since there is a discussion on Mc Mansions, how about a discussion on minimalism and it's position in architecture.
i believe this movement is often misunderstood, not unlike people picking up an object in the alleys and calling a found object art.
is minimalism in architecture, a surface treatment, spatial organization, a life style etc.. can a single tile detail ruin a minimalist design? how much of a minimalism a family can live with?
is not modern architecture ultimetly minimalist?
a potential client told me she "doesn't want to live in somebody's minimalist dream". i wasn't hired because of the employment of straight lines in my work.
below is a link of synopsis on minimalist art for some background if needed. link
I think minimalism in art should be disconnected from minimalism in arch. Most great minimalist art works such as Reinhardt, Rothko are viewed as objects in an exhibition type setting. The best minimalist arch, true minimalism, Mies, strives to dissolve the object. Mies' work was to be a sublime framework that organizes modern life. And there are many interpretations and analysis that arise from this concept.
There is a great essay on this in the book "The Presence of Mies". The discussion focuses on a tie between the work of Mies and that of minimalist artist Agnes Martin.
I think today minimalism is mostly re-created as a style, but rarely exists as an architecture itself.
The term "minimalism" is not even accepted by the artists known as being minimal. There is most certainly a difference between the cool interiors of Pawson and Terry Rileys drone-meditation "In C", just as much as Lewerentz heavy churches are different from Alvin Lucier's "I Am Sitting In a Room". Even if on the surface they all seem to have stripped detail and mannerism for repetition and surface, the intent of the pieces are very different.
I dont know, thats not the best description of what minimalism is about, but its nice to know that its possible for somewhat ordinary people to enjoy it without being totally consious of why.
Maybe it would be easier for us to trick clinents into accepting a minimalist aproch if we are keenly specific about what they do accomplish rather than what they do not? In plain english? Just the way a simple organization of a space might allow a focused attention or specific grasp of a simple pleasure offered by the site? Like a view or breeze or a social relationship? I mean, non-architects might not have an inate taste for some of the minimalist the tools we apreciate in thier own right, like the raw enjoyment of a material or the sensation of a body inhabiting a pleasing spatial organization, but if those tools are focussed on something they do understand and apreciate, it might be easier to aviod language they dont understand or desire?
I just had to add my opinion, given that I am that kind of an animal..=P
Minimalism in architecture is not just a style, but more of an attitude towards life itself. Can you imagine what would happen to a minimal space if the person inhabiting it was one who could never to maintain it in its primal form...
I think Minimalism is an attitude that would need to permeate into every aspect of the project...may it be the object in itself, or the way the person occupies the space within the object...
I agree with Wangsta, that Minimalism in Art should be disconnected from Minimalism in Architecture... the attitudes are different...you make a good point that Minimalism is "hip" and "trendy"...it almost never permeates into the essence of the project..
I will offer a different way of proceeding here...
Minimalism in art as defined by Robert Morris and the like, would absoutely be appreciated as an architectural approach. It was less about style and more about a mentality or method of working. Minimalism was often messy and unintentional (think Jackson Pollock etc.). The activity of creation was minimal and enacted according to certain rules or guidelines.
Donald Judd may have created repetitive compositions, but they were often investigations in materiality and phenomonology.
Joseph Bueys would hang pieces of felt, showcasing a material's properties.
The original minimal movement in art was critical of the establishment and probed new areas for potential ways to express an idea.
So, is this fruitful for architecture, certainly. Anyone interested in talking about minimalism as a style is falling victim to the tendency of modernism. Not to be classified among other absolutes, minimalism is an attitude (in fact).
A way of working or considering a problem. It is a process, not a category to file finished products into.
