|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #191
- Posted: 12/16/2022 21:27
- Post subject:
|
@ EyeKanFly
The following isn't intended to "press" you to respond faster than you already are intending to, just to further explain or clarify my earlier post...
Just in case it wasn't clear in my disorganized tangents   I of course am not arguing that, say, the paint itself upon a wall (etc) is (alone) "architecture". I doubt I needed to say that, but just in case that wasn't clear.
The main challenge (with rating a "building" per an overall "artistic" rating as a work of visual art) arises when I am rating the "value/impact/depth" of the building, particularly where art like painting or mosaic (etc) is directly on that structure. For a facade, for instance, it would seem that one would of course count everything one sees (presumably) whether it be painting, mosaic, sculpted figures or door portals (etc). So the internal question I hit is: why not the interior structures too? Obviously the interiors count in general (and in many cases can even be more important to what the whole work is conveying) as they are basically just the "other side" of its outer structure and are no less "architecture" than the exterior. So where painting or mosaic (etc) has been added, and when pouring over its structure, part by part, this of course contributes directly to one's experience, is unavoidable "as" that wall (or other structure), the impact thereof, that part of its structure (whether wall, ceiling vault, etc) conveys where said art has been directly added to it. So it's tough to know when this sort of thing counts (or not). Does it have to part of the original structural, architectural conception and in alignment with its execution? If so, why wouldn't those added later count just like later developments and iterations of architectural count (that weren't part of the original plan, ex: Alhambra). Etc. Its very tough to decide and any opinions on this, particularly from someone like yourself who's more strictly focused on "architecture" alone, could be of value, whether I use what you say wholly or kind of combine it to find some sort of happy medium. I do know that I have my limits of what I would count. For instance Seville Cathedral has practically become an art gallery (which I actually find somewhat annoying in relation to how the Church should be seen, presented, experienced) and I probably wouldn't count most (perhaps none) of its displays that one finds practically lined around the Church these days, but where would I draw the line (surely the organic spaces/structures [that are inherently part of the plan, design, altar, etc] should count as "part of the artistry of the building?" Or should they actually be separated from "architecture"?). How much should or shouldn't count (not for Seville, but in general for mosaics, paintings on walls, vaults, etc) and what is the best way to define this in your opinion? Sculpture is a bit easier. Probably any sculpture that is part of the facade or interior building plan should count as part of its whole, but maybe not sculptures added later that were an individual piece or separately composed piece(s) made apart from the Church that were then included in the space (or something like this as criteria...). Anyway, any insight on this could assist in ratings of a number of my choices that remain more "rough" estimates until this is better determined, and determining such would help solidify (or to eventually get there after more evaluation, analysis was carried out). Almost all of those on my list feature issues of how to assess them along this line (don't even get me started on St. Peter's! )
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #193
- Posted: 12/19/2022 10:33
- Post subject:
|
Buscheto (unknown birth-death date, flourished: 1063 - 1110)
Best Works:
8.1/10: Piazza dei Miracoli: Pisa Cathedral; Pisa Bapistery of St. John; Campinile; Camposanto Monumentale di Pisa (collectively: 1064 - 1464) [Architecture]
Piazza dei Miracoli: Pisa Cathedral - Buscheto (Architect, 1064 - 1092) and Rainaldo (Facade, circa 1100); Pisa Baptistery of St. John - Diotisalvi (1152 - 1353, Pulpit: Nicolas Pisano, 1255 - 1260); Campinile (aka, "Leaning Tower of Pisa", 1173 - 1372) - Diotisalvi, then Benenato (1233 - 1259), Guido Speziale (1260 - 1272), Giovanni di Simone (1272 - 1284), Tommaso di Andrea Pisano (Bell Chamber, 1372); Camposanto Monumentale di Pisa - Giovanni di Simone (1278 - 1284, completed posthumously, 1464) [Architecture]
EXTERIOR - PIAZZA DEI MIRACOLI - AERIAL VIEW: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/...f_Pisa.jpg
VIDEO - PISA CATHEDRAL - WALKING TOUR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwt7_7WbgQg
VIDEO - PISA BAPISTERY OF ST. JOHN - SEVERAL VIEWS - EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD_pxRhrMUE
VIDEO - CAMPINILE ("LEANING TOWER OF PISA") - SEVERAL VIEWS - EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR (note: includes some video of the Pisa Cathedral exterior/interior): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7DiqmPT6Lk
VIDEO - CAMPOSANTO MONUMENTALE DI PISA - WALKING TOUR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpFQS-tpa-w
NOTE: More images/links to be added soon...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor
Age: 33
Location: Gotham
|
- #195
- Posted: 12/20/2022 21:55
- Post subject:
|
Sorry it took a few days for me to respond (Christmas shopping, World Cup, taking some time to digest), but I appreciate the responses and continuing questions. I think you raised a particularly interesting question which I've been struggling to grapple with myself. But first:
| AfterHours wrote: | | While the Lautner Sheats-Goldstein wouldn't be out of place with comparing to a more modern work, a rock or jazz album, something very angular and bracing, and rather colorful, like say... for example: Monk's Brilliant Corners of 1956 seems like a pretty good parallel (offhand) to me. |
Don't know if the pun was intentional, but that was... brilliant . Great comparison in terms of content as well as literal terminology!
