Message - Re: Utzon + Gaudi

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

Posted by  Manuel Oliveros on February 03, 2003 at 10:35:38:

In Reply to:  Utzon + Gaudi posted by Eoghan Lewis on February 02, 2003 at 22:53:40:

I am not knowledgeable enough on Utzon's (I take your word) but Gaudi has such extreme interest in structure.

It was quite proper for the era, maybe a (more?) experimental extension of the approach of Viollet le Duc.

Many other architects had in the past, and even today such thing in mind. Some mostly because they have of necessity to think in the structure, and then they become accustomed to acknowledge its big influence in design and its utility to order architecture and facilitate expression.

Now, the art of structural design is being shelled-out more and more from the work of architects. I always having had serious interest in the structural design of buildings, of which I have had liably to care upon our legal obligation here, can easily detect this.

This is partly outcome of specialization, or at least of the specific way of organization our ways of building are begetting. One can see that for even the more elemental design of a simply supported beam, many times an individual called even by law an architect has to resource to some structural designer. I frankly see this as unbearable loss. This is more loss to architecture than one orbiter to space effort.

Architects need be properly trained in structures, because there's no way of devising a proper architecture without a link to how it is structured. The present tendence to shell-out everything but design I see in more than a cause of losing work and jobs also loss of identity. Shelling-out everything else, only the shell remains, and then it is no wonder we see more and more nice 3D drawings with lots of shell things over there, transparent,. opaque, roof or whatever, that hold behind or under some to any understanding an entirely unrelated set of spaces or rooms. The architecture has become the shell, and I don't see how this can be less harmful to architecture than architecture be just the structure.

Architecture is more than both, more than a roof, and it is proper to so act in practice, with consideration to everyting that is there, and along time.

Then, to compare architects separate in time may be interesting, as it is intellective sport... Yet I think one may in the end derive more consequences of such comparison to the psychological behaviour of architects than for the practice of our art.

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/25261.html