|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
francojean23
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 36
Location: Boston
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:56 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
have no idea is she was killed or survived...didn't really follow her after mies left her...haha
dare i say we are the only two with some knowledge on mies at this point no one has offered up anything...
although we have strayed pretty far from the topic... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1125
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"have no idea is she was killed or survived...didn't really follow her after mies left her...haha"
yes, very funny. Lilly Reich - a first class designer in her own right - is the one who saved the Mies archive in Berlin (now at MoMA). She died in 1947 (after the war).
as for the idea that Mies was not very well known in Germany, he was the Director of the Bauhaus, and the Barcelona Pavilion was actually the German Pavilion at the Barcelona Exhibition (and if you go to Barcelona, don't waste time looking for it: it was demolished in 1930).
Mies was desparate to get work from the Nazis and only moved to America when he had failed.
to return to the theme: perhaps the pivotal building was one that was never built: a 1922 drawing by Mies of a glass skyscraper.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 512
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Haut wrote: | | and if you go to Barcelona, don't waste time looking for it: it was demolished in 1930. |
The Barcelona Pavilion was reconstructed in 1986 on its orginal site. It was published in the August 1986 issue of Progressive Architecture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1125
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
what a good idea - I wonder what people think of it, seeing it rebuilt 50 years later.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| i had read somewhere the original pavilion wasn't 'demolished' but instead 'pack-up' then sort of mysteriously dissappear in transit or something... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francojean23
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 36
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
yes, i too heard that it was in transit back to berlin to be set up and was stolen...as scraps of metal showed up in junk yards years later...
and as for the barcelona pavilion i believe was in barcelona...not germany...and he was only head of the bauhaus for a very very short time before he was picked up and taken to america...he did not fail in germany as an architect...he simply got an offer he couldn't refuse...to master plan and design as many as wanted of the new IIT campus...
and as for the comment earlier about the shades on crown hall...i am certain they were not in the original design but were added very soon afterwards...there was a push on mies to design a reveal for the application of shades but he refused...and i believe if you look you will find a great picture of mies holding the model of crown hall in crown hall the opening week.........no shades
even spoke to a professor who has conversed with drafters from the project...no shades whatsoever...it goes against all mies's theory...
and how could you not know the pavilion was rebuilt...of course there are new building around it so it has lost some of its original image...but still...
and i would contend if mies had his way in designing the glass skyscraper...it would not even have the glass skin... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1689
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
francojean23 -- The last time I looked, ignorance was neither a crime nor a sin. It is too easy to criticize others for what they haven't yet learned. But I've done it, too -- it's hard to resist exulting in finding oneself a step ahead of one's neighbor. I had to apologize for giving some very nice people a hard time -- they are Midcentury Modernists living in the Los Angeles area, and some had not yet discovered the architectural writing of the late Esther McCoy, who lived there and was among the first to write about their favorite subject. Was there a time when you hadn't yet learned of the "new" German Pavilion?
Richard -- It was a wonderful oddity, to see (for the first time) color photographs of the building, fabrics and water and bookmatched marble and all. . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francojean23
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 36
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the time when i didn't know it was rebuilt...was when it wasn't...
and if you simply reply to this topic to point that out and offer up nothing on the subject yourself...it's a waste to even read what you're writing... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1689
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:38 pm Post subject: Pivotal Building |
|
|
In re-reading this interesting thread, I'm wondering if Wright's Guggenheim and Gehry's will somehow be seen a icons, each of its era. . .
In both cases, cannot it be said that the building stands deliberately apart from the "typical" architecture of the day, attempting (perhaps) to indicate a new direction, or simply saying "look at me"? And both buildings represent a strongly "sculptural" presence in their respective (orthogonal) urban contexts.
I certainly did not see all of the published criticism of Bilbao when it was new, but I don't recall any mention of the New York building, by way of comparison or contrast. . .does anyone?
Is it the anonymity of this medium which "permits" otherwise unacceptable rudeness? Anybody check out the DesignAddict site recently? It would be funny if it weren't so sad. . .
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1125
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
oddity is the word .....
isn't it terrible - I can't even keep up with pivotal-pastiche. So what's new at "miniature world" ?
the comparison of the two Guggenheim buildings is correct - buildings that "stand apart" are hardly intended to act as being pivotal in design. They are meant to be one-offs. Mimicry would lead to cityscapes being even less harmious than they are today.
if discussions of what is pivotal today lead to yet more pre-digested discussions of Corbusier/Mies, then the answer is self-evident. Nothing is pivotal today - today's architects still feel obliged to look back to a drawing from 1922.
Gehry manages to produce a successful building. Perhaps those who overstate its significance do so because of the paucity of other contemporary examples.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 512
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Haut wrote: | | if discussions of what is pivotal today lead to yet more pre-digested discussions of Corbusier/Mies, then the answer is self-evident. Nothing is pivotal today - today's architects still feel obliged to look back to a drawing from 1922. |
I think you may be misintrepreting the Corbu/Mies discussion. It really became a side discussion in this thread. If you go back up in this thread you will see that I stated that IMHO there may not be a pivotal building but the process of design to construction using electronically aided design may be pivotal. With the discussion focusing on Gehry, I proposed that since he seems to be the most recognized (published) using the process, Gehry late work as a whole may be considered a pivotal point. This statement lead to the Corbu/Mies discussion concerning their use of new materials et al as a pivotal point in the early 20th C. as a comparision.
