|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #181
- Posted: 12/11/2022 00:47
- Post subject:
|
@ EyeKanFly (or anyone that wants to answer)
There are some massive works I currently am considering for my list. I have some various questions for you.
I have been considering adding The Forbidden City. Would you consider this a "single" work of architectural art? I tend to lean towards it being such, as it is a unified complex with a unified plan and does seem to even be by one architect (or at least originally). But it's also like 900 buildings and almost 9000 rooms 
Also, do you (or anyone) know if there is an image or video base of all (or even most) of the interior designs and architecture (especially interiors) of the buildings across the whole complex? This would be a godsend. I've found various images of the interiors but very incomplete and it is hard to find anything that is organized by building and that can be applied to a thorough and step by step (building by building) analysis of the "whole work" (or even a good, estimated, idea of it). Even when one tours it in real life, it is only the exteriors (mostly). So something like this would be necessary one way or the other.
Similar question (as the first) for the palace and fortress complex of Alahambra, as "one work" (broken up by section/palace, or as a whole?). I am leaning towards the whole complex as a single work at the moment...
Similar question (as the first) for Patola Palace. Also, are there complete video or photos of the interiors of all the buildings including the Red Palace? The tours I've seen seem very incomplete (understandably so), but I'm hoping there is something very comprehensive out there somewhere.
Similar questions for Palitana. A huge temple complex. Do all of them count? Are there interior videos or shots of them? Is it even possible to see (and thus give even an estimated assessment of) all of it?
Any of these could get very high ratings if most/all the content could be seen and also of course the potential rating could vary widely depending on "how" they are counted (or split up) as "one work of art or multiple"... Thus, resolution to the above questions could save me much indecision!
I am also strongly considering rating the following (or attempting to haha), despite much structural damage/ruin:
The Colosseum, Acropolis, Roman Forum and various works of Egypt that are in various states of partial ruin (Abu Simbel, The Sphinx being perhaps the ones I feel closest to rating so far).
The kicker is that I would likely base the rating on a combination of what we have to see now and then also an estimate (based on recreations, based on closest estimates from experts) of what they looked like in their time. You can usually find recreations/3D versions of these and get what appears to be a very close approximation. What is your opinion on doing it that way? Seem "fair"? Obviously, being in a state of partial, half or majority-ruined, one can't really give them a rating any way else, could one? (at least as art/architecture, still hold much "historical" interest regardless...) Any opinions on rating or ranking criteria to follow for this would be of interest.
_________________
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
|
|
EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor
Age: 33
Location: Gotham
|
- #184
- Posted: 12/12/2022 19:12
- Post subject:
|
| AfterHours wrote: | @ EyeKanFly (or anyone that wants to answer)
There are some massive works I currently am considering for my list. I have some various questions for you.
I have been considering adding The Forbidden City. Would you consider this a "single" work of architectural art? I tend to lean towards it being such, as it is a unified complex with a unified plan and does seem to even be by one architect (or at least originally). But it's also like 900 buildings and almost 9000 rooms
Also, do you (or anyone) know if there is an image or video base of all (or even most) of the interior designs and architecture (especially interiors) of the buildings across the whole complex? This would be a godsend. I've found various images of the interiors but very incomplete and it is hard to find anything that is organized by building and that can be applied to a thorough and step by step (building by building) analysis of the "whole work" (or even a good, estimated, idea of it). Even when one tours it in real life, it is only the exteriors (mostly). So something like this would be necessary one way or the other.
Similar question (as the first) for the palace and fortress complex of Alahambra, as "one work" (broken up by section/palace, or as a whole?). I am leaning towards the whole complex as a single work at the moment...
Similar question (as the first) for Patola Palace. Also, are there complete video or photos of the interiors of all the buildings including the Red Palace? The tours I've seen seem very incomplete (understandably so), but I'm hoping there is something very comprehensive out there somewhere.
Similar questions for Palitana. A huge temple complex. Do all of them count? Are there interior videos or shots of them? Is it even possible to see (and thus give even an estimated assessment of) all of it?
Any of these could get very high ratings if most/all the content could be seen and also of course the potential rating could vary widely depending on "how" they are counted (or split up) as "one work of art or multiple"... Thus, resolution to the above questions could save me much indecision!
I am also strongly considering rating the following (or attempting to haha), despite much structural damage/ruin:
The Colosseum, Acropolis, Roman Forum and various works of Egypt that are in various states of partial ruin (Abu Simbel, The Sphinx being perhaps the ones I feel closest to rating so far).
The kicker is that I would likely base the rating on a combination of what we have to see now and then also an estimate (based on recreations, based on closest estimates from experts) of what they looked like in their time. You can usually find recreations/3D versions of these and get what appears to be a very close approximation. What is your opinion on doing it that way? Seem "fair"? Obviously, being in a state of partial, half or majority-ruined, one can't really give them a rating any way else, could one? (at least as art/architecture, still hold much "historical" interest regardless...) Any opinions on rating or ranking criteria to follow for this would be of interest. |
I've been thinking about this over the weekend and comparing some of these examples from antiquity to more modern examples, and in the meantime you've posted some wonderful pieces. I'm generally not a big fan of Lautner's work, but the Sheats-Goldstein Residence is incredible. And the Florence Cathedral is incredible as well. If I were to expand my list to pre-1800, this would probably fall in my top 20 or so. Mostly for Brunelleschi's dome.
I think the Florence Cathedral is a good example of many different designers coming together to create something wonderful. It's also one of the earliest examples of many different architects, engineers, and artisans being credited for their contributions, something that was either atypical pre-renaissance or else the info was just lost to time. That's also something that's becoming rarer nowadays, for large structures it's often the architecture and/or engineering firm which is credited rather than individual contributes. Either way, the point is that it takes a lot of hands to create a piece of architecture. I think this is also an interesting parallel to music, which doesn't typically translate to painting/sculpture (more on that later).
