|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 12, 2024 11:46:23 GMT
He's one of my heroes. People often think of modernism as ugly and a degradation of traditional architecture, which in Blighty is highly valued. So the question is, why was Modernism such a big thing in the 1920s and what happened to it. Here is one of the masterpieces, and as you might expect from modern-day America, it was due to be demolished, but it was too good for that so it got saved by the Chinese. It turned out that Frank Lloyd Wright worked with a Chinese architect and it was through this family that the house was restored back to its former beauty. Now we can enjoy a virtual tour of the house to see these ideas of Modernism in practice. As with many other examples of Frank Lloyd Wright's work, this is on another level. He was the architect's architect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 12, 2024 13:14:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 12, 2024 13:46:04 GMT
I spent a bit of time in Pompey and shopped round the Tricorn which was cold, windy and damp and won awards. It was brutal in the extreme. There were also three tower blocks on Portsdown hill destroying the view and completely at odds with any consideration of skyline. These also won building awards and thank goodness were demolished in the 80s I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 12, 2024 15:25:54 GMT
I spent a bit of time in Pompey and shopped round the Tricorn which was cold, windy and damp and won awards. It was brutal in the extreme. There were also three tower blocks on Portsdown hill destroying the view and completely at odds with any consideration of skyline. These also won building awards and thank goodness were demolished in the 80s I think. Did you watch the video of this place? The views of the surroundings work with the building. The way these architects manipulate space is amazing. People these days just don't have the brains and think in terms of uniform rectangular structures. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 12, 2024 18:26:12 GMT
I spent a bit of time in Pompey and shopped round the Tricorn which was cold, windy and damp and won awards. It was brutal in the extreme. There were also three tower blocks on Portsdown hill destroying the view and completely at odds with any consideration of skyline. These also won building awards and thank goodness were demolished in the 80s I think. Did you watch the video of this place? The views of the surroundings work with the building. The way these architects manipulate space is amazing. People these days just don't have the brains and think in terms of uniform rectangular structures. I did spend some time in Madison Wisconsin where Monona Terrace was a very popular and there is no doubt it is delight in many ways. My reply to Dan was as regards Brutalism which became the fag end of what Wright was working at and in reality Brutalism was a disaster where the award winning structures were ugly, unloved and not fit for purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 12, 2024 18:34:49 GMT
Did you watch the video of this place? The views of the surroundings work with the building. The way these architects manipulate space is amazing. People these days just don't have the brains and think in terms of uniform rectangular structures. I did spend some time in Madison Wisconsin where Monona Terrace was a very popular and there is no doubt it is delight in many ways. My reply to Dan was as regards Brutalism which became the fag end of what Wright was working at and in reality Brutalism was a disaster where the award winning structures were ugly, unloved and not fit for purpose. Yes but I put this video up so you can see the qualities of modernism, not the bastardised form of it. Let me know what you think. I think his work is pure genius. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 12, 2024 19:32:04 GMT
I did spend some time in Madison Wisconsin where Monona Terrace was a very popular and there is no doubt it is delight in many ways. My reply to Dan was as regards Brutalism which became the fag end of what Wright was working at and in reality Brutalism was a disaster where the award winning structures were ugly, unloved and not fit for purpose. Yes but I put this video up so you can see the qualities of modernism, not the bastardised form of it. Let me know what you think. I think his work is pure genius. I have no doubt as regards the qualities of Modernism and I did peruse some of teh video but like all architecture it can work well in buildings built for those who can afford it. The rest of us are dealt the hand of the likes of the Tricorn and the Portsdown tower blocks. Fallingwater may be a work of perfection but it depends in the long run on money. The box shape is the best utilisation of limited space both horizontally and vertically. Transferring the principles of Wright to the architecture for the hoi polloi to use has resulted in some pretty high profile disasters. Hulme crescents springs to mind. Most of us cannot afford the brilliance of Wright but can enjoy it in the likes of Monona Terrace but when it comes to living for the masses good architecture has largely failed and only when a degree of moderne has been lumped into suburban semis it works with larger soffits and clearer lines but must be limited in its application and the box is still to the fore. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 12, 2024 20:13:58 GMT
