Architectural History

[JonBailey]

Everyday we are in contact with architectural history. There is no way to escape this history, since it is right there in our faces. There is also no way to escape the inventions that it has taken for us to get where we are. Why is it so important to look to the past when we should be looking to the future?

Should we study architectural history?
How important do you think it is that we study architectural history?

[Antisthenes]

as how not to copy to repeat the same unsustainable mistakes

[P.C.]

Guess that's all you can emagine ; that we reinvent Brutalism like we reinvented all major .ism's once again --- becaurse now computers are engaged aiding the vorn out technikes barely allowed to ast as support for outdated fabrication, all what we allow computers are to do things as like they allway's been made ; then I understand your vorry, and that's how it is , isn't it ?

Reinvent the dome structures the same math, this time just by computers doing 3D calculations by a number of 2D calculations and then stay there ---- newer allow newthinking it's a treath towards academica where rather robbery and criminals get the support --- try me, I dare you !

[ahmeds]

I think architectural history should be there for it is something that gathers important information pertaining to architecture. there is no question of doing away with it, since as a profession architecture should have it's evolution recorded.
This is obviously will not only remind us of the past, but also give us the picture of great architects who contributed alot to architecture from pre-modern era, modern era and post modern era to date.
Archietects like Le Courbuse, Alvar Aalto and others did alot to be admired. (see their works).
By studying architectural history we are not reinventing ism,as

P.C said
that we reinvent Brutalism like we reinvented all major .ism's

That was past with different, time, minds, and technology, and this is present advancing technologically, and with very new ways of thinking thus going back to Brutalism is not a good expression or rather proper term. All -ism eras are still remembered and also gives us a chance to classify architecture in those periods. (Modrenism, structuralism,expressionism,brutalism,minimalism,deconstructivism,post modernism)
Architectural historians are there to mark not only important people to and in architecture but also turning points of development in architecture. As a noble profession architecture should be valued for it's past, present and future. And to achieve that ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY SHOULD BE THERE.

[P.C.]

Offcaurse, but my problem with this is when history fill up more than it's supposed to, and realy for the past 30 years most of what "happened" in architecture , has been reinventing ---- in fact there shuldn't be anything wrong with that, as history uncover many nice things but, it also is easier to re-invent than to invent. Re-inventing is a strong oppoment while all the foults and wrongs has been eliminated , so a fresh newthinking, unfinished totaly different agenda have a lot against it , and what fight it is "we know how a house is build" m and " do you realy think you are so much more clever than all these old hero's ?" .

What I say is that furture , as unpopular it is with all it's computers and new way's to engage the structure, allready has a lot against it, and it is much easier to become inspired by some old spam book, than to put the efford and newthinking into it --- and as you see in these fora's the old has a harsh language, bad manners and a protectivism attitude that soon turn the new visions into attacks on the settled and safe seats.

[P.C.]

My experience you see, is that "the old" beside the harsh language and bad manners of it's fan's , also newer are able to allow any new, --- in architecture history there are particular hero's , and even if you with a thruout knowleage are able to point to particular troubles and drawbacks , issues that work bad with today's production, way's to engage the structure that is a backlash towerds the very newthinking that fakely are praised , becaurse fact is, that beside the lazy copyism, then protectivism and academic arogance, is in fact what fill most in architecture history.

------- The old do not leave much , if any, space for newthinking or a new architecture. And the reson for that , well that reson people like I know more about , living it thru, reciving all the dirty mails reading all the silli hate mails that deal more with personal attacks, than those issues of a new architecture.

So please allow me my mistrust in re-inventing, as that is what you see while it is so much more easy than newthinking.

[ahmeds]

Seeking way forward reinventing serves as a bridge to inventing. New ideas are always borned from the old. But herein we are not looking at re inventing as a whole,any of the past era. I understood you, but turn to say also i think you are also against architectural historians,
At no time will the world return to industrial revolution where modern architecture came into being, or any ism era. We are left by re inventing and inventing slowly. And the turn for new invention will come slolwly,and that too will be recorded in history.
Usrender is attempting to express his views and visions about future,should this succeed, it will be another history in architecture, another era to be talked about in future. We are talking about the importance of architectural history/historians. I don't know any harsh language and manners of old admirers, just what I understand there are differences between conservation and development. Where one is keeping the old, and the other opposes that.
I am not against any form of architecture or anyone, but just express my views. I studied conservation and finds that it is very intresting, and besides that I am not opposed to any development or whatsover.

[P.C.]

Historians that's aææroght for me, please don't confuse my mistrust to cover science, where I know the danger, is where the right words is reconised but the sight of understanding, the ability to reconise the obvious seem to be either lost or copypaste for the particular occation.
I read about an army of skilled and clever craftsmen and engineers, a dusind of architects on top ; only to produce a misunderstood unikum of a clumpsy vaste of splindred plywood, attemting a 3dh structure, but acting all wrongs ; yet. it seem no one even has a clue about how to put two planks togethern and realy --- I do find my pavilion , the way I pronounced the 3D honeycomb framework, quite a bit more knowleable , than that army of dutch and english CAD specialists, that could produce such a piece of uninspired junk a laugh.

There it's possitive allright, when historians find the original 3dh on the web, find the fraudsm point to the clowns, and tell what thivery mean for working artists.

[ahmeds]

P.C. said
There it's possitive allright, when historians find the original 3dh on the web, find the fraudsm point to the clowns, and tell what thivery mean for working artists.

that's right.

So Arch historians have a role.

[P.C.]