I agree with aaronUF. Minimalist art was often criticized for being too architectural, since their impact lies in the properties of scale, (industrial) material, spatial configuration etc. which makes one wonder if minimalist architecture would be more "architectural" than other architecture. A true translation of the concept would mean a questioning of "meaning" in architecture itself, as minimalism was a clear bridge between expressionism and early conceptual art. If a translation is necessary, that is... I wrote a little article on the subject ages ago, coming to the conclusion that minimalist art and architecture could find common factors in repetition, alienation and surface.
May 3, 05 7:01 am ·
·
This might be of interest:
Christian Bonnefoi, "Louis Kahn and Minimalism" in October 24 (1982).
When I was a kid, I took piano lessons with Sister Rita (not kidding) at St. Ambrose Convent. I remember the convent interior (at least the few public rooms that I regularly saw) being very austere, although also somewhat modern--the furnishings being like 1940s-50s institutional modern. In retrospect, the place also had a museum-like quality.
I visited the ICA exhibition and two of the 36 projects. My favorite was at the Arcadia University Art Gallery. Although not a very large space (approx. 30' x 55' white walls and light gray floor), when first entering the space it appeared as if empty. It was fun and even enlightening to ultimately see the 50 odds works exhibited--kind of nothingness in the extreme.
Going back to the original post, could it be that McMansions really don't have any real competition from the architecture field? Are today's architects even capable of offering what most people want in a home without going against what they are taught? My graduation from architecture school coincided with my parents moving to a new house, and I was given the old house. One of the first things I did to makeover the place was to strip off all the wallpaper, and I found 'virgin' plaster walls. I then decided to not paint any room white, which is when I realized I knew/was taught virtually nothing about color. It took a lot of effort and many, many hours studying paint chips, and even some repainting, but eventually I learned how to judge color with respect to rooms. Granted, painting rooms different colors isn't architecture, but the experience did demonstrate something that I wasn't taught in school with regard to 'designing' a living environment.
Here's another anecdote:
Back in 1977, I and a small group of fellow arch. students got a private tour of Kahn's Esherick House. You could say it's a nice little minimal work, inside and out--I'd move in in a minute. What was shocking, however, was the kitchen, which is totally a design by the wood sculpture Esherick (who was somehow related to the original owners). The whole room is like a room size free-flowing and curvy wood sculpture. The then owners said they had known Kahn when they bought the place, and whenever he visited he couldn't stand to stay in the kitchen more than a few seconds, and being in the room always made him say something nasty.
thanks rita.
for the opening show for the temporary contemporary in los angeles in 80's, michael asher claimed the entrance lobby and named it michael asher lobby. museum had to rent the lobby space from mr. asher for the duration of the show and have his written permit to have any activity in that space. one of my all time favorite museum installations.. minimal and conceptual indeed.
i've never seen the esherick house interiors, just outside a couple of times.. i am glad now, not to have seen the curvy kitchen..
Generally, the usual ideas you hear about relate to a reduction of elements and processes in the creative production of an object, space etc.
I was wondering whether it was more about an intensive process of removing the evidence of the creation process. Removing the visual appearance of fabrication, assembly, fixing. Creating methods where the evidence is able to be removed or obscured.
This would then reference an obscuration of craft and the use of illusion on one hand, but also about transcending earthly limitations of materiality on the other. In this sense, minimalism is a homage to something more spiritual - the forced negation of the memory of how something came into being. The translation without the original.
For me, there have to be several different kinds of minimalism. Minimalism in the John Pawson style is a formal minimalism that requires a certain minimalism of domestic habits on the part of its occupants. But paradoxically, it requires an extreme maximalism of effort and money to produce. I know people who have lived in carports screened off by tarpaulins for years. Isn't that also a kind of minimalism?
I think this is along the lines of your post, db: minimalism is the appearance of absence rather than the presence of absence.
Jan 15, 07 9:26 pm ·
·
suggested reading perhaps:
Andrew Blauvelt, "No Visible Means of Support" in Painting at the Edge of the World (2001).
"less walls is more windows"
or
"less windows is more walls"
My eyes aren't the only things decieving me. But tuition didn't say so.