Yes but I put this video up so you can see the qualities of modernism, not the bastardised form of it. Let me know what you think. I think his work is pure genius. I have no doubt as regards the qualities of Modernism and I did peruse some of teh video but like all architecture it can work well in buildings built for those who can afford it. The rest of us are dealt the hand of the likes of the Tricorn and the Portsdown tower blocks. Fallingwater may be a work of perfection but it depends in the long run on money. The box shape is the best utilisation of limited space both horizontally and vertically. Transferring the principles of Wright to the architecture for the hoi polloi to use has resulted in some pretty high profile disasters. Hulme crescents springs to mind. Most of us cannot afford the brilliance of Wright but can enjoy it in the likes of Monona Terrace but when it comes to living for the masses good architecture has largely failed and only when a degree of moderne has been lumped into suburban semis it works with larger soffits and clearer lines but must be limited in its application and the box is still to the fore. Yes but he was designing it for his family and they could afford it. I don't think it is built to be money no object rich man's stuff. It's a demonstration of his ideas, like a work of art. I put it up for its artistic qualities. This building perfectly fulfils what it was intended for, so who gives a crap what the poor people carp on about. He's not a bloody housing charity. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 12, 2024 21:00:40 GMT
Actually I would question whether Frank Lloyd Wright's oeuvre can really be called 'Modernism' since the term is usually applied to what came to be termed the 'International Style' as pioneered by e.g. Le Corbusier. This is typically expressed in rectilinear form, flat roofs, with plain white walls and lots of glass. A style that gave way to Brutalism in the early post-war period.
I think of FLW's work as more rustic and 'cosy', more arts and crafts in execution than Modernistic. There is nothing challenging about it, nothing to get annoyed about. It's just 'nice'.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 13, 2024 11:27:57 GMT
I have no doubt as regards the qualities of Modernism and I did peruse some of teh video but like all architecture it can work well in buildings built for those who can afford it. The rest of us are dealt the hand of the likes of the Tricorn and the Portsdown tower blocks. Fallingwater may be a work of perfection but it depends in the long run on money. The box shape is the best utilisation of limited space both horizontally and vertically. Transferring the principles of Wright to the architecture for the hoi polloi to use has resulted in some pretty high profile disasters. Hulme crescents springs to mind. Most of us cannot afford the brilliance of Wright but can enjoy it in the likes of Monona Terrace but when it comes to living for the masses good architecture has largely failed and only when a degree of moderne has been lumped into suburban semis it works with larger soffits and clearer lines but must be limited in its application and the box is still to the fore. Yes but he was designing it for his family and they could afford it. I don't think it is built to be money no object rich man's stuff. It's a demonstration of his ideas, like a work of art. I put it up for its artistic qualities. This building perfectly fulfils what it was intended for, so who gives a crap what the poor people carp on about. He's not a bloody housing charity. Unfortunately many of his ideas were taken on board and attempted to be applied to mass housing, the bypass variegated style of the 20s and 30s, a bit twee and with other styles bolted on to a basic frame, still presented for the English a pretence of country living. The Brutalistic adherents tried a pretence of 'fifteen streets' type living and failed miserably. Wright has his place but only as a specialist for the well-to-do and the public building but his grand sweeps and curves may be pleasing to the eye but not quite so pleasing to tired legs and forgetting what you came upstairs for. For Lloyd Wright living was a journey through design whereas for most people their journey through life has to be eased by design. What caters well for a 40 year old is a bit of trial once the age is doubled. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 13, 2024 12:02:20 GMT
