the fancy (though uncredentialled) theorizing applied to reality.

Heh. Why is it so difficult?

J

 

[BaalChatzaf]

On 6/10/2016 at 5:00 PM, Jonathan said:

Cross-posting from the Microcosm thread::

Objectively identify the "artist's meaning" of the artwork, and demonstrate how to objectively measure and rate the architect's technical skills/merits in conveying his meaning through his art.

J

Sterile and banal.  I would not want to live in that...

[Brant Gaede]

On 6/10/2016 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan said:

Cross-posting from the Microcosm thread:

That won't happen. Rand's followers know that they need to strictly stick with theory and avoid applying it to reality at all costs. Asking them to demonstrate their theory by applying it to real works of art always results in either their failing miserably or evading the challenge because they know they'll fail miserably.

 

Here's an "apply the theory to reality" challenge that I issued more than a decade ago in an O-forum (still no takers, no champions brave enough to accept the challenge):

Objecivism holds that "As a re-creation of reality, a work of art has to be representational; its freedom of stylization is limited by the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not present an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art."

Objectivism also holds that architecture is a valid art form.

Identify the "intelligible subject" in this work of architecture:

Objectively identify the "artist's meaning" of the artwork, and demonstrate how to objectively measure and rate the architect's technical skills/merits in conveying his meaning through his art.

J

Looks like a place where "The Undertaker," Alan Greenspan, might live.

--Brant

The Overtaker

[Roger Bissell]

21 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

On 6/10/2016 at 4:00 PM, Jonathan said:

Cross-posting from the Microcosm thread::

Objectively identify the "artist's meaning" of the artwork, and demonstrate how to objectively measure and rate the architect's technical skills/merits in conveying his meaning through his art.

J

 

Sterile and banal.  I would not want to live in that...

 

I agree with Bob. Looks like it could be a scaled-down version of The State Science Institute.

REB

[Brant Gaede]

41 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

I agree with Bob. Looks like it could be a scaled-down version of The State Science Institute.

REB

With an electrified bed in the basement?

--Brant

[william.scherk]

On 6/18/2016 at 10:29 AM, Jonathan said:

On 6/10/2016 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan said:

Objectively identify the "artist's meaning" of the artwork, and demonstrate how to objectively measure and rate the architect's technical skills/merits in conveying his meaning through his art.

Hahaha!!! Still no one brave enough to answer the above?

First I must put on my Brave armour.  Which is an epistemological outer-wear, so to speak.  It is a sensor-based, non-artificial form of intelligence-gathering. It also includes the handy Hood of Charity.

I am going to skip over the "meaning" of the "artist," and just approach the item as a visual representation -- and perhaps a visual 'evocation.' As a 3D oblique rendering of a building in landscape, I can assess it as an example of 'meaningful' artistry.

First, a gestalt reaction, rendered into English as best I can:  this image reminds me strongly of the villas in Broadacre City.  It has a low-slung and roof-heavy massing that I associate with Broadacre City's sketches and renderings of the 'ideal' home.  And yet ...  allowing my imagination to flow, the representation could just as well be a funeral home in the same City plan, or an office or a bank branch or a cap-building on top of an electrical substation.  I see no hint of human interior decor, outdoor furniture, landscaping, and just a few indications of entry. 

A more 'taste' and 'sense of life' reaction is emotional.  I do want to explore the rendering, as I might be able to if I had access to the floor-plan. I would like to explore the inner volumes and the play of light inside the rendered building. I'd like to discover what the building is 'for.'

Back to the artist/architect's "intent."  It seems obvious to me that the maker of the image is our Jonathan. If forced at gunpoint I would say it is his conception of a 'genre' in 20th  century American architecture, or/and a rendering of his 'take-aways,,' of the essential markers of buildings in the tradition of (utopic) Broadacre City.  In addition, the intent might be to engender discussion of architectural artistry -- and to test general knowledge of stylistic hallmarks.

On each of these elements, I could be wildly, hilariously wrong. But it is fun to speculate and emote. 

As for " how to objectively measure and rate the architect's technical skills/merits in conveying his meaning through his art," I am at sea.  To 'rate' technical skills (against or in comparison to peers) is one thing -- but I ought to know the 'meaning' with reasonable accuracy before doing so. I'd want to see many more renderings. 

Edited June 19, 2016 by william.scherk
Avoided avoiding salient questions; swapped out architectural rendering

[KorbenDallas]

On 6/10/2016 at 5:00 PM, Jonathan said:

Cross-posting from the Microcosm thread:

That won't happen. Rand's followers know that they need to strictly stick with theory and avoid applying it to reality at all costs. Asking them to demonstrate their theory by applying it to real works of art always results in either their failing miserably or evading the challenge because they know they'll fail miserably.

 

Here's an "apply the theory to reality" challenge that I issued more than a decade ago in an O-forum (still no takers, no champions brave enough to accept the challenge):

Objecivism holds that "As a re-creation of reality, a work of art has to be representational; its freedom of stylization is limited by the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not present an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art."

Objectivism also holds that architecture is a valid art form.

Identify the "intelligible subject" in this work of architecture:

Objectively identify the "artist's meaning" of the artwork, and demonstrate how to objectively measure and rate the architect's technical skills/merits in conveying his meaning through his art.

J

That looks like a mausoleum--death, not life.

 

[Jonathan]

On June 19, 2016 at 1:47 PM, william.scherk said:

I am going to skip over the "meaning" of the "artist," and just approach the item as a visual representation -- and perhaps a visual 'evocation.' As a 3D oblique rendering of a building in landscape, I can assess it as an example of 'meaningful' artistry.

Unsurprisingly, you're not alone in skipping over "objectively" identifying the "artist's meaning."

 

Quote

First, a gestalt reaction, rendered into English as best I can:  this image reminds me strongly of the villas in Broadacre City.  It has a low-slung and roof-heavy massing that I associate with Broadacre City's sketches and renderings of the 'ideal' home.  And yet ...  allowing my imagination to flow, the representation could just as well be a funeral home in the same City plan, or an office or a bank branch or a cap-building on top of an electrical substation.  I see no hint of human interior decor, outdoor furniture, landscaping, and just a few indications of entry.

Indeed, the building could have been designed to serve any of the utilitarian purposes that you list above, but, according to Objectivism, you are not to judge art with such "outside considerations" in mind, so I will allow none in this case.

Regardless of whether one suspects the building as being a residence, a funeral home, or a bank, etc., the point is to identify the "artist's meaning" and his "metaphysical value-judgments" based on nothing but the content of the work.

Certain Objectivish-types appear to believe that the fact that they suspect that a building might have been designed to serve as a funeral home or mausoleum automatically and immediately means that no further consideration is necessary in judging the art: It involves the issue of death, and therefore, as a work of art, it must equal death-worship? (Apparently the subject of death is verboten in art? An artist can't explore and express the great value of life when reflecting on death in his art?)

Likewise, if it's a bank, or an accounting or law office, Objectivish-types seem to believe that it is not to have a reserved elegance and seriousness, but is supposed to be sparkly, soaring and euphoric? If it's not exploding with brazenly overt ecstasy, then it is morose and banal? There's no in-between, Wow, what a nuanced range of aesthetic sensitivity!!!! Hahahahaha!!!!!

 

Quote

A more 'taste' and 'sense of life' reaction is emotional.  I do want to explore the rendering, as I might be able to if I had access to the floor-plan. I would like to explore the inner volumes and the play of light inside the rendered building. I'd like to discover what the building is 'for.'

Sorry, but the rules of Objective Art are that no such "outside considerations" shall be taken into account. That's one of the Objectivist snags that I'm focusing on here (among others).

In reality, Rand's followers base their interpretations and judgments of the non-literary arts almost entirely on "outside considerations," but pretend not to. They always fail when deprived of the "outside considerations." I like to watch them flounder and flail but still refuse to reconsider their stupid beliefs.