More tuition is less common sense?
Time to take a vacation to the Land of Invisible Panty Lines.
And always pant when you say panty!
Certainly setting up an empty space in which your few products are laid connotes that your products have an art-value, not simply a commodity-value. I think minimalism like Pawson's retail work is more about likening a store to an art gallery than any ethical imperative towards 'cleanliness' or 'purity' or what-have-you.
Jan 16, 07 1:58 pm ·
·
"ethical imperative" -- what a joke!
Oh yeah, the fight against the stain. "Shout it out!"
"In the future, everything will be an advertisement." Even minimalism.
Any time we say that something should be done a certain way aesthetically, we are making an ethical argument.
Loos is a prime example of someone who argues that a certain kind of minimalism is an ethical imperative (I'm not arguing that personally, btw). He says that it is a matter of the good of civilisation that we reject ornament, not just a matter of aesthetic preference.
I'm afraid I may not be understanding your post, sorry.
Jan 16, 07 4:57 pm ·
·
Be it Loos, Aalto or Zumthor, etc., I don't see an aesthetical ethics argument. All I see is someone trying to control someone else.
You can grant Loos, et al, the authority, but the authority does not actually exist. The authority of their arguments is virtual at best, hence the ethics is also virtual, and the imperative is non-existent.
Basically, I literally don't buy into it. And those that do buy into it, do so literally as well.
Ethics simply means 'relating to morals'. Do you not agree that Loos makes a moral argument about architecture?
I'm not granting Loos any special authority.
I'm not for or against minimalism, because as I said above, there are many kinds of minimalism. I might have been unclear: I'm not arguing there is any particular imperative towards minimalism.
As you said, aesthetics are relative. But that's not what Loos, for example believed. He believed aesthetics were a matter of absolutes. He seems to have genuinely believed that the progress of civilisation hung on the elimination of ornament (although I suspect he also like to overstate things to wind people up). Other architects, too, have believed that aesthetics were more than subjective. In understanding those architects' work, it helps to think about how they saw what they were doing.
Jan 16, 07 6:40 pm ·
·
I understand what you're saying, but is any aesthetic really objective?
You can understand an architect's work by learning their intentions, but you can understand even more of an architect's work by learning from their mistakes too.
Jan 16, 07 8:00 pm ·
·
And, to answer you're question, I believe Loos made a virtual moral argument about architecture.
And regarding "any particular imperative," I don't see you advocating an imperative (toward minimalism), rather, I see that there is no such thing as an imperative toward any aesthetic, ie, outside of the virtual realm, there is no such thing as an ethical imperative toward any aesthetic to begin with.
What is there to learn from Loos's architecture without his aesthetical ethics? Gosh, I hope the answer isn't, "Not much."
Aesthetics is not objective, but it can certainly be persuasive. To continue taking Loos as an example, his essay managed to persuade a great many people to his view.
I'm not confident enough in myself to imagine that I can avoid being persuaded by aesthetics altogether. I've bought things from 'retail minimalism' stores myself. To see that aesthetics is not objective doesn't stop it from working.
I'm interested in what blankness, lack of ornament, simplicity, etc connote, particularly to 'the public', because i think that might help us to understand how minimalism functions.
Jan 16, 07 8:13 pm ·
·
Maybe study the workings of persuasion then.
Yes, and the act of being persuaded toward any aesthetic pretty much boils down to literally buying into it.
So again, maybe it's the workings of persuasion that should be studied.
These priests and pristesses were aesthetically persuasive for several millennia.
Persuasion has a lot to do with control, doesn't it.
I'm interested in what blankness, lack of ornament, simplicity, etc connote, particularly to 'the public', because i think that might help us to understand how minimalism functions.
I think this is where the notion of concealment plays a part. I think minimalism actively conceals the methods that bring it into being, or is in itself a method of concealment.