I'm going to give my recommendations for each of the buildings/complexes you've mentioned and what I would probably do, but please take these as recommendations and by no means as "the right way" to categorize them. It's very probable that I'm wrong and/or missing critical information in my limited research/understanding!
Forbidden City, Beijing, China: although the complex is massive, my understanding is that it was built over a period of 15 years (!!) to one vision in the 1400s. Although it's massive, I think I'd still consider it one "work" for that reason. A similar modern example is Rockefeller Center in New York. While many architects, engineers, artisans (and of course construction workers, etc.) were involved in the design and construction, it was one client (John D. Rockefeller, Jr. vs. the Yongle Emperor) who dictated the vision and probably the design. Rockefeller Center was led by a team of architects, but Raymond Hood is typically considered the lead and most crucial to design execution. While I haven't looked for any evidence for or against this, my suspicion is that the Forbidden City was probably executed in a similar manner with a "lead" planner. Due to its scale, I'm sure design and construction necessitated lots of people, but to keep it within the same style it also necessitated intimate coordination.
All that said, I don't think it would be unreasonable to both rank the complex as a whole as well rank individual buildings. This would be akin to giving a ranking to Rockefeller Center as well as Radio City Music Hall. I think the 2 buildings which are most well known in the Forbidden City are the Hall of Supreme Harmony and the Palace of Heavenly Purity (fancy names lol, they're the 2 largest central palaces). It seems completely reasonable to me to rank one or more of these buildings first, and then perhaps revisit the complex as a whole separately. Unfortunately I would expect that we may not be able to find complete video tours of the whole complex, and if one did exist, it may even be days worth of footage.
Personally, I did visit Beijing around 10 years ago and only got to spend half a day at the Forbidden City. Unfortunately, this was also a day where the Beijing smog really got to me, and I had a hard time appreciating the complex. However, one thing that I did find myself realizing is that the boundary between "inside" and "outside" is blurred in many of the buildings in the Forbidden City (sometimes there are roofs but no real exterior walls), so perhaps video walkthroughs might yield more than I expect.
Alhambra, Granada, Spain: I'd consider this very similar to the the Florence Cathedral. Multiple artisans with multiple visions, but that come together for one "work". A more modern example is the Reichstag Building in Berlin: designed by Paul Wallot and built in the 1880s-1890s, it suffered a lot of damage in the 1930s and 1940s and fell into a state of disrepair thereafter. In the 1990s, a significant renovation/expansion was enacted, led by architect Norman Foster, which created the iconic new dome. The Alhambra was begun in the 1200s-1300s (I think), and significantly expanded/renovated in the late 1400s. Most of what is seen today is in keeping with the 1490s "vision".
The way I think I'd treat both of these buildings is as one "work", but I'd examine and rank the buildings based on how they appear today, which is largely a result of the 1490s remodel (for the Alhambra) and the 1990s remodel (for the Reichstag building). If a renovation significantly alters the original structure, I think it's fair to credit the original artisans (if known) but focus more on the work of the renovating artisans (while crediting them too if possible). Obviously that will also depend a lot on how significant the renovation is, and how much of the original building is still present. Using just the Reichstag building as an example, the vast majority of the exterior is original, while the majority of the interior and the dome are new. While I could just rank the dome on its own, I think it's important to consider that the new dome could not have existed without the original structure (more on this later). I don't know nearly as much about the Alhambra as I do about the Reichstag building, but I expect that the expansions/renovations are similar.
Potala Palace, Lhasa, China: I'd consider this similar to the Alhambra and Florence Cathedral. The difference here compared to the Forbidden City or Alhambra is that it's one building rather than a complex (although there are some out-buildings, the main structure is a single building), despite being built in phases (white palace and red palace). Personally, this is on a bucket list of places I'd love to visit in my lifetime. While I tend to be more interested in the exterior of buildings than the interior, I've definitely watched videos of tours of the Potala Palace (which mostly consist of courtyards and not true "indoors" spaces). I don't think I have anything bookmarked, but if I can find anything I'll let you know. UNESCO apparently has a large photo collection but you have to contact them to get access, which doesn't seem too promising.
Palitana Temples, Palitana, India: I know next to nothing about this complex, and this one seems a lot trickier to consider one "work". It seems like construction and renovation of these temples occurred over hundreds or even thousands of years which makes things tricky, since it's clearly not one "vision" but the vision of various people over a long time period, and these visions don't necessarily conform with each other. It also seems like there's 9 distinct clusters (at least?), so maybe each of these clusters could be considered separately. Unfortunately India is among the regions where I'm severely lacking in my knowledge and understanding of pre-colonial architecture.
General comments: I think defining a complex or set of buildings as one "work" of architecture is clearly complicated The more I write and think about this, the more I think the approach I mentioned above for the Forbidden City might work best for a number of complicated works of architecture. In particular, it'll be more manageable to rank an individual building than a whole complex. I also realize that within my own notes, I'm inconsistent. Like Rockefeller Center, I have a number of complexes (particularly college campuses) noted as one "work" of architecture, in particular Carlos Raúl Villanueva's University City of Caracas, Santiago Calatrava's City of Arts and Sciences (Valencia, Spain), and University of Mexico's University City (Mexico City). The latter involved many different designers working mostly independently (but in a similar style). On the other hand, I have Chandigarh's Capitol Complex and Brasilia's capitol complex broken down into separate works (by building), despite these both being complexes designed by (mostly) one architect/team of architects and to one "vision". (Though as I write this, I'm rethinking Chandigarh)
Expansions/renovations are also confusing. While I have the Reichstag Building as one building, I have the Louvre Pyramid distinct from the main Louvre building, and some other similar examples like the Bloch Building at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art (Kansas City) as an entity separate from the original structure. I think a distinction with each of these is that while the Pyramid and the N-A expansion wouldn't have existed without the original structures, they could have, in contrast to the Reichstag dome and renovation. I also believe they constitute distinct visions without as much of a regard for context for the original structure compared to the Reichstag dome and renovation. Obviously buildings get renovated over time, and I wouldn't consider something like adding HVAC and electricity to a pre-1900s structure to substantially alter the original vision.
