Posted by Manuel Oliveros on February 01, 2001 at 11:28:04:In Reply to: Re: parliaments and people posted by steward on February 01, 2001 at 02:25:09:
Well, I am a bit worked, but I esteem myself still not at the cynical point, that anyway I understand some will feel fits me well. I try to appraise the things as they are -me looking- without much consideration for prevailing paradigms, and so some things I have to deal with acidly. For example, independently of the magnitude and care of the australian parliament, it always looked for me quite void, evn formally. I am exacting on my tastes, and even being much difficult to get thengs well done anywhere, and so being feat merely attaining so, many of these things (in Spain with autonomies we see in the TV lots of such reunion rooms) are architecturally and decoratively distasteful; the feeling of sharing asked for by seteward is overally absent and, sincerely, I don't feel many of the public buildings and between them parliaments are telling much nor architecturally nor socially; even the Germany works of illustrious architect seems to me so. The Predock things a bit below quoted, may be are as well somewhat gratuite, buat at least I think them be architecturally more valid statements. Perfection (even unattainable) is always far, and for an architect I think well built and even dear buildings, even when closely paradigmatic typologically, are still below the mark of good architecture. What it is not to say the particular architect is not able to do better or has not done much, once considered the particular circumnstances of the case.
|
ArchitectureWeek
Search
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Store
Books
Library
|