Subject: Re: Pomo architecture

From: [email-masked] (George A. Gleason)
Date: 23 Jul 1995 07:43:09 GMT

Re. r kamins' item, "where are the people with the guts and vision to build
great
buildings, style be damned?  that's what we lack, not architects who
can think of great things, but people who demand them. "

What we lack is banks which will *fund* them.  Anything unconventional is a
greater risk in terms of its commodity value, in a society where all other
values are sublimated to commodity.  It's easier to put lowest-common-
denominator drek into play in the speculative real estate market, because
it's all been done before, than it is to count on the future sale of
something innovative & imaginative.

If we had something like an equitable distribution of wealth and the kind of
middle-class security which characterised the late 1950s to late 60s, there
would be more money in circulation to do wild things with.  At present
what's needed would be something like a cooperative / entrepreneurial bank r
(or) credit union with some creative ideas about using its capital.

---

From: [email-masked] (Gordon Fitch)
Date: 23 Jul 1995 13:17:02 -0400

[email-masked] (George A. Gleason):
| Re. r kamins' item, "where are the people with the guts and vision to build
| great
| buildings, style be damned?  that's what we lack, not architects who
| can think of great things, but people who demand them. "
| 
| What we lack is banks which will *fund* them.  ...

Hey, I'll make my point again.  Different words.

There are, indeed, wealthy people with guts and vision who
have paid for strikingly beautiful buildings -- at least, I
like them.  But wealthy people, although they have more
money, are otherwise pretty much like _hoi_polloi_: a lot of
them are unimaginative, dumb, overcautious, dead between the
ears, etc. etc. etc.

Including bankers, George.

What I would like to see is architects who will take
smaller commissions to work on smaller projects like
stores, churches, offices, and homes, and I'd like to see
architectural critics and commentators take some notice of
them so we can find out about them.  Just as there are a
few people with guts and vision among the rich, there are
people with guts and vision among the not-so-rich; and
because there are more not-so-rich than rich, there is more
not-so-rich guts'n'vision out there to fund guts'n'vision
architecture.  If there's any cutting edge, this is where
most of it is likely to be.

Imagine if Van Gogh had had to get a hundred million dollars
together before embarking on "Irises" or "The Starry Night."
-- 
   }"{  Gordon Fitch  }"{  [email-masked]  }"{

---

From: [email-masked] (PImbroglio)
Date: 23 Jul 1995 23:00:47 -0400

Correct my if I'm wrong, but a lot of the previous messages here ask the
question, and try to answer "Why is there no architecture rivaling the
great buildings of Italy, Europe, etc?"

My own thoughts on the subject amount to three different areas. 
First, and most simply, we always have to look deep into ourselves and
recognise when we are falling victime to a "grass is always greener"
argument. Sure there are some damn fine buildings on this earth of ours
but perhaps we are unimpressed by today's architecture because it is just
that: a product of the culture we live in and because of that it may not
seem as exotic as Giotto or Bramante.
Secondly, a lot of the architecture the previous messages seem to be
pining for come from Europe. Not only that, many of them date to a time
when city planning (as we sort of know it today) was arising. For that
reason, many of the buildings had a specific purpose from the moment they
were proposed. This is far from our own practices which usually include
building something that fits in a zone (residential, office, industrial).
Such zoning practices can never anticipate the specific nature  of its
future occupants and therefore can never really be fleshed out in a way
that would uniquely reflect that occupant. 
Which brings me to my third point which is ideology. For whatever reasons
(thoughts anyone?) many of the 'great classics' of architecture are
structures which were house very specific ideologies (churches, museums,
palaces). Perhaps such a strong sense of what a structure was to enclose
gave architects a more detailed and unique idea for that structure. 
And this just occured to me as well. Could the absense of access account
for what we see as widely varying and bold styles in architecture? If
artists were denied the opportunity to see work from faraway places, would
that not somehow fuel a greater number of regional styles and interests?