|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor
Age: 33
Location: Gotham
|
- #171
- Posted: 12/07/2022 17:24
- Post subject:
|
| AfterHours wrote: | 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!  ) |
I should clarify that ~650 of them are architects born 1800 or later for whom I've listed dates of birth and death, a notable building, and "style(s)"; and then there's ~200 more pre-1800 architects for whom I've only listed names. I need to get a little better with that, since I could easily fill in that data for most renaissance-era European architects (ancient and non-European architects...not so much). My problem is also that there are so many pre-1900-ish buildings out there whose architects/designers aren't known. I think the best example is the Pantheon in Rome which has been influencing some of the most prominent (European/western) architects for nearly 2000 years! Everyone from Vitruvius to Palladio to Jefferson to... the list goes on... My current format makes it much easier to "rank" or categorize architects rather than works of architecture. I'm not sure how I'll go about this (or where, might not be on BEA), but when I do, I'll let you know!
| AfterHours wrote: | | 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. |
I know we spoke elsewhere about ideally being able to visit a work of architecture before appropriately rating it (and more on that below). Nowhere was this clearer for me than at the Sagrada Família. Pictures tend to make the building look so chaotic that for me it's tough to see the beauty. To me, "grotesque" is the perfect example to describe the Sagrada Família and most of Gaudí's works and designs. Part of the problem for me is that as I mentioned, I tend to see the engineering side of architecture. And a design that's taking over 100 years to complete doesn't seem to be a "good" design to me. But only once I was finally able to visit (which only happened in the past couple years) did I feel like I was truly able to appreciate the cathedral as a work of art. Granted, I never went out of my way to explore the building online much (e.g. virtual tours), so it's just been based on pictures in books and on Wikipedia which I made my (pre-)judgment. And my notion of Gaudí as a poor engineer is unfounded as well. The tour of the building taught me so much about how many pioneering engineering techniques were used in the design. They may not have been perfect, but for the scale of the building (it will be the tallest church in the world when complete), a 100-year construction isn't too crazy (though still very long). The Milan Duomo took almost 500 years to complete construction (interestingly, I think that's a great parallel to the Sagrada Família in terms of a chaotic structure creating beauty through the chaos). There are certainly less grand churches that have taken similarly as long to build: for example the National Cathedral in Washington, DC took over 80 years and didn't have anywhere close to the amount of innovation or unique design strategies that Barcelona's or Milan's cathedrals have.
Your references to the Tower of Babel are appropriate, I vaguely remember from my tour of the Sagrada Família that Gaudí was likely inspired by paintings of the Tower of Babel (particularly Bruegel's, which I believe I remember seeing a photo of somewhere in the Sagrada Família's museum section). Something so massive that it appears chaotic and perhaps ugly all at once, but when viewing individual elements, it becomes more ordered and more obviously beautiful.
| AfterHours wrote: | | 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). |
My rating method is much more "feels like" than logical, although one thing I've gotten in the habit of doing: with film and music, after viewing/listening for the first time, I'll rate the work on a 0-5 scale a few days later (0-1=didn't like it, 2=meh, 3=good but average, 4-5=excellent to perfect) and then a few months later or so revisit it to further rank it out of 10. So something which I might have rated a 5/5 at first becomes an 8.5-9.5/10 when revisiting or looking back on it. Something rated a 3/5 may get bumped up to a 7.5-8/10 if I realize I liked it better than the first time. But after that second ranking, I rarely go back and revisit it (the ranking, not the work). So my numerical ranking is always a snapshot of how I viewed the work within a few months of the first time I experienced it. Later on, when I rank works against each other to make lists, I feel it out a bit more but without adjusting the numeric ranking. I'm considering revisiting that, as long as I still have record of my original ranking, because I really appreciate having the snapshot into my first impression of a work.