Colosseum, Acropolis, Roman Forum, etc. and other buildings in various states of partial ruin: I have slightly more definitive boundaries for this type of thing compared to the above. First of all, I do not rank/keep track of buildings that no longer exist. This unfortunately has led to the removal of buildings like the Nakagin Capsule Tower in Tokyo which was disassembled earlier this year (though importantly, it was disassembled rather than demolished, with the intent that the individual capsules be moved to a museum or perhaps reconstructed elsewhere). This also means that I would not include lost buildings like the original World Trade Center/Twin Towers, the original Penn Station (also in New York), or Frank Lloyd Wright's Imperial Hotel (originally in Tokyo, with a small surviving section moved to Nagoya).
I do, however, consider buildings that may not be "livable" but are still standing. If they still exist, they have the potential to be restored and/or renovated a la the Battersea Power Station in London (whose renovation I consider akin to the aforementioned Reichstag Building). Alternatively, a partially destroyed building could be turned into a monument a la St. Nicholas Church in Hamburg. There are many other examples which are in a state of ruins and are not being protected or restored in any way, and even if they're in extreme danger of collapsing, I keep them on my ranking unless they're totally destroyed. An example of a building I expect will not last is the Petrova Gora Monument in Croatia. Same goes for something that's partially built but abandoned (e.g. Gaudi's Church of Colònia Güell). I think pretty much all these examples you listed are most similar to the St. Nicholas Church (of the modern examples I've listed here), and I'd definitely consider any or all of them if I were to rank pre-modern era architecture.
Obviously no architect intends for their work to be partially or wholly destroyed, but I also think it's important to consider the current state of the work of architecture. I wouldn't rank St. Nicholas Church based on the architect's original design and vision (which no longer exists); I would rank it based on its new vision, which may be a combination of ideas from the original architect, any renovating architect, or just the country or institution who decided to leave it as-is as a monument or partially-ruined structure. Sometimes it may not be a conscious decision to "leave it as-is" and just over the years the public have come to acknowledge the building as it exists. I think the Colosseum, Acropolis, Roman Forum, Abu Simbel, and Sphinx all fall into this framework. All of them are consciously maintained and preserved by various governments and/or organizations, but none of them are intended to be restored to their original condition. In many of these examples, the original design/condition may not actually be known to modern archaeologists.
I suppose I should also clarify that moving a structure doesn't pose an issue for me, but the ranking may change if the new context detracts from or improves the structure. I don't think that's the case for Abu Simbel (easily the most magnificent example of moving a structure for preservation purposes!) But I rank the Dymaxion House a little lower since it was reconstructed inside a museum in Dearborn, Michigan (the original design was modular and intended to function anywhere in the world, but it was also meant to be outside and not within a larger building). Likewise, if the Nakagin Capsule Tower is reconstructed in a museum, I might hold it in a lower regard. I'm of the opinion that preservation in place is a priority. Reconstructions are a little trickier, but I've opted to consider something like the Barcelona Pavilion (originally a temporary structure built in 1929, demolished in 1930, and rebuilt in 1989) to be built to the original design similar to the ongoing Sagrada Familia construction.
This is all my basis however. I like your idea of basing the rating on a combination of what exists and what it probably originally looked like. That probably stays truer to rating the "art". I think this is akin to how musicians/conductors approach classical music. Mozart wrote The Marriage of Figaro with specific directions in mind, but every performance is different, and while the score exists, there's of course no recording of the original performance. Some performances will chose to replicate the original as much as possible (e.g. playing on period-appropriate instruments), but some performances will forgo that in favor of a unique approach, or an approach which they believe may appeal most to a modern audience. Modern performances of a work of classical music may be akin to modern preservation efforts of an architectural work which vary greatly in their implementation.
Maybe that comparison doesn't make as much sense as I thought it would, but if we're ranking music against works of architecture, I guess you have to draw comparisons somewhere
_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor
Age: 33
Location: Gotham
|
- #185
- Posted: 12/12/2022 19:43
- Post subject:
|
Hmm, I wrote a big wall of text there... feel free to read/respond to as much or as little of that as you want haha, and sorry if all that stream-of-consciousness doesn't come out to anything :/
I think the more we talk, the more I'm understanding the similarities between music and architecture. Similarities that don't apply to painting, sculpture, or other kinds of art.
We already talked about repetition. Painting and sculpture typically feature a lot less repetition than architecture and music. And repetition can serve to enhance a work of art OR to make it boring.
I also brought up the similarity of collaboration. While certainly there's collaboration in painting and sculpture, I think individualism is the norm in those fields. Painters most often work alone. Though of course there can be help with very large-scale works (like Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling which involved tradespeople and scaffolding), something like Starry Night was executed by Van Gogh's hands alone. Sculpture is similar unless it's something large-scale (which could require more help for labor and/or technical support for engineering/materials handling).
Music can be done by a single person, and often is. But more frequently there's lots of people involved: writer(s), band members, producer(s), mixers, engineers, etc. Although The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady is clearly Charles Mingus' vision, it was implemented by a dozen musicians and more involved with production/engineering/mixing. But even writing music is often collaborative.
Architecture also similarly can be done by a single person (though much more difficult, and typically smaller in scale to the point where it might be better considered sculpture than architecture). But architecture is almost always executed by many hands: architect(s), draftspeople, carpenters, other tradespeople, construction workers etc. are typically all working to execute a design which may have been created by one person or a collaborative team of people.
Another similarity I brought up is the renovation aspect. I already compared renovating or expanding a building to different implementations of performance of classical music, but one could also consider a building renovation like a musical cover: a re-interpretation of someone else's design! The best example of this in architecture (that I can think of on the spot) is Frank Lloyd Wright's renovation of the lobby of Burnham & Root's Rookery Building in Chicago. The obvious difference between music and architecture is that in music both the original and the cover can exist simultaneously, in architecture they cannot (unless it's a replica built in a new location, in which case the context is different).
