STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
I'm deeply saddened to see that Le Corbusuier has made it into any thread on style. The triumph of ego over talent, Nationality notwithstanding.
I'm deeply saddened to see that Le Corbusuier has made it into any thread on style. The triumph of ego over talent, Nationality notwithstanding.
Without Corbusier's influence and essential views on modernism (i.e. 5 points of new architecture manifesto), we might all be subject to the wanton ornamentation of every damned object in existence. It's easy to see (both by your photos and sig) that you would not appreciate him.
The main problem with Le Corbusier is that he's basically directly responsible for some of the deadliest housing projects in the states (Cabrini Green in chicago is the most public example wikipedia link). While his architecture I admire, his urban planning is pretty much an umitigated disaster. Kinda sours me on everything he did...
George;3943603 said:Firstly, Le Corbusier wasn't the first architect to advocate the removal of ostentation. Loos did it before him and there were others before Loos.
I never stated he was the first - far from it - the secessionists, shakers, etc. were aeons before him.
The rest can obviously be debated round and round...not necessarily my desire to do so, just came to the defense of a pivotal figure of modernism.
You may not like ostentation/decoration, but unfortunately, a great many do.
A great many fools are attracted to decoration on anything they can get their hands on. It can serve as a great deviator of functionality in purposeful design. I happen to adore any design or architectural period if it is done well, be it Victorian Beaux Arts, or Minimalism. I gravitate toward the dialogue between and find that's where a harmony exists.
Architecture is not like a picture on a an art gallery wall, that can be taken down if it offends, it can be there for decades, blighting the lives of those who live amongst it.
This is a good point, and a specific duty of Architecture where civic functionality or duty is mostly overlooked.
Corbusier the Civic totalitarian planner? clearly, no. The Architect, Artist, Designer? Absolutely.
Much of his ideology of living systems and the home as a machine, are amazing visions of the functional domesticity we enjoy today.
Let us feast ourselves once more on this vision:
I understand the objections, George; they make sense. I've visited the two examples I gave (Villa Savoie near Paris and the church) and another Paris house, and the use of space and light (important architectural ingredients, I'd say) is phenomenal, in my eyes. Both buildings gave me "breathing space""”a feeling of freedom"”hence my enthusiasm.
If ever you are in London check out Sir John Soane's Museum. A master in the use of light. Also, take a ride out to see the Art Museum at Dulwich he designed which has formed the basis of Art Gallery design ever since.
The Villa Savoie is interesting in that it was a failure functionality, the roof leaked, due to it being flat. So, as we see Le Corb. wasn't immune to letting form, triumph over function.