The question is why would you want to conceal, and what is being concealed?
I just read this whole (almost) thread straight - i love it - its like wikipedia for architecture!
When you buy into an aesthetic (literally or not), you are accepting the fundamental attitude it expresses - the discussion has sort of forgotten that aspect from earlier while dancing around it- that minimalism is more than an aesthetic or superficial choice, it represents a set of ideals.
Loos and minimalists in general advocate a clear, empirical perception of space, materials, structure, without the distractions or indulgences that parallel the indulgent and hedonist attitudes which corrupt lives...
Does anyone else think that Loos' movement was parallel to the protestant reaction against the Catholic hierarchy's baroque indulgent mysticism, which coded power in Latin and took advantage of peoples' ignorance? It seems to have been a formative issue of the times, and ps I am catholic I hope I didn't offend any. Total tangent.
also I suspect the kitchen in the Esherick House wants to be a beating heart in the faux-tudorish Kahnian dollhouse machine robot mimi-monolith. (why is everything in Pensylvania brown and yellow?)
the whole concealing thing is a problem - mies covered his fire-insulated I beams with non-structural I-beams to show the structure... ? lakeshore drive apts
I think that you can argue that minimalism represents a set of ideals, like agfa8x and once was have mentioned, but it is still a representation with its own problems. There is no purity. The best you can hope for is that it has some kind of physiological effect that does not eventually wear off, or as -once was- hints at, you suffer no buyers remorse.
I propose a gimmick free architecture. Something that is experiential and physiological, something that doesnt wear off. Is the Casa Malaparte a one-liner, or is it sublime?
"Loos and minimalists in general advocate a clear, empirical perception of space, materials, structure, without the distractions or indulgences that parallel the indulgent and hedonist attitudes which corrupt lives..."
this is an interesting point as it cold be argued that the position of ornament and minimalism relative to the expression of wealth has changed (although not in all cases, opulence is still opulence), when you consider, as agfa8x points out, the relationship between minimalism and high-end retail.
part of Loos's moral imperative is based on the toil associated with ornament, and i wonder if opperating somewhere bellow the aesthetic of minimalsim is some sense of value associated to the effort involved, considering that if we exclude the super-rich's preocupation with opulence then the majority of 'ornament' is not only cheaper but also involves less effort than minimalism.
"I think this is where the notion of concealment plays a part. I think minimalism actively conceals the methods that bring it into being, or is in itself a method of concealment."
the methods may be literaly concealed, but i think, even for non-architects that the craftsmanship (ironicaly) is implicit.
diabase- I agree there are many instances of modernism that are made of concealment and lack purity; do you think there is no true minimalism? when it pretends to be abstraction, 'floating planes in space', it fails - we all know they don't float, and they are masses and not planes. and a thousand other tricks-
however it seems there is some, at least, that is true?
I hope I'm getting your drift.
I vote sublime on Casa Malaparte, euphoric even! what a place - but is is red painted masonery? weird.
so, did Loos believe we should toil less on superficial oranment, or more on a refined minimalism? (or is a refined minimalism the product of a refined spirit which we should cultivate...)
everything is simple, yet the simplest thing is difficult (von clausewitz)
takes a lot to do a little, takes a little to do a lot (ochona)
Jan 17, 07 1:52 pm ·
·
The notion of concealment reminds me of a few things:
1. Coming Apart at the Seamless--this title was a reaction to the notion of seamlessness in design that was somewhat topical in the late 1990s/early 2000s; At least van Berkel and Bos did some writing about it in MOVE.
3. "No Visible Means of Support"--throughout the 1980s, I happen to have practiced an art where "visible means of support" were indeed exploited (e.g., which could also be entitled "coming apart at the seamless", plus you'll find the first written manifestation of Rita Novel 1985.08.25).