Yes but he was designing it for his family and they could afford it. I don't think it is built to be money no object rich man's stuff. It's a demonstration of his ideas, like a work of art. I put it up for its artistic qualities. This building perfectly fulfils what it was intended for, so who gives a crap what the poor people carp on about. He's not a bloody housing charity. Unfortunately many of his ideas were taken on board and attempted to be applied to mass housing, the bypass variegated style of the 20s and 30s, a bit twee and with other styles bolted on to a basic frame, still presented for the English a pretence of country living. The Brutalistic adherents tried a pretence of 'fifteen streets' type living and failed miserably. Wright has his place but only as a specialist for the well-to-do and the public building but his grand sweeps and curves may be pleasing to the eye but not quite so pleasing to tired legs and forgetting what you came upstairs for. For Lloyd Wright living was a journey through design whereas for most people their journey through life has to be eased by design. What caters well for a 40 year old is a bit of trial once the age is doubled. Modernism though was a design philosophy, and this house is a demonstration of how that philosophy works. Neither of us have lived in such a house so neither of us can properly measure it, but I thought at least this virtual tour goes some way to letting many more experience some of the genius of this man. The video explains modernism properly. The trouble with your approach is you love to see the bad in everything, so you miss the quality. Besides your argument and your complaining about developments like Hulme makes me wonder if those who do live in these places don't value quality architecture. Well they may say they do, but not to the degree they would be prepared to pay for it.
You see the same with all art. Put a dullard in front of a classical masterpiece and he won't see anything. Well he would just see it say as a portrait of a man or a woman perhaps and that would be the limit of his perception. Do the same with an art lover and he would probably spend a fair time looking at it and enjoying the work as it was intended. Someone with a proper understanding would see the work had great depth of meaning. Now we may ask how did the one end up so stupid and the other so perceptive. Well i would suggest the latter is the man who studies it and learns from the masters. This is why we need Frank Lloyd Wright, as he is like a teacher of aesthetics. If you are intelligent you can take those general ideas and apply them to your own architecture and it would improve it. You really have got to stop getting sidetracked by all the negative and instead learn from the beautiful. Looking at the ugly will just dull your senses and ugly then becomes normal.
As for round houses, well they are more natural. When was the last time you saw a square animal. There is a reason for it as well. With round you get the maximum volume for the surface area of the walls, and for that matter the amount of material used. The minimisation of surface area agaisnt volume means you have better insulation, and from a structural point of view round is stronger than square. The modernist would pay attention to this maths. The idea is when the maths is right it will look right as well. This is because the maths is right in nature. Modernism was where the rational meets the aesthetic. They hated fancy decoration, as this was clutter.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 13, 2024 12:39:17 GMT
Unfortunately many of his ideas were taken on board and attempted to be applied to mass housing, the bypass variegated style of the 20s and 30s, a bit twee and with other styles bolted on to a basic frame, still presented for the English a pretence of country living. The Brutalistic adherents tried a pretence of 'fifteen streets' type living and failed miserably. Wright has his place but only as a specialist for the well-to-do and the public building but his grand sweeps and curves may be pleasing to the eye but not quite so pleasing to tired legs and forgetting what you came upstairs for. For Lloyd Wright living was a journey through design whereas for most people their journey through life has to be eased by design. What caters well for a 40 year old is a bit of trial once the age is doubled. Modernism though was a design philosophy, and this house is a demonstration of how that philosophy works. Neither of us have lived in such a house so neither of us can properly measure it, but I thought at least this virtual tour goes some way to letting many more experience some of the genius of this man. The video explains modernism properly. The trouble with your approach is you love to see the bad in everything, so you miss the quality. Besides your argument and your complaining about developments like Hulme makes me wonder if those who do live in these places don't value quality architecture. Well they may say they do, but not to the degree they would be prepared to pay for it.
You see the same with all art. Put a dullard in front of a classical masterpiece and he won't see anything. Well he would just see it say as a portrait of a man or a woman perhaps and that would be the limit of his perception. Do the same with an art lover and he would probably spend a fair time looking at it and enjoying the work as it was intended. Someone with a proper understanding would see the work had great depth of meaning. Now we may ask how did the one end up so stupid and the other so perceptive. Well i would suggest the latter is the man who studies it and learns from the masters. This is why we need Frank Lloyd Wright, as he is like a teacher of aesthetics. If you are intelligent you can take those general ideas and apply them to your own architecture and it would improve it. You really have got to stop getting sidetracked by all the negative and instead learn from the beautiful. Looking at the ugly will just dull your senses and ugly then becomes normal.
As for round houses, well they are more natural. When was the last time you saw a square animal. There is a reason for it as well. With round you get the maximum volume for the surface area of the walls, and for that matter the amount of material used. The minimisation of surface area agaisnt volume means you have better insulation, and from a structural point of view round is stronger than square. The modernist would pay attention to this maths. The idea is when the maths is right it will look right as well. This is because the maths is right in nature. Modernism was where the rational meets the aesthetic. They hated fancy decoration, as this was clutter.
I am not saying the design philosophy does not work I am saying its application is limited. That is not to see the bad in it that is just to accept that the scope for its use cannot be applied to the wider world and when it has been tried it has resulted in Brutalism and disaster. The architects who won awards in the 50s, 60s and 70s had clear ideas and many were admirers of Lloyd Wright. They applied those idea and expected people to live in the 'beauty' they created where space had been designed around curved shapes and people had to live as the architects imagined. (King Charles is an exponent of this view people have to live in his designs instead of designs fulfilling the needs of the people). Unfortunately it is also true that boxes fit better side by side instead of marbles where space is lost and Lloyd Wright did take this into consideration with is Usonian housing. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 13, 2024 13:22:45 GMT
Modernism though was a design philosophy, and this house is a demonstration of how that philosophy works. Neither of us have lived in such a house so neither of us can properly measure it, but I thought at least this virtual tour goes some way to letting many more experience some of the genius of this man. The video explains modernism properly. The trouble with your approach is you love to see the bad in everything, so you miss the quality. Besides your argument and your complaining about developments like Hulme makes me wonder if those who do live in these places don't value quality architecture. Well they may say they do, but not to the degree they would be prepared to pay for it.
You see the same with all art. Put a dullard in front of a classical masterpiece and he won't see anything. Well he would just see it say as a portrait of a man or a woman perhaps and that would be the limit of his perception. Do the same with an art lover and he would probably spend a fair time looking at it and enjoying the work as it was intended. Someone with a proper understanding would see the work had great depth of meaning. Now we may ask how did the one end up so stupid and the other so perceptive. Well i would suggest the latter is the man who studies it and learns from the masters. This is why we need Frank Lloyd Wright, as he is like a teacher of aesthetics. If you are intelligent you can take those general ideas and apply them to your own architecture and it would improve it. You really have got to stop getting sidetracked by all the negative and instead learn from the beautiful. Looking at the ugly will just dull your senses and ugly then becomes normal.
As for round houses, well they are more natural. When was the last time you saw a square animal. There is a reason for it as well. With round you get the maximum volume for the surface area of the walls, and for that matter the amount of material used. The minimisation of surface area agaisnt volume means you have better insulation, and from a structural point of view round is stronger than square. The modernist would pay attention to this maths. The idea is when the maths is right it will look right as well. This is because the maths is right in nature. Modernism was where the rational meets the aesthetic. They hated fancy decoration, as this was clutter.
