(03-23-2021, 07:19 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: It seems odd to apply this list to architecture, when this list also claims that said products are not decorative objects nor works of art. Confusingly, this list also seems to directly contradict that statement by highlighting the importance of aesthetics, beauty, and psychological effects. Maybe I'm reading into this wrong.
It's fairly common to apply his design theory to architecture. He's one designer that you learn a lot about when studying the subject. His initial education was in architecture before he ultimately got into industrial design for Braun and Vitsœ so there is a lot of overlap between the fields that shows through his work and his design philosophy. Architecture in general has a unique position that seems to fit between engineering, the need to be functional/purposeful and the need for an aesthetic or psychological aspect to it. It's important for an architect to be able to draw from various fields to create something people want to spend time in, so the visual studies aspect of things is really emphasized. Just to apply to architecture school you need to have a pretty decent portfolio of art to show off - music, dance, painting, drawing, sculpture etc.
Rams did a wonderful job of demonstrating the truth to his idea of weniger, aber besser - less, but more (check out his product design for examples of how he applied this to his own work). Where he says a product (or thing, building etc) ought to be neutral, that doesn't mean it needs to be devoid of an aesthetic experience. A great example is the Salk Institute by Louis Kahn. At first sight, there is not a lot there, but as you experience the building you begin to see that there actually is a lot to experience within those simple lines and the colour palette. I believe fulfilling aesthetic and psychological needs in architecture is absolutely necessary to do in a way that makes sense, so it always irks me when architects fail to sufficiently fulfil that need. You may know the book already, but if not, there is a very important work of architecture theory/philosophy titled The Poetics of Space by the philosopher Gaston Bachelard that really gets into the nuances of architecture and the psychological/phenomenological experience one has within a space. It's an absolutely wonderful book to read even if you don't have much interest in architecture. It reads like a beautiful work of literature or poetry rather than dry theory, which I think he did on purpose to illustrate that poetics and experience is a very important thing for architects to consider.
Anyway I guess the reason I brought him up is because this building, like most of their work, is visually very busy and nonsensical. The design choices don't seem to really serve any immediately apparent purpose. Why do the balconies have different sizes or sit in different spots on different floors, as westwardloo mentioned? Why did the original design have random red rectangles encapsulating sections of windows? The new design is certainly an improvement over what they originally had, but if it were up to me I'd make it a bit simpler and let that simplicity be the beauty of the building, especially since the colours they're using actually do seem quite suited to minimalism.