| AfterHours wrote: | | 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). |
We're on the same page about not being able to visit all the great works of architecture . it's much easier to access photos of great paintings from museums and even private collections around the world. But with architecture, I feel that photos don't always do a building justice. Interiors can be particularly hard to photograph; one silver lining of the pandemic over the last 2 years is that many museums and cultural institutions have begun making HQ videos of great architecture available for all to access. Another problem with architecture though is that so many great works are privately owned an inaccessible. Of the existing buildings that Frank Lloyd Wright designed, the vast majority are still privately-owned homes. Typically photos of interiors (and sometimes exteriors if the building isn't visible from the street) are much less accessible for privately-owned buildings. There's also the issue of architecture not being permanent: whether by disasters or demolition, many great works of architecture no longer exist. I guess the same is true for lost paintings and even music (more so classical or jazz, modern recording makes "losing" music much harder to do), but I personally think that this is a bigger problem in architecture. Music and (most) paintings aren't subjected to weather either.
I think this is also why architecture photography is so important to me as well, to the point that I think of it as its own art form. Great photography can allow the viewer to see a run-down building in a much better light. Great photography has also led me to appreciate some styles which aren't typically appreciated (in particular, there's a handful of photographers who I follow who are enthusiasts of brutalism, and they've led me to appreciate the style much more). The same can definitely be said of sculpture photography, particularly when the sculpture is not at human scale (whether significantly bigger or smaller).
| AfterHours wrote: | | 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. |
I had an architecture history professor who was so vehemently opposed to Maderno's facade that you'd think my prof was alive in the 1600s and lost a commission to Maderno or something . This has definitely influenced my opinion of St. Peter's as a whole, and I definitely appreciate that I first saw the building before taking that class.
As far as the 4 buildings you've posted so far, I suppose I've already talked enough about Gaudí and even Frank Lloyd Wright. But for the Taj Mahal, that's a building which I'd need to visit further (whether virtually or literally). Despite being one of the most famous buildings in the world, I just haven't explored or researched the building enough to feel confident in ranking it.
Jensen-Klint's Grundtvig's Church on the other hand... I'm so glad you posted that one. Certainly a masterpiece of it's style, there's perhaps no better example of a masterwork of brick expressionism. And the interior pictures you shared are *chef's kiss*. I don't think I've ever seen photos of the space that do it justice like those. I've never visited this building, but it is the 1st site on my to-do list if I ever visit Copenhagen.
I'll wait to post any other recommendations (the vast majority of my highly ranked buildings are going to be modernist works), but I will ask about your thoughts on Oscar Niemeyer, e.g. his https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral...s%C3%ADlia, who I find among the most fascinating designers.
_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #172
- Posted: 12/08/2022 00:33
- Post subject:
|
| EyeKanFly wrote: | I should clarify that ~650 of them are architects born 1800 or later for whom I've listed dates of birth and death, a notable building, and "style(s)"; and then there's ~200 more pre-1800 architects for whom I've only listed names. I need to get a little better with that, since I could easily fill in that data for most renaissance-era European architects (ancient and non-European architects...not so much). My problem is also that there are so many pre-1900-ish buildings out there whose architects/designers aren't known. I think the best example is the Pantheon in Rome which has been influencing some of the most prominent (European/western) architects for nearly 2000 years! Everyone from Vitruvius to Palladio to Jefferson to... the list goes on... My current format makes it much easier to "rank" or categorize architects rather than works of architecture. I'm not sure how I'll go about this (or where, might not be on BEA), but when I do, I'll let you know!