Minimalism in Architecture
since there is a discussion on Mc Mansions, how about a discussion on minimalism and it's position in architecture.
i believe this movement is often misunderstood, not unlike people picking up an object in the alleys and calling a found object art.
is minimalism in architecture, a surface treatment, spatial organization, a life style etc.. can a single tile detail ruin a minimalist design? how much of a minimalism a family can live with?
is not modern architecture ultimetly minimalist?
a potential client told me she "doesn't want to live in somebody's minimalist dream". i wasn't hired because of the employment of straight lines in my work.
below is a link of synopsis on minimalist art for some background if needed.
link
I think minimalism in art should be disconnected from minimalism in arch. Most great minimalist art works such as Reinhardt, Rothko are viewed as objects in an exhibition type setting. The best minimalist arch, true minimalism, Mies, strives to dissolve the object. Mies' work was to be a sublime framework that organizes modern life. And there are many interpretations and analysis that arise from this concept.
There is a great essay on this in the book "The Presence of Mies". The discussion focuses on a tie between the work of Mies and that of minimalist artist Agnes Martin.
I think today minimalism is mostly re-created as a style, but rarely exists as an architecture itself.
The term "minimalism" is not even accepted by the artists known as being minimal. There is most certainly a difference between the cool interiors of Pawson and Terry Rileys drone-meditation "In C", just as much as Lewerentz heavy churches are different from Alvin Lucier's "I Am Sitting In a Room". Even if on the surface they all seem to have stripped detail and mannerism for repetition and surface, the intent of the pieces are very different.
I dont know, thats not the best description of what minimalism is about, but its nice to know that its possible for somewhat ordinary people to enjoy it without being totally consious of why.
Maybe it would be easier for us to trick clinents into accepting a minimalist aproch if we are keenly specific about what they do accomplish rather than what they do not? In plain english? Just the way a simple organization of a space might allow a focused attention or specific grasp of a simple pleasure offered by the site? Like a view or breeze or a social relationship? I mean, non-architects might not have an inate taste for some of the minimalist the tools we apreciate in thier own right, like the raw enjoyment of a material or the sensation of a body inhabiting a pleasing spatial organization, but if those tools are focussed on something they do understand and apreciate, it might be easier to aviod language they dont understand or desire?
I just had to add my opinion, given that I am that kind of an animal..=P
Minimalism in architecture is not just a style, but more of an attitude towards life itself. Can you imagine what would happen to a minimal space if the person inhabiting it was one who could never to maintain it in its primal form...
I think Minimalism is an attitude that would need to permeate into every aspect of the project...may it be the object in itself, or the way the person occupies the space within the object...
I agree with Wangsta, that Minimalism in Art should be disconnected from Minimalism in Architecture... the attitudes are different...you make a good point that Minimalism is "hip" and "trendy"...it almost never permeates into the essence of the project..
I will offer a different way of proceeding here...
Minimalism in art as defined by Robert Morris and the like, would absoutely be appreciated as an architectural approach. It was less about style and more about a mentality or method of working. Minimalism was often messy and unintentional (think Jackson Pollock etc.). The activity of creation was minimal and enacted according to certain rules or guidelines.
Donald Judd may have created repetitive compositions, but they were often investigations in materiality and phenomonology.
Joseph Bueys would hang pieces of felt, showcasing a material's properties.
The original minimal movement in art was critical of the establishment and probed new areas for potential ways to express an idea.
So, is this fruitful for architecture, certainly. Anyone interested in talking about minimalism as a style is falling victim to the tendency of modernism. Not to be classified among other absolutes, minimalism is an attitude (in fact).
A way of working or considering a problem. It is a process, not a category to file finished products into.
I agree with aaronUF. Minimalist art was often criticized for being too architectural, since their impact lies in the properties of scale, (industrial) material, spatial configuration etc. which makes one wonder if minimalist architecture would be more "architectural" than other architecture. A true translation of the concept would mean a questioning of "meaning" in architecture itself, as minimalism was a clear bridge between expressionism and early conceptual art. If a translation is necessary, that is... I wrote a little article on the subject ages ago, coming to the conclusion that minimalist art and architecture could find common factors in repetition, alienation and surface.