Also, side note, I'd never heard of the Monreale Cathedral before, thanks for the introduction!
_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #186
- Posted: 12/13/2022 10:03
- Post subject:
|
Suryavarman II (circa 11th century - 1150 AD)
Best Works:
8.8/10: Angkor Wat - Suryavarman II (circa 1122 - 1150; Note: there are various anomalies that may suggest an earlier date of construction -- perhaps even much earlier) [Architecture]
NOTE: Rating and ranking is very much an estimate due to most of the work being in various stages of deterioration, and some of it being more or less ruined (but with enough evidence to allow one to make very good estimates of what it looked like and to fill in most of the gaps). Estimate is based on a combination of what we have of it today (which is still quite astonishing and well preserved considering its age) and some degree of studied and visualized recreation giving consideration to how it probably looked in its own time. Regardless, it is/was almost certainly a masterpiece (substantially so when new) and it's more likely that these variables in judgment are causing me to hold back on my rating rather than over-rating it.
Angkor Wat - Started by Suryavarman II (circa 1122 - 1150; Note: there are various anomalies that may suggest an earlier date of construction -- perhaps even much earlier) [Architecture]
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
WALKING TOUR - HIGH QUALITY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbV2N0Nitgw
VIDEO PLAYLIST - INSIGHTS/DISCOVERIES/MYSTERIES/ANOMALIES/QUESTIONS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO5rowQ...VIUjgVB8xI
BRIEF INFORMATIONAL VIDEO - MOAT/ENGINEERING: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gISEEOmabFQ
More images/links to add...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #187
- Posted: 12/13/2022 20:38
- Post subject:
|
@ EyeKanFly ... Thank you for your epic response! It's definitely the sort of reply I was hoping for and I will get back to you once I have more time to really go through it and take your points up. Just want you to know that, because I may be doing some other (less time consuming) posts/updates in the meantime, but I'm not "just ignoring" your replies (I simply have smaller pockets of time that I can post those, which is enough for those but too little time to respond to yours -- until probably tonight or maybe sometime tomorrow).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #188
- Posted: 12/14/2022 08:11
- Post subject:
|
| EyeKanFly wrote: | I've been thinking about this over the weekend and comparing some of these examples from antiquity to more modern examples, and in the meantime you've posted some wonderful pieces. I'm generally not a big fan of Lautner's work, but the Sheats-Goldstein Residence is incredible. And the Florence Cathedral is incredible as well. If I were to expand my list to pre-1800, this would probably fall in my top 20 or so. Mostly for Brunelleschi's dome.
I think the Florence Cathedral is a good example of many different designers coming together to create something wonderful. It's also one of the earliest examples of many different architects, engineers, and artisans being credited for their contributions, something that was either atypical pre-renaissance or else the info was just lost to time. That's also something that's becoming rarer nowadays, for large structures it's often the architecture and/or engineering firm which is credited rather than individual contributes. Either way, the point is that it takes a lot of hands to create a piece of architecture. I think this is also an interesting parallel to music, which doesn't typically translate to painting/sculpture (more on that later). |
Re: Lautner Sheats-Goldstein ... Agreed, probably my absolute favorite of his (though more analysis is needed to fully decide). I do tend to favor it over his more famous (and probably more celebrated) Chemosphere. I love its hyper-modern, ecstatic and bracingly confident play on sharp, decisive (and manifold, juxtaposed) angles, particularly part or whole triangles, in many varieties including the general directions and turns of movement as one journeys throughout the house and its immediate grounds. Its truly like walking through a three-dimensional modern art work -- not all too different than a giant modern art painting, say Kandinsky: https://www.guggenheim.org/exhibition/k...in-context ...in full three dimensional life as its composition, exterior and interior combined. There's surely more accurate abstract geometric modern art to draw parallels to, but that's just what immediately comes to mind. And then how it seamlessly includes nature, the exterior architecture and interior designs all in a "single" view from so many different positions/angles, both outside and inside. It's organic architecture with FLW close to heart, seamlessly incorporating its environment and the personality of the owner (Goldstein especially, not sure about Sheats) but also setting out on its own, more hyper-modern, more electric (less contemplative, less poetic) path beyond just being a winking eye to his mentor FLW.
I agree on the multiple designers coming together to create something wonderful with Florence Cathedral (and so many architecture favorites, whether St. Peter's or others). And, yeah, Brunelleschi's dome is the crowning achievement and perhaps the most incredible example of an exterior program being exalted so monumentally and with such prominence by the sheer audacity, perimeter scope and volume of its dome. The size differential gives it a more dramatic exaltation over its building than probably any other example I can think of (including St. Peter's). It is also a very interesting contrast in styles (of its facades), how the building seems to exalt (by its Dome) into a powerful arrival and statement from its very humanist facade program -- the contemplation of spiritual matters and Christian figures and mosaic within a program that is practically a dissertation on math, geometry, science, pattern, in beautiful white marble (very spiritual, but humbly and analytically so, not overcome by sensation so to speak ... now Man and his scientific, mental advance has his place in this), that also perfectly aligns to and expounds upon the programs of the (much earlier facades) of Giotto's Bell Tower and the Bapistery. The Dome emphasizes all this by its (simultaneous) monumentality and its humility. Its grandness without magniloquence. Its emphasis without spectacle (referring to the emphatic expression of its prominence and size differential to the rest of the cathedral while yet having a quiet, "humanist", "contemplative" facade that seems to exalt in a (quiet but major) epiphany from the marble facades below it).