 

Quote

Back to the artist/architect's "intent."  It seems obvious to me that the maker of the image is our Jonathan. If forced at gunpoint I would say it is his conception of a 'genre' in 20th  century American architecture, or/and a rendering of his 'take-aways,,' of the essential markers of buildings in the tradition of (utopic) Broadacre City.  In addition, the intent might be to engender discussion of architectural artistry -- and to test general knowledge of stylistic hallmarks.

It's not my design. I took an existing design of an unbuilt project and rendered it in 3D to flesh it out and make it more aesthetically "readable" than plan and elevation prints.

 

Quote

On each of these elements, I could be wildly, hilariously wrong. But it is fun to speculate and emote. 

 

It's quite strange that none of the Objectivish aesthetics experts noticed stylistic similarities that you've noticed. Odd, huh?

Actually, no, I guess it's not odd at all. They'd have to first have some actual knowledge in order to notice those similarities.

The Objectivist Esthetics is a lot of pseudoscience, pseudopsychology and pseudophilosophy. Its primary purpose is to act as a weapon for its believers to use in posing as being superior. Thus, when tested and challenged in reality with a work of art with which they are not familiar, and about which they haven't been given any "outside considerations," their safest course is to snarl and sneer at the art. If they were to do otherwise, they might discover that they had been tricked into admitting to having a positive interpretation and "sense of life" response to an expression of pure evil.

But they forget (or they hope that their targets of psychologizing have forgotten) that Objectivism's pseudoscience/witch-hunting is a two-edged sword that Objectivist Authorities have also used in the opposite way: When Superior Objectivists like a work of art, but hear other people saying that it is like a mausoleum, or that it's creepy or whatever, the Superior Objectivists' declare that their targets gave that interpretation and response due to their having inferior "senses of life"!!!!

I've posted an example in the past of Torres trying to pull that childish little trick: People (many, many people ) have identified Wyeth's images as having a creepy vibe due to their presenting old, rustic scenes with cracked and weathered buildings, shabbiness and decay, and Torres' response was to use the Objectivist douchebag tactic of suggesting that there was something wrong with Those People's psychologies and "senses of life" that made them misinterpret paintings which he personally took to be about "dignity" and "tranquility." His view was that he was healthy and right, and everyone else was defective for having a dark reaction to the art.

The A-hole even cited Rand when trying to smear others:
"Ayn Rand argues that the psychological mechanism guiding such emotional responses to art is one's "sense of life." (See Ch. 3, "Art and Sense of Life," in 'What Art Is' for more. At Amazon.com search in the book's page for "the role that sense of life plays," retaining quotes.)"

So, shouldn't we apply the same method to Bob, Roger (and his wife?), Brant, and KorbenDallas? They must be death-worshipers and existence-haters to see death and banality in a building that is, as Billy points out, so similar to some of Wright's most delightful works, no? In fact, the design employ's many of Wright's most famous aesthetic techniques of space, proportion and scale. How is it possible that Objectivish aesthetic geniuses are not recognizing these obvious traits of the building?!!! I mean, this is baby stuff, architectural education-wise!!!

J

[Jonathan]

On June 19, 2016 at 0:41 PM, Roger Bissell said:

I agree with Bob. Looks like it could be a scaled-down version of The State Science Institute.

REB

Are you having feelings?

You didn't answer the questions, but instead once again evaded them.

Like many before you, you're demonstrating that the Objectivist theory of "objective" aesthetic judgment doesn't work at all in reality.

J

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Quote

On each of these elements, I could be wildly, hilariously wrong. But it is fun to speculate and emote. 

It's quite strange that none of the Objectivish aesthetics experts noticed stylistic similarities that you've noticed. Odd, huh?

I was one of those little creatures (in eight grade) that independently schooled myself on urban planning -- which has remained a fascination. One thing led to another, and down one road was the astonishing (for its time) Broadacre City FLW plan (and models and writings),  and this led to becoming familiar with his broader early work, and its place in the American architectural tradition. I was fond of the Prairie school homes and plans, especially the Darwin Martin property.  I was just as fond of the architect's later signal monumental works, especially the Guggenheim in New York, and also the point-tower designs both built and not. 