I know we spoke elsewhere about ideally being able to visit a work of architecture before appropriately rating it (and more on that below). Nowhere was this clearer for me than at the Sagrada Família. Pictures tend to make the building look so chaotic that for me it's tough to see the beauty. To me, "grotesque" is the perfect example to describe the Sagrada Família and most of Gaudí's works and designs. Part of the problem for me is that as I mentioned, I tend to see the engineering side of architecture. And a design that's taking over 100 years to complete doesn't seem to be a "good" design to me. But only once I was finally able to visit (which only happened in the past couple years) did I feel like I was truly able to appreciate the cathedral as a work of art. Granted, I never went out of my way to explore the building online much (e.g. virtual tours), so it's just been based on pictures in books and on Wikipedia which I made my (pre-)judgment. And my notion of Gaudí as a poor engineer is unfounded as well. The tour of the building taught me so much about how many pioneering engineering techniques were used in the design. They may not have been perfect, but for the scale of the building (it will be the tallest church in the world when complete), a 100-year construction isn't too crazy (though still very long). The Milan Duomo took almost 500 years to complete construction (interestingly, I think that's a great parallel to the Sagrada Família in terms of a chaotic structure creating beauty through the chaos). There are certainly less grand churches that have taken similarly as long to build: for example the National Cathedral in Washington, DC took over 80 years and didn't have anywhere close to the amount of innovation or unique design strategies that Barcelona's or Milan's cathedrals have.
Your references to the Tower of Babel are appropriate, I vaguely remember from my tour of the Sagrada Família that Gaudí was likely inspired by paintings of the Tower of Babel (particularly Bruegel's, which I believe I remember seeing a photo of somewhere in the Sagrada Família's museum section). Something so massive that it appears chaotic and perhaps ugly all at once, but when viewing individual elements, it becomes more ordered and more obviously beautiful.
My rating method is much more "feels like" than logical, although one thing I've gotten in the habit of doing: with film and music, after viewing/listening for the first time, I'll rate the work on a 0-5 scale a few days later (0-1=didn't like it, 2=meh, 3=good but average, 4-5=excellent to perfect) and then a few months later or so revisit it to further rank it out of 10. So something which I might have rated a 5/5 at first becomes an 8.5-9.5/10 when revisiting or looking back on it. Something rated a 3/5 may get bumped up to a 7.5-8/10 if I realize I liked it better than the first time. But after that second ranking, I rarely go back and revisit it (the ranking, not the work). So my numerical ranking is always a snapshot of how I viewed the work within a few months of the first time I experienced it. Later on, when I rank works against each other to make lists, I feel it out a bit more but without adjusting the numeric ranking. I'm considering revisiting that, as long as I still have record of my original ranking, because I really appreciate having the snapshot into my first impression of a work.
We're on the same page about not being able to visit all the great works of architecture . it's much easier to access photos of great paintings from museums and even private collections around the world. But with architecture, I feel that photos don't always do a building justice. Interiors can be particularly hard to photograph; one silver lining of the pandemic over the last 2 years is that many museums and cultural institutions have begun making HQ videos of great architecture available for all to access. Another problem with architecture though is that so many great works are privately owned an inaccessible. Of the existing buildings that Frank Lloyd Wright designed, the vast majority are still privately-owned homes. Typically photos of interiors (and sometimes exteriors if the building isn't visible from the street) are much less accessible for privately-owned buildings. There's also the issue of architecture not being permanent: whether by disasters or demolition, many great works of architecture no longer exist. I guess the same is true for lost paintings and even music (more so classical or jazz, modern recording makes "losing" music much harder to do), but I personally think that this is a bigger problem in architecture. Music and (most) paintings aren't subjected to weather either.
I think this is also why architecture photography is so important to me as well, to the point that I think of it as its own art form. Great photography can allow the viewer to see a run-down building in a much better light. Great photography has also led me to appreciate some styles which aren't typically appreciated (in particular, there's a handful of photographers who I follow who are enthusiasts of brutalism, and they've led me to appreciate the style much more). The same can definitely be said of sculpture photography, particularly when the sculpture is not at human scale (whether significantly bigger or smaller).
I had an architecture history professor who was so vehemently opposed to Maderno's facade that you'd think my prof was alive in the 1600s and lost a commission to Maderno or something . This has definitely influenced my opinion of St. Peter's as a whole, and I definitely appreciate that I first saw the building before taking that class.
As far as the 4 buildings you've posted so far, I suppose I've already talked enough about Gaudí and even Frank Lloyd Wright. But for the Taj Mahal, that's a building which I'd need to visit further (whether virtually or literally). Despite being one of the most famous buildings in the world, I just haven't explored or researched the building enough to feel confident in ranking it.
