Quote:
Originally Posted by Baronvonellis
Lol, your comparing the worst amateur photo of a building to close up shots of buildings from professional design catalogs.
|
im really not. i scoured google and honestly none of them are remotely flattering. its a big, hulking, bureaucratic looking building. hell, i even have a bit of a fondness for old big hulking bureaucratic buildings from that particular era. if you think Tsien's designs are "oppressive" and what you posted isnt, i think we're talking two completely different languages because i honestly have zero clue where your head is at and you appear to be simply applying random descriptions to random buildings that youre pulling out of a hat. you seem to gravitate towards outward symbology...coats of arms, statues, big ass giant seals, taperstries and murals. those things are fine in certain situations, but they do not somehow equal good architecture, nor are they in any way necessary for it.
Quote:
|
Those buildings don't inspire me, they are bland and dull. They strip out all decorative elements and human culture and leave you with weird random shapes. I'm talking about buildings that bring humanity and culture.
|
who said the shapes are random? how are they any more or less random than a "classic", formally structured building? in fact, their designs are in no way some Gehry mess of shredded steel and twisted canopies. in most cases theyre simply rectangles, which you claim to profess some love for.
Quote:
What does this one say about human culture?
https://cooper.edu/sites/default/fil...ning-Zhang.jpg
It could be in a suburb of Chicago, Cleveland, Taiwan, it happens to be in Mumbai. It's a building of nowhere and says nothing, it's blank and dehumanizing. It looks like a borg cube.
|
what does a "Chicago" building look like compared to a Cleveland building vs a Minneapolis building vs a NY building? woodrow already summed this up.
what that building says is that it respects its surrounding, is conscious of them, and that its intended purpose is not to stand out screaming "look at me!". it says, the important thing is the landscape and how that building fits into it without being rude or intruding. and if you take the time to actually think about it, that says a lot about the architect's view of culture and the way they choose to approach design.
what does a Rothko painting say? well, thats up for you to decide. but that doesnt mean it isnt saying something. the answer is simply coming from within.
if you dont like minimalism, hey thats fine. but i do find it endlessly hilarious youre singling out whats very clearly a maximalist building as your example of what would be appropriate for a contemplative park setting.
is this "dehumanizing" too?
https://minimalplan.files.wordpress....r-1k.jpg?w=584
yeah i dont think so.
basically Williams/Tsien buildings are like an Ozu or a Tarkovsky and you seem to want a George Lucas