Over the past couple weeks, I've been fooling around in 3D with the idea of round houses, and had a thought that I decided to ask about.
In many of the old SouthWest buildings, the roofs were designed to be rain collectors, with the water running over downspouts and into barels, cisterns, and the like.
What I was wondering is, has anyone ever built a place that was shaped more like a lily-pad, with a central "stem" support, and having rainwater drain into the center and from there into a cistern type of thing? I'm picturing a sort of saucer thing supported on wide arches of reinforced concrete, with the "stem" being the supports/pillars alternating with thick glass so that it acts as a sort of atrium.
I've been trying to model it, using both solid walls pierced by windows between the struts, or alternately, with a wall of glass.
What I'm wndering is whether this has been tried (which I figue is probable) and whether there were any positive results (i.e. did it fall down)? I've seen examples (in photos of course) of round houses, with somewhat domed roofs, where the center isthe living area, usu. with an atrium in the center, and bedrooms etc. on the perimeter, but I've enver seen what I'm trying to describe. ((If this is confusing and a picture would make more sense, I can do something up.))
I'd check Google but I have no idea what such a thing would be called, or how to search for it.
Sort of. Key words: roof drains Many large scale commercial buildings have flat roofs and thus need a way to get rain water off, so the roof is pitched ever so slightly in different directions towards large roof drains. From the roof drains the water is directed through a series of drain pipes inside the building to the sewer/run off systems.
Kris, Check out Frank loyd Wrights "Johnson Wax Administration Building". It was built in the 1930's. The main work room is made of slender columns with a circular "lily pad" disc at the top. skylights are placed at the void spaces made where the discs almost touch. I belive roof drains are in the column interior. The effect has been called an almost under water experiance. It has also been called one of the best interior spaces in the country. One of my favorite buildings.
One must also note that the building is infamous for roof leaks, but everybody puts up with it because it's Frank Lloyd Wright and the building is "the bomb."
Fair enough... you'll notice, however, that I put quotes around "the bomb" -- that was to indicate not a personal assessment or inclination but more of a general consensus and regard for FLW's designs. It is interesting to note that FLW's clients were boondoggled and frustrated to wits end by the man, but yet they capitulated in the end because of the effect of the man's buildings. Whether or not one likes his designs is moot, considering the impact he has had on modern architecture.
It may be an urban legend or a joke at my expense, but I heard that a pro basketball player bought an FLW house for the prestige, only to sell it a few months later after bumping his head. Personally I love some of FLW's designs and find others hopelessy inelegant and impractical.
We don't beat dead horses around here, we eat em. Anyway, in reflection it seems that FLW's designs, while dated, seem to carry a certain something (quality? uniqueness?) that is not seldom seen in architecture today. On that, he has my respect. Others have agreed, and I will repeat myself here, that less than 1 out of 10 of the homes I design are worthy of my portfolio. To keep the analogy going, you can lead a horse to water.... By the same token, you can advise a client.... but in the end the client will decide whether what you design for him is worthy, not you. It's frustrating, for sure, but the craftsman continues to practice his trade...... Most of us don't do it for the money, and even fewer do it for the fame. We do it because we are compelled.
Perhaps his buildings have that "certain something," as you say, precisely because he demanded complete creative control and did not allow his clients to decide for themselves... of course, it is a rarity to be in a position to do such a thing and yet another to pull it off.
At least you ARE doing designs (1 in 10) that you feel are worthy of your portfolio. I imagine there are many architects that are not satisfied with any of their [clients'] designs.
"Don" snipped-for-privacy@concord.com wrote in news:j_msd.3449$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Not scholarly, but just my own interpretation: Abstract reference to the source of creative originality, i.e. genius that does not comprimise its clarity of vision no matter how much mediocrity tries to bring brillinace down into the muddy, stinking wallowing-hole of laziness, incompetence, and spiritlessness.
It's easy to make something leak-proof is one is doing the same exact old thing that's just like a million that went before it, and was perfected over time until it bacame stultifyingly formulaic.