And what I'm also getting to with this is that I agree with you that it has parallels to music. In all these senses/expressions I feel it has parallels to music. Lots of architecture of these periods could be compared to symphonies (even if they came later) or, if one prefers (for Renaissance or the Baroque that followed) large scale vocal (religious) works, and wouldn't at all be surprised if they were part of the inspiration for large vocal works of Bach and others that would follow in the Baroque periods and so forth. While perhaps most sculptures would be more in line with a single movement, or piano sonata or other solo or a chamber work, in terms of relative scope, ambition, size, composition/structure, the sheer amount of expression.
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.
| EyeKanFly wrote: |
I'm going to give my recommendations for each of the buildings/complexes you've mentioned and what I would probably do, but please take these as recommendations and by no means as "the right way" to categorize them. It's very probable that I'm wrong and/or missing critical information in my limited research/understanding!
Forbidden City, Beijing, China: although the complex is massive, my understanding is that it was built over a period of 15 years (!!) to one vision in the 1400s. Although it's massive, I think I'd still consider it one "work" for that reason. A similar modern example is Rockefeller Center in New York. While many architects, engineers, artisans (and of course construction workers, etc.) were involved in the design and construction, it was one client (John D. Rockefeller, Jr. vs. the Yongle Emperor) who dictated the vision and probably the design. Rockefeller Center was led by a team of architects, but Raymond Hood is typically considered the lead and most crucial to design execution. While I haven't looked for any evidence for or against this, my suspicion is that the Forbidden City was probably executed in a similar manner with a "lead" planner. Due to its scale, I'm sure design and construction necessitated lots of people, but to keep it within the same style it also necessitated intimate coordination.
All that said, I don't think it would be unreasonable to both rank the complex as a whole as well rank individual buildings. This would be akin to giving a ranking to Rockefeller Center as well as Radio City Music Hall. I think the 2 buildings which are most well known in the Forbidden City are the Hall of Supreme Harmony and the Palace of Heavenly Purity (fancy names lol, they're the 2 largest central palaces). It seems completely reasonable to me to rank one or more of these buildings first, and then perhaps revisit the complex as a whole separately. Unfortunately I would expect that we may not be able to find complete video tours of the whole complex, and if one did exist, it may even be days worth of footage.
Personally, I did visit Beijing around 10 years ago and only got to spend half a day at the Forbidden City. Unfortunately, this was also a day where the Beijing smog really got to me, and I had a hard time appreciating the complex. However, one thing that I did find myself realizing is that the boundary between "inside" and "outside" is blurred in many of the buildings in the Forbidden City (sometimes there are roofs but no real exterior walls), so perhaps video walkthroughs might yield more than I expect. |
Thank you for your input! If I can find video or enough pics of the whole thing (interiors included), or at least close enough to give a noted estimate, I'll probably rate it as one. For all the reasons you note and that I mentioned beforehand. I may consider possibly rating the key buildings too or in the meantime, but I am certainly leaning towards the "whole complex as one" at this point. If I'm proven wrong later or change my view on how to count these I could always change or remove the selection (with a sigh, naturally).
Re: your visit of Forbidden City... Too bad about the smog! Good point about the boundaries being blurred, there are also various buildings you can look inside but I'm not sure that would cut it. The interior design is amazing (of what I've seen) and would seem to be a major part of the overall rating. Perhaps a book (or two, or three...) will end up being the way through it all.
| EyeKanFly wrote: |
Alhambra, Granada, Spain: I'd consider this very similar to the the Florence Cathedral. Multiple artisans with multiple visions, but that come together for one "work". A more modern example is the Reichstag Building in Berlin: designed by Paul Wallot and built in the 1880s-1890s, it suffered a lot of damage in the 1930s and 1940s and fell into a state of disrepair thereafter. In the 1990s, a significant renovation/expansion was enacted, led by architect Norman Foster, which created the iconic new dome. The Alhambra was begun in the 1200s-1300s (I think), and significantly expanded/renovated in the late 1400s. Most of what is seen today is in keeping with the 1490s "vision".
The way I think I'd treat both of these buildings is as one "work", but I'd examine and rank the buildings based on how they appear today, which is largely a result of the 1490s remodel (for the Alhambra) and the 1990s remodel (for the Reichstag building). If a renovation significantly alters the original structure, I think it's fair to credit the original artisans (if known) but focus more on the work of the renovating artisans (while crediting them too if possible). Obviously that will also depend a lot on how significant the renovation is, and how much of the original building is still present. Using just the Reichstag building as an example, the vast majority of the exterior is original, while the majority of the interior and the dome are new. While I could just rank the dome on its own, I think it's important to consider that the new dome could not have existed without the original structure (more on this later). I don't know nearly as much about the Alhambra as I do about the Reichstag building, but I expect that the expansions/renovations are similar. |
Totally agree with you here, and thank you for the insights/analogy about the Riechstag and Foster. I am leaning towards the whole complex as one. I do agree that the current "vision" (usually a confluence and development of earlier to more recent architectural styles/designs, as is here) is the one to go with and I wouldn't base the rating on how it looked before if that has now been replaced and is no longer in view. One of my favorite things about the Alhambra is the confluence of styles, its guarded fortress exterior and its very special, spiritual interior (with much "organic architecture/design" way before the term was coined). Its beautiful merging of Spanish Renaissance and Islamic architecture...
| EyeKanFly wrote: |
Potala Palace, Lhasa, China: I'd consider this similar to the Alhambra and Florence Cathedral. The difference here compared to the Forbidden City or Alhambra is that it's one building rather than a complex (although there are some out-buildings, the main structure is a single building), despite being built in phases (white palace and red palace). Personally, this is on a bucket list of places I'd love to visit in my lifetime. While I tend to be more interested in the exterior of buildings than the interior, I've definitely watched videos of tours of the Potala Palace (which mostly consist of courtyards and not true "indoors" spaces). I don't think I have anything bookmarked, but if I can find anything I'll let you know. UNESCO apparently has a large photo collection but you have to contact them to get access, which doesn't seem too promising.