To put on my Charity Hat, it could be that the named persons in your reply are quite cognizant of  this work, but prefer the later output.  It might be argued that Ayn Rand's love for the architect (as reported) was for his iconoclasm and individualism, not perhaps for particular items for which she might have been "meh."

Hat off, I think there might be a disconnect between my little-creature knowledge of architecture and what I imagine everyone else here knows, baseline cultural knowledge.  The younger ones will have no deep awareness of minor details like the early stuff, and the older ones may have forgot that they never liked the FLW early work anyway, on second glance.

Now me and my research ladies can go try to find the pattern from which Jonathan produced his graceful rendering. It is good to see a LFW 'essence' instantiated in 3D (though we here get only 2) ... Without giving away any information to the Ladies, Jonathan, can you eventually tell us more about the plan? 

I know I have failed in an Objectivish reading of the image. That made me sad. But what made me sadder were folks thumbing down what I think is good (in its real-world context). The thing is, my imagination was able to take me inside your rendering, and it was beautiful and fit for living. Was it meant for the living?  I would say yeah, probably, for generations.

As for Mausoleum, or State Science facilities, FLW designed at least one monumental mausoleum, which has been built this century (key words 'frank lloyd wright' mausoleum), and state science (especially internationally-funded) facilities would be more like the great space telescopes and probes and massive earthly cyclotrons of present-day Big Science, in my mind -- more CERN than bank branch, more monstrously large of campus. But the County Lab of Broadacre City could arguably be housed in the classic rendered building. Why not?

For those in the know, there has to have been a few chuckles in the last few twists of this thread.

Here's an example of later work, stripped of dimension and colour.   The building is under restoration in Racine, and more what I think a State Science indoctrination, torture, and research facility would look like.   

And it would have to be brown, wouldn't it?

And here is Blue Sky Mausoleum, designed in 1928, built in 2004.

Edited June 20, 2016 by william.scherk

[Jonathan]

17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

It might be argued that Ayn Rand's love for the architect (as reported) was for his iconoclasm and individualism, not perhaps for particular items for which she might have been "meh."

Good point. We can't know what Rand's flighty, subjective take would have been on the building that I posted, but she seems to have preferred cold, sparse Modernism in archirecture above Wright's warm, organic approach, probably without recognizing it, and without realizing how strongly she was responding to aesthetic effects based on theories that she hadn't studied, but which she blew several spleens over in her writings.

 

Quote

Now me and my research ladies can go try to find the pattern from which Jonathan produced his graceful rendering. It is good to see a LFW 'essence' instantiated in 3D (though we here get only 2) ... Without giving away any information to the Ladies, Jonathan, can you eventually tell us more about the plan?

Yes, I'll eventually share more about the building's design. What I'm doing is compiling my almost-two-decades worth of aesthetics adventures in O-land. I'm going back and collecting the results of the quizzes and tests that I've posted, compiling a list of all of the unanswered questions and evaded challenges, categorizing the fallacies, cop outs and evasive maneuvers that Objectivists prefer to use over admitting to obvious errors, and checking old traps for gnawed-off legs of long-forgotten varmints who realized too late that puffing themselves up with nothing but Rand's opinions on art wasn't as intimidating as they had expected it to be. I'm thinking about putting it all into book form, and becoming a Revered Published Scholar Who Is To Be Treated With The Utmost Respect And Kid Gloves, How Dare You Speak To Me In The Way That I Just Spoke To You!

J

[william.scherk]

On 1/14/2016 at 4:32 PM, william.scherk said:

How much better the world would be now if Kant had fallen stillborn from the womb. No Warhol, no Christo, no Ai Weiwei. If only the angry villagers had stopped the coming horror in its tracks.

