Saturday, February 9, 2008
sawsaw 2/9
Taking the trip downtown on Thursday helped to make Jencks' concepts more clear. The fact that we could clearly identify examples of his concepts in today's architecture made me realize how relevant these concepts really are. The first building we looked at, Bank of America was a perfect example of disharmonious harmony. The different shapes of the windows, different shades of color and different size buildings made the building different yet harmonious. Even though there were many different elements to the building it all flowed and seemed to work. The Bank of America was also a good example of double-coding. It had many similarities to a church with a steple and also shadowed a Roman courtyard. After analyzing these concepts, I realized how much time and preparation went into designing this building. The architect specifically came up with those ideas to make this buildiing stand out and trigger a visual appeal in the viewer. Although the Bank of America, Orange County Courthouse, and other office buildings in the area are all able to stand by themselves, they share some harmonious design elements. They have similiar shades of color, similiar materials were used and they seem to flow visually in that space. I found the concepts by Jencks to be very helpful in analysizing these buildings. Now that I have an understanding of these ideas I will better be able to view architecture wherever I go.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Jiggy 2/8
Our trip to downtown Orlando yesterday really illustrated alot of the concepts in class more clearly. It was interesting to have a first hand look at the techneques used in postmodern architechure to show creativity. I had never took a close look at the Orange County court house, never had to go in it yet, and was surprized at the varying styles used. I was perticualy interested in the shapes and design of the windows in the tower portion of the building. As Walt Disney did with his cindalella castle the designers made more windows then floors to show height. This illusion makes the building seem twice as tall and more grand. The Bank of America building showed alot of other concepts that were clear and some disguised. Clearly the building was multivalenced with its intented outside frame, but other concepts such as Urbane urbanism were more discrete and harder to find. I saw the outside patio section as urbane urbanism with its resturant and stores, this was also seen at the court house buildings. Overall the trip downtown greatly improved my sence of the concepts that we were learning in class. Now I will able to more clearly observe postmodern architechture and analyse its importance to the surroundings.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
NewYorker 2/7
Today's class was so usefull in terms of applying the vocabulary we learned in class to real architecture (not to mention local). At first, I didn't know what to make of the Bank of America Building. Overall, it had a nice visual appeal, but I couldn't think of any terms that described it. After listening to the class speak about it, I began to see what they would point out - the glass window panes, the brass in the center of the circle windows, the "Cingular Wireless ad with the four bars" etc. Even when someone pointed out how the building next to it mirrored that building, it was so cool to look at - it looked so morphed, as if it were melting. I think I liked the courthouse the most though. It was not a typical looking courthouse as one might expect. However, when we looked closely, some elements reflected the law/power - the crown, the metal, the steel jail cell looking doors, etc... I also liked the fact that it was new, clean, and just overall had visual appeal. And if you think about it, it's not just a place where criminals and low-lives go. Lawyers and Police officers have to go there everyday, ordinary people with parking tickets go there, couples getting divorces or adopting a baby go there - it is truly a public place, so why not make it look nice? Why not have a cafe on the outside where people can eat and mingle in the courtyard - I think that was a very good idea, and a place to make money and give someone a job (For the people who work in the cafe). Also, I think that it is great of the city of Orlando to try to update and give a "facelift" to downtown, and make it look nice.
Starfish 2/7
I highly enjoyed today’s class for several reasons. First of all, although I have been a student at Rollins for a while now, I have never walked around downtown Orlando before. Therefore, I have never had the time to view the sights and admire the architecture. The second reason I enjoyed today’s trip was because it made the whole idea of postmodern architecture come alive. We viewed many different pictures of examples in class the other day, but to truly grasp the whole concept you need to see it with your own eyes. I was surprised at how many buildings were postmodern and how they all seemed to be in the same vicinity. The building I found to be most the interesting was the courthouse. I immediately noticed anamnesis and tradition reinterpreted because of the stairway leading to the columned entrance. The columns instantly reminded me of Greek and Roman architecture, which is fitting because it is the courthouse and reverting to classical architecture gives it a dictatorial feel. I also was quick to notice that the taller part of the building gave off a phallic vibe, which was very interesting. The phalace shape represents power and masculinity, therefore very becoming for a building of law and order. I also found the whole concept of the building to be contradicting. The absent center that we stood in reminded me of a forum. This was meant to be a place for people to congregate and socialize. The landscaping was inviting, and all around the center were places to eat and relax. This sent out the message “Come here. Have a nice time at the courthouse. Don’t be afraid.” Then, the building itself that surrounds the center is cold and uninviting. The colors are a dark grey and the front doors looked barred like a prison door. The courthouse is definitely sending it’s visitors mixed messages!