Palitana Temples, Palitana, India: I know next to nothing about this complex, and this one seems a lot trickier to consider one "work". It seems like construction and renovation of these temples occurred over hundreds or even thousands of years which makes things tricky, since it's clearly not one "vision" but the vision of various people over a long time period, and these visions don't necessarily conform with each other. It also seems like there's 9 distinct clusters (at least?), so maybe each of these clusters could be considered separately. Unfortunately India is among the regions where I'm severely lacking in my knowledge and understanding of pre-colonial architecture. |
Thank you for all this. We are in the same boat on these two. Eventually I'll probably figure something out for Palitana, not sure what but we'll see... Much appreciated if you come up with pics in the future (of Potala) or anything more on Palitana -- just let me know. Other than that, the library might be in order for me on these. Hopefully there's a big book or two that shows all of Potala, and I'll try and learn a bit more about Palitana and see if I can determine whatever the separation should be or if all of it should be "one".
| EyeKanFly wrote: |
General comments: I think defining a complex or set of buildings as one "work" of architecture is clearly complicated The more I write and think about this, the more I think the approach I mentioned above for the Forbidden City might work best for a number of complicated works of architecture. In particular, it'll be more manageable to rank an individual building than a whole complex. I also realize that within my own notes, I'm inconsistent. Like Rockefeller Center, I have a number of complexes (particularly college campuses) noted as one "work" of architecture, in particular Carlos Raúl Villanueva's University City of Caracas, Santiago Calatrava's City of Arts and Sciences (Valencia, Spain), and University of Mexico's University City (Mexico City). The latter involved many different designers working mostly independently (but in a similar style). On the other hand, I have Chandigarh's Capitol Complex and Brasilia's capitol complex broken down into separate works (by building), despite these both being complexes designed by (mostly) one architect/team of architects and to one "vision". (Though as I write this, I'm rethinking Chandigarh)
Expansions/renovations are also confusing. While I have the Reichstag Building as one building, I have the Louvre Pyramid distinct from the main Louvre building, and some other similar examples like the Bloch Building at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art (Kansas City) as an entity separate from the original structure. I think a distinction with each of these is that while the Pyramid and the N-A expansion wouldn't have existed without the original structures, they could have, in contrast to the Reichstag dome and renovation. I also believe they constitute distinct visions without as much of a regard for context for the original structure compared to the Reichstag dome and renovation. Obviously buildings get renovated over time, and I wouldn't consider something like adding HVAC and electricity to a pre-1900s structure to substantially alter the original vision. |
Excellent, astute points. Another thing that is (sort of) a parallel to what you're talking about is 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"). In that Michelangelo case, it is also helped by being all the same artist. Makes the decision much easier of course. 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??? I have determined that (at least so far) mosaics do count, as they are essentially design right onto the architecture, a physical part of the space. However should paintings count too? There are so many that I would count individually but hesitate to count as part of the building's overall rating, and I probably won't, but it still hangs on my mind. The most ridiculous example would be The Sistine Chapel, a semi interesting work of architecture that would be massively elevated by also being the most incredible room of paintings in the history of art. But this seems unfair to elevate the rating of the building by this, when it has so little to do with its architecture (beyond the rather intelligent plan of Pope's directing the production of art works along its interior, which follow a specific plan). It would seem silly to have the Sistine Chapel as the "greatest work of architecture" because it features Michelangelo's (and the world's) greatest masterpiece and then many other superb paintings on its walls. The funny thing (as an aside) is that it would most likely rate lower (than Michelangelo's 10/10) even though its Michelangelo's 10/10 plus many very good additional works painting all its architecture. It seems weird at first, but if one realizes his 10/10 gets added to by so much space that is inferior (even if some are still great), it lessens the qualitative consistency and overall impact actually and would drop below a 10 altogether. I wouldn't ever do it, and its the idea of the Sistine Chapel rating as the so-called "greatest work of architecture" (mostly due to Michelangelo's painting and some others, but not its "architecture") that made me realize I need to make sure to establish the barriers here. Any thoughts would be great. I think it is probably as simple as sticking with only the physical structure, so mosaics, for instance seem to count, but probably not paint added upon the surface (???  ???) ... unless maybe it was made in direct timing and context with the work as it was built, upon being built? Hmmm, I'm already confusing my position and sowing doubt as I think about it (is there really so much difference between mosaics and paint upon the surface in the context of architecture?) Sculpture would seem to have a similar "fit". Like, if it's directly part of the design of the structure, it should count, but maybe not like the example I said before: a Baroque sculpture added to the Church altar hundreds of years later... or maybe it should? Thoughts? Note that in many cases these wouldn't massively influence the rating one way or the other because they're usually such a tiny percentage of the whole space, but of course would in a ridiculous case like the Sistine Chapel because the paintings in that case is taking up a massive percentage of the interior space. Anyway, I've keep thinking/typing "aloud" about this off on multiple tangents now. I'll stop. Let me know what you think.
| EyeKanFly wrote: |
Colosseum, Acropolis, Roman Forum, etc. and other buildings in various states of partial ruin: I have slightly more definitive boundaries for this type of thing compared to the above. First of all, I do not rank/keep track of buildings that no longer exist. This unfortunately has led to the removal of buildings like the Nakagin Capsule Tower in Tokyo which was disassembled earlier this year (though importantly, it was disassembled rather than demolished, with the intent that the individual capsules be moved to a museum or perhaps reconstructed elsewhere). This also means that I would not include lost buildings like the original World Trade Center/Twin Towers, the original Penn Station (also in New York), or Frank Lloyd Wright's Imperial Hotel (originally in Tokyo, with a small surviving section moved to Nagoya).