| AfterHours wrote: | | ...how to count other art works (sculpture, paintings in particular) within the "architecture rating". It is easier to decide when the space is clearly aligned to both as a single composition (like, for instance, Michelangelo's Medici Chapel: Sagrestia Nuova, where the sculpture and architecture is "one vision"). ... It gets much more confusing when, for instance, a Baroque sculptor plants their work in a Gothic cathedral altar hundreds of years later. Surely one can evaluate and rate that work of sculpture on its own, but does it now also count within the overall rating for the building??? ... |
Lots to think about here, and I appreciate the follow-up from Friday. Great examples, and I think I have a lot to say but my thoughts may not be completely put together, so I'll try to say what I can:
With all visual art, I think it's important to consider all of what you can see, and while there should be a boundary somewhere, it doesn't always need to be a strict boundary. For paintings, the easiest boundary is probably the end of the canvas (or... the visible edges of the canvas, not the part that wraps around the back and is obscured by a frame, you know what I mean). But even still, how one views a painting can be (subtly) improved or diminished by its surroundings. One's view of a painting may be improved by a suitable frame (probably subconsciously). One's view of a single painting in a "salon" setting may be diminished by being one of dozens of paintings hung side-by-side-by-side. One's view of the Sistene Chapel ceiling is likely improved by the awe of being on a ceiling, as well as being surrounded by similarly incredible artwork on the walls.
Context matters tremendously, though it can often be subconscious. I think with architecture, the context can be more obvious. But at the same time harder to distinguish the "work" from the surroundings. Especially if the surroundings are actually inside or attached to the "work". Would the Sydney Opera House be as incredible were it not right on the harbour? Would the Parthenon be as incredible were it not on top of the Acropolis hill in the middle of Athens? I'd argue no. Both would still be incredible, but not as incredible. Architecture has a tie to its environment in a way that painting and even sculpture do not. "Organic" architecture is a style in which the structure is intimately woven into the natural environment, but every building is influenced by (and influences) its surrounding environment.
I know we're not talking about the environment, but this gets to my point about things surrounding a building (inside and out): sculpture, paint (whether decorative or functional), landscaping, etc. I'd argue that everything inside and out of a building affects its visual appearance and style, but not everything should be considered entirely.
As a general rule, I try to differentiate between decorative architectural elements and purely decorative elements. A mosaic would be purely decorative, as would anything that's not fastened to the building. A statue at the steeple, a gargoyle, or a Corinthian column may be decorative architectural elements. When ranking a building, I try to avoid dwelling too much on the purely decorative elements, lest I verge too far into ranking the mosaic/painting/sculpture rather than the building. A great example is the Secession Building in Vienna: when ranking the building as a work of architecture, I consider the gold foliage dome and the sculpture elements by Koloman Moser since I'd consider those relevant to the architecture of the building. But even still, those elements may influence my ranking rather than determining it. And likewise, I generally would not consider interior artwork, so even the wonderful Beethoven Frieze by Gustav Klimt which is painted on the walls would not influence my ranking much, if at all.
That's easier said than done though. For example, it's very very hard not to consider Juan O'Gorman's incredible mosaic on the Central Library of the Ciudad Universitaria Campus of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (architects Mario Pani and Enrique del Moral). Ultimately this incredible mosaic is on the exterior of the building, and since it covers the whole building, it has a monumental effect on my ranking. Likewise, Frank Lloyd Wright's stained glass windows play a big effect on my rankings for his buildings.
My recommendation would be to do the same the other way around: e.g. the Sistene Chapel would be rated for the painting with some consideration for the architectural elements which enable the painting (i.e. the flow of the ceiling affects how one views the artwork) but NOT outside architectural elements.
