Posted by Paul Malo on April 25, 2002 at 06:27:07:In Reply to: ArchWeek - Case Study: The Eames House posted by Kevin Matthews on April 24, 2002 at 20:53:29:
By coincidence (since just posting an adjoining reference to "good" versus "interesting" architecture) the Eames house has become a modern classic, as "good" work--not "interesting" in the sense of being shocking or remarkably different. It never was. The house was fairly "ordinary" when built (I remember), noted only slightly for it's industrial/whimsical aesthetic (very Eames). As I recall, up to this time, the Bauhaus manifesto was dreadfully earnest, almost religiously ascetic. High modernists regarded industrial products with solemn reverence. Theirs was a Germanic Sachlichkeit .
Charles and Ray Eames were witty, lighthearted designers and built a house embued with human charm, oddly assembled with industrially produced components. This probably was its principle impact. The building, devoid of its contents, may not fully convey this character. The Eames loved toys, for example, and folk art--they put a very personal stamp on the place.
The building itself is not capricious whimsy, however, but is highly rational and disciplined--in a word, "classical" It's really Miesian, in this sense, and has been a great example of how
classicism does not requre an augustly formal way of life.
|
ArchitectureWeek
Search
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|