7 ms·

The Fountainhead Chapter I; Howard Roark to the Dean --- "Why do you want me to think that this is great architecture?" He pointed to the picture of the Parth

by lrn 8y ago

The Fountainhead Chapter I; Howard Roark to the Dean --- "Why do you want me to think that this is great architecture?" He pointed to the picture of the Parthenon. "That," said the Dean, "is the Parthenon!" "So it is." "I haven't the time to waste on silly questions." "All right, then." Roark got up, he took a long ruler from the desk, he walked to the picture. "Shall I tell you what's rotten about it?" "It’s the Parthenon!" said the Dean. "Yes, God damn it, the Parthenon." The ruler struck the glass over the picture. "Look, " said Roark. "The famous flutings on the the famous columns—what are they there for? To hide the joints in the wood—when columns were made of wood, only these aren't, they're marble. The triglyphs, what are they? Wood. Wooden beams, the way they had to be laid when people began to build wooden shacks. Your Greeks took marble and they made copies of their wooden structures out of it, because others had done it that way. Then your masters of the Renaissance came along and made copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Now here we are, making copies in steel and concrete of copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Why?"

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
Then again the Parthenon has has been around for nearly 2,500 years (finished in 432 BC), and during that time has been considered by people from all over the world one of the most beautiful buildings ever built. What building by modern architects will even be around 500 years from now, much less revered as an example of beautiful architecture?
- carapace 8y ago
  Saint Mary's Cathedral (in San Francisco) I don't say it's as beautiful as the Parthenon, and it might not last 500 years, but we moderns aren't completely shabby... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Saint_Mary_of_the_Assumption_(San_Francisco,_California) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Saint_Mary_of_the... > Its saddle roof is composed of eight segments of hyperbolic paraboloids, in such a fashion that the bottom horizontal cross section of the roof is a square and the top cross section is a cross. The interior is open.
  - bschwindHN 8y ago
    That picture reminded me of a building I saw in Tokyo. Turns out it's also a Saint Mary's Cathedral: https://goo.gl/maps/R2arUkpaZeD2 https://goo.gl/maps/R2arUkpaZeD2 The top cross section is also a cross on this one.
- subjectsigma 8y ago
  I can see La Sagrada Familia not only being around, but being celebrated, for 500 years more. It's still under construction and has been for (almost?) 100 years. Google it, the church is absolutely beautiful. In fitting with the theme of the GP, not only is it structurally sound (to my knowledge) because of how the pillars are constructed, but it successfully pays homage to Gothic architecture and the oldest inspiration, Nature, while also being new and innovative.
  - echotango 8y ago
    I agree, it is beautiful. But Ayn Rand would have hated it. That design is steeped in European and Christian traditions and symbolism. Those things are all anathema to her ideology.
    - okyougotmenow 8y ago
      > Rand was born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum (Russian: Али́са Зиновьевна Розенбаум) on February 2, 1905, to a Russian Jewish bourgeois family living in Saint Petersburg.
    - paulie_a 8y ago
      But honestly who gives a shit about what Ayn Rand would have thought about it. She was a nut and her ideology should be aggressively dismissed as simplistic and quite frankly stupid.
      - echotango 8y ago
        I totally agree. I was pointing out that church isn't really modern architechture as Rand saw it.
- crwalker 8y ago
  I suspect that a lot of our better skyscrapers will be around in 500 years: once a pattern is set, people like to preserve it.
- steve19 8y ago
  As others have said Cathedrals (if you consider anything that has been build in the past 500 years modern) and I have seen Mosques that are breathtaking. Religious communities have the motivation to build something that lasts and use the best of materials. They see the building as an act of worship, in and of itself. Cathedrals often took extremely long times to build. In some cases, such as the beautiful Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque, they also have the money to build it both well and quickly. Within many modern protestant Christian communities, building grand buildings is seen as a poor use of money that could be better spent helping people. These grand buildings are seen as less comfortable, efficient and flexible for modern congregations that would prefer lower cost, environmentally friendly and low energy building with community facilities.
- bigger_cheese 8y ago
  I think beauty is a very subjective thing. I absolutely love the appearance of the UTS tower in central Sydney all my friends think I'm mad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTS_Tower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTS_Tower Something about those big blocky Brutalist style concrete box buildings you just know the thing is nigh indestructible and is going to be around forever and that to me is the beauty of the thing it has such as permanence about it. It just kind of sticks out there and says 'here I am deal with it'.
peterwwillis 8y ago
This isn't the only example of that. Imitating an archaic form of architecture is often a homage. Go to some modern temples/shrines in Japan. Check out the torii gates and any other classical looking structure. Compare the ones in wood to the ones in stone or concrete. They look identical. If you look close, you'll notice the little details sticking out of parts of the design. It's almost always a part of Japanese wood joinery. But it's still in the stone copies. Is it bad design? Of course not. That simple, striking, beautiful, complicated wood joinery has its own unique aesthetic appeal, and shaving off features just because they aren't necessary is completely beside the point of aesthetic beauty. To say nothing of honoring the tradition of a difficult and highly effective craft.
- mygo 8y ago
  Is the goal to make beautiful structures, or is it to make beautiful structures as if they still have the characteristics of wood? I’m inclined to believe that, if the original masterful wood-crafters had instead began their professions with stone, that they would have created beautiful structures that fully explored the capabilities of stone, and that their contributions to architecture may have looked a little different, but no less aesthetic. So, assuming the will of the original craftsmen was to simply make the most aesthetic structures that their materials would allow (and maybe I’m wrong about that), would it be paying homage to them by making stone copies of their wooden accomplishments while working in a new medium with different characteristics, or would it be paying homage to them by continuing their pursuit and fully exploring the capabilities of stone, as the forefathers had done with wood? That’s a question with no right answer... but I personally believe that homage is not to copy one’s output, but to copy one’s input.. To seek what they sought. To do as they would have done if they had stone instead of wood.
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    I have a good deal of agreement with you, but the architectural (as opposed to engineering) crime that bugs me the most is an egoistic new structure that makes no attempt to work with its surroundings, when its surroundings have merit in their own right.
  - 8y ago
jfoutz 8y ago
Also it looks taller, same reasons people prefer vertical stripes to horizontal stripes. Pinstripes, corduroy, stuff like that take advantage of the same effect.

by lrn 8y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

Then again the Parthenon has has been around for nearly 2,500 years (finished in 432 BC), and during that time has been considered by people from all over the world one of the most beautiful buildings ever built. What building by modern architects will even be around 500 years from now, much less revered as an example of beautiful architecture?

carapace 8y ago
Saint Mary's Cathedral (in San Francisco) I don't say it's as beautiful as the Parthenon, and it might not last 500 years, but we moderns aren't completely shabby... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Saint_Mary_of_the_Assumption_(San_Francisco,_California) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Saint_Mary_of_the... > Its saddle roof is composed of eight segments of hyperbolic paraboloids, in such a fashion that the bottom horizontal cross section of the roof is a square and the top cross section is a cross. The interior is open.
- bschwindHN 8y ago
  That picture reminded me of a building I saw in Tokyo. Turns out it's also a Saint Mary's Cathedral: https://goo.gl/maps/R2arUkpaZeD2 https://goo.gl/maps/R2arUkpaZeD2 The top cross section is also a cross on this one.
subjectsigma 8y ago
I can see La Sagrada Familia not only being around, but being celebrated, for 500 years more. It's still under construction and has been for (almost?) 100 years. Google it, the church is absolutely beautiful. In fitting with the theme of the GP, not only is it structurally sound (to my knowledge) because of how the pillars are constructed, but it successfully pays homage to Gothic architecture and the oldest inspiration, Nature, while also being new and innovative.
- echotango 8y ago
  I agree, it is beautiful. But Ayn Rand would have hated it. That design is steeped in European and Christian traditions and symbolism. Those things are all anathema to her ideology.
  - okyougotmenow 8y ago
    > Rand was born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum (Russian: Али́са Зиновьевна Розенбаум) on February 2, 1905, to a Russian Jewish bourgeois family living in Saint Petersburg.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    But honestly who gives a shit about what Ayn Rand would have thought about it. She was a nut and her ideology should be aggressively dismissed as simplistic and quite frankly stupid.
    - echotango 8y ago
      I totally agree. I was pointing out that church isn't really modern architechture as Rand saw it.
crwalker 8y ago
I suspect that a lot of our better skyscrapers will be around in 500 years: once a pattern is set, people like to preserve it.
steve19 8y ago
As others have said Cathedrals (if you consider anything that has been build in the past 500 years modern) and I have seen Mosques that are breathtaking. Religious communities have the motivation to build something that lasts and use the best of materials. They see the building as an act of worship, in and of itself. Cathedrals often took extremely long times to build. In some cases, such as the beautiful Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque, they also have the money to build it both well and quickly. Within many modern protestant Christian communities, building grand buildings is seen as a poor use of money that could be better spent helping people. These grand buildings are seen as less comfortable, efficient and flexible for modern congregations that would prefer lower cost, environmentally friendly and low energy building with community facilities.
bigger_cheese 8y ago
I think beauty is a very subjective thing. I absolutely love the appearance of the UTS tower in central Sydney all my friends think I'm mad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTS_Tower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTS_Tower Something about those big blocky Brutalist style concrete box buildings you just know the thing is nigh indestructible and is going to be around forever and that to me is the beauty of the thing it has such as permanence about it. It just kind of sticks out there and says 'here I am deal with it'.

peterwwillis 8y ago

This isn't the only example of that. Imitating an archaic form of architecture is often a homage. Go to some modern temples/shrines in Japan. Check out the torii gates and any other classical looking structure. Compare the ones in wood to the ones in stone or concrete. They look identical. If you look close, you'll notice the little details sticking out of parts of the design. It's almost always a part of Japanese wood joinery. But it's still in the stone copies. Is it bad design? Of course not. That simple, striking, beautiful, complicated wood joinery has its own unique aesthetic appeal, and shaving off features just because they aren't necessary is completely beside the point of aesthetic beauty. To say nothing of honoring the tradition of a difficult and highly effective craft.

mygo 8y ago
Is the goal to make beautiful structures, or is it to make beautiful structures as if they still have the characteristics of wood? I’m inclined to believe that, if the original masterful wood-crafters had instead began their professions with stone, that they would have created beautiful structures that fully explored the capabilities of stone, and that their contributions to architecture may have looked a little different, but no less aesthetic. So, assuming the will of the original craftsmen was to simply make the most aesthetic structures that their materials would allow (and maybe I’m wrong about that), would it be paying homage to them by making stone copies of their wooden accomplishments while working in a new medium with different characteristics, or would it be paying homage to them by continuing their pursuit and fully exploring the capabilities of stone, as the forefathers had done with wood? That’s a question with no right answer... but I personally believe that homage is not to copy one’s output, but to copy one’s input.. To seek what they sought. To do as they would have done if they had stone instead of wood.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  I have a good deal of agreement with you, but the architectural (as opposed to engineering) crime that bugs me the most is an egoistic new structure that makes no attempt to work with its surroundings, when its surroundings have merit in their own right.
- 8y ago

jfoutz 8y ago

Also it looks taller, same reasons people prefer vertical stripes to horizontal stripes. Pinstripes, corduroy, stuff like that take advantage of the same effect.