Originally Posted by lofter1
Next thing we know you'll be starting a post:
"When I was a child during the reign of Catherine the Great ..."
Now that's mean.
For the kiddies: he's refering to by Broadway vehicle "Catherine Was Great".
Not my fault that tap dancing and Imperial Russia did not mix.
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda.... indeed.
"
Well, I'm ancient, but I guess I don't go as far back as Fabrizio.
The earliest critique of Modernism that I can recall is Mon Oncle, in which Jacques Tati sends his recurring character, Monsieur Hulot, off to visit his materialistic, technology-driven sister.
Mean? Me ???
Didn't anyone ever tell you NOT to look straight into the camera during a photo call?
btw: Tell us all about Mae. Gotta be some stories there
And talk about Great -- your little head dress is way beyond.
Modernism and me... we go way back. I was the one who told Mies van der Rohe, "Don't worry Ludwig... in your case, less is more".
He never gave me credit for that.
The point is that architectural styles and movements don't happen in a vacuum... you have to consider the bigger picture.
I was called out in another thread as being in a time warp or whatever. Oh well... that's how this is viewed by some.
Understanding (or at least trying to understand) how we got to where we are today... the bigger picture... is endlessly fascinating to me.
And that means studying the popular culture of the day. It might mean the 20s... the 30s... or 1967....
Trivial camp.... or a key to understanding our society? It depends on the context and what your intentions are. Personally I believe the study will make you sharper in understanding the present.
Also, it has always been an integral part of my work, in one way or another. At the moment I'm working on a project that involves the Victorian era and it means pouring over photographs: I'm enjoying every minute of it.
--
Last edited by Fabrizio; July 6th, 2009 at 03:48 PM.
^ I'm with you. I love having enough knowledge of styles, pop culture, history, ect. to be able to look at a picture and say, "oh, that's so 1963," and be absolutely right... understanding the zeitgeist of each moment in time and how one moment leads to another is for me, just like Fab, endlessly fascinating.
Here's another Ghosts of 29 sketch I did:
Last edited by RandySavage; July 11th, 2009 at 01:17 AM.
Paris what?
The recent exhibition of Frank Lloyd Wright's work at the Guggenheim included his Steel Catherdral proposal, which would have been over 2000 feet tall.
http://www.dezeen.com/2009/04/21/fra...enheim-museum/
Having some fun with what should have gone up in the 1950s/60s rather than international boxes...
^ The TRUE Modernism!
I think that many of the buildings from the 50's and 60's are really beautiful. Their shapes are often intricate with all of the setbacks, etc. The problem is that many of them are maintained poorly, and they look lousy as a result. If their white brick were cleaned, and their windows were replaced, they'd look nice.
if only
Very nice selection, if only modernism hadn't knocked down so many gems and cut off the potential of a fuller realized fantasy metropolis.Having some fun with what should have gone up in the 1950s/60s rather than international boxes...
Is that the Daily Planet building in the middle of the bottom row?
A heightened version of it, yes.
I meant an imaginary situation where the high sq-ft office towers post 1940 were tall, slender, ornamented towers rather than squat blocks. I can appreciate Seagram and Socony-Mobil (and 1ChaseManhattanPlaza if it were located elsewhere), but I can't see much worthwhile in the vast majority.
A two year old with blocks routinely builds models more intricate than this smattering of 50s-60s downtown junk:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks