Greatest Paintings of All Time (Incomplete / In Progress) - Lounge

EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor

Age: 33
Location: Gotham

AH, it's been awesome following this. I don't have much to say about the painting or the intricate rating system you use (which is fantastic by the way), but I want to mention that you've inspired me to attempt something similar. Probably not for painting or visual art in general, but definitely for architecture and perhaps for sculpture.

Which brings me to a few queries for you: I see you're reconsidering the stance on how architecture/sculpture fits into the ratings for paintings so I don't want to get you too bogged down in this. But I noticed that the architecture/sculpture you have included is almost exclusively Italian renaissance works while the paintings span a much broader timeframe from pre-renaissance through to the present. I'm wondering if you've considered or if you will consider more contemporary works.

You did note that while art and sculpture are mostly pure visual art, architecture also must be functional. But I'm wondering how you'd rank some of the more artistically minded architecture (or... less functional for human living haha) such as the works of Gaudí (particularly Sagrada Família or Park Güell in Barcelona) or Torres de Satélite by Luis Barragán, Jesús Reyes Ferreira, and Mathias Goeritz located near Mexico City. These are some prominent examples of more sculptural architecture, but there's many other examples I have in mind.

Curious to hear what you think!
_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

EyeKanFly wrote:

AH, it's been awesome following this. I don't have much to say about the painting or the intricate rating system you use (which is fantastic by the way), but I want to mention that you've inspired me to attempt something similar. Probably not for painting or visual art in general, but definitely for architecture and perhaps for sculpture.

Which brings me to a few queries for you: I see you're reconsidering the stance on how architecture/sculpture fits into the ratings for paintings so I don't want to get you too bogged down in this. But I noticed that the architecture/sculpture you have included is almost exclusively Italian renaissance works while the paintings span a much broader timeframe from pre-renaissance through to the present. I'm wondering if you've considered or if you will consider more contemporary works.

Thank you!

Re: more contemporary sculpture/architecture ... Yes, that is definitely my intention. I've only just begun adding sculpture/architecture while the paintings list has been under more serious construction for years (with several revisions along the way, hundreds of selections that used to be 7.3+ but many of which have been removed awaiting re-rates for instance). Overall, Paintings are first and foremost, then probably sculpture, then probably architecture in regards sequence/priority. But for sure, the eventual goal would be to balance all three with as many 7.3+ works as possible. Below that (6.8-7.2) would come next though probably way too numerous to ever be brought to a point approaching completion -- will just have to do my best to list as many as possible I guess.

EyeKanFly wrote:

You did note that while art and sculpture are mostly pure visual art, architecture also must be functional. But I'm wondering how you'd rank some of the more artistically minded architecture (or... less functional for human living haha) such as the works of Gaudí (particularly Sagrada Família or Park Güell in Barcelona) or Torres de Satélite by Luis Barragán, Jesús Reyes Ferreira, and Mathias Goeritz located near Mexico City. These are some prominent examples of more sculptural architecture, but there's many other examples I have in mind.

Curious to hear what you think!

Yes, all of those are intriguing works with a strong possibility of inclusion for my list.

I definitely look forward to your own list and am excited that someone else is looking to take something like this up. I am sure to use it as reminders and/or recommendations for my own selections. You are more than welcome to post your selections/lists (with ratings/rankings?) right here in the replies if you want (and I wouldn't mind at all if others did the same, whether paintings or other visual art lists, or recommendations, or their own thoughts on various works, etc). Or, if you start your own thread of sculpture/architecture, I would certainly support and follow that.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

EyeKanFly wrote:

But I'm wondering how you'd rank some of the more artistically minded architecture (or... less functional for human living haha) such as the works of Gaudí (particularly Sagrada Família or Park Güell in Barcelona) or Torres de Satélite by Luis Barragán, Jesús Reyes Ferreira, and Mathias Goeritz located near Mexico City. These are some prominent examples of more sculptural architecture, but there's many other examples I have in mind.

After looking these over again for the first time in a while, and to say a little bit more than in my previous reply, I think that Sagrada Familia is among the greatest works of architecture for sure (infact, a year or so ago, I almost included it on my list in the highest "architecture" spot instead of St. Peter's). So I would say that it is one of the few architectural works I would be confident could give St. Peter's a run for its money. (Note: that doesn't necessarily mean Sagrada Familia would be 9/10, because St Peter's isn't guaranteed to keep that rating either and I may downgrade it). But there is a very good bet that it is at least an 8/10 on my list.

Rating architecture is ultimately very difficult and a bit different than paintings/scuplture, due in part to (usually) the narrative, thematic, figurative change and development that one finds in paintings, and/or the different views of a sculpture that (when composed for such by the sculptor) cause the work to change in position and progress as a conception and "develop" or "animate" its subject through fictive time (by the different views or angles the viewer sees it, as if the sculpture is in different stages of movement, emotion, change, etc). Conversely, in architecture, because there is usually a factor of repetition that doesn't exist in most paintings or sculpture (particularly most anything pre-Modern such as the likes of Rothko). Where the building exterior and interior needs to be repeated as a functional or symmetrical point (such as at each corner, etc), and perhaps other reasons (like foundational stability). This doesn't mean the buildings aren't still awesome or very impressive, but it does lend their potential for "accumulated qualitative depth" a bit less because as one goes through the work, its artistic development is, often multiple times throughout the building, simply repeating a portion of the architecture that has already been done, over and over and this can mean that nothing new artistically is being developed at each of those repeated parts. So this repetition of content can be a barrier to many architectural works progressing through the needed "accumulation" of quality, of growing emotional or conceptual engagement/impact that would be enough to arrive at a 9.

So that is kind of, in a more detailed sense, one of the main difficulties where function outweighs the art. And something that makes "rating" the work very challenging because you are rating a work that is both art and "function", yet trying to rate it altogether as "art only" (relative to other works, like paintings, music, film, etc, essentially "art only"). Maybe I will learn something about architecture as I get into it more that will nullify this "criticism" and change my mind, but for the time being at least, that is a challenge for me in trying to evaluate them as art and in trying to rate them as such.

Park Guell is fascinating, though it's hard to say where I might place it. But certainly the artist has mixed a lot of interesting ideas that I would need to explore if/when I give it more than a cursory observation/evaluation. I also don't know how I would rate it, as it is multiple buildings, more a compilation project (that may indeed be a single "work", I would just have to look into it a bit more before I could say). It's pretty fascinating that it's from Gaudi as well -- what a dynamic artist!

As for Torres de Satélite, they're impressive for their size but I otherwise don't really understand their appeal. But also, I haven't ever studied them so it's very possible I am missing their point. Is there something more interesting about them, a meaning, a purpose, an emotional appeal? Do the colors mean something, or maybe the arrangement, or is it just the prominence in size and otherwise a purely decorative work for the city?
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

@EyeKanFly

Edit/Additional to above reply...

Just to be clear, I don't mean to insinuate that repetition is automatically a complete inhibition to the "momentum" of development of higher and higher quality towards 9/10 or similarly high ratings (in any form of art). It can be of course be overdone, but also a strength (and probably depends on the composer whether architect or classical composer or any other genre). Many of the great Classical artists (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, et al) include recapitulations in even their greatest works, for instance, which aren't generally a weakness in their work. Many great songs are of course semi-repetitive (including on albums I list very highly). Repetition, when not overdone, can help bring a point home even better than otherwise, and (for example) to produce a hypnotic, trance-like, stunned (almost like time stopping) effect even (look no further than the Velvet Underground, or the masterpieces of Red House Painters, as two of numerous successful examples). Eno's Music for Airports, for example, is very repetitive (but as its purpose is a sort of "zen-like" state and this is the emotional expression too, this doesn't inhibit it from a high rating). So it can also depend on the purpose of the work and the alignment of its compositional style (repetitive or not) to those aims, to its emotions/concepts being expressed. So I am just still nascent in my artistic evaluations and analysis of architecture, relative to paintings and even sculpture and am still working this out as I go. Regardless, the point of "repetition lessening the rating" is also by no means meant as a "criticism" of the architect (who, generally speaking, must design for "function" as a major part of it), but if anything, is simply stating that it is difficult to produce a work of architecture that is entirely valuable as a work of art alone (or approaching this). And even if it seems unfair to the architect, it is hard not to take such into account when evaluating the work "as art". But again, maybe as I more seriously evaluate other works of architecture over a widening variety this will possibly become less and less of an issue for me (the more acclimated to the art form I become, and in seeing the bigger picture of its development across decades, centuries...). Plus most of the great architecture of history that I have looked over, I've only just given cursory evals/observations thus far and any ratings, including those listed that I've evaluated a bit more than that, are yet very much in an early stage and subject to change. Hope that all makes sense. I probably over-explained, repeated myself (<--- haha Applause

) too much, anyway
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor

Age: 33
Location: Gotham

AfterHours wrote:

Re: more contemporary sculpture/architecture ... Yes, that is definitely my intention. I've only just begun adding sculpture/architecture while the paintings list has been under more serious construction for years (with several revisions along the way, hundreds of selections that used to be 7.3+ but many of which have been removed awaiting re-rates for instance). Overall, Paintings are first and foremost, then probably sculpture, then probably architecture in regards sequence/priority. But for sure, the eventual goal would be to balance all three with as many 7.3+ works as possible. Below that (6.8-7.2) would come next though probably way too numerous to ever be brought to a point approaching completion -- will just have to do my best to list as many as possible I guess.

Awesome! This is such a comprehensive list of paintings, and I'm a novice on art history so it's been wonderful discovering some of the contemporary works. I'm looking forward to the same for sculpture. (I'm much more knowledgeable about architecture history.)

AfterHours wrote:

I definitely look forward to your own list and am excited that someone else is looking to take something like this up. I am sure to use it as reminders and/or recommendations for my own selections. You are more than welcome to post your selections/lists (with ratings/rankings?) right here in the replies if you want (and I wouldn't mind at all if others did the same, whether paintings or other visual art lists, or recommendations, or their own thoughts on various works, etc). Or, if you start your own thread of sculpture/architecture, I would certainly support and follow that.

Cool! Haven't decided what format my own list will be in. For years I've been keeping a list of some of my favorite architects (along with their most prominent and/or my favorite works of theirs) which is nearing 1,000 entries. It's to the point that there are many whose names and buildings I for the life of me cannot remember at all. The problem with keeping lists of architects is also that this skews very recent and very Western/European. I suppose that's the case with music and painting as well, but with architecture in particular, pre-1900 and outside of Europe, it's much easier to find who commissioned a building than who designed it. To the point that sometimes grand buildings end up being credited to a monarch of a country since no design or construction documents are known to be retained.

I also have a list of my favorite American architecture (almost exclusively limited to USA and Canada), but this of course is similarly restrictive, especially since these countries have very little remaining architecture built before European influence.

I'll need to think about my own list some more, but I'm sure I'll throw some questions or suggestions your way occasionally.

AfterHours wrote:

After looking these over again for the first time in a while, and to say a little bit more than in my previous reply, I think that Sagrada Familia is among the greatest works of architecture for sure (infact, a year or so ago, I almost included it on my list in the highest "architecture" spot instead of St. Peter's). So I would say that it is one of the few architectural works I would be confident could give St. Peter's a run for its money. (Note: that doesn't necessarily mean Sagrada Familia would be 9/10, because St Peter's isn't guaranteed to keep that rating either and I may downgrade it). But there is a very good bet that it is at least an 8/10 on my list.

Gaudí's designs are incredibly grand and I often see his name come up first among art historians referencing architects. If there's any one structure that would rival St. Peter's Basilica for artistry and grandiosity, it has to be Sagrada Familia.

AfterHours wrote:

Rating architecture is ultimately very difficult and a bit different than paintings/scuplture, due in part to (usually) the narrative, thematic, figurative change and development that one finds in paintings, and/or the different views of a sculpture that (when composed for such by the sculptor) cause the work to change in position and progress as a conception and "develop" or "animate" its subject through fictive time (by the different views or angles the viewer sees it, as if the sculpture is in different stages of movement, emotion, change, etc). Conversely, in architecture, because there is usually a factor of repetition that doesn't exist in most paintings or sculpture (particularly most anything pre-Modern such as the likes of Rothko). Where the building exterior and interior needs to be repeated as a functional or symmetrical point (such as at each corner, etc), and perhaps other reasons (like foundational stability). This doesn't mean the buildings aren't still awesome or very impressive, but it does lend their potential for "accumulated qualitative depth" a bit less because as one goes through the work, its artistic development is, often multiple times throughout the building, simply repeating a portion of the architecture that has already been done, over and over and this can mean that nothing new artistically is being developed at each of those repeated parts. So this repetition of content can be a barrier to many architectural works progressing through the needed "accumulation" of quality, of growing emotional or conceptual engagement/impact that would be enough to arrive at a 9.

So that is kind of, in a more detailed sense, one of the main difficulties where function outweighs the art. And something that makes "rating" the work very challenging because you are rating a work that is both art and "function", yet trying to rate it altogether as "art only" (relative to other works, like paintings, music, film, etc, essentially "art only"). Maybe I will learn something about architecture as I get into it more that will nullify this "criticism" and change my mind, but for the time being at least, that is a challenge for me in trying to evaluate them as art and in trying to rate them as such.

Totally understand. To be honest, what amazes me most is your ability to rate paintings along music (two fields of art which I would have a very difficult time ranking against each other). Painting and sculpture have much more in common, also helped by the fact that there are some prominent artists who were well known for both (e.g. Michelangelo...also known for some architecture). One thing which I'll also add is different for architecture compared to painting or music: it is much more helpful to appreciate the art in person rather than via pictures. This is true for sculpture as well, although I'd argue that photography can do justice to most sculptures. With architecture, it helps to walk through interior of the building, view the exterior from different possible sides and angles, and also see the building in context (e.g. Sagrada Familia or St. Peter's Basilica tower over their respective cities, on the other hand Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater is intertwined with the natural landscape).

You mention an interesting point as well about function vs. art (I've typically heard this called form vs function in an architectural context; "form follows function" was a core principle of American architect Louis Sullivan, typically credited with designing the first skyscrapers). I completely agree, someone like Gaudí clearly favored art (especially considering his magnum opus has been under construction for over 100 years and may not have been designed with the best engineering principles in mind), while most architecture favors function (typical homes, office buildings, skyscrapers). Someone like Frank Lloyd Wright, Walter Gropius, or Le Corbusier were mostly known for acknowledging that function can be beautiful. I tend to subscribe to this theory, as I'm also very interested in the engineering side of architecture and design. While painting and sculpture are meant to be viewed and enjoyed, architecture is meant to be lived in, and I think there's something beautiful in that. Not to detract from painting or sculpture which are of course more pure artistic forms and it makes sense to judge them as such. A building which may be beautiful may be incredibly difficult to live in, and vice versa.

Quote:

Park Guell is fascinating, though it's hard to say where I might place it. But certainly the artist has mixed a lot of interesting ideas that I would need to explore if/when I give it more than a cursory observation/evaluation. I also don't know how I would rate it, as it is multiple buildings, more a compilation project (that may indeed be a single "work", I would just have to look into it a bit more before I could say). It's pretty fascinating that it's from Gaudi as well -- what a dynamic artist!

While it is a park with multiple sculptures, my personal recommendation would be to evaluate this as one "work". It was designed with one singular vision and (mostly) one commission. Similar to Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel made of many individual paintings but having been under one artist's vision. On the other hand, something like St. Peter's Basilica is the vision of many architects (and I'd argue that some of these architects actually detracted from the original vision, i.e. Carlo Maderno's facade ruins the grand view of the dome when approached from the front of the building), and a work of art does not necessarily need to be an individual's "vision".

Quote:

As for Torres de Satélite, they're impressive for their size but I otherwise don't really understand their appeal. But also, I haven't ever studied them so it's very possible I am missing their point. Is there something more interesting about them, a meaning, a purpose, an emotional appeal? Do the colors mean something, or maybe the arrangement, or is it just the prominence in size and otherwise a purely decorative work for the city?

I've never been a fan of this structure, I just mention it as an example of something which blurs the line between sculpture and architecture, having been a collaboration between a sculptor and an architect. Funny you should mention "emotional appeal" because the sculptor Mathias Goeritz would promote this work as "emotional architecture". Not necessarily sure I understand that though lol, my impression is that it's a purely decorative work for the city. To my knowledge, the colors don't mean anything in particular. It's actually been re-painted different colors throughout its history.

AfterHours wrote:

Just to be clear, I don't mean to insinuate that repetition is automatically a complete inhibition to the "momentum" of development of higher and higher quality towards 9/10 or similarly high ratings (in any form of art). It can be of course be overdone, but also a strength (and probably depends on the composer whether architect or classical composer or any other genre). Many of the great Classical artists (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, et al) include recapitulations in even their greatest works, for instance, which aren't generally a weakness in their work. Many great songs are of course semi-repetitive (including on albums I list very highly). Repetition, when not overdone, can help bring a point home even better than otherwise, and (for example) to produce a hypnotic, trance-like, stunned (almost like time stopping) effect even (look no further than the Velvet Underground, or the masterpieces of Red House Painters, as two of numerous successful examples). Eno's Music for Airports, for example, is very repetitive (but as its purpose is a sort of "zen-like" state and this is the emotional expression too, this doesn't inhibit it from a high rating). So it can also depend on the purpose of the work and the alignment of its compositional style (repetitive or not) to those aims, to its emotions/concepts being expressed. So I am just still nascent in my artistic evaluations and analysis of architecture, relative to paintings and even sculpture and am still working this out as I go. Regardless, the point of "repetition lessening the rating" is also by no means meant as a "criticism" of the architect (who, generally speaking, must design for "function" as a major part of it), but if anything, is simply stating that it is difficult to produce a work of architecture that is entirely valuable as a work of art alone (or approaching this). And even if it seems unfair to the architect, it is hard not to take such into account when evaluating the work "as art". But again, maybe as I more seriously evaluate other works of architecture over a widening variety this will possibly become less and less of an issue for me (the more acclimated to the art form I become, and in seeing the bigger picture of its development across decades, centuries...). Plus most of the great architecture of history that I have looked over, I've only just given cursory evals/observations thus far and any ratings, including those listed that I've evaluated a bit more than that, are yet very much in an early stage and subject to change. Hope that all makes sense. I probably over-explained, repeated myself (<--- haha Applause

) too much, anyway

Yes, this is wonderful, and I was thinking of the parallel to music myself when you first mentioned repetition in architecture! You explained better than I could my thoughts on the link between these 2 art forms. To put it simply, repetition can be beautiful, but it can also be boring. And we see that in architecture and music. And the difference between beauty and tedium can vary greatly from listener to listener/viewer to viewer.

This is already lots of food for thought, but I'll throw some links to some of my favorite architecture that trends toward the more sculptural/artistic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_...ols_(Cuba) by Vittorio Garatti, Roberto Gottardi, and Ricardo Porro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallingwater by Frank Lloyd Wright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guggenheim_Museum_Bilbao by Frank Gehry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_Building by Joseph Maria Olbrich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_...r_Building by Raymond Hood & André Fouilhoux
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palacio_de_Bellas_Artes by most priminently Adamo Boari
_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

EyeKanFly wrote:

Awesome! This is such a comprehensive list of paintings, and I'm a novice on art history so it's been wonderful discovering some of the contemporary works. I'm looking forward to the same for sculpture. (I'm much more knowledgeable about architecture history.)

Cool! Haven't decided what format my own list will be in. For years I've been keeping a list of some of my favorite architects (along with their most prominent and/or my favorite works of theirs) which is nearing 1,000 entries. It's to the point that there are many whose names and buildings I for the life of me cannot remember at all. The problem with keeping lists of architects is also that this skews very recent and very Western/European. I suppose that's the case with music and painting as well, but with architecture in particular, pre-1900 and outside of Europe, it's much easier to find who commissioned a building than who designed it. To the point that sometimes grand buildings end up being credited to a monarch of a country since no design or construction documents are known to be retained.

I also have a list of my favorite American architecture (almost exclusively limited to USA and Canada), but this of course is similarly restrictive, especially since these countries have very little remaining architecture built before European influence.

I'll need to think about my own list some more, but I'm sure I'll throw some questions or suggestions your way occasionally.

Gaudí's designs are incredibly grand and I often see his name come up first among art historians referencing architects. If there's any one structure that would rival St. Peter's Basilica for artistry and grandiosity, it has to be Sagrada Familia.

Much appreciated! I am looking forward to your contributions (again, whether here, your own thread, or a combo of both!). Re: 1000 entries (holy crap, you be serious! Laughing

)

I am all over the place about Gaudi, but I tend to find him intriguing, restless, inventive, strange, conflicted, otherworldly. My current thoughts about Sagrada (general, not detailed...not taking up individual components) are that it is both grotesque (even borderline "ugly") and yet within its texture and conflicted structure has a yearning emotional push to it (towards heaven, redemption, or the like), as if expressing (something like) a tremendous, "muscular" (highly sculpted) push (towards the sky) where its "sculpted architecture" is in a tremendous, even anxious and burdened, tension with what is (at its core "beneath" its "facade") a more organized, stable core or outline of a more "traditional" gothic cathedral (as if the whole structure is at odds with itself, pushing against it). In that, it seems like it may be expressing a tremendous urge to overcome sin (through this tremendous tension of its structure that is at once at odds and unified with itself; the more "sculpted and expressive" parts almost grappling with the more "angular", "symmetrical" or "geometric" parts, in "muscular" contention). That's my general thoughts about the exterior. And then, on the interior, it is tremendously colorful, with a very strange rainbow color scheme that borders on the surreal or dream-like or even delirious beyond the point of "good taste". It is both arresting and stunning and quite naive and maybe even precariously close to "comical" in the context of the "solemnity" of a Church, but always so "yearning" and "in wonder" with such expansive conviction that it (probably) overcomes what could easily be seen as "grotesquely beautiful" or "bad taste". So, again, we may have this ambiguity between (something like) heaven and human fallibility... Along this potential theme, the whole external structure seems to perhaps echo the Tower of Babel and how it (such as in the famous painting by Brueghel) can be seen to be falling apart as it is being built, with its facade both an expressive complex of "degradation" and of "ascension" (I don't mean the fact that it is still unfinished but I mean in the conflict and tension of its artistry, of its architectural style between "sculpture" and "architecture" between "stability" and "movement", between "organization/symmetry/geometry" and its "calamity" or "profusion of ideas and urges"). In short, Sagrada Familia seems to echo this "Tower of Babel" idea in the conflict of its structure, in the conflict of its "sculpted" parts and general facade and its "fundamental architectural core" ... Perhaps ... by no means my "official" thoughts ... I am still reviewing and running with it, examining and considering and possibly re-thinking it, and I have more to study with the work, and Gaudi as an artist (and just the history of architecture in general, where I am far behind that of paintings), and where (I assume) my conclusions are sure to crystallize a bit more. Simultaneously, or alternately, there is a part of me that finds it just as ugly as it is a wonder, and if it is overly pretentious and a flawed attempt or vision. I did add it to my list (with other longtime favorites too, like Taj Mahal, Pantheon) ...where the ratings for the Sagrada have been all over the place (a couple days ago, an 8.5; later that day I was considering it as high as 8.8-8.9; the following day, I was leaning towards 7.7 or so; today I revised to 8.1). Its unusual for me to rank something in the first place amidst such an inconclusive rating (well before I feel more certain about it) but, with architecture, I kind of just want to a good variety of key works on there, with estimated (but probably still volatile) ratings/rankings, but where I will fine tune them thereafter (and add more selections in relation/comparison to those). And, again, my thoughts/rating/ranking is sure to crystallize as I get a better grasp on Gaudi and the history of architecture, eventually.

EyeKanFly wrote:

Totally understand. To be honest, what amazes me most is your ability to rate paintings along music (two fields of art which I would have a very difficult time ranking against each other). Painting and sculpture have much more in common, also helped by the fact that there are some prominent artists who were well known for both (e.g. Michelangelo...also known for some architecture). One thing which I'll also add is different for architecture compared to painting or music: it is much more helpful to appreciate the art in person rather than via pictures. This is true for sculpture as well, although I'd argue that photography can do justice to most sculptures. With architecture, it helps to walk through interior of the building, view the exterior from different possible sides and angles, and also see the building in context (e.g. Sagrada Familia or St. Peter's Basilica tower over their respective cities, on the other hand Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater is intertwined with the natural landscape).

You mention an interesting point as well about function vs. art (I've typically heard this called form vs function in an architectural context; "form follows function" was a core principle of American architect Louis Sullivan, typically credited with designing the first skyscrapers). I completely agree, someone like Gaudí clearly favored art (especially considering his magnum opus has been under construction for over 100 years and may not have been designed with the best engineering principles in mind), while most architecture favors function (typical homes, office buildings, skyscrapers). Someone like Frank Lloyd Wright, Walter Gropius, or Le Corbusier were mostly known for acknowledging that function can be beautiful. I tend to subscribe to this theory, as I'm also very interested in the engineering side of architecture and design. While painting and sculpture are meant to be viewed and enjoyed, architecture is meant to be lived in, and I think there's something beautiful in that. Not to detract from painting or sculpture which are of course more pure artistic forms and it makes sense to judge them as such. A building which may be beautiful may be incredibly difficult to live in, and vice versa.

Re: ratings paintings along with music, along with sculpture, etc ... Agreed on the commonalities/differences, and thank you for the complement. For me, it has really just been practicing the fundamental criteria points covered on my criteria page, and then this just builds over time and practice as one gets more and more in tune with rating and ranking different types of works of the same art form, and across art forms. One starts to get a really good sense of what an 8, or 7.5, or 8.5 (or whatever) "feels like" in terms of depth, in terms of impact, in terms of the depth of fascination, in terms of the mental cognitive phenomena that accompanies the realization of each (greater and greater the higher the rating). I don't mean, by any of that, that I myself have "mastered" these points. It's a continuous process. Even if it's not possible to ever become (so-called) "perfect" at it, especially across several art forms, the concerted effort towards trying to align, logically, all one's ratings with each other, will tend to be more sensible and seem or feel or be more "accurate", or "logical" (in their relative rankings, ratings) than maybe another's list where they are not doing so. I do think any reasonably intelligent, observant and persistent, dedicated individual could do the same if they wanted to and were willing to spend the time on it. It also seems to require being willing to change one's qualitative assessments (when one finds them to be so) no matter how connected one was to a previous one (nostalgically, for instance, like a "first love" or "childhood favorite"), and also no matter with how much conviction one has argued for one in the past (that has now changed). Being willing to do so, inevitably, comes into play as one comes into more and more contact with the greatest works across history, and upon really evaluating, analyzing and experiencing a strong connection to them and the (often overpowering) impact, sense of awe, wonder and intensity of fascination that results, one has to clear space for a higher set of ratings/rankings than one realized before; new milestones being set, "new" 9s or 10s, while dropping down the previous ones. This can be hard to do, because I think most people have a tendency to want to "hang on to" as many "masterpieces" as possible, whereas (in my opinion) I feel there is simply a far greater expanse to what most people (again, in my opinion) would regard as a masterpiece. Probably something like 7/10 to 10/10 on my scale which covers a very vast qualitative ground. It's not necessarily the case that I think less of those 7s than others who view them as masterpieces of their genre. It is more often the case where I have just found (again, imo lol) far greater works that even when expressing something similar or developing something similar artistically to a lesser rated work are yet doing so at a far greater creativity, emotional/conceptual expression, all with more depth, layers of meaning/impact, so that I can't ignore there is a "scale" above that, above where one might see many 7s as masterpieces. And especially when one spends a lot of time with the Sistine Chapel or Beethoven's 9th or Mahler's 9th or really "gets" Citizen Kane or Black Saint and the Sinner Lady or Wyatt's Rock Bottom or Astral Weeks (or what-have-you), it becomes more and more apparent -- the differential more and more obvious. But that differential is unlikely to open much if one spends a lot more time with 7s or 6.5s, etc, relative to insufficient attention given the higher rated works. So it's just coming to terms with that and getting a better and better grasp of it. At least, for me, that's what occurred (and seems to be similar of others that have taken a relatively similar path).

