daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 7th, 2010, 06:59 PM   #21
Cyrus
Persian King of Kings
 
Cyrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tehran
Posts: 1,600
Likes (Received): 1883

A building can be simply beautiful, like a house in Kashan:

__________________
Zarathustra: Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds

All Empires For History Lovers!
Founder and Administrator
Cyrus está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 7th, 2010, 07:34 PM   #22
heywindup
BÄNNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: █♣█
Posts: 732
Likes (Received): 6

No. The more over-the-top complicated it looks, the better.

heywindup no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 7th, 2010, 09:31 PM   #23
heywindup
BÄNNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: █♣█
Posts: 732
Likes (Received): 6

On second thought, it can if done right:

heywindup no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 7th, 2010, 10:45 PM   #24
WAMdotORG
Creator + Founder, WAM
 
WAMdotORG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8
Likes (Received): 0

Yes, simplicity can be (and is inherently) beautiful, but that ultimately depends on the mind of the individual. There is a duality here that makes this conversation quite intriguing; without the other, each concept (simplicity and complexity) is without appreciation. The best designs are the ones that carry their concept through to the detail, be it complex or simple. That being said, achieving a simplistic result that carries through to the tectonics of construction requires more effort, because there is less to respond to, so each constituent part requires a more thoughtful placement and design to achieve the same result.

Personally, I prefer simplistic and pure designs (like the work of SANAA and Felix Candela), but there is an inherent beauty to both approaches. The work of Norman Foster (another favorite of mine) can be seen as complex tectonics that achieve a simple overall design statement.
__________________
The World Architecture Map (WAM)
www.worldarchitecturemap.org
WAMdotORG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2010, 03:29 AM   #25
shabangabang
Why Try Harder
 
shabangabang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Location Location
Posts: 1,407
Likes (Received): 660

I think simple can be beautiful if done right. If there are no striking patterns or complicated structures then all the attention is drawn to the structure as a whole.
The example given of 7WTC is a brilliant example of a simple design finished to perfection.
shabangabang no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2010, 08:25 PM   #26
Concrete Stereo
Registered User
 
Concrete Stereo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 1,601
Likes (Received): 602

I'm not sure if I feel like going into this discussion.

Complexity isn't inherently beautiful, neither is simplicity. Beauty lies in purpusefulness and wellcraftedness. The Trevi Fountain really is a fairly simple design, with very worked details. But so is the Barcelona Pavillion of Mies van der Rohe.

Minimal formalism rarely makes minimal architecture, it is mostly combined with very rich materials, textures, space and light, and very well crafted details. Which is in itself -obviously - as ornamental as baroque ornaments. On the other hand, baroque - in all it's expressionism - will always work from a very minimal and rhythmical backdrop, to create 'white-space' for well seperated and purposefully ornamentend elements (doors, windowframes, arcades, etc).

As an architect, there really isn't much difference between using a calmly materialized wall, treating the windows and doors like pictures in a well worked frame, and on the other hand a very delicately materialized wall with the windows and doors as no more than openings in the material of the wall. Both tricks are used in the same building.

Let's put some references, and you can judge. Then again: please note that not every building is the Louvre - a building has the monumentalism that fits it's role in the city. A Amsterdam Canal house is extremely simple and sobre - even though it is a palace - if compared to the opera, because if it was not, the owner of the house would be ridiculed for being incredibly uncultivated.



The most famous icon of minimalism: Barcelona Pavillion by Mies van der Rohe. Very minimal in formal language, but incredibly expressive and ornamental in everything else (material, dramitic spacial relations and in light, the use of art, reflection, lines)

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr



Herzug & de Meuron, Caixa Forum Madrid: Example of the two ornaments at the same time. Where the old building used the neutral backdrop with the window as picture frame, H&dM used this wall with the closed windows a expressive architecture texture, with unaccented windows. Also the top part is pure minimal materialism, but is nevertheless very ornamented.

image hosted on flickr



Peter Zumtor, the Godfather of the new minimalism has - like Mies van der Rohe had - the most feeling for material of all architects of this time. Materials are often specifically developed for his buildings, and the details are worked into perfectionism. His buildings actually use a combination of the 'classic' windows as elements and 'modern' windows as holes.

Vals:
image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr






Köln:







David Chipperfield







Luis Barragan







Valerio Olgiati





In the end, there really isn't much difference between the 'simplicity' of David Chipperfield and the expressionism of Boroque. To the extend that the last built project of David Chipperfield was to rebuild an arm of the Neues Museum in Berlin that you won't even notice at first sight.

Last edited by Concrete Stereo; April 8th, 2010 at 09:52 PM.
Concrete Stereo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2010, 09:49 PM   #27
EvilCapitalist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 15
Likes (Received): 1

Excuse me, but the idiocy in this thread is incredible. If you can't appreciate minimalism and modernism, I can safely say that you are artistically illiterate.
EvilCapitalist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2010, 05:07 PM   #28
dark_shadow1
arctic tern
 
dark_shadow1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,093
Likes (Received): 510

dark_shadow1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2010, 05:57 PM   #29
Concrete Stereo
Registered User
 
Concrete Stereo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lyon
Posts: 1,601
Likes (Received): 602

where is it? Very pretty!