So to bring this back around, is there a pivotal building or is it the pivotal use of computers from design to construction?
Let me also restate, I am of the opinion that only historians will be able to determine what buildings are pivotal. We architects can only discuss present day work that excites us or inspires us.
What I find interesting about Gehry is - IMHO - that he is inspired by other visual arts and not necessarily architecture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1125
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
What Gehry achieved at Bilbao is to produce a building that people actually like.
Gehry wanted his building to be a "good neighbour" - and he succeeded.
It is questionnable whether or not Mies and Corbusier themselves produced buildings that were good neighbours - and the follow-on rehashing of their ideas produced environments of coldness and hostility. Modernism was - and remains - the architecture of totalitarianism.
Having blasted the city of a thousand Mosques to powder, what would an American-built Fallujah look like ? You know what it would look like.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Most of the architects I know deal with restoration and rebuilding and I wonder how many good skilled and visionary architects simply had to specialise in this as that much new structures are engineered rather than shaped. Anyway those places concrete and steel solved the actural problems ,today these huge buildings is made from rent apartments into owned flats , the real problems with these often nice structures is that they get worn down just like any other houses and after 20/30 years they ask architects who know and understand the architecture ,the bad materials ,how emty beer bottles was left inside the concrete by the workers ,how it and why cold walls and humidity bring bad enviroments and 1000 small and huge issues that all deal with the fact, that architects back then was a bit blinded by the visions and the methods and materials did not exactly fullfill the needs. ------ Now I just wonder how long today's steel and glass will restand just 30 years, esp. as it seem that the digital options already stumbled in the code discussions, then how about later when the same options must point to what need to be replaced what need to be rebuild . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 512
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Haut wrote: | | It is questionnable whether or not Mies and Corbusier themselves produced buildings that were good neighbours - and the follow-on rehashing of their ideas produced environments of coldness and hostility. Modernism was - and remains - the architecture of totalitarianism. |
I would agree that Modernism is self-referential and can create cold spaces, both on an urban scale and architectural scale. But I stop at throwing out the masters (Mies, Corbusier, Wright, and Kahn). It is the same as throwing the baby out with the bath water. For better or worst, we are stuck with many Modern buildings and spaces. Now what do we do? I personally like the ideas forwarded by thoerist such as Rossi, Colin Rowe-Fred Koetter, and even the Brothers Kreir. But I am showing my age here.
To make a sweeping statement that Moderism is the Architecture of Totalirarianism is just being polemic for polemic sake. There are too many examples where political powers have taken an architectural "style" and co-oped it to their agenda.
Am I to beleive that the urban theories of the Brothers Krier are neo-Nazism because Leon has referenced the grand classical style of Albert Speer? But then what about Caso del Fascio by Terrangni. It is modern and cetainly built for the fascist. But then how do we classify Mies Seagrams Building (Capitolist/Democratic) and compare it to the Russian Constructist (Communist/Dictatorship).
| Richard Haut wrote: | | Having blasted the city of a thousand Mosques to powder, what would an American-built Fallujah look like ? You know what it would look like. |
Hahaha!! I guess this is suppose to be witty and the bait for someone to react agains. Okay - I'll bite. I have seen your other posts. Richard, you are ignorant.
Not all Americans support the Irag War or the current administration's policies. 48% of Americans voted for Kerry. I was one of those 48% and do not support the Iraq War. But since you seem to think that all Americans are right-wing imperialist nut cases, I certainly can make such wide sweeping generalizations also. I remember my world history of imperialist France and all your African and Asia colonies. Lets see - oh yeah Viet Nam - that was French once - you raped it for its rubber plantations - then left it in political shambles once the communists showed up. And the world also knows how cozy the French were with Saddam and his oil wells prior to the American Invasion. So - using your logic and since you are French - you certainly must support murderous,totalitarianism governments and modern archtiecture.
Maybe we should bomb France since you took in the well-known terrorist Arafat during his dying days. What do you say!!!!! I will personally contact the Pentagon and ask them to send a few B-1 bombers your way.
Or would you prefer to discuss French compliancy during the Germany Occupancy of France during WW II. Haut - mmmm, isn't that a little Germanic.
Peolpe who live in glass house, Richard, people who live in glass houses. Americans citizens are not the same as the American Administration, just as French citizens are not the same as the French administration. I personally would never conduct myself in that manner.
I done on this thread - Richard seems to confuse politics and politicans with Architects and Architecture. I recommend that you refrain from posting in any other forum except for the Fireside - free-for-all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1125
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Modernism was considered to be the architecture of totalitarianism in the interwar period, so it can hardly be considered a mere judgement from today.
To allow one election to be stolen looks like carelessness; to allow two elections to be stolen looks like complicity.
Sorry that you haven't the guts to face up to the reality of what your nation is doing.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