That's not the point, tho', of genius. Genius remains compelling because, despite the shortcomings of human nature, geniuses transcend themselves and become Myth (a' la' Campbell), become Promethius: bringing to earth the hot, blazing light of Vision that, by its very existence, ends up inspiring the fire of creativity in others.
Of course, there are always poeple like that guy who took a hammer to The Pieta' in some mundane, flaccid excuse of "protest". I saw it (the Pieta') when I was maybe 12 or so, and it shook me to the core of my being - how utterly pathetic that some palty little waste of DNA would seek to make his personal little whining act of "protest" by taking a hammer to something so, well, I don't even have words for it - something so intensly, burningly beautiful that, in the words of Lopez, "it also made you afraid".
That's why I personally get so bored with people saying "the lily-pad rof of the Johnson Wax building leaks". It was a enw technology, an expereiment, and the whole point of the thing isn't that it leaks. It leaked from the start, and Johnson himself kept a pail handy for when it rained - but he still loved the building, and everyone who worked there lvoed it (or, at least, nobody piped up and said they did not). Architecture is an Art that uses engineering and materials sciences the way a painter uses paints and brushes. A painting is not Art simply because it's painted, it is Art because it somehow communicates a story and/or idea, it shoots into the heart an arrow burning with the fire of Creation.
Isn't that why you become Architects? I can't imagine going through all the years and frustrations of school and apprenticeship, then of small jobs and dealing with the vagaries fo contactors and subcontractors and city bureaucrats, MERELY because you want to oversee the assembly of a bunch of formulaic parts barfed up from the gut of some faceless number-crunching beast. You all speak of design, and meeting client needs - IOW, in the end, Creation, the thing that makes a person as close to god-like as a human ever can be - that ability to create something that will live, and that will inspire, for decades or perhaps even centuries beyond one's mortal life-time.
I mean, isn't that the point? OK, sure, this and that and the other FLW building leaked or whatever. Is that *really* the point? It's not unknown that there were faults in construction/structure, and it's not as tho' anyone really thinks that FLW was a diety.
IMO, criticism can quickly become self-exaggerating, self-applauding, and trite when the critical become so enamoured of their own "cleverness" at not considering a genius to be a living god, that they reject and tear down Art/Creation/Vision, in favor of mundane practicality.
I think this was written by Edna St. Vincent Millay: "Safe upon the solid rock, the ugly houses stand - come and see my shining palace built upon the sand."
An experiment is what you do in a lab to find out if your idea was correct. And experiment is not what you inflict on paying customers because you're too "genius" to do a competent job.
Depends, do you want to call him an architect or a visual artist?
Sure they do. Heck, if he figured that creation was as close as you could come to godhood, he may have thought it of himself.
I think what you're getting at here is that we ARE supposed to think of Wright as a diety.
"gruhn" snipped-for-privacy@deletehwb.com wrote in news:wo6td.49$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net:
Hmm. I'm not a genius, and don't have that much chutzpah, so if it were me, I'd prefer to be more cautious. Actually, I tend to be a perfectionist, and more than one person has called me "obsessive- compulsive". So if I were in that position (of designing a building), I'd prob. be a real pain in the bucket re: checking with the engineering people and sticking as close as possible to certainties. IOW, if I'd gone into architecture, . Of course, I'm just me, not FLW...I have a difficult time trying to convince anyone of the simplest thing and have no sales skills at all.
At the same time, enginering, like all tchnology, has come a long way. And by that time, didn't people (inthis case, Johnson) have an idea re: what to expect from FLW? In a way, it'd be a bit like hiring Salvidore Dali to do your portrait - you're going for the style, the artistic vision. I'mnot saying they expected it to leak, but they knew that FLW dreamed big, beyond the technological limitsof the time. If the J.Wa building was constructed today, it might be water-tight. The design might have been fine, but maybe the tech./engineering of the day couldn't quite pull it off, fell short. I honestly don't know enough to know one way or the other. Nonetheless, it remains a thing of beauty and people love it despite its shortcomings.