I am not saying the design philosophy does not work I am saying its application is limited. That is not to see the bad in it that is just to accept that the scope for its use cannot be applied to the wider world and when it has been tried it has resulted in Brutalism and disaster. The architects who won awards in the 50s, 60s and 70s had clear ideas and many were admirers of Lloyd Wright. They applied those idea and expected people to live in the 'beauty' they created where space had been designed around curved shapes and people had to live as the architects imagined. (King Charles is an exponent of this view people have to live in his designs instead of designs fulfilling the needs of the people). Unfortunately it is also true that boxes fit better side by side instead of marbles where space is lost and Lloyd Wright did take this into consideration with is Usonian housing. Brutalism though was a kind of avant-garde kind of thing. The motivation in that art movement was rebellion agaisnt tradition. It was rebellion for the sake of rebellion though, not with any higher purpose to rebel than the act of rebelling itself as a form of expression. There are many hideous things that came out of that but how it applied to Brutalism was Brutalism was rebelling agaisnt maths/mechanics and hence nature. The buildings were purposefully designed to look wrong, e.g. top heavy, unbalanced so as to create a reaction. It was like as it is with horror meets Hollywood, they make something horrible into something entertaining and it is the art of novelty. I should not get the two mixed up if I were you as their aims were opposite in many ways. I know some of the Brutalist architects took ideas from modernism in matters like employing modern materials, but this is not the same as the aesthetic aims. Brutalism is like psychological repression. No wonder the poor working class look so damn miserable. The buildings project misery. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 13, 2024 14:50:13 GMT
I am not saying the design philosophy does not work I am saying its application is limited. That is not to see the bad in it that is just to accept that the scope for its use cannot be applied to the wider world and when it has been tried it has resulted in Brutalism and disaster. The architects who won awards in the 50s, 60s and 70s had clear ideas and many were admirers of Lloyd Wright. They applied those idea and expected people to live in the 'beauty' they created where space had been designed around curved shapes and people had to live as the architects imagined. (King Charles is an exponent of this view people have to live in his designs instead of designs fulfilling the needs of the people). Unfortunately it is also true that boxes fit better side by side instead of marbles where space is lost and Lloyd Wright did take this into consideration with is Usonian housing. Brutalism though was a kind of avant-garde kind of thing. The motivation in that art movement was rebellion agaisnt tradition. It was rebellion for the sake of rebellion though, not with any higher purpose to rebel than the act of rebelling itself as a form of expression. There are many hideous things that came out of that but how it applied to Brutalism was Brutalism was rebelling agaisnt maths/mechanics and hence nature. The buildings were purposefully designed to look wrong, e.g. top heavy, unbalanced so as to create a reaction. It was like as it is with horror meets Hollywood, they make something horrible into something entertaining and it is the art of novelty. I should not get the two mixed up if I were you as their aims were opposite in many ways. I know some of the Brutalist architects took ideas from modernism in matters like employing modern materials, but this is not the same as the aesthetic aims. Brutalism is like psychological repression. No wonder the poor working class look so damn miserable. The buildings project misery. I am not mixing them up I am saying that the architects who pioneered Brutalism were often the contemporaries and admirers of Lloyd Wright. The use of natural materials, the large soffits and the use of cantilever were all part of the Lloyd Wright principles. They may have accentuated or taken those principles to the next level but there is a direct line. They were not opposites as is not the point of art to raise questions and grab the attention of the viewer. The 'bypass variegated' of teh 20s and 30s may have been mock many things but they at least had a degree of beauty using stucco timber or brick for a simple string course and upper stories with decoration using similar materials and were born from previous architectural styles. The 'moderne' style houses that were occasionally thrust into their midst were often art deco in concept but could be seen to be harbingers of the future brutal aspects so hated by the 70s. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 13, 2024 15:11:59 GMT
No it isn't. The point of art is to be beautiful. That's the goal and no other. That's the pure form of art, and architecture is applied art. With architecture you have the need for utility, and that is why it can't be pure. I don't think modernism was ever conceived to be for the purpose of novelty. It did emphasise functionality though. It was trying to blend the two so you had something that works and looks right. As with any movement though you have the good examples and the bad ones. I think you need to define it by the good examples though. Art itself around this time was being degraded, as in pop art continued the replacement of beauty with novelty. Novelty is simply not art. It's a substitute. Proper art is timeless. Anyway, on that note, you can make up your own mind if the house in the OP has aged. Does it look old fashioned, or would you personally like to live in it without the feeling that it is too kitsch? That's the real test: how does a work age. Same with music.
|
|