This might be of interest:
Christian Bonnefoi, "Louis Kahn and Minimalism" in October 24 (1982).
Hugh Pearman brought up the notion of "New Austerity" as the latest architectural trend back in 2000 within the architecthetics list.
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?S1=architecthetics
search austerity for the posts and responses.
Is this 'minimal' or 'austere'?
http://www.quondam.com/15/1489.htm
When I was a kid, I took piano lessons with Sister Rita (not kidding) at St. Ambrose Convent. I remember the convent interior (at least the few public rooms that I regularly saw) being very austere, although also somewhat modern--the furnishings being like 1940s-50s institutional modern. In retrospect, the place also had a museum-like quality.
any takes on this?
I visited the ICA exhibition and two of the 36 projects. My favorite was at the Arcadia University Art Gallery. Although not a very large space (approx. 30' x 55' white walls and light gray floor), when first entering the space it appeared as if empty. It was fun and even enlightening to ultimately see the 50 odds works exhibited--kind of nothingness in the extreme.
Going back to the original post, could it be that McMansions really don't have any real competition from the architecture field? Are today's architects even capable of offering what most people want in a home without going against what they are taught? My graduation from architecture school coincided with my parents moving to a new house, and I was given the old house. One of the first things I did to makeover the place was to strip off all the wallpaper, and I found 'virgin' plaster walls. I then decided to not paint any room white, which is when I realized I knew/was taught virtually nothing about color. It took a lot of effort and many, many hours studying paint chips, and even some repainting, but eventually I learned how to judge color with respect to rooms. Granted, painting rooms different colors isn't architecture, but the experience did demonstrate something that I wasn't taught in school with regard to 'designing' a living environment.
Here's another anecdote:
Back in 1977, I and a small group of fellow arch. students got a private tour of Kahn's Esherick House. You could say it's a nice little minimal work, inside and out--I'd move in in a minute. What was shocking, however, was the kitchen, which is totally a design by the wood sculpture Esherick (who was somehow related to the original owners). The whole room is like a room size free-flowing and curvy wood sculpture. The then owners said they had known Kahn when they bought the place, and whenever he visited he couldn't stand to stay in the kitchen more than a few seconds, and being in the room always made him say something nasty.
thanks rita.
for the opening show for the temporary contemporary in los angeles in 80's, michael asher claimed the entrance lobby and named it michael asher lobby. museum had to rent the lobby space from mr. asher for the duration of the show and have his written permit to have any activity in that space. one of my all time favorite museum installations.. minimal and conceptual indeed.
i've never seen the esherick house interiors, just outside a couple of times.. i am glad now, not to have seen the curvy kitchen..
I have been thinking about minimalism.
Generally, the usual ideas you hear about relate to a reduction of elements and processes in the creative production of an object, space etc.
I was wondering whether it was more about an intensive process of removing the evidence of the creation process. Removing the visual appearance of fabrication, assembly, fixing. Creating methods where the evidence is able to be removed or obscured.
This would then reference an obscuration of craft and the use of illusion on one hand, but also about transcending earthly limitations of materiality on the other. In this sense, minimalism is a homage to something more spiritual - the forced negation of the memory of how something came into being. The translation without the original.
otherwise, the above inversely reminded me of coming apart at the seamless
For me, there have to be several different kinds of minimalism. Minimalism in the John Pawson style is a formal minimalism that requires a certain minimalism of domestic habits on the part of its occupants. But paradoxically, it requires an extreme maximalism of effort and money to produce. I know people who have lived in carports screened off by tarpaulins for years. Isn't that also a kind of minimalism?