That's an interesting question, actually. To be honest, tho', I don't feel qualitied to say one or the other. It's probably obvious that I personally feel moved by many of his works - but of course I've not lived in any of them. That would prob. make all the difference.
At the same time, isn't being a visual artist part of it, of architecture? I'm asking because I realize I might be totally off base with my perception of
I actually agree with that to some extent - tho' I don't know I'd say it makes one godlike; I'd say that it touches that part of the Creator (however one envisions him/her/it) that's in all living things. It'll become more clear below.
No, I worded it badly =:-p , sorry - that's my not-so-great communication skills again.
Let me try it this way - I've known quite a few people who respond to someone's admiration of another person's work by first claiming that this someone considers the admired person to be a deity, and then acts immensely clever because they used various detrimental things to burst a bubble that unfortunately never existed in the first place. IOW, if you say that you admire Einstein's work, the pooh-poohers will first accuse you of trying to make the person into a deity, and then burst what they have deluded themselves into thinking is the bubble of your misguided adoration by saying (as one person I knew did!) by saying something "clever" like "well he had to pull down his pants to crap just like the rest of us", or, "he was a rotten bastard who treated his various wives like sh!t". IOW, an attempt is made to "knock the SOB off the pedestal everyone puts him up onto" by totally ignoring the work and focusing on the all-too-human flaws. It's actually a perverse way of trying to build themselves up, by tearing down others.
It is specious.
This is not to say that FLW's work (or anyone's work) is sacrosanct,to be left uncommented-upon, untested. Quite the opposite. Inspiration is about taking the best of what one sees, and striving towards improvement, towards an ideal of perfection. Even if the perfection one seeks is simply to be a better person and be more creative in one's life, even in one's life is simple. The technical difference between valid criticism and judgementalism is that criticism analyses and acknowledges the good while looking for ways to fix the bad, whereas judgementalism forever sees only the bad and considers it inevtable and unfixable.
No person is a deity. *But* a few people have, for lack of a better expression, a "special fire", which is called creative genius, and an create works that, how to put it, can make others feel spiritually uplifted or even feel as tho' viewing/interacting with the work has opened some part of their human spirit such that it can then more readily perceive the wonderous things of the universe, or, with apologies to the Atheists, lead a person to be more open to the Divine. But that is not at all the same things as thinking that the creator of the work is a deity. It's also precisely what the
So then, yes, I know (knew long ago) that the J. Wax building leaked/leaks and that thre were problems with other buildings. And I knew that FLW, like Einstein, was not a "great family man". Like all of us, he was a mere mortal, a human, a mammal; imperfect, flawed. But that doesn't change the fact that images/photos of Falling Water don't reach into me and grab the core of my being, or change the fact that my memory of the Guggenheim is that it felt far more like a cathedral to me than did St. Patrick's.
The thing about great works is that they transcend their makers.
That's the great dichotomy of humankind - the existence of that transcendent spirit within a smelly, hairy, germy mammalian body: the diamond within the muck. We all burp and fart and have bad breath in the morning - but if one can put that aside for a little while, one can feel the harmonies of electrons spinning in their probability waves, and the singing of stars.
That's why, in a previous thread, I said that it doesn't matter at this point that FLW's personal life was what it was - we're none of us perfect, we're all mammalian animals. That's patently obvious, a given, inherent to the human condition. What matters, in the long run, is one's legacy. I think FLW left a legacy of inspiration that few people ever come close to, bcause his works transcend him - that's the nature of creative genius. Which means that some part of his own self/spirit (whatever one wishes to call it) transcended his own mammal-ness; that transcendence is communicated in the best of his works, and in turn, allows other peole to also transcend their own animal nature and feel touched by, opened up to, something deeper, higher, than the mundane squabbling and scratching and scrabbling of the daily grind.
