Timeless or of its Time: Architecture for the 21st Century | David Payne | TEDxDeerfieldAcademy
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2024
- Time is one of the most important aspects of architecture and historic preservation, when determining what a new building should look like or whether or not a building is eligible for designation. The term 'zeitgeist' is often used -- a German word translated as 'spirit of the age' -- when arguing that buildings should represent our own age. I show how a more fluid conceptualization of time can be applied to architecture and preservation to create a better built environment.
Mr. Payne teaches architecture and design at Deerfield Academy. He has also worked professionally in the architecture and preservation fields.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
If you build something strictly for function, the function fades over time and the building becomes useless. If you build something for beauty, someone will always find a use for it.
Yes. Timelessness, just like beauty , nature, love
this topic is worthy of a more balanced dialog. What are the qualities of a building or place that contribute to its beauty and timelessness across styles? It is not the style of the facade. There are plenty of examples of beautiful contemporary architecture that could have been showcased alongside the beautiful classical architecture to provoke thought about what they have in common that contributes to experiencing beauty in the built environment. This argument is too simplistic and a missed opportunity.
"The Timeless Way of Building" and "Patterned Languages" are both excellent books that help describe what the qualities a living beautiful buildings are.
I would say, beautiful isn't the most important as he states, but infact a blending of function and beauty.
The reason a house with a porch area vs one without looks more beautiful or pleasing, is because there is a function that is fulfilled, and that space with a porch allows for many things to happen. It gives comfort when it's raining or sunny, it helps the transition from exterior to interior so psychologically we can take small steps, it gives a place to hangout, be involved with the street, but at a distance with comfort.
I highly recommend the books. They are very long, but very helpful.
I think that in order for you to create a timeless architecture, you should invest value in it. The architecture of the past, like the Colosseum, etc. are all preserved and valued by the community because it has a mutual relationship with the people around it. When you give an opportunity for the people to invest value in it, you preserve the architecture. People would love to preserve it because it is important to them may it be of historical value, economic value or cultural value. But I think what's important is the relationship between the stakeholders and the building itself.
I believe what many modern architects and designers fail to understand/remember is that many of the so-called fathers of modernism; Gropius, van der Rohe, Johnson, Kahn (as mentioned below),etc... were very well informed and educated in the classical and vernacular traditions. These traditions have been all but forgotten and dismissed as "...ordinary and commonplace and doesnt generate interesting spaces..." This seems to me an ignorant and naive way to look at Classicism and Vernacular traditions. Besides, what is more beautiful than a city that has it's own "look" and "feel"? The aforementioned traditions come out of a pragmatic approach that has spanned millennia, and were eliminated from academia in a very direct way. Out of the some 200+ architecture schools in the country there is only 1 that teaches Classicism, along with a handful more that have small components of vernacular and classical. Instead of stroking the ego of the individual architect (as modernism does with it's call for nothing but the UNIQUE!), perhaps a rebirth of civic beauty and care is to be taken with our cities and buildings within them. Long ago, someone built a pedimented roof and his neighbor exclaimed ,"wow, that sheds rain pretty well, I think I will borrow that idea for my house!" Now we build flat roofs and design water systems that bring water into the building through interior gutters, what a brilliant idea! (sarcasm*) It's not that Classical and Vernacular approaches are the only way to build, though it seems to me continuing local traditions brings about the most beautiful and unique cities in the world. If we aren't careful every city on the planet will begin to look like Anyplace, Anywhere, with its fragmented and corrugated metal sidings, roofs and walls of glass and lifespans of mere decades instead of centuries and millennia.
Which school is teaching classical styles?
The Cooper Union School of Architecture building is a perfect building for an architecture school. It looks like the result of a really bad accident.
The Clemson building, on the other hand, is a terrible example of architecture. It compliments the surrounding buildings. It's not disruptive nor does it spoil the whole neighborhood. It's even good looking!
This talk is extremely reductive. There is nothing inherently wrong with building for your time - as a matter of fact, we have always done it. A style such as Baroque (which today we would deem 'timeless') was once in vogue. Beauty can be a real question, but it does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with old ('timeless') architecture. Ever seen an image of Fallingwater by Frank Lloyd Wright? That is some gorgeous modern architecture if I've ever seen it.
What's your point?
And why?
i agree that archjtecture should be timeless, but copying buildings from the past is just seems to me ordinary and commonplace and doesnt generate interesting spaces as we as architects could, i think this is a very limiting way of thinking, many architects have acommplished designing timeless architecture without replicating the past, like peter zumthor, louis khan, alejandro aravena, francis kere, ricardo legorreta or take a look at vernacular architecture reinvented in creative ways such as morroco modern architecture, i think you just gave bad examples to further your point
+vestfoldify modernism is now almost 100 years old and in all that time modern architecture has not created a single avenue or placa that can be compared to anything build before 1918. not for lack of trying if I might add, thousands of ruined cities all around the world where the testing ground. some people even say ugly buildings are an invention of modernism since ugly architecture didnt exist before it. so dont try and tell us about "interesting spaces" or any such bullshit bingo words. we all have seen these interesting places, thank you. you cant explain away the failure of modernism by using these hollow phrases.
I too feel that simply emulating a classical style should not be the aim of timeless architecture.
I think that contemporary architecture that wants to achieve timelessness should look to all of the past both classical and modern to come up with a new kind of timelessness. Perhaps a big civic structure minus the ionic columns and decoration. Perhaps a nore simplified or restrained elegant stricture and column eyc. Sticking to traditional form of square, boxes, archs, symmetry proportion. Theoretically classic but collectively timeless but also of its time in a sense of updating, just like fashion can emain classic but slightly updated , or rather, refined, in our case with new and perhaps better technology etc.
Ot is a difficult thing to achieve, i think, but i also think that it is what we should be trying to achieve
So we should all build neoclassical buildings? because they are "timeless"? All this guy has done is to pick a style he likes and is advocating for it with no real argument.
@Edgardus If you knew anything about modern architecture you'd know it's filled with ideology.
@@i.c.3300 it is 100 percent ideology, there biggest weakness is rejecting completely the past, in other careers they value the past and the present since both are important but today in design school, students are not allowed to design in the styles. It is only because of one reason, it's because they don't wanna lose power.
The Gaillard building looked much better in its original style.
Written and spoken like a third grade essay
Completely agree
Excellent presentation and convincing
I would advocate that beauty has more to do with human scale and thoughtful material choices rather than style. The classical styling of the Portlandia building does not make it beautiful (or pick another example from the wealth of post-modern architectural sins). The argument put forth in this talk relies on carefully selected examples of classically styled buildings verses building in a modern style. They do not tell a complete story and I do believe that there is a better and richer story to be told.
Utter bollocks
stop coughing lol