Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the problem is the statement its making. Flapping its arms like an idiot yelling 'look at me, I look ridiculous' That one needs to be put out of its misery. Put that concrete to some good use, i'm sure some septic sewer somewhere needs refacing.
First of all, if I was design a new wing to a building (especially one devoted to art and aesthetics) I'd stick to the design of the existing wing. Second, I'd aim for a level of quality and 'effort' a bit beyond that which a drunken college design student could blow out their rear on a weekend. Third, considering it is a public building designed to serve the public, I would ensure that the public is actually pleased with the design before shoving it down their throats in an attempt to 'broaden/shock/offend/educate' them or whatever other misguided reasonings could be behind a flopped project like that tub(girl) museum.
First of all, if I was design a new wing to a building (especially one devoted to art and aesthetics) I'd stick to the design of the existing wing. Second, I'd aim for a level of quality and 'effort' a bit beyond that which a drunken college design student could blow out their rear on a weekend. Third, considering it is a public building designed to serve the public, I would ensure that the public is actually pleased with the design before shoving it down their throats in an attempt to 'broaden/shock/offend/educate' them or whatever other misguided reasonings could be behind a flopped project like that tub(girl) museum.
So basically make it non-descript (which would hardly act as a beacon/statement/advertisment for the new museum) and resort to fakery (ie 'noddy' architecture? I'm not sure what the term is in the US.) The look of a building is the product of its construction technology, by that measure classical architecture is obsolete (and modern architecture the product of modern construction technology.) You could not build using authentic traditional techniques as it would not conform to building regulations, you would have to resort to cladding (fakery.) What you are proposing is set dressing not architecture. At best it would result in a convincing fake, at worst a caricature of history.
FYI though I believe that buildings should be 'of their time' I would not handle the project in the same way. Foster's Sackler galleries in London is probably the best example of an old/new hybrid. The 'bathtub' IMO is trying to hard.
So basically make it non-descript (which would hardly act as a beacon/statement/advertisment for the new museum) and resort to fakery (ie 'noddy' architecture? I'm not sure what the term is in the US.) The look of a building is the product of its construction technology, by that measure classical architecture is obsolete (and modern architecture the product of modern construction technology.) You could not build using authentic traditional techniques as it would not conform to building regulations, you would have to resort to cladding (fakery.) What you are proposing is set dressing not architecture. At best it would result in a convincing fake, at worst a caricature of history.
FYI though I believe that buildings should be 'of their time' I would not handle the project in the same way. Foster's Sackler galleries in London is probably the best example of an old/new hybrid. The 'bathtub' IMO is trying to hard.
Seems like the architectural equivalent of 'post-adolescent-idealistic-phase thinking'. Though now its just tired old early 20th century thinking, on a par with a 30 year old who still feels hes a rebel and hasn't abandoned his mullet and ripped jeans yet. That's how I feel about it anyways. Though everyone is entitled to their own sense of aesthetics I suppose. If you insist that ugliness is beauty, that common is exemplary, that black is white, that its not the end result but the intention or act that counts, well I won't stop you.
Seems like the architectural equivalent of 'post-adolescent-idealistic-phase thinking'. Though now its just tired old early 20th century thinking, on a par with a 30 year old who still feels hes a rebel and hasn't abandoned his mullet and ripped jeans yet. That's how I feel about it anyways. Though everyone is entitled to their own sense of aesthetics I suppose. If you insist that ugliness is beauty, that common is exemplary, that black is white, that its not the end result but the intention or act that counts, well I won't stop you.
How about arguing against may actual points? The fact that architectural style is the product of construction technology is hardly 'tired old early 20th century thinking' but rather a fundamental truth in architecture.
How about arguing against may actual points? The fact that architectural style is the product of construction technology is hardly 'tired old early 20th century thinking' but rather a fundamental truth in architecture.
I didn't notice any points to argue against, I just heard the modernist dogma that is a regurgitation of century old german bauhuas (were-too-elite-for-our-daddies-architecture) design philosophies. Architectural design is NOT the product of construction technology. I suppose the ancient greeks were hammering stone pins into stone beams on their entablatures?
As for your giant bathtubs, your thousand foot shards, and your glorified fun-houses, those larger than life altars to sensationalism and novelty that are shadowed only by the egos of their builders, calling them 'art' would actually be offensive if it wasn't so comical. Like it or not, modernists will forever be seen by the rest of us as "kids being kids".
My problem with it is that its such an odd shape, that I would expect there to be a technical advantage/reason for it- which so far in the article and in this thread has not been revealed. So if there is no technical reason for (the inwardly sloping walls) then what exactly am I getting in return for this deviation from the norm? I'm not even getting the wow effect that I get with Bilbao. It would seem I am giving up not only floor space but also the utiltiy of the exterior wall, with nothing to show for it.
My second critique would be the scale-less nature of the exterior wall. What is the thing made of- cream cheese? And if it is made of some new high tech material, why is that the right choice for this (Urban) building?
In short, without knowing more, there is a randomness to this design that bothers me. If the design is really random (the architect's autonomous and personal vision), then it is also meaningless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