Ahd in a way, I think that - i.e. the fact that he was a mere human - makes the achievement (of FLW and of other creative geniuses) even more impressive and precious. After all, a deity/god is, by definition, a perfect and powerful being, able to do anything with the snap of the fingers - there is no more achievement there than there is in a cow eating grass and plopping - it's just the nature of the beast. Whereas we, unlike gods, are puny mortal beings, physically unimpressive in comparison with most of the rest of the animal kingdom, baboon-like in our social maneuverings - so it's much *more* impressive, it *is* an achievement, that some mere humans can transcend themselves, if only for as long as it takes to create a thing that inspires others.
Well, sorry to blither on for such length, but hopefully that clarifies what I meant and makes more sense!
Only one person's called me that AND he was a biology teacher anyway. I'm thinking it was more a case of projection. Yeah...
He had a nice hat. Do you have a nice hat?
I don't think I do either. But I did sell a broken candy cane once. Full price.
I don't know what they might have reasonably expected. "A building by the master" "they look so nice in photographs". The bad rep may not have reached the general public.
Spray the whole thing in 4" of epoxy!
I think so, but the emphasis I'm going for here is all in that word "part".
Ah.
Gotcha.
And, whether or not FLW had to pull his pants down, he was in the building business and buildings aren't supposed to leak. No doubt your illustration was exagerated for clarity, but if you want to differentiate between legitimate criticism of a claim to greatness and a specious side argument then we have to narrow the claim.
FLW was great! Leaves us open to attacks on engineering, control-freakishness, family etc.
FLW was a great architect! Drops his family trouble but still leaves open the leaks, the control freaking, the heating (re: Robie house iirc) and all the other niggles that just should not be so numerous.
FLW had great vision/really swell sense of interior space/excellent meshing of tectonics... However we want to phrase it to essentially mean "that man's stuff rocked, shame he had trouble with it." Then we can separate out the complaints that are irrelevant.
An alternative is to bluster "well, architecture isn't about buildings that function" or "everybody makes the occaisional mistake". I don't think those cut it. The first just because it's bloody well wrong, the second IF the complaints against FLW are valid. I haven't cataloged them. For all I know, he had issues with three buildings* (out of... 700?) and the amount of noise we hear really is an example of people just trying to knock him down.
And maybe that's the contractor's fault. Or the owner for poor maintenance...
I hear it's a poor place to look at art ;-)
Speak for yourself.
The Greeks' were less than perfect or fully powerful, no?
I suspect diety has suffered from inflation a la Superman.
I wonder if "and saw that it was good" doesn't imply that "you know, it might have been mediocre but he did OK that try". ?.
"gruhn" snipped-for-privacy@deletehwb.com wrote in news:I_Btd.3$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net:
Well, in all fairness, with me, it's not really projection =:-o ! It's taken years to ease up on things. WHich is for the better because now I can actually get some things *finished* <g!>
I have a Tilley hat. Does that count? ;)
Heh, that's funny; you crack me up sometimes ;)
Serious question: would that work? I'm not very well-versed in polymer science, just know a bit ofthis and a dabble of that, but it'd be interesting to me if epoxy can actually be used that way.
True. I'm not trying to be difficult and I do see your point. At the same time, I'm lookin at it from another perspective (well I guess that's stating the obvious...) that is, I fully admit, less practical.
I also most, to be fair, admit that, re: my own dwelling, given how POed I am over the fact that the trim/molding doesn't look flush with the walls (wasn't caulked) and they it's obvious that painter's tape was not used anywhere, I'd probably pitch a bloody blue fit if I paid for a custome house and the roof leaked. I was pissed enough that we recently had a minor leak. Of course, this house also is not a work of art. A lot of what one will tolerate depends upon whether and to what extent one simply loves the thing.
IOW I see both sides of the matter - art on one side, practicality on the other. The ideal, of course, is a perfect balance of both ;) I accept tat FLW might have sacrificed some of the practical for the artistic; but I can't personally say with any authority whether that makes him a bad Architect, because I honesty don't know enough to think I can make such an assessment.