RE: seeing architecture inside the structures and in real-life is ideal ... agreed, for sure. Obviously it is unrealistic for me to visit all of the great works of architecture across the world, so I do the best I can though lots of pouring over images of all the parts and different angles, and (especially) HQ walk throughs, videos, virtual tours. Your point is probably most true with a work to the degree it is huge in scale and three dimensional (in other words architecture vs "2D" works like paintings, tends to by more difficult to "grasp" in its whole), so yeah I would definitely agree that my ratings for most architecture (at this point) should very much be considered "estimates", and along with that, the scores are especially volatile at this time anyway (so even the "estimates" are very inconclusive so far).

EyeKanFly wrote:

While it is a park with multiple sculptures, my personal recommendation would be to evaluate this as one "work". It was designed with one singular vision and (mostly) one commission. Similar to Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel made of many individual paintings but having been under one artist's vision. On the other hand, something like St. Peter's Basilica is the vision of many architects (and I'd argue that some of these architects actually detracted from the original vision, i.e. Carlo Maderno's facade ruins the grand view of the dome when approached from the front of the building), and a work of art does not necessarily need to be an individual's "vision".

Thank you for the insight. I just haven't looked into the Parc Guell much (yet) and am only familiar with it on a cursory level. I trust that you are more than likely correct (that it may all be "one" work) and will probably follow your lead. I also agree that a work of art doesn't have to be a single individual's vision (even cinema, for instance, or albums made by bands, are often partially collaborative, even if an "auteur" or "leader" is leading the way with his/her vision). And, yes, certainly St. Peter's is an excellent example of several artists taking it's lead over several decades (and over a variety of movements: Renaissance through Baroque).

I agree with you that Maderno's St. Peter's facade is a mild misjudgment. Not terribly detrimental by any means, but surely would've been better to leave the Dome more evident from that end and from the lower angled view instead of partially obscuring it.

EyeKanFly wrote:

I've never been a fan of this structure, I just mention it as an example of something which blurs the line between sculpture and architecture, having been a collaboration between a sculptor and an architect. Funny you should mention "emotional appeal" because the sculptor Mathias Goeritz would promote this work as "emotional architecture". Not necessarily sure I understand that though lol, my impression is that it's a purely decorative work for the city. To my knowledge, the colors don't mean anything in particular. It's actually been re-painted different colors throughout its history.

Ok cool, thanks for the clarification.

EyeKanFly wrote:

Yes, this is wonderful, and I was thinking of the parallel to music myself when you first mentioned repetition in architecture! You explained better than I could my thoughts on the link between these 2 art forms. To put it simply, repetition can be beautiful, but it can also be boring. And we see that in architecture and music. And the difference between beauty and tedium can vary greatly from listener to listener/viewer to viewer.