From PRI a day or so ago: "Walking on golden water — Christo's magical 'Floating Piers'

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

From PRI a day or so ago: "Walking on golden water — Christo's magical 'Floating Piers'

What a vicious attack on all values!

Look at all of those people enjoying evil!

J

[Brant Gaede]

On 6/20/2016 at 0:25 PM, Jonathan said:

Unsurprisingly, you're not alone in skipping over "objectively" identifying the "artist's meaning."

 

Indeed, the building could have been designed to serve any of the utilitarian purposes that you list above, but, according to Objectivism, you are not to judge art with such "outside considerations" in mind, so I will allow none in this case.

Regardless of whether one suspects the building as being a residence, a funeral home, or a bank, etc., the point is to identify the "artist's meaning" and his "metaphysical value-judgments" based on nothing but the content of the work.

Certain Objectivish-types appear to believe that the fact that they suspect that a building might have been designed to serve as a funeral home or mausoleum automatically and immediately means that no further consideration is necessary in judging the art: It involves the issue of death, and therefore, as a work of art, it must equal death-worship? (Apparently the subject of death is verboten in art? An artist can't explore and express the great value of life when reflecting on death in his art?)

Likewise, if it's a bank, or an accounting or law office, Objectivish-types seem to believe that it is not to have a reserved elegance and seriousness, but is supposed to be sparkly, soaring and euphoric? If it's not exploding with brazenly overt ecstasy, then it is morose and banal? There's no in-between, Wow, what a nuanced range of aesthetic sensitivity!!!! Hahahahaha!!!!!

 

Sorry, but the rules of Objective Art are that no such "outside considerations" shall be taken into account. That's one of the Objectivist snags that I'm focusing on here (among others).

In reality, Rand's followers base their interpretations and judgments of the non-literary arts almost entirely on "outside considerations," but pretend not to. They always fail when deprived of the "outside considerations." I like to watch them flounder and flail but still refuse to reconsider their stupid beliefs.

 

It's not my design. I took an existing design of an unbuilt project and rendered it in 3D to flesh it out and make it more aesthetically "readable" than plan and elevation prints.

 

It's quite strange that none of the Objectivish aesthetics experts noticed stylistic similarities that you've noticed. Odd, huh?

Actually, no, I guess it's not odd at all. They'd have to first have some actual knowledge in order to notice those similarities.

The Objectivist Esthetics is a lot of pseudoscience, pseudopsychology and pseudophilosophy. Its primary purpose is to act as a weapon for its believers to use in posing as being superior. Thus, when tested and challenged in reality with a work of art with which they are not familiar, and about which they haven't been given any "outside considerations," their safest course is to snarl and sneer at the art. If they were to do otherwise, they might discover that they had been tricked into admitting to having a positive interpretation and "sense of life" response to an expression of pure evil.

But they forget (or they hope that their targets of psychologizing have forgotten) that Objectivism's pseudoscience/witch-hunting is a two-edged sword that Objectivist Authorities have also used in the opposite way: When Superior Objectivists like a work of art, but hear other people saying that it is like a mausoleum, or that it's creepy or whatever, the Superior Objectivists' declare that their targets gave that interpretation and response due to their having inferior "senses of life"!!!!

I've posted an example in the past of Torres trying to pull that childish little trick: People (many, many people ) have identified Wyeth's images as having a creepy vibe due to their presenting old, rustic scenes with cracked and weathered buildings, shabbiness and decay, and Torres' response was to use the Objectivist douchebag tactic of suggesting that there was something wrong with Those People's psychologies and "senses of life" that made them misinterpret paintings which he personally took to be about "dignity" and "tranquility." His view was that he was healthy and right, and everyone else was defective for having a dark reaction to the art.

The A-hole even cited Rand when trying to smear others:
"Ayn Rand argues that the psychological mechanism guiding such emotional responses to art is one's "sense of life." (See Ch. 3, "Art and Sense of Life," in 'What Art Is' for more. At Amazon.com search in the book's page for "the role that sense of life plays," retaining quotes.)"