I do, however, consider buildings that may not be "livable" but are still standing. If they still exist, they have the potential to be restored and/or renovated a la the Battersea Power Station in London (whose renovation I consider akin to the aforementioned Reichstag Building). Alternatively, a partially destroyed building could be turned into a monument a la St. Nicholas Church in Hamburg. There are many other examples which are in a state of ruins and are not being protected or restored in any way, and even if they're in extreme danger of collapsing, I keep them on my ranking unless they're totally destroyed. An example of a building I expect will not last is the Petrova Gora Monument in Croatia. Same goes for something that's partially built but abandoned (e.g. Gaudi's Church of Colònia Güell). I think pretty much all these examples you listed are most similar to the St. Nicholas Church (of the modern examples I've listed here), and I'd definitely consider any or all of them if I were to rank pre-modern era architecture.
Obviously no architect intends for their work to be partially or wholly destroyed, but I also think it's important to consider the current state of the work of architecture. I wouldn't rank St. Nicholas Church based on the architect's original design and vision (which no longer exists); I would rank it based on its new vision, which may be a combination of ideas from the original architect, any renovating architect, or just the country or institution who decided to leave it as-is as a monument or partially-ruined structure. Sometimes it may not be a conscious decision to "leave it as-is" and just over the years the public have come to acknowledge the building as it exists. I think the Colosseum, Acropolis, Roman Forum, Abu Simbel, and Sphinx all fall into this framework. All of them are consciously maintained and preserved by various governments and/or organizations, but none of them are intended to be restored to their original condition. In many of these examples, the original design/condition may not actually be known to modern archaeologists.
I suppose I should also clarify that moving a structure doesn't pose an issue for me, but the ranking may change if the new context detracts from or improves the structure. I don't think that's the case for Abu Simbel (easily the most magnificent example of moving a structure for preservation purposes!) But I rank the Dymaxion House a little lower since it was reconstructed inside a museum in Dearborn, Michigan (the original design was modular and intended to function anywhere in the world, but it was also meant to be outside and not within a larger building). Likewise, if the Nakagin Capsule Tower is reconstructed in a museum, I might hold it in a lower regard. I'm of the opinion that preservation in place is a priority. Reconstructions are a little trickier, but I've opted to consider something like the Barcelona Pavilion (originally a temporary structure built in 1929, demolished in 1930, and rebuilt in 1989) to be built to the original design similar to the ongoing Sagrada Familia construction.
This is all my basis however. I like your idea of basing the rating on a combination of what exists and what it probably originally looked like. That probably stays truer to rating the "art". I think this is akin to how musicians/conductors approach classical music. Mozart wrote The Marriage of Figaro with specific directions in mind, but every performance is different, and while the score exists, there's of course no recording of the original performance. Some performances will chose to replicate the original as much as possible (e.g. playing on period-appropriate instruments), but some performances will forgo that in favor of a unique approach, or an approach which they believe may appeal most to a modern audience. Modern performances of a work of classical music may be akin to modern preservation efforts of an architectural work which vary greatly in their implementation.
Maybe that comparison doesn't make as much sense as I thought it would, but if we're ranking music against works of architecture, I guess you have to draw comparisons somewhere |
Excellent points and comparisons all around EKF! I think it will come down to if I feel it crosses a threshold of "just comfortable enough to feel like I can give it an estimated rating". Angkor Wat (rated recently) might be pushing it close to below that threshold. Maybe The Parthenon, but perhaps not all of the Acropolis, will be one I can get by with, even though its like 50% (or more) ruined (so, might be pushing it too far). I would like to though (after all, along with The Pantheon and Colosseum, it is perhaps the most influential work of architecture in human history).
I think I will go with that: combo of what exists and if its enough to develop a reliable estimate of its construction from expert study and recreation, then perhaps going ahead and rating it, assuming after that study and evaluation I feel comfortable enough to give it a good estimate (of course any of these would be extra-bold noted that they're rougher estimates than the rest of the selections). As I do more, I may start to feel it out until I know where to stop and what to go forward with (maybe the Parthenon and Colosseum are doable, but maybe most of the rest of Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome isn't ... etc ... except of course the Pantheon which is so well preserved it should obviously stay included). Ancient Egypt seems to pose similar challenges and decisions. Abu Simbal is perhaps doable, and maybe some others like the Pyramids (though those are very tough for me), but again, any and all will depend on the cut off point of "how much ruin is too much ruin?" and how reliable is the reconstruction versus how much guess-work is involved.  . So yeah, basically there has to be enough there to study/analyze and from which to draw enough of a good estimate about the artistic expression and value of it as a whole (and where necessary, it was also possible to reliably recreate it).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Last edited by AfterHours on 12/14/2022 10:43; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #189
- Posted: 12/14/2022 08:34
- Post subject:
|
| EyeKanFly wrote: | Hmm, I wrote a big wall of text there... feel free to read/respond to as much or as little of that as you want haha, and sorry if all that stream-of-consciousness doesn't come out to anything :/
I think the more we talk, the more I'm understanding the similarities between music and architecture. Similarities that don't apply to painting, sculpture, or other kinds of art.
We already talked about repetition. Painting and sculpture typically feature a lot less repetition than architecture and music. And repetition can serve to enhance a work of art OR to make it boring.
I also brought up the similarity of collaboration. While certainly there's collaboration in painting and sculpture, I think individualism is the norm in those fields. Painters most often work alone. Though of course there can be help with very large-scale works (like Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling which involved tradespeople and scaffolding), something like Starry Night was executed by Van Gogh's hands alone. Sculpture is similar unless it's something large-scale (which could require more help for labor and/or technical support for engineering/materials handling).
Music can be done by a single person, and often is. But more frequently there's lots of people involved: writer(s), band members, producer(s), mixers, engineers, etc. Although The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady is clearly Charles Mingus' vision, it was implemented by a dozen musicians and more involved with production/engineering/mixing. But even writing music is often collaborative.
Architecture also similarly can be done by a single person (though much more difficult, and typically smaller in scale to the point where it might be better considered sculpture than architecture). But architecture is almost always executed by many hands: architect(s), draftspeople, carpenters, other tradespeople, construction workers etc. are typically all working to execute a design which may have been created by one person or a collaborative team of people.