Thank you again, and we definitely see eye to eye on the repetition point Smile

EyeKanFly wrote:

This is already lots of food for thought, but I'll throw some links to some of my favorite architecture that trends toward the more sculptural/artistic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_...ols_(Cuba) by Vittorio Garatti, Roberto Gottardi, and Ricardo Porro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallingwater by Frank Lloyd Wright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guggenheim_Museum_Bilbao by Frank Gehry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_Building by Joseph Maria Olbrich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_...r_Building by Raymond Hood & André Fouilhoux
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palacio_de_Bellas_Artes by most priminently Adamo Boari

Thank you for the recs! FLW has long been one of my favorite architects. As a matter of fact, he was my earliest real interest in the art form, way back in the late 90s well before I eventually started really getting into visual art and concertedly making lists. Fallingwater has probably been my absolute favorite by him ever since around that time, and has an excellent shot of inclusion on the 7.3+ list. I am a fan of all these others too, particularly the Guggenheim.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 11/24/2022 21:50; edited 2 times in total

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

Antoni Gaudi (1852 - 1926)

Best Works:
8.1/10: Sagrada Família (Gaudi: 1883 - 1926, unfinished; Still under construction as of 2022) [Architecture]

Sagrada Família - Antoni Gaudí (Gaudi: 1883 - 1926, unfinished; Still under construction as of 2022) [Architecture]

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

EXTERIOR - EVENING SHOT - FRONT "PASSION SIDE" VIEW: https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/u...ilia-8.jpg
EXTERIOR - LEFT SIDE VIEW - LARGE: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/...a_2021.jpg
PHOTO GALLERY - VERY HQ - VARIOUS AREAS/DETAILS: https://sagradafamilia.org/en/photo-gallery
VIRTUAL TOUR - VARIOUS AREAS/DETAILS: https://sagradafamilia.org/en/virtual-tour
VIDEO WALKING TOUR - VERY HIGH QUALITY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78cWSG2m3fw
TOUR - PANORAMIC VIEWS: https://360stories.com/barcelona/place/...da-familia

Note: more images/links to add...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 11/24/2022 11:12; edited 2 times in total

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

Frank Lloyd Wright (1867 - 1959)

Best Works:
7.8/10: Fallingwater - Frank Lloyd Wright (1939) [Architecture]

Fallingwater - Frank Lloyd Wright (1939) [Architecture]

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

EXTERIOR "WATERFALL" VIEW: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/...water3.jpg
VIDEO FOOTAGE - VERY HIGH QUALITY - VARIOUS EXTERIOR VIEWS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG0Ecqp2pjA
VIDEO TOUR - EXTERIOR - HIGH QUALITY - (First seven minutes is Fallingwater): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfO2v2QVUUY
EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR TOUR - PART VIDEO / PART STILLS (due to on-side filming restrictions) - VERY GOOD QUALITY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJpE3z5DaXk&t=478s
3D COMPUTERIZED RECREATION - VERY HQ - (Includes image breakdown and layout of its structure/composition): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AIPbJRP71E
MODEL OF FALLINGWATER - VERY HQ - (Helpful "aerial-style" views to assist in understanding the layout, complexity, beauty and elegance of its whole composition from an exterior view): http://www.davidwebbarchitecturalmodels...hqd9xqmqxt

Note: despite restorations and much conservation effort to keep Fallingwater in uniform shape, there are areas of noticeable deterioration and some disrepair (here and there) on its structures, which makes it only (marginally) less beautiful, elegant and convincing today than it must have been in its early days. However these are of course not counted against the rating, as the house is over 80 years old and is constantly up against the elements and the continually running water through its grounds. They might only be counted against the rating if the deterioration were severe enough to completely obscure one's ability to "fill in the blank" and know how it really looks without that, which of course can be done today, whether through photographs or the fact that most of the more evident deterioration is on the concrete structures that is a single light ochre color, very visually simple on its own, therefore quite easy to see beyond that and imagine how it really looked when new.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

Ustad Ahmad Lahori (1580 - 1649)

Best Works:
8.4/10: Taj Mahal (1653) [Architecture]

Taj Mahal - Ustad Ahmad Lahauri (1653) [Architecture]

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

VIDEO TOUR - HIGH QUALITY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV_r9tw8uo8
EXTENDED VIDEO TOUR - VERY HIGH QUALITY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFGT0qBCf4k
MULTIPLE AERIAL PANORAMIC VIEWS - ENTIRE EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURE AND GROUNDS - VERY HIGH QUALITY: https://www.airpano.com/360photo/taj-mahal-india/
PANORAMIC ROOFTOP VIEW - VERY HIGH QUALITY: https://artsandculture.google.com/stree...amp;sv_z=1
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

Peder Vilhelm Jensen-Klint (1853 - 1930)

Best Works:
7.3/10: Grundtvig's Church (1940) [Architecture]

Grundtvig's Church - Peder Vilhelm Jensen-Klint (1940) [Architecture]

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

NOTE: MORE IMAGES/LINKS TO BE ADDED...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings