4 ms·
Surely that's an inherent false dichotomy. The mere utterance of "decorated shed" implies the existence of an undecorated shed, where nothing lacks structural p
by fluoridation 2y ago
Surely that's an inherent false dichotomy. The mere utterance of "decorated shed" implies the existence of an undecorated shed, where nothing lacks structural purpose.
>The criticism of the non-structural columns for non-functionality in the context of an art museum.
The letter reads as if the columns are criticized not for lacking structural purpose, but rather for being unnecessary obstructions. "We [will] live to regret our accepting this detail of his design." That would have to be because the columns are either ugly or a hindrance.
- brudgers 2y agoBecause they are sheds, most sheds are undecorated. They are unremaked upon for the same reason. But to be clear, Venturi and Scott Brown’s distinction is in the context of architectural practice. Learning from Las Vegas started as a studio in Harvard’s GSD. The radical idea was looking at actual buildings built for ordinary reasons in ordinary ways…the radical idea was valuing the study from contemporary vernacular architecture.
- milksoup 2y agoIt seems, then, that Venturi and Scott turned out to be like the torpedo fish. That the columns should confuse and disorient the visitor as if entering a crypt.