Another similarity I brought up is the renovation aspect. I already compared renovating or expanding a building to different implementations of performance of classical music, but one could also consider a building renovation like a musical cover: a re-interpretation of someone else's design! The best example of this in architecture (that I can think of on the spot) is Frank Lloyd Wright's renovation of the lobby of Burnham & Root's Rookery Building in Chicago. The obvious difference between music and architecture is that in music both the original and the cover can exist simultaneously, in architecture they cannot (unless it's a replica built in a new location, in which case the context is different).
Also, side note, I'd never heard of the Monreale Cathedral before, thanks for the introduction! |
Thank you for this, great points! Interesting parallels between renovating/expansions of a building and later interpretations or covers of music. I had never thought of that, but I can see what you mean.
Monreale Cathedral is (kind of semi secretly) among the great works of art in the world. A very interesting example of Norman Architecture (with a unique confluence of styles throughout its exterior) and an especially stunning interior, again, with the singular confluence of styles, the designs on the walls, columns, etc, and then of course with the stunning glow and fascinating art of its mosaics. See the virtual tour I provided (very lowest link on its page) for the most incredible shots of the interior you will find (all ideally shot and lit to accentuate the mosaics and lower designs/architecture as brilliantly as possible, which are hard to capture just right because of how the gold interacts with the light). For stand still photos there is one from reddit that I included that also captures it very very well (but that's just one shot, whereas the virtual tour features a multitude).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #190
- Posted: 12/15/2022 05:42
- Post subject:
|
Iktinos (5th century BC), Callicrates (5th century BC) and Phidias (circa 480-430 BC)
Best Works:
8.1/10: The Parthenon (432 BC) [Architecture and Sculpture]
NOTE: Rating and ranking is a "rough estimate", based on evaluation of the deteriorated and partially ruined original, combined with a recreation and approximation of how it really looked by reading expert studies on the matter, and by viewing the Nashville replica, plus other recreations.
I am not even entirely sure I will keep selections like this on my list permanently at this point in time, but for now I'm going with it. If any works are worth including and estimating their value, despite significant deterioration (or ruin) that makes them difficult to assess with confidence, it would be the very historic, influential and important works above all (such as The Parthenon, Colosseum, Angkor Wat, various works of Ancient Egypt, etc)
Note that the Nashville replica is impressive and very good to get a sense of the complete scale and general composition of the work at its proper scale, but as it was made out of concrete instead of marble, it doesn't convey the same sense (visually, emotionally, conceptually) of elegance, of refined beauty, of grace, of harmony, of spirituality (nor much of the color scheme and gleam) as the original must have. In concrete it also looks less "organic", less ambiguity/duality between the Doric/Ionic -- "feminine" emerging from the "masculine" stature, prominence, majesty and power of the program (its monumental columns and foundation as pillars of strength, victory, stature, yet also bending "organically" against or from that strength and emerging in a "feminine" elegance, beauty, majesty that is culminated by the revelation of Athena through the back entrance of the temple). It is also missing several sculptural details. So, while it is impressive and valuable for analysis, it shouldn't be taken as a "complete" replica as is often reported
The Parthenon - Iktinos and Callicrates (Architecture); Phidias (Sculpture) (432 BC) [Architecture and Sculpture]
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
EXTERIOR - FRONT - LOW ANGLED VIEW: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/...Athens.jpg
EXTERIOR - SOUTH SIDE - LOW ANGLED VIEW: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/...127%29.jpg
IMAGE GALLERY: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Parthenon
VIDEO - ACROPOLIS AND PARTHENON WALKING TOUR - VERY HIGH QUALITY (Parthenon begins at approx 22:15 into the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0uSTX8xGB8
VIDEO - VIRTUAL 360 PANORAMIC WALKING TOUR - ACROPOLIS (Parthenon begins at approx 3:15 into the video): https://vr4holiday.com/estate_property/...vel-world/
VIDEO - ACROPOLIS (includes various aerial and other views of The Parthenon) - VERY HIGH QUALITY: http://www.yougoculture.com/virtual-tou.../acropolis
SIMPLIFIED 3D RECREATED LAYOUT, PARTS AND ROOMS: https://www.dkfindout.com/us/history/an...parthenon/
NASHVILLE - FULL-SIZE REPLICA OF PARTHENON: https://nashvillefunforfamilies.com/wp-...-.jpg#main
NASHVILLE - FULL-SIZE REPLICA OF PARTHENON: https://a.cdn-hotels.com/gdcs/productio...p;q=medium
NASHVILLE REPLICA - ATHENA: https://preview.redd.it/h3wiqto787r81.j...f22ee1892a
NASHVILLE REPLICA - ATHENA: https://a.travel-assets.com/findyours-p...mediumHigh
NASHVILLE REPLICA - ATHENA - 360 DEGREE PANORAMA: https://www.360cities.net/image/athena-...hville-usa
VIDEO - 3D RECONSTRUCTION - PARTHENON: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWPCZ1UjYmI
VIDEO - 3D RECONSTRUCTION - ACROPOLIS - FROM ASSASSIN's CREED (surprisingly well done with outstanding graphics) - This, in my opinion or educated guess (and intuition), may give one the best feel and atmosphere for what the original was like, due to what seems like a very realistic rendition of The Pantheon itself (and appropriately colored and detailed, less perhaps the ceremonial banners), but also because the video shows a pretty life-like rendition of The Acropolis (despite some artistic license) which lends the work its appropriate setting and context. Therefore, the whole video is of interest. VIDEO - NOTE: Parthenon begins at approx 26:30 into the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRuHLCpOoF0
VIDEO - SMARTHISTORY - PARTHENON DETAILS/ANALYSIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWDflkBZC6U
KEY HISTORY, DETAILS FOR ANALYSIS: https://www.ancient-greece.org/architec...henon.html
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 19 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
|
|
|
