Home > Archive > Architecture > March 2008 > Back to exposed structure as an architectural element...?









You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

 

Author Back to exposed structure as an architectural element...?
Kris Krieger

2008-03-18, 1:26 pm

RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in
news:14f7f71c-ed0d-4356-9957-0c84a77c3b7e@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 18, 2:58 am, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>
> You got that right!
>
> Somebody please change the fookin' newsgroup name to
> alt.seeds-religion-ethnic_identity-politics-amateur_flame_wars
>
> alt.architecture is fraudulent...though it _does_ seem to be getting
> better.
>


I'd personally like to go more into Santiago Calatrava and any other
"structuralists" (prob not th eright word...) y'all might be able to refer
me to.

Also of interest, balancing mass, with that sort fo exposed/"skeletal"
exposure of structure. Mass as in Pueblos, some (?all?) Meso-American
building, and the like.

There are Neolithinc tombs and so on that are fascinating and do have an
emotional and visual impact, and can be artistic an dbeautiful in their own
way, and I'm wondering whether that sort of mass/massiveness <?correct
terminology?> is inherently incompatible with the almost "airy" effect that
many of Calatrava's structures IMO posess.

LinkBot





Other archives available: Cellular phones topics archive | Web Design forum archive | Software help archive | Hardware reviews archive | Programming topics archive

Copyright 2004 - 2008 homeownerschat.com