I think another thing that's important to consider is whether a work of art "belongs" in the work of architecture. In the above examples: of course, the building and artwork were designed as one vision, often by one artist who did both the architecture and artwork. But in your example of the Seville Cathedral, there's a lot of exhibits that have been there added over the course of centuries (and I did visit there once and agree that it's too cluttered and the exhibits diminish that atmosphere of the architecture). That said, I don't think the haphazard (partial) conversion of the Seville Cathedral into exhibition/museum space really diminishes my view of the architecture. On the other hand (going back to the Sistene Chapel example), I can't imagine that the wonderful painting does anything to increase my view of the architecture. It's a fine building (and smartly designed), but it wasn't designed to be beautiful. I mean... exterior pic 1, exterior pic 2... it's fine but I'd never include the building on my ranking of world architecture. And while the Louvre is a wonderful building, I would also never venture to consider the building plus all artwork inside a singular work (not saying you were considering that, I'm taking another venture to the extreme ).
Side note: non-art exterior paint on a building is a different story and I would 100% consider that. The colors (or lack thereof) a building is painted, or the color/texture of materials that clad the exterior, are often dictated by the architect and can be essential in the design. The monochrome paint with primary color accents is absolutely essential to the design of the Schröder House or the Eames House. Color, texture, and contrast add a lot to a work of architecture, just as they do to paintings and sculpture.
But for your purposes of ranking a painting against a music album against a film against a building (etc.), I don't think it would be too out of the question to rank a building plus the artwork inside as one "work" as long as it was all designed to one vision. The Secession Building I linked above is a great example of that, as would be some of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings which incorporate his stained glass artwork and furniture designs, and sometimes even paintings (either by him or commissioned for the building). In many cases, the original artwork and furniture still exists and is in use in those buildings (I've read that Wright actually visited a client's house years after they'd been living there and re-arranged the furniture to match his original artistic intent! That's a bit extreme).
All that's to say that while examining a work of architecture, I consider the surrounding environment and the artwork on the interior, but I'm primarily concerned with the design of the structure.
_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #197
- Posted: 12/20/2022 22:06
- Post subject:
|
Will Add Architect(s)...
Best Works:
NO RATING YET: Tikal National Park [Architecture]
Tikal National Park [Architecture]
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
IMAGE GALLERY: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/64/galle...maxrows=12
VIRTUAL TOUR - VERY HIGH QUALITY: https://commondatastorage.googleapis.co...index.html
(NOTE: you will need to scroll to the correct entry as the link initially arrives at multiple options for different virtual tours)
NOTE: I am undecided if or how I want to add this work yet. It is a HUGE complex, composed/overseen by more than one ruler/architect, and it is hard to know how to count it or rate it (as a whole or broken up into smaller parts). For now, I am just highlighting it (including the very impressive image quality of the virtual tour above) and may or may not add it, rate/rank it at a later time perhaps after I've absorbed it in a bit more detail and come to a better conclusion
NOTE: More info, images/links to be added...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #198
- Posted: 12/21/2022 21:53
- Post subject:
|
Michael Heizer (1944 - )
Best Works:
7.5/10: City (1970 - 2022) [Land Art: Sculpture/Architecture]
Rating is very much an estimate. Despite being complete and not at all in a state of deterioration like, say, Angkor Wat or The Parthenon, I would consider my rating for this in a similar category of "rough estimate" as those. It is extra clear with this work that one would have to walk through it physically to get the full experience and because there are no video walk throughs or virtual tours that I can find (due to Heizer requesting no cameras on site), I have been unable to approximate that. However, I have (I believe) seen the entire site at this point through a collection of photos I scoured around the internet, so I based my estimate on going over that, plus familiarity with painters such as De Chirico and Kay Sage, who Heizler seems to be informed by to greater or lesser degree (plus, ancient art and sites), allowing me to grasp (pretty well) what I think it's going for, conceptualizing, abstracting of and from its environment and make a general estimate as to rating/ranking (for now, until I can be one of the 6!!! people per day that are allowed to go to the site!).