I think this is along the lines of your post, db: minimalism is the appearance of absence rather than the presence of absence.
suggested reading perhaps:
Andrew Blauvelt, "No Visible Means of Support" in Painting at the Edge of the World (2001).
"less walls is more windows"
or
"less windows is more walls"
My eyes aren't the only things decieving me. But tuition didn't say so.
More tuition is less common sense?
Time to take a vacation to the Land of Invisible Panty Lines.
And always pant when you say panty!
Is minimalism still worthy of pursuit as an architectural endeavour?
I remember walking into Pawson's Calvin Klein store on 5th Avenue in New York 5 years ago and thinking: minimal architecture is retail architecture.
Certainly setting up an empty space in which your few products are laid connotes that your products have an art-value, not simply a commodity-value. I think minimalism like Pawson's retail work is more about likening a store to an art gallery than any ethical imperative towards 'cleanliness' or 'purity' or what-have-you.
"ethical imperative" -- what a joke!
Oh yeah, the fight against the stain. "Shout it out!"
"In the future, everything will be an advertisement." Even minimalism.
A joke, certinly, but its an argument that gets made in all seriousness by a lot of people from aalto to zumthor.
An aesthetic agrument, and that's all. And aesthetics are extremely relative.
An ethical argument, hardy.
An imperative, there's the real joke.
Remember tattoo taboo = ornament = crime?
"I have the biggest gun, so my aesthetic is all that counts."
setting up the argument
rotten eggs welcome
Any time we say that something should be done a certain way aesthetically, we are making an ethical argument.
Loos is a prime example of someone who argues that a certain kind of minimalism is an ethical imperative (I'm not arguing that personally, btw). He says that it is a matter of the good of civilisation that we reject ornament, not just a matter of aesthetic preference.
I'm afraid I may not be understanding your post, sorry.
Be it Loos, Aalto or Zumthor, etc., I don't see an aesthetical ethics argument. All I see is someone trying to control someone else.
You can grant Loos, et al, the authority, but the authority does not actually exist. The authority of their arguments is virtual at best, hence the ethics is also virtual, and the imperative is non-existent.
Basically, I literally don't buy into it. And those that do buy into it, do so literally as well.
Ethics simply means 'relating to morals'. Do you not agree that Loos makes a moral argument about architecture?
I'm not granting Loos any special authority.
I'm not for or against minimalism, because as I said above, there are many kinds of minimalism. I might have been unclear: I'm not arguing there is any particular imperative towards minimalism.
As you said, aesthetics are relative. But that's not what Loos, for example believed. He believed aesthetics were a matter of absolutes. He seems to have genuinely believed that the progress of civilisation hung on the elimination of ornament (although I suspect he also like to overstate things to wind people up). Other architects, too, have believed that aesthetics were more than subjective. In understanding those architects' work, it helps to think about how they saw what they were doing.
I understand what you're saying, but is any aesthetic really objective?
You can understand an architect's work by learning their intentions, but you can understand even more of an architect's work by learning from their mistakes too.
And, to answer you're question, I believe Loos made a virtual moral argument about architecture.
And regarding "any particular imperative," I don't see you advocating an imperative (toward minimalism), rather, I see that there is no such thing as an imperative toward any aesthetic, ie, outside of the virtual realm, there is no such thing as an ethical imperative toward any aesthetic to begin with.
What is there to learn from Loos's architecture without his aesthetical ethics? Gosh, I hope the answer isn't, "Not much."
Aesthetics is not objective, but it can certainly be persuasive. To continue taking Loos as an example, his essay managed to persuade a great many people to his view.
I'm not confident enough in myself to imagine that I can avoid being persuaded by aesthetics altogether. I've bought things from 'retail minimalism' stores myself. To see that aesthetics is not objective doesn't stop it from working.
I'm interested in what blankness, lack of ornament, simplicity, etc connote, particularly to 'the public', because i think that might help us to understand how minimalism functions.
Maybe study the workings of persuasion then.
