03-25-2021, 07:34 PM
(03-23-2021, 10:08 PM)ac3r Wrote: 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.
I appreciate your educational replies, especially with reading recommendations. I want to preface with that, because I'd like you (and others) to continue with posts like this. It's far more interesting than "this building looks good" and "this building looks bad". It's no surprise to me that well-known and influential figures in design advocate for "less, but more" philosophy, because that philosophy permeates the products I'm forced to use in everyday life. There's no way to not see it.
Perhaps you would disagree that "less, but more" translates to minimalism and a scorn for form that has nothing to do with function, but if a line exists between the two, then to me it's a blurry one. This is where I disagree with the principles laid out, because I don't think I've ever found something "minimalist" (very broadly speaking) to be beautiful. Functional, attractive, cool: yes. Something I would buy and appreciate for most products: yes. But not beautiful. When you apply this to architecture, I think it misses the mark, because in an urban environment one of the only potential sources of beauty comes from architecture. And an environment without beauty is psychological torment to me. Of course beauty is subjective, which becomes a real nightmare to deal with in architecture, because urban buildings are imposed upon the population. People don't have a choice.
As I type this, I think modern material choices that lack the natural beauty of, well, natural materials may be part of my issue. And that those materials are used in tandem with design principles favouring simplicity may just be a coincidence.
(03-24-2021, 09:13 AM)jamincan Wrote: I struggle with conversations about buildings being so focused on aesthetics because I think it is quite far down the list of importance. Which is not to say that I don't care about aesthetics, because I do. I just don't feel it should be the primary metric of a good design. To that point, Barcelona chair is considered an icon of design, and yet its legacy in terms of comfort is mixed and ergonomics is terrible. It's difficult for me to understand, then, why it carries so much influence in design.
I've found myself feeling uncomfortable in a building specifically due to the aesthetics of it, so I don't think they are two distinct issues.
But perhaps we could solve the local housing crisis by making a city so ugly that no one wants to move here anymore!