City - Michael Heizer (1970 - 2022) [Land Art: Sculpture/Architecture]
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
ABOUT: https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/w...234637750/
ABOUT: https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/...545/?_gl=1
MORE IMAGES/LINKS TO BE ADDED...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #199
- Posted: 12/24/2022 07:25
- Post subject:
|
| EyeKanFly wrote: | Sorry it took a few days for me to respond (Christmas shopping, World Cup, taking some time to digest), but I appreciate the responses and continuing questions. I think you raised a particularly interesting question which I've been struggling to grapple with myself. But first:
Don't know if the pun was intentional, but that was... brilliant . Great comparison in terms of content as well as literal terminology! |
It's all good, I've been similarly swamped by similar things. The pun was definitely noticed as I replied, but alas, would've been the same selection regardless, as the first to come to mind, so it was just kind of a perfect little storm
| EyeKanFly wrote: |
Lots to think about here, and I appreciate the follow-up from Friday. Great examples, and I think I have a lot to say but my thoughts may not be completely put together, so I'll try to say what I can:
With all visual art, I think it's important to consider all of what you can see, and while there should be a boundary somewhere, it doesn't always need to be a strict boundary. For paintings, the easiest boundary is probably the end of the canvas (or... the visible edges of the canvas, not the part that wraps around the back and is obscured by a frame, you know what I mean). But even still, how one views a painting can be (subtly) improved or diminished by its surroundings. One's view of a painting may be improved by a suitable frame (probably subconsciously). One's view of a single painting in a "salon" setting may be diminished by being one of dozens of paintings hung side-by-side-by-side. One's view of the Sistene Chapel ceiling is likely improved by the awe of being on a ceiling, as well as being surrounded by similarly incredible artwork on the walls.
Context matters tremendously, though it can often be subconscious. I think with architecture, the context can be more obvious. But at the same time harder to distinguish the "work" from the surroundings. Especially if the surroundings are actually inside or attached to the "work". Would the Sydney Opera House be as incredible were it not right on the harbour? Would the Parthenon be as incredible were it not on top of the Acropolis hill in the middle of Athens? I'd argue no. Both would still be incredible, but not as incredible. Architecture has a tie to its environment in a way that painting and even sculpture do not. "Organic" architecture is a style in which the structure is intimately woven into the natural environment, but every building is influenced by (and influences) its surrounding environment. |
I agree with the premise. The main thing I would reinforce is that it was (at least but perhaps even more than their settings) the primary artist(s) involved that made those works extraordinary (that used the setting or environment in genius ways to enhance their work). Michelangelo completely changed the Pope's initial request to have a star covered ceiling with a set of apostles lining it, and the eventual result was a composition so extraordinary and complex that it changed the course of art history forever. True, a "ceiling" is a perfect station for an awe-inspired look up to God and the genesis cycle and all that accompanies the work, but it would not have been so (ceiling or not) had it been reduced to the original plan of the Pope. We are lucky Michelangelo was (with Leonardo, to a lesser extent) pretty much the first artist to demand (as close to possible in those days) "independence of vision" (regardless of the patron or authority) and managed to command enough respect that Pope's and other higher ups repeatedly allowed him to get away with what would be considered quite disrespectful and carry harsh consequences for pretty much anyone else. Imo, Utzon uses the Sydney Opera house as an abstracted/expressionist allusion to ships and their sails (I would also add "musical undulations, wavelengths", perhaps even the flow or waves of water, and even, I would argue, the abstracted emotional expression of the human voice or choir singing opera or other belting, emotive vocals). In other words, I feel he is fusing the Opera House, its purpose and the surrounding environment into a unified, whole, vision. And its harbor setting to protrude out into the water as "one of the ships" itself (and also, perhaps acknowledging or greeting the other ships by not just the solidarity of its nautical imagery but also the sense that the building is "singing" out to them). If it was just a flat-ish rectangular building the harbor setting would only provide a great view but would hardly matter much as it does with Utzon's visionary masterpiece.
(Note: above I am not referring to "abstract expressionism" as the art genre particularly -- maybe only vaguely? -- but what I am really referring to is the architecture conveying both expressionist and abstraction more or less equally, hence abstract/expressionist)
I don't have much to add about The Parthenon.
So in the end, I agree with you that setting can surely influence the quality or interpretation but I just think it goes both ways (at least equally).
| EyeKanFly wrote: |
I know we're not talking about the environment, but this gets to my point about things surrounding a building (inside and out): sculpture, paint (whether decorative or functional), landscaping, etc. I'd argue that everything inside and out of a building affects its visual appearance and style, but not everything should be considered entirely.