It reminds me of Louis Khan's Salk Institute

Concrete Stereo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2010, 07:40 PM   #30
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,281
Likes (Received): 57968

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCapitalist View Post
Excuse me, but the idiocy in this thread is incredible. If you can't appreciate minimalism and modernism, I can safely say that you are artistically illiterate.
Congratulations for getting awarded with "most idiotic comment of the week"
Go get some!
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2010, 10:38 PM   #31
dark_shadow1
arctic tern
 
dark_shadow1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,093
Likes (Received): 510

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concrete Stereo View Post
where is it? Very pretty!

It reminds me of Louis Khan's Salk Institute
It's a part of Israel's Supreme Court.
dark_shadow1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2010, 03:00 AM   #32
EvilCapitalist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 15
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
Congratulations for getting awarded with "most idiotic comment of the week"
Go get some!
The irony of this comment is simply sickening... Anyways...

Before anyone gets the wrong impression, I appreciate ornament, but it is certainly not the only way to express a structure. Art is certainly based on opinion and I respect anyone's opinion on such a subjective matter, but when people make gigantic, broad-stroke comments on entire styles, such as many of the people in this thread, I take umbrage. To say that all "simple" buildings are ugly is to equally heinous as to say that all ornamented buildings are beautiful.

An opinion is an opinion, but some participants in this thread have revealed that they are incapable of enjoying any part of vast, varied volumes of work that have been worked on by thousands of people based on preconceived notions. To be incapable of understanding is to be illiterate. I stand by my original post.
EvilCapitalist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2010, 03:58 AM   #33
JmB & Co.
Registered User
 
JmB & Co.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 3,614
Likes (Received): 461

Quote:
Originally Posted by goschio View Post
Postmodernism and Art Deco are my favorite modern styles. I really like geometry and harmony in buildings.

Look at this. Simple but beautiful.

Dude, thats not "SIMPLE"! Its an ornamented Art deco building.
__________________
LeitoStafe liked this post
JmB & Co. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2010, 07:21 PM   #34
heywindup
BÄNNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: █♣█
Posts: 732
Likes (Received): 6

Does anyone actually consider this "beautiful"?

heywindup no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2010, 07:48 PM   #35
hugh
Registered User
 
hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,731
Likes (Received): 1227

'Can simple be beautiful?' - the question is ridiculous.
hugh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2010, 07:51 PM   #36
RavenSS
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7
Likes (Received): 0

--Deleted--

Last edited by erbse; April 14th, 2010 at 08:36 PM.
RavenSS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2010, 12:44 AM   #37
Iluminat
Redsigert User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,459
Likes (Received): 4542

Quote:
Originally Posted by heywindup View Post
Does anyone actually consider this "beautiful"?

I would say it's interesting or even "cool", unlike most boring buildings you see all the time. Brutalist buildings might be not beautiful in traditional sense, in a way they're like a protest to this kind of "cute" aesthetics, they are dissymetric on purpose but in a way also more classical than modernism with all this complicated concrete detail, often unpractical etc. It was one of the most fascinating styles in architecture, not necessarily beautiful but architecture doesn't have to be beautiful.
Iluminat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2010, 03:38 AM   #38
Wey
Recursive
 
Wey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: São Paulo/Uberlândia
Posts: 11,170
Likes (Received): 1593

As far as I'm concerned, simples IS beautiful. They're too sides of the same thing.
__________________
1 ∀x∀y[∀z(z∈x⇔z∈y)⇒x=y] ____2 ∀x[∃a(a∈x)⇒∃y(y∈x∧¬∃z(z∈y∧z∈x))] ____3 ∀x∀w_1∀w_2...∀w_n∃y∀x[x∈y⇔(x∈z∧∅)]
4 ∀x∀y∃z(x∈z∧y∈z) ____5 ∀F∃A∀Y∀x[(x∈Y∧Y∈F)⇒x∈A] ____6 ∀x∀w_1∀w_2...∀w_n[∀x(x∈A⇒∃!y∅)⇒∃B∀x(x∈A⇒∃y(y∈B∧∅))]
7 ∃X[∅∈X∧∀y(y∈X⇒S(y)∈X)] ____8 ∀x∃Q(x)∀z[z⊆x⇒z∈Q(x)] ____9 ∀X∃R(R well-orders X)
10 V=ULTIMATE L
Wey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2010, 04:25 AM   #39
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Simple is not the same as bland.
Simple is note the same as lack of detail.

Complex is not the same as detailed.
Ornate is not the same as beautiful.

Brutalist modern buildings, such as Boston's City Hall, are anything BUT simple. The Great Pyramid is anything but complex.
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2010, 05:58 AM   #40
Gated
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 16
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship View Post
Simple is not the same as bland.
Simple is note the same as lack of detail.

Complex is not the same as detailed.
Ornate is not the same as beautiful.

Brutalist modern buildings, such as Boston's City Hall, are anything BUT simple. The Great Pyramid is anything but complex.
Why necessary?

Last edited by erbse; April 14th, 2010 at 08:36 PM.
Gated no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
modern architecture

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu