4 ms·
Isn't that a large ornament of a bird right on top of that house? I'd argue that scene has _many_ design elements that are there only the sake of aesthetics. W
by cameronh90 3y ago
Isn't that a large ornament of a bird right on top of that house?
I'd argue that scene has _many_ design elements that are there only the sake of aesthetics. Whether you consider them ornamentation or not I guess depends on your perspective, but if you look closely you'll see lots of shapes and textures that would have required significant effort purely to add beauty. Japanese aesthetics also tend to value the uniqueness of hand crafted objects, and architecture that is built with care by a skilled tradesperson.
Whereas Bauhaus and much of modernism in general were often about stripping all non-essential design elements away, whether ornamentation or otherwise. Essentially: the minimum manufacturing effort to produce a building that meets the functional requirements, ideally in such a way that can be mass manufactured. The end result of a lot of Bauhaus designs isn't particularly visually minimalist. Indeed, there are often a lot of contrasting shapes and colours and often lack of symmetry.
Both are a form of minimalism, but very different in philosophy.
- detourdog 3y agoThe problem is the Bauhaus was school of education not a movement. Bauhaus was totally focused on trying to figure out how not to lose humanity in the machine age. The Foundation program that was developed for first year students at the Bauhaus is the same Foundation program that I went through in 1987 at my Art university. Individual instructors had all sorts of ideas that were bananas. The resulting curriculum has stood the test of time for training young minds to deal with new materials and experiences. I see design as the philosophical use of resources. One can create any aesthetic values one wants. The ultimate design measure from my point of view is the extent the artifact represents a waste of resources.