So, shouldn't we apply the same method to Bob, Roger (and his wife?), Brant, and KorbenDallas? They must be death-worshipers and existence-haters to see death and banality in a building that is, as Billy points out, so similar to some of Wright's most delightful works, no? In fact, the design employ's many of Wright's most famous aesthetic techniques of space, proportion and scale. How is it possible that Objectivish aesthetic geniuses are not recognizing these obvious traits of the building?!!! I mean, this is baby stuff, architectural education-wise!!!

J

I like the Wright stuff, not the sterile "funeral home" or "State Science Institute."

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Heh. thank for the feedback. Even though my questions weren't answered, and people responded with what I didn't ask for, it's been very informative. The funeral home/mausoleum thing is especially interesting, and has given me some great ideas for further testing of whether the architectural design is even relevant to certain viewers, as opposed to other considerations. I think I'm onto something quite amusing.

Thanks!

J

[Brant Gaede]

11 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Heh. thank for the feedback. Even though my questions weren't answered, and people responded with what I didn't ask for, it's been very informative. The funeral home/mausoleum thing is especially interesting, and has given me some great ideas for further testing of whether the architectural design is even relevant to certain viewers, as opposed to other considerations. I think I'm onto something quite amusing.

Thanks!

J

Face it--it's horrible. It's wrong in all the right places and right in all the wrong places. It's revolting. Funeral homes are not revolting.

Esthetic monstrosity, subjectively speaking.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Okay, thanks again, Brant!

Heh. History and fiction repeating themselves.

J

[Brant Gaede]

40 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Okay, thanks again, Brant!

Heh. History and fiction repeating themselves.

J

If you need more help, send out the signal!

--Bat

[william.scherk]

On 6/10/2016 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan said:

Objectively identify the "artist's meaning" of the artwork, and demonstrate how to objectively measure and rate the architect's technical skills/merits in conveying his meaning through his art.

Well ...

On 6/21/2016 at 7:49 AM, Jonathan said:

Yes, I'll eventually share more about the building's design

Good. The ladies and I are striking out so far.

On 6/19/2016 at 11:47 AM, william.scherk said:

It seems obvious to me that the maker of the image is our Jonathan.

One point for me!

On 6/19/2016 at 11:47 AM, william.scherk said:

I can be more explicit now.  The image immediately above is of the Martin Darwin House, an early-career design of Frank Lloyd Wright, now a National Historic Site.  To my eyes the architectural rendering posted by Jonathan was extremely similar to FLW built designs from the era.   

On 6/20/2016 at 0:25 PM, Jonathan said:

It's not my design. I took an existing design of an unbuilt project and rendered it in 3D to flesh it out and make it more aesthetically "readable" than plan and elevation prints.

In the fullness of time, we will probably discover that the existing design was either a contemporary plan of Frank Lloyd Wright himself, or an 'as if' design by someone trying to 'recreate' in design-space an item that could be mistaken for a FLW design.  Either way ...

On 6/20/2016 at 0:25 PM, Jonathan said:

It's quite strange that none of the Objectivish aesthetics experts noticed stylistic similarities that you've noticed. Odd, huh?

It may be that the few here who have commented on your rendering did indeed notice stylistic similarities. Perhaps those commentators simply don't like the FLW early work, whether the Martin Darwin complex or the cousin rendering you supplied.  All we have so far is a bit-part  "I don't like it.."  

On 6/25/2016 at 7:27 PM, Brant Gaede said:

I like the Wright stuff, not the sterile "funeral home" or "State Science Institute."

I like Wright stuff from all his 'eras' ...  do you like the Wright architecture of the Martin Darwin site?  Tastes will differ, but the point is the rendering of Jonathan's captures the style of FLW, even if he was not working from an actual FLW plan.

You may be more of a fan of Wright's later, Falling-Water style buildings ... 

Edited June 27, 2016 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Well ...

Good. The ladies and I are striking out so far.

One point for me!