Oh , but there are a great difference being a writer for one of these architecture magazins where gloss pictures made from obscure angles , Fat words spinning a text with trompets and violins --- and being a serious working arts historians. I guess today's historics are faced with huge challances digging thru the spetacular words, the horn fanfare, and the gloss pictures omiting everything of weight and importance, all those fat words ; I know I would not survive writing just one paper about just any of today's spatakulokums .
Also about 3dh I pity the ones who must dig thru dull Usenet groups, to find out that it was published first in this or that group in 1998 --- I know the posts are there , but poor soul who has to analyse the slimy responses from the Evil Clown and all his "friends" in alt architecture, alt cad or where ever these high grade technic specialists frequented during the Usenet wars.

Anyway --- welcome to the web world of various arts , I apriciate anyone who has the nerve to go here, but true, a bit method and simple things such as checking the dates where artworks are published, will tell a lot about where the architectural pets , get their famous new idears.

[djswan]

We are all standing on shoulders to see ahead.

Some things appear to have "worked" in the past. Grab a shovel and find out for yourself. Dig up some historic architecture, you might find a wheel.

[P.C.]

"We are all standing on shoulders to see ahead. "

Well I think we all know the unique, the totaly different ,and there has been a few artists qho maneaged to build a house in a different way. --- it is no natural law, that "we" has to stand on shoulders as you say, there are great in fact collosal examples that the real changes is not only allowed in small steps , not at all. And it is a bad argument against a great vision, that it is not develobed in the way "we" agrea, great new idears just has to surface.

And yes I also had that kind of arguments against 3dh ; that it is not develobed this or that settled way, and therefor wrong, as all progress all develobment has to and is only allowed this particular way. How can that be a nature law, when the core thing, new thinking, is unique is not a thing that grow in groups, but allway's was just like 3dh , what one designer destilled.

[djswan]

I understand what your saying PC.

I transfered a whole bunch of historical architecture knowledge into reality. Building things that all known senses can register. They exist. I made history in three dimensions. Somebody can grab a shovel and dig up my work someday. What is the language of architecture? What sense should I use to hear or speak it? I should have spoke a few more words with an adze. I never got good at that. It's kinda scary.

I can't afford to play around in computer world, with spam to feed every morning. BUT I can't afford not too either. and so I learn.

It is easier to dig up history on the computer, just ask.
Ever snuck into a barn? or an old haunted house? or and old ships hull?

History usually answer my questions of the future.

[P.C.]

Yes I very much see today's architecture -- the architecture that is the pet of the thirsty magazin journalists , is just the result of preditors traveling the web for an easy pray ; I think I notised that with 3dh.
What I notised are that those thives forgot to rob one very important thing, the understanding if the system , how it's potential is not to exchoust the architecture critics into licking the ground under the thives feets , the very vision the core understanding that is left behind, when 3dh's pattern are used as Decor, ---- strange how many buildings with this particular pattern in the surface ejected after I poored a few hundred examples of 3dh structure on to the web. ------- Offcaurse what I hopeed was not for historics to dig up the fact that what these "grandious" architexts and architect firms was doing, was to rob the bread from the mouth of the real artists , Offcaurse not, but if you ever been robbed you wull understand my feelings towerds particular persons towerds particular firms --- and that I ensyre you are quite natural feelings.
Offcaurse it also ment that you can not find any newer drawings from my hand on the web, except those offcaurse in Silver Screen Galleri where I allready invented a great new paint method ---- but what I like to ask you, is if you think someone who can produce these pictures ,who spended a decade to figure out the computer from the bottom with no resons to brag but only exiting results to share , is to be what those preditors are allowed to rob ,

Well I seen it in this fora, where becaurse someone think one of his old hero's made something that at distance , has a slight lookalike , --- then becaurse Per Corell "think he is someone" , then the same person allow the thivery and say not one single word to back up a fellow designer --- The fact that these things are "allowed" and fat old men can stay in their safe seats while the real artist are robbed the bread from his mouth, that sort of things is overly represented in these treads, and as I am not allowed my credit, the least I can do, is to make hell even hotter and stop sharing great idears ; --- in this fora and others we seen what happen.

Recently at Archinect.com I had the "Pleasure" of reciving four dirty private mails from a guy who hide behind the name Beta3 ; now as I told I am now well known as a skilled painter and my works is very popular -- guess you understand why I change to painting, after my experience with sharing 3dh, --- but this Beta3 litteraly thew a bucket of dirt, and I mean Dirt, into the tread where I present my new paintings ; needless to say that at that site, the double agenda also are that there are "fine" architects, and it is a crime to just mention if they robbed a poor artist his work, ---- so to make sure everyone who would see my name would think about the dirt these fine architects who frequent the Archinect.com site from the start been allowed to throw --- these things is offcaurse what I hoe future historians will dig up ; the "hero's that safe covered by a fake nich name, are allowed to throw dirt into an artist that the staff allready cencur , how architecture on the web has been taken over by dirt throwing hill Billy's and how the "fine" staff allow these things --- think about it ; the result of the fighting 3dh even before they understood it, only made it a public festival to post dirty mails and deliver buckets of littery dirt for Per Corell.

Thank You to all those here, --- and that be the majority, -- who want that sort of architecture, you did it now you must be glad ?

[ahmeds]

How important do you think it is that we study architectural history?JonBailey

I am not a historian and thus may not reply your question accurately, but may either attempt or give what I know as per my observation.
History has a history of itself, on how it came into being. and that ( history) is as i can describe - to gather current facts and information that will be transfered from generation to generation for the purpose of knowing the past.
basically the importance of studying history is to get picture of the past, know how things went and worked too. To be informed about achivements and failures that crossed through this world.
If we talk Architectural history, obviously it is a subject that has helped to the growth of architecture and also helps to shape the future of this noble profession. we know all what architecture went through and how the past great architects contibuted to architecture eg by invention of designs, materials, finishings and etc.