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Elizabeth byrne benjamin / post modern
Today, I went to the Rollins Museum with my Religion and the Body class. Through out the presentation of the various pieces of art I kept the idea of authenticity in my head. As I was walking through, I found myself still having trouble in finding the difference between authentic and original. There were new pieces of art that challenged religion and pieces that re created those of Adam and Eve along with images of Christ. The way I saw these images that seemed as though they were very old (yet only a few years old) were original, but not authentic. I have come to think of it as knowing the background of such pieces of art in order to tell if it is "real" or not. However, when I though back to the Cartier watch that Doc Rog bought in China it is neither original nor authentic.
Another piece of work that provoked a lot of thought and disscusion was a video that was made by a contemporary artist who makes videos of her work. Throughout her career she has had her friends or volunteers go out in the nude for various exhibitions around the world. In the particular video that was showing the women were only wearing panty hoes standing for three hours. They were aloud to sit and lay down but they had to stay stationary. They ranged from 18-60, different weights and heights, with only red, blonde, and black hair. (this particular show was in Berlin , the colors representing Germany's flag) The video was controversial because some critics saw it as worthless and demeaning to women and others saw it as empowering and liberating to women. This brought me to the idea of post modern art and how people see it. With in our culture we are some what used to seeing nude bodies in art, however is it still an art with nude bodies if people are paying to go see it? Fifty years ago this type of art may have been shunned as looked at as pornography, but in contemporary society is it really any different?
Another piece of work that provoked a lot of thought and disscusion was a video that was made by a contemporary artist who makes videos of her work. Throughout her career she has had her friends or volunteers go out in the nude for various exhibitions around the world. In the particular video that was showing the women were only wearing panty hoes standing for three hours. They were aloud to sit and lay down but they had to stay stationary. They ranged from 18-60, different weights and heights, with only red, blonde, and black hair. (this particular show was in Berlin , the colors representing Germany's flag) The video was controversial because some critics saw it as worthless and demeaning to women and others saw it as empowering and liberating to women. This brought me to the idea of post modern art and how people see it. With in our culture we are some what used to seeing nude bodies in art, however is it still an art with nude bodies if people are paying to go see it? Fifty years ago this type of art may have been shunned as looked at as pornography, but in contemporary society is it really any different?
kaymac 2.5.08
In my art history class we are smack dab in the middle of the Renaissance. In this, we started talking about neo-platonism. In this theory, everything we create is based off of the ideal yet we cannot make perfect copies of it, so therefore everything we create is an imperfect copy of the ideal. This really made Benjamin's reading clear to me.
I always think it is difficult to define art and so when somebody asks you to explain why a rock with red paint on it is art compared to a rock with white paint splattered over it, you can never give a full answer. Art is always in the context that it is seen in. Like the example Dr. Rog gave us with the woman putting her drink on the sculpture and a bum telling her it was art versus the VP of the college. If you take art out of it's context, like the cave painting, it grows into something else. The cave painting is no longer part of the cave. When you look at it, you are no longer standing in the spot that Uga Uga stood in while s/he painted it and therefore it has a different feeling and context.
Finally, "everybody who witnesses its [a film's] accomplishments is somewhat of an expert...At any moment, the reader is ready to turn into a writer (27)." What gets me the most is the first part of this quote. How many times have you heard, after somebody sees the original of a Monet or Picasso or even a Pollock, somebody say that they could have created that work if they tried. This goes for all art. People find it to be trivial, I think, and that is why they believe they can be experts on it, because if it is not important, then anybody can say whatever they want of it as long as they have seen the original because they are close to what "experts" would have done, which is looked at the original.