Jensen-Klint's Grundtvig's Church on the other hand... I'm so glad you posted that one. Certainly a masterpiece of it's style, there's perhaps no better example of a masterwork of brick expressionism. And the interior pictures you shared are *chef's kiss*. I don't think I've ever seen photos of the space that do it justice like those. I've never visited this building, but it is the 1st site on my to-do list if I ever visit Copenhagen.
I'll wait to post any other recommendations (the vast majority of my highly ranked buildings are going to be modernist works), but I will ask about your thoughts on Oscar Niemeyer, e.g. his https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral...s%C3%ADlia, who I find among the most fascinating designers. |
Whoa, those are some impressive numbers EKF! I've said it before but I'll say it again: that I am looking forward to your selections and rankings! I agree about the Pantheon, very possibly the most influential work of architecture (or at least among them). Even though I gave it a very good rating of 7.5, I feel like I'm rating it too low (though part of that is also due to the feeling that it was more impressive in its heyday than it is now, with the slightly sinking feeling about what is missing in comparison and the likelihood that it would be rated a bit higher if we could see how it really looked). One of the most fascinating features, that is quite unique to it, is the opening at the top of the ceiling, an oculus, also acting as a "sun dial" that then encircles the interior dome space at different times of day, different seasons (and so forth).
Thanks for your reply re: Gaudi. Sagrada certainly has a strange beauty to it, in spite of the grotesque (even "pushing through" the grotesque) in its "organic/growing/muscular" and "sculptured" structure. It is probably not by accident that its beauty is mostly inner (the interior, rainbow colored, and tree-like structures) while its facade is much more of a struggle between the two (beauty and the grotesque, sculpture and architecture...).
I do need to look into Gaudi a bit more as my opinions on him are still a bit too dispersed to better substantiate ratings/rankings which are still very much in the "estimate" stage. I have urges to rate and rank it higher than it is now, but they are just as quickly met by hesitation (again, a sign I need to learn more about him and the work to better substantiate).
Your rating method sounds pretty workable to me, including adding revisits/revisions later. I used to wait until that point for most of my selections to be "officially" added to any of my lists (music, film, or otherwise) but then decided it can be more interesting to rate them early on -- from the earliest stage where I felt at least fairly comfortable with where it was at, even if an "estimate" -- and just roll with the changes if/when they happened thereafter. Plus I would run into the problem of having to update my lists well after, after there were many albums I had listened to, or films I had watched, that I never rated and then lost track of until reminded (because I wanted to wait to rate them, and moved onto others in the interim) and then having to get back to them (sometimes years later) to do so. Instead I usually just add them on the first couple listens or first watch and work it out from there as I go with any changes (which aren't often that major, but sometimes are). Paintings (especially) and sculpture are getting quicker but still in a slower stage, while Architecture is way behind and needs to catch up. But these will probably always require more "study" and "historical info" before, say, rating a Rock album, in large part because the visual art is often farther removed from our own time and context, and I need that to better judge. Whereas a Rock album is (usually) immediately (or generally) understandable in regards context, the main ideas or scene or emotional content being conveyed.
