Message - Re: Azimuths of the Parthenon

    Responses | Architecture Forum | Architecture Students | Architecture Scrapbook | ArchitectureWeek    

Posted by  Manuel Oliveros on December 16, 2002 at 09:31:11:

In Reply to:  Re: Azimuths of the Parthenon posted by Per Corell on December 15, 2002 at 10:36:27:

Again I find amusing you use an intersection of a classical statue container with your "sheets on pins" basic material to argue against romans. Romans inherited many things of greek culture, and you inherit your "sheets on pins" from previously available concepts. In short, Per ... I see your promotion od CAD tools and honeycomb structures valid. In the CAD aspect except for the older architects most likely you won't be taken as herald, for all know about the beautiful and astounding help that CAD is doing for them, and they expect to ger even more (time passing). Even your direct use for design and concept is used by many, some software developers having been acutely aware of the advantages of, say, the convenience of implementations that contemplate the buildability of things, say, mechanical services unto the building.

On the other hand these CAD tools are not at all producing always the general positive effects in architecture and construction that you look to surmise. Mean is not the message, or there wouldn't be two different words. Lots of these early CAD based works are likely to fall from the start (if they reach the built status) as patently kitsch.

Respect honeycomb structures I showed you my support for this as one possibility more nad interesting for some circumnstances. The fact of the majority of architects not using then extensively show inmaturity in the technology for the particular application of making buildings, and at most considering it as me only an alternative between others.

As an example, projected concrete is close to heets of your honeycombed structures if only in adaptability to some surface. Even this already old technology is used sparsely and most likely when it is the logical choice, sometimes the best, and sometimes the sole one under some terms. Have you ever read of the law of The Good Shape? Amorphous shapes are not those preferred by homo sapiens. He discerns in himself symmetry and organization, observes it as well in intelligent nature, and maybe extrapolates it be a valuable featrue for his designs. Hence it is unlikely the more amorphous things gain the appreciation of the majority of humans ... this may be adversarial to the triumph of your seemingly preferred way of attacking construction.

You can as well see "romans" (western designers? --- methinks no, eastern also do these things) using sponge or honeycombed structures in aircraft destined to the more various purposes. So they are not themselves foes to your ways, only more willing to consider the other standing alternatives.

ArchitectureWeek     Search     Buildings     Architects     Types     Places     Pix     Free 3D Models     Store     Library

Search by name of Building, Architect, or Place:   
Examples:  "Fallingwater",  "Wright",  "Paris"           Advanced Search


Post a Response -



This is an archive page. Please post continuing discussion to the new Architecture Forums.

To post successfully to the new membership-based DesignCommunity Forums:

    1) Go to the new forums area.
    2) Register with a valid email address.
    3) Receive and respond to the confirmation email.
    4) Then login to the new forum system.


Special thanks to our Sustaining Subscribers including .

Home | Great Buildings | CAD Outpost | DesignWorkshop | Free 3D | Gallery | Search | ArchitectureWeek
This document is provided for on-line viewing only. /discussion/24227.html