I always think it is difficult to define art and so when somebody asks you to explain why a rock with red paint on it is art compared to a rock with white paint splattered over it, you can never give a full answer. Art is always in the context that it is seen in. Like the example Dr. Rog gave us with the woman putting her drink on the sculpture and a bum telling her it was art versus the VP of the college. If you take art out of it's context, like the cave painting, it grows into something else. The cave painting is no longer part of the cave. When you look at it, you are no longer standing in the spot that Uga Uga stood in while s/he painted it and therefore it has a different feeling and context.
Finally, "everybody who witnesses its [a film's] accomplishments is somewhat of an expert...At any moment, the reader is ready to turn into a writer (27)." What gets me the most is the first part of this quote. How many times have you heard, after somebody sees the original of a Monet or Picasso or even a Pollock, somebody say that they could have created that work if they tried. This goes for all art. People find it to be trivial, I think, and that is why they believe they can be experts on it, because if it is not important, then anybody can say whatever they want of it as long as they have seen the original because they are close to what "experts" would have done, which is looked at the original.
nichole benjamin
Section six says, "The cult of remembrance of loved ones, absent or dead, offers a last refuge for the cult value of the picture." (24).
I stopped to think about this quote after I first read it because, as a student of photography myself, I never really thought about finding refuge in a picture. I have recently become opposed to photography because I had a revelation on day that picture taking impairs our own imagination. As we also discussed in class, a film director impairs our imagination of a book it is based upon. I personally would LIKE to remember a vacation or family member as I do in my mind which is more often than not a positive representation. I also think that Americans feel so pressed to work more to spend more, also known as Marx's "new consumerism", that when Americans travel, they are SO uncomfortable relaxing for once in their lives that they feel as though they have to work on vacation. Often times photography can fill that void on a vacation.
Section six also brings this up: "The meaning of each single picture appears to be prescribed by the sequence of all preceding ones" (24) I have had this discussion with professor Tillmann in CMC 100 last semester but find it appropriate to bring up here too. So, as in a film, each picture you see processes in your mind with reference to previous pictures or slides (this also reminds me of the exercise we performed in class with the directors story), but the same holds true with advertisements. Think of the 5000 advertisements we see daily. If we were to take each ad as if we have never seen one before... we would be ASTOUNDED! "Worlds best cup of coffee!" wow what a feat thats amazing congratulations (this is what I would think). Whereas instead, we know that the last coffee shop had the same sign and award on the wall. Everything we see and think of is relevant to the things we have seen in our lives. That really ads up I guess, maybe old people really are wiser... or maybe they just have learned to not take anything too literally. peace.
I stopped to think about this quote after I first read it because, as a student of photography myself, I never really thought about finding refuge in a picture. I have recently become opposed to photography because I had a revelation on day that picture taking impairs our own imagination. As we also discussed in class, a film director impairs our imagination of a book it is based upon. I personally would LIKE to remember a vacation or family member as I do in my mind which is more often than not a positive representation. I also think that Americans feel so pressed to work more to spend more, also known as Marx's "new consumerism", that when Americans travel, they are SO uncomfortable relaxing for once in their lives that they feel as though they have to work on vacation. Often times photography can fill that void on a vacation.
Section six also brings this up: "The meaning of each single picture appears to be prescribed by the sequence of all preceding ones" (24) I have had this discussion with professor Tillmann in CMC 100 last semester but find it appropriate to bring up here too. So, as in a film, each picture you see processes in your mind with reference to previous pictures or slides (this also reminds me of the exercise we performed in class with the directors story), but the same holds true with advertisements. Think of the 5000 advertisements we see daily. If we were to take each ad as if we have never seen one before... we would be ASTOUNDED! "Worlds best cup of coffee!" wow what a feat thats amazing congratulations (this is what I would think). Whereas instead, we know that the last coffee shop had the same sign and award on the wall. Everything we see and think of is relevant to the things we have seen in our lives. That really ads up I guess, maybe old people really are wiser... or maybe they just have learned to not take anything too literally. peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)