Agreed on your point about photos. It can certainly make a difference. I try to see it from many different angles, and again, virtual or walking tours, so I am not overly influenced by a single moment where the photographer happened to catch a section at the perfect moment that isn't necessarily representative of how it usually looks. That said, many architects -- as I'm sure you know -- (and painters, and sculptures, especially math/engineering geniuses such as Michelangelo) intentionally incorporated the lighting and how nature would effect the look of the work, into their composition (for instance the Sistine -- before additional lighting was added -- Michelangelo composed the figures on the Last Judgment to precisely coordinate with the field of light that came from the windows and bathes the middle Jesus figure and surrounding Apostles and cascades down the work to bathe or clothe various parts of it in close coordination with the composition). Michelangelo was also very careful with how his sculpture would or should look in certain lighting and different viewpoints and the difference in disposition, fictive change or movement, in emotion, this would convey. And of course with architects, at least as early as Gothic Cathedrals, were very in tune with the lighting and how it would serve the space through the "heavenly" rise of the windows (etc). The Taj Mahal, which you mentioned wanting to study, is maybe the most profound example I can think of that incorporates different lightings of different times of day to expound on the theme of eternity/eternal love (the main mauseleom is specially designed -- with its carefully chosen marble, and slight variations, alternating slightly discolored vs white blocks of it, in its lower sections compared to its higher ones -- to have light reflect off it in specific ways to give the appearance of illusion, even apparition, at certain times of the day and a more "enlivened" and "solid" disposition at others). So I do take this in account when it seems specifically a point of the composition/technique. This also is one of the answers to my earlier mentions of the often symmetrical repetition of architecture, is that (like sculpture that can be seen from different viewpoints causing fictive change in time/disposition/emotion/theme) it at least partially (maybe even mostly) overcomes this in the above such ways, including the change in viewpoint (like sculpture ... even if I don't think this point is as often as substantial in architecture, it does seem to be relevant in overcoming some of the "functional" vs "art" points we mentioned before).
Also, great point about the photographers themselves being artists. Maybe one day I'll start adding some photography (as its own art form/genre)...
Hopefully your professor didn't get himself too worked up over Maderno's facade! There's a lot more to St. Peter's, and the most substantial artistic genius of it is (mostly) Michelangelo anyway (or at least largely following his ideas posthumously) !
Thanks for the mention of Niemeyer. I actually highlighted that work on my "Top 10+" log (Music diaries forum) a couple weeks ago (along with some others of Frank Lloyd Wright, etc), and intend to work up to rating it. I am definitely a fan though. (At the moment that church would probably get into by 7.3-7.7 section of my list, but I need to evaluate it a bit more before deciding ... he of course has others that should be under consideration as well ... a very modern "futuristic" architectural thinker).
Note: if you're interested, that "Top 10+" log is basically the central point where I share the works of different mediums that I am enjoying/going through at the time, including the ratings I give them (usually decided upon within a few days, but not always), and their rankings "for that week or weeks" just before placement (or not) onto my main lists: Classical, Rock, Jazz, Paintings... For instance, I specially highlighted and mentioned a few things about Fallingwater just last week, and there are of course various discussions or notes shared about all sorts of works, whether Trout Mask Replica or Frank Lloyd Wright or or or... Discussion always welcome there too...
^^^ If you're like: "Wait, what is he talking about again?" There is an "Explanation of this log" link at the top of each post that I share my "Top 10+ of the Week(s)" (that used to be more strictly "weekly" but now usually stretches out a few weeks, sometimes more, before I make each update of a new one
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Last edited by AfterHours on 12/08/2022 22:21; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Skinny
birdman_handrub.gif
|
- #175
- Posted: 12/09/2022 06:16
- Post subject:
|
the pantheon 7.8 bnm lol
_________________
2021 in full effect. Come drop me some recs. Y'all know what I like.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #176
- Posted: 12/09/2022 06:57
- Post subject:
|
| Skinny wrote: | | the pantheon 7.8 bnm lol |
It should be obvious that it's 0.7 above Sgt. Pepper's but 0.7 below Hitchcock's Vertigo 
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #177
- Posted: 12/09/2022 08:18
- Post subject:
|
Alonso Martínez, Pedro Dancart, Carles Galtés de Ruan, Alonso Rodríguez
Best Works:
8.1/10: Seville Cathedral (1528) [Architecture]
Seville Cathedral - Alonso Martínez; Pedro Dancart; Carles Galtés de Ruan; and Alonso Rodríguez (1528) [Architecture]
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
VIDEO - WALKING TOUR - VERY HIGH QUALITY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksvfuCdP19o
NOTE: MORE IMAGES AND LINKS TO BE ADDED...
_________________
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 ;-)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 18 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
|
|
|