Well <ahem> yes, I guess I do tend to do that, because I'm used to dealing with people who are a lot more dense than most of the people here are. I'm far too accustomed to having to say the same thing several times in several different ways to get the point across. I didn't mean to be insulting or, what would be the word, ??uppity/superioristic?? - apologies if it came across that way - it's mainly just a bad habit :( . I'll try to be more restrained/circumspect in the future...
That's true.
Yup to all of the above. My focus/point is the third - you put it into a nutshell.
Most definitely. It's absurd. WHich is not to say that Architecture cannot be Sculptural, or that Sculpture can't be Architectural - but they are most definitely *not* identical in purpose, methods of realization, or intended/eventual use. Architecture came into existence because it was a direct response to the basic human need for shelter; it continues to exist because it fills practical human needs. TO put it another way: in the beginning, people wanted to keep their heads dry and their extremeties from getting frostbitten; once those needs were met, people began beautifying their shelters, bringing in the element of art. If the art supercedes the practical, then the thing is sculpture, not architecture. There is, tho', a large "grey area" in between the two and I think that some of FLW's work tends to exist more in that area.
I have no idea of the number of problem buildings, and I do think that logical criticism needs to look into that before a general claim (of sloppiness or incompetence or so on) can be made.
THat's something else I don't know. Contractors certainly *can* be a real problem and the most precisely-designed (in terms of engineering) structure is easily turned to a pile of junk if the contractors doing the actual construction are lazy or incompetent or simply think they can "bend the rules" and end up doing shoddy work. Which is why having a custom house built is IMO a full-time job for the customer as well as for the construction people - the customer should take part in daily quality checks, not to be a PITA but to ensure that people aren't getting sloppy.
I think it depends upon the individual. It's difficult for me to say because I went there to see the building, not the art, because I'm not a fan of most modern-abstract work (I don't see that three stripes of color is art, but that's just my personal opinion - in the end, de gustibus). What I can say is that IMO, the openness and the brightness and, for lack of a better word, the "spirit" of the building made me more amenable to looking at - or maybe a better word would be "considering" - a type of art that I generally don't like. So in that respect, I did find it a good place for viewing the pieces.
OTOH I can see how the slope of the floor might disconcert/bother some people and end up distracting them from the art. It didn't have that effect on me but it is, after all, an individual experience. I think that what one needs to do is realize that the building itself is a work of art, and take the expereince as a whole. IOW the building is not a separate thing from the art; the works and the building function (in my opinion at least) as a whole. As such, of course, some people will enjoy it, others will not.
True, but I was thinking in more modern terms. There are various aspects of what the Ancient Greeks did and thought which, if expressed today as valid social elements, are considered anathema.
I'm speaking in terms of modern hero-worship. Worship implies, or maybe even requires?, some level of deification, which by definition means that the worshipped one is seen as, or maybemore accurately, expected, to be a Perfect Being. But to be human is to be imperfect. That's closer to what I was trying to get at.
<G> Sort of how "thou shalt have no gods before me" implies the existence of multiple gods... But I don't think you want me to go there, because that's a topic I can be *very* verbose about, even *more* so than usual!, and that'd just be doggone *cruel* to y'all <L!> Plus, of course, I would be more inclined to comment if I was abe to read the actual book (i.e. the original Hebrew) rather than rely upon someone else's translation, esp. if it's that King James version. So I'll be kind and stop right there ;)
It was fun. "Hey you! You wanna buy a candy cane? Wook, they so cute wiff dey fuzzy widdle noses. And I've only got one broken one left [in a box of a dozen]..."
She bought the broken one. First candy cane I sold that day. I considered breaking another one.
Dunno. Sounds good. I'd worry first about expansion/contraction, second about deterioration. But I know nothing.
That was the first thing I ever noticed. "Hey Mark, your house is very similar to ours. I wonder why it feels like cheap crap."
Aye.
Chip told me a story of Eisenman. Has to write an article or give a little speech or something. Writes it up. It's a page. Gives it to the wife to read. "What you think?" "Pretty good." "Follow it OK and stuff?" "Yeah." Comes to her a few days later. Gives her a paper. Four pages long. She reads it. "What you think?" "What on earth is this indecipherable mess? I've no clue what you're trying to say." "Good. It's the same paper/speech/article. I rewrote it."
Though, it would be safe to argue that the statement "FLW was great!" should be taken in the context of FLW and the bloody well known idea that he was an architect and famous for that and the statement should be judged in that context and anybody dragging family or dog fancying or what have you is just being a wanker for the sake.
The only thing I've had built (toss in appropriate qualifiers to the effect of no, I didn't design the whole thing or do CA or any architecty stuff) so far was... built by the blind contractor. It's a darned shame.
I got off the bus. Chip showed up. We stood on the sidewalk for a bit. Looked at it... "Nah..." and moved on. Across the street, I think. I have this memory of having been in a bit of Central Park once in my life and that would have been the time.
Ooo oo, I know Latin. That's "The Stomach of God." Cool. Abstract Art is the Stomach of God. Shweeeeeet.
Interesting.
Been to the East Wing and the National? Pei's thingie.
I believe the complaint is that you can't get close to the work and you can't get far away from it (and maybe, that there is no still space). Oh, and the walls are kinda lame for putting flat work on. (my recollection, my understanding, what I think I've heard people say)(if we really care, it's Shirley, on the web.)
And you can watch people watching art across the helix which is ironic! Oooo <cough>.
OK, that would be neat, but I've seen it brought up more as a justification rather than a nice bonus. like so... "Why does this art gallery suck?" "Look, you can watch people over there." "But.." "Sush. People."
And we've pretty much taxed my understanding of the criticisms of it.
"gruhn" snipped-for-privacy@deletehwb.com wrote in news:YPNtd.26$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net:
A "Tilley Hat" is a hat produced by, of all things, the Tilley company <g>. The Co. was started by a fellow who had originally made his own hat for fishing because he was dissatisfied with the ones he could buy.
It's evolved, also there are now Tilley travel clothes and gear (wirnkle free, hidden pickpocket-resistant pockets, etc.), and so on. THe hat is made of heavy canvas, can endure many washings (but get a size a bit larger tan you need because they do shrink about 1/4" in the wash) and I think 3 or maybe 4 brim widths, and whatnot. They float, so if it comes off while you're fishing, you can retrieve it. I believe they might qualify as "geekwear", but hey, it keeps the top of my head from getting sunburn which is no doubt one of the indicators of 'geekwear' <L!>
Not nearly as memorable tho' as FLW's pork-pie hat of course...
Ah, go for the "you prro little thing" response! Wish I'd thought a that, heh heh
Hmm, echoes of Schultz...? Here is something terrifying: "Everything you need to know about adhesives"
formatting link
Even scarier:
formatting link
to epoxy web sites. I never would have guessed that ther is an entire subculture centered around a polymeric glue =:-o
At any rate, it seems like you're onto something re: epoxy-sealing leaky areas (in the Johnson Wax bldg and by extension, sinilar use for other buildings). I know there is an outdoor grade f silicon sealant; it is guaranteed for 20 years, and I think there is also a type that's rated for
50 years. SOmething like that might also work.
It'd be interesting to find out whether such a thing has been done. Although I'd assume there are some purists who would say "restoration, not renovation", it seems to me that leaks are not at all condusive to maintaining a building <!> and I also have the feeling that, iof FLW was still around today, he'd use wnatever was on the market that seems like a good product - IOW, epoxy or silicon + the Johnson Wax bldg doesn't seem to me to be any sort of "sacriledge".
<L!> TO be honest, I'm glad I'm not the only one.
Yeah. I would typicaly assume that the statement referred to the originality of his best ideas. But people are people and many (?most?) seem to me to be too obsessed with things that I wouldn't even think of to mention, because the aspects of a person's nature and psychology that interest me go deeper and further than it seems to go for most people.
Which is of course yet another different tome...
I think it would be downright heartbreaking. Many poeple denegrate these "children of the mind", but I do not.
Also, it's somethign I don't understand. If a person is going to spend time - devote segments fo time from their lives - to do somehting, I cannot comprehend howor why they'd be so eager and willing to do it in a crappy manner. I am not able to comprehend that. By doing things halfheartedly and shoddily, all that's left when you're gone is junk. "Anything worth doing is worth doing well". Which is one reason I have Zero patience for shoddy work. By being deiberately slapdash, the way I see it is that one inuresand denegrates and diminishesone's own spirit (or, if you eill, soul) and the value of one's own life. I don't understand why people are so eager to do that.
Not to mention that it also denegrates the work of the person for whom one is working!
I think it *can* look disconcerting from the street. OTOH, of course, different people like, and eract to, different things in different ways. For example, I think that new, what is it, Disney Center?, in LA, the one sided with titanium tiles, looks too much like my hair when I wake up from a really bad night...
Um, er.... I got it wrong then <?>, I though it ment "according to "one's) tastes"... I dunno Latin, just a couple of phrases...
Or maybe you're thinking "Dei gustibus"...? THo' I thought the grammatical form would be different - well great, *another* thing to worry about ;)
No =:-( As close as I used to live to D.C., I only got there twice, prowled the Smithsonian. I'd like to see the monuments, tho', and the new American Indian museum that should eb fascinating.
Can't get close? Maybe they've roped it off - it *was*, what, 1969?, when I was there. Then, you could get nose-to-canvas. Maybe they've had to put up guard rails. Distance is difficult, tho' - I can't recall the width of theramp, but the size *is* better suited to average-size or smaller works. The larger Museum of Modern Art was (and I assume still is) much more amenable to the viewing of large works.
I think that just depends upon one's perspective/attitude. And if a person goes in with the preconception that they'll hate it, then they'll hate it.
In fact, one interesting notion (well, niteresting to me) is the idea of creating stand-alone/self-supporting supports for artwork, some with backing and some without, where one type of backing is something like a half-barrel. Of the artwork is supported in a certain way, it'd appear to float there in the space. One of my projects is, in fact, to design something like that, so as to avoid putting a lot of holes in walls, but they'd require a large area or they'd take up the whole room.
So I don't understand why a curved wall (not all that unusual a feature in the genre of notable modern architecture, and some very old (Medieval et al) architecture also) would be seen as lame for mounting artwork. I don't think that's at all true. But that's of course my own personal view/taste...
Well, yeah ;) I makes it more of a communal action, in a way. Something shared across that open expanse of Light...
Hmm, maybe a lot of people prefer to always expereince art in provate, in their own little bubble. The reason that strikes me as odd is that I'm considered to be extremely anti-social by most people. So go figure...
In the end, you can read 100 volumes of critiques and pros and cons and descriptions and whatnot, but none of that is like being able to experience something for yourself ;) In the end, that is (or at least should be!) each individual person's ultimate critique.
It's like when I got to visit Wingspread (was invited to a week-long State Dep.t seminar thre) - this low structure that barely rises higher than the earth, low entryway, and then - then spacetime itself warps, inverts, dare I say, sings, as you're suddenly transported tembling and trying to not show it, into this glorious space filled water-like with golden light, emblazoned with forms that are like the crystal lattice of some precious gemstone. Nothing had prepared me for the actual expereince of it. And after experiencing it, nothing I read could, or can, change that moment - all criticism becomes irrelevant, because the moment is forever alive in my mind and heart.
That IMO is what True Architecture is about - Art. True Art doesn't just chatter inanely at you - it shoots a bolt of electricity into the core of your being, it takes your breath away, makes you tremble with the intense directness of its communication, picks you up and shakes you until you realize that Life itself is an epiphany.
...Either that, or I have some gland in my brain that produces an LSD-type of substance =8-O !!!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.