|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
gfs
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 27
Location: New York, NY
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:13 pm Post subject: Classical Architecture |
    |
|
We all might know that once an architect attains mastery of the canonical orders, that architect can easily manipulate the orders within the language of classicism. At what point does changing the orders (proportions, applications, relationships) become too much, so that the nature of the orders is lost to the ingenuity of the architect. I feel that, today, there are many architects with a laissez-faire attitude toward classicism, that perhaps close is good enough. It comes across that these architects have mastered the orders and can freely manipulate them, even to the extent of bastardizing them (even some of today's self-proclaimed classicists). So, how should one approach classicism that is not in it's more pure forms? How do we know that Asplundh was a "master of the cannon"? His late work doesn't demonstrate his facility. It's like he stopped caring.
And where does "folk" classicism fit into the realm of classical architecture? By name only? Because a "classicist" designed it?
I remain unconvinced of the credibility of "folk" classicism. What am I missing?
Cordially,
Gregory F. Shue
| Moderator wrote: | | Off-topic solicitation blocked so topic could be retained. Post web site announcements in the Services area. |
_________________
Gregory F. Shue
Classical Architecture Articles, CAD Files, Forum, Images, News and more at GrandTradition.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