As a general rule, I try to differentiate between decorative architectural elements and purely decorative elements. A mosaic would be purely decorative, as would anything that's not fastened to the building. A statue at the steeple, a gargoyle, or a Corinthian column may be decorative architectural elements. When ranking a building, I try to avoid dwelling too much on the purely decorative elements, lest I verge too far into ranking the mosaic/painting/sculpture rather than the building. A great example is the Secession Building in Vienna: when ranking the building as a work of architecture, I consider the gold foliage dome and the sculpture elements by Koloman Moser since I'd consider those relevant to the architecture of the building. But even still, those elements may influence my ranking rather than determining it. And likewise, I generally would not consider interior artwork, so even the wonderful Beethoven Frieze by Gustav Klimt which is painted on the walls would not influence my ranking much, if at all.
That's easier said than done though. For example, it's very very hard not to consider Juan O'Gorman's incredible mosaic on the Central Library of the Ciudad Universitaria Campus of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (architects Mario Pani and Enrique del Moral). Ultimately this incredible mosaic is on the exterior of the building, and since it covers the whole building, it has a monumental effect on my ranking. Likewise, Frank Lloyd Wright's stained glass windows play a big effect on my rankings for his buildings.
My recommendation would be to do the same the other way around: e.g. the Sistene Chapel would be rated for the painting with some consideration for the architectural elements which enable the painting (i.e. the flow of the ceiling affects how one views the artwork) but NOT outside architectural elements.
I think another thing that's important to consider is whether a work of art "belongs" in the work of architecture. In the above examples: of course, the building and artwork were designed as one vision, often by one artist who did both the architecture and artwork. But in your example of the Seville Cathedral, there's a lot of exhibits that have been there added over the course of centuries (and I did visit there once and agree that it's too cluttered and the exhibits diminish that atmosphere of the architecture). That said, I don't think the haphazard (partial) conversion of the Seville Cathedral into exhibition/museum space really diminishes my view of the architecture. On the other hand (going back to the Sistene Chapel example), I can't imagine that the wonderful painting does anything to increase my view of the architecture. It's a fine building (and smartly designed), but it wasn't designed to be beautiful. I mean... exterior pic 1, exterior pic 2... it's fine but I'd never include the building on my ranking of world architecture. And while the Louvre is a wonderful building, I would also never venture to consider the building plus all artwork inside a singular work (not saying you were considering that, I'm taking another venture to the extreme ). |
Pretty sure I agree with you on all of this, and it will probably influence how I eventually determine what to rate and what to not as part of the overall rating. Though I may still count mosaic or painting particularly if it was concurrent to the architectural planning and building. Like if I'm remembering correctly, the Monreale Cathedral's mosaics may apply, as it seems that the architecture and the mosaics would not have been made the way they were and I believe they were in accordance with each other (I'll have to double check that claim) -- to support mosaics along its walls and interior dome, etc -- So there may be a fine line in which these would coexist and count, though I am still thinking it through. I don't think the same issue would present itself with the Sistine for instance, as (for example) Michelangelo's ceiling was some 25-30 years after the chapel's inception, and beyond that was clearly a very independently conceived and executed vision (despite following a plan -- in a very general way -- that was begun by the earlier paintings in the Chapel, and completed by the addition of the Last Judgment). Just thinking aloud ... may still change my mind...
| EyeKanFly wrote: |
Side note: non-art exterior paint on a building is a different story and I would 100% consider that. The colors (or lack thereof) a building is painted, or the color/texture of materials that clad the exterior, are often dictated by the architect and can be essential in the design. The monochrome paint with primary color accents is absolutely essential to the design of the Schröder House or the Eames House. Color, texture, and contrast add a lot to a work of architecture, just as they do to paintings and sculpture.
But for your purposes of ranking a painting against a music album against a film against a building (etc.), I don't think it would be too out of the question to rank a building plus the artwork inside as one "work" as long as it was all designed to one vision. The Secession Building I linked above is a great example of that, as would be some of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings which incorporate his stained glass artwork and furniture designs, and sometimes even paintings (either by him or commissioned for the building). In many cases, the original artwork and furniture still exists and is in use in those buildings (I've read that Wright actually visited a client's house years after they'd been living there and re-arranged the furniture to match his original artistic intent! That's a bit extreme).
All that's to say that while examining a work of architecture, I consider the surrounding environment and the artwork on the interior, but I'm primarily concerned with the design of the structure. |
Definitely agree on the exteriors. It does seem like this may often apply (similarly, if not completely, and discounting future updates/modifications) to interiors too, unless I'm mistaken 
Thanks EKF for all of your replies. I do agree that the "designed as one vision" will be the key point to look out for the criteria for this is shaped a bit more precisely.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 20 of 20 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