I can be more explicit now.  The image immediately above is of the Martin Darwin House, an early-career design of Frank Lloyd Wright, now a National Historic Site.  To my eyes the architectural rendering posted by Jonathan was extremely similar to FLW built designs from the era.   

In the fullness of time, we will probably discover that the existing design was either a contemporary plan of Frank Lloyd Wright himself, or an 'as if' design by someone trying to 'recreate' in design-space an item that could be mistaken for a FLW design.  Either way ...

It may be that the few here who have commented on your rendering did indeed notice stylistic similarities. Perhaps those commentators simply don't like the FLW early work, whether the Martin Darwin complex or the cousin rendering you supplied.  All we have so far is a bit-part  "I don't like it.."  

I like Wright stuff from all his 'eras' ...  do you like the Wright architecture of the Martin Darwin site?  Tastes will differ, but the point is the rendering of Jonathan's captures the style of FLW, even if he was not working from an actual FLW plan.

You may be more of a fan of Wright's later, Falling-Water style buildings ... 

There is only one Fallingwater. I like most of Wright. That monstrosity that Jonathan put up is completely anti-Wright. It doesn't matter if he started with a Wright design. But no one can answer J's questions; objectivity is philosophically normatively outside esthetics. Philosophy is should be, esthetics is is--that is, what is.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Teeheehee.

J

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

All we have so far is a bit-part  "I don't like it.."  

 

Exactamundo. "I don't like" is also all that we have from almost all of the other instances when I've asked Objectivists and O'vishes to apply the Objectivist Esthetic hermeneutic method to examples of realistic representational works of art in reality and to identify subjects, meanings, "senses of life," "metaphysical value-judgments," etc.

Fans of abstract art do much better when explaining what and why they experience what they do in abstract art.

J

[william.scherk]

On 3/18/2010 at 4:59 PM, Brant Gaede said:

I'm of the opinion that if you, the architect, imagine your building is alive, you'll know how to design it. Maybe Wright thought that in a way with his emphasis on "organic" architecture.

Good point then and now. Would make a nice Tuesday Essay, and advance an argument.

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

That monstrosity that Jonathan put up is completely anti-Wright. It doesn't matter if he started with a Wright design.

I disagree that the rendering is completely anti-Wright.  However, you can make a case by analyzing the rendering, not just spitting at it. If it turns out that this is an actual plan of Wright's and not an 'as if,' then the case is weak at the gate.

Something to consider, Brant, is that your individual reaction is  to a single-viewpoint rendering. There is an 'art' or craft in rendering architectural plans.  Up here in Vancouver, we have a roaring construction binge accompanying our crazy real estate market. I post illustrative renderings from the regional New Condos Etc magazine, for the Chinese-literate submarket.  The ebullient but demented renderings turn the probably-stodgy buildings into 1 million kilowatts of light-emitting hooey.  But I digress.

Another thing to consider is that a 3D rendering can be 'clean' or  enveloped by detail, stark or 'fully-furnished' -- or a point in between.  Many real-estate renderings of stodgy, cheap or garish townhomes out this way are way fluffed up by gorgeous landscaping, frolicking children and pets, slim and sophisticated mommas, and that hypnotic warm glow of Thomas Kinkade windows emitting comfort rays.

So, I can imagine the stark rendering as a beginning point for imagination, as a 'clean' rendering upon a featureless plain. I can imagine the rich interiors, the play of sunlight through the windows over the course of a day, the gardens, the glowing flush that accompanies a million-dollar price tag.

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I like Wright stuff from all his 'eras' ...  do you like the Wright architecture of the Martin Darwin site?

I like most of Wright.

Yah.  But my question was to elicit a bit more detailed, perhaps analytic reaction to the Martin Darwin site. Because to my eyes it is the same schtick as the 'monstrosity.'  

-- on a slightly-related note, I think you are in the Tucson region, where  regional styles have emerged. Do you like the house you live in, or is it vaguely monstrous?  Would we spit on a clean rendering of its bones?

 

Edited June 27, 2016 by william.scherk
Spelking, grrrammar.