Yes, and the act of being persuaded toward any aesthetic pretty much boils down to literally buying into it.
So again, maybe it's the workings of persuasion that should be studied.
These priests and pristesses were aesthetically persuasive for several millennia.
Persuasion has a lot to do with control, doesn't it.
Quite right.
I think this is where the notion of concealment plays a part. I think minimalism actively conceals the methods that bring it into being, or is in itself a method of concealment.
The question is why would you want to conceal, and what is being concealed?
I just read this whole (almost) thread straight - i love it - its like wikipedia for architecture!
When you buy into an aesthetic (literally or not), you are accepting the fundamental attitude it expresses - the discussion has sort of forgotten that aspect from earlier while dancing around it- that minimalism is more than an aesthetic or superficial choice, it represents a set of ideals.
Loos and minimalists in general advocate a clear, empirical perception of space, materials, structure, without the distractions or indulgences that parallel the indulgent and hedonist attitudes which corrupt lives...
Does anyone else think that Loos' movement was parallel to the protestant reaction against the Catholic hierarchy's baroque indulgent mysticism, which coded power in Latin and took advantage of peoples' ignorance? It seems to have been a formative issue of the times, and ps I am catholic I hope I didn't offend any. Total tangent.
also I suspect the kitchen in the Esherick House wants to be a beating heart in the faux-tudorish Kahnian dollhouse machine robot mimi-monolith. (why is everything in Pensylvania brown and yellow?)
the whole concealing thing is a problem - mies covered his fire-insulated I beams with non-structural I-beams to show the structure... ?
lakeshore drive apts
I think that you can argue that minimalism represents a set of ideals, like agfa8x and once was have mentioned, but it is still a representation with its own problems. There is no purity. The best you can hope for is that it has some kind of physiological effect that does not eventually wear off, or as -once was- hints at, you suffer no buyers remorse.
I propose a gimmick free architecture. Something that is experiential and physiological, something that doesnt wear off. Is the Casa Malaparte a one-liner, or is it sublime?
"Loos and minimalists in general advocate a clear, empirical perception of space, materials, structure, without the distractions or indulgences that parallel the indulgent and hedonist attitudes which corrupt lives..."
this is an interesting point as it cold be argued that the position of ornament and minimalism relative to the expression of wealth has changed (although not in all cases, opulence is still opulence), when you consider, as agfa8x points out, the relationship between minimalism and high-end retail.
part of Loos's moral imperative is based on the toil associated with ornament, and i wonder if opperating somewhere bellow the aesthetic of minimalsim is some sense of value associated to the effort involved, considering that if we exclude the super-rich's preocupation with opulence then the majority of 'ornament' is not only cheaper but also involves less effort than minimalism.
"I think this is where the notion of concealment plays a part. I think minimalism actively conceals the methods that bring it into being, or is in itself a method of concealment."
the methods may be literaly concealed, but i think, even for non-architects that the craftsmanship (ironicaly) is implicit.
Surely a gimmick-free architecture would just be employing the gimmick of appearing to be without gimmicks?
(I just got given 2001 on dvd for christmas. I could watch that thing all day.)
Thats a pain those image fillers - that was such a sexy shot.
About craftsmanship - I agree that this is one of the strengths of minimalism, but the idea of concealment is still a strong motivation for the craft.
I'll try some more images:
Is this chapel by Christian Kerez minimal?
Is this temple by Takashi Yamaguchi minimal?
Is this forest observatory by Sami Rintala minimal?
diabase- I agree there are many instances of modernism that are made of concealment and lack purity; do you think there is no true minimalism? when it pretends to be abstraction, 'floating planes in space', it fails - we all know they don't float, and they are masses and not planes. and a thousand other tricks-
however it seems there is some, at least, that is true?
I hope I'm getting your drift.
I vote sublime on Casa Malaparte, euphoric even! what a place - but is is red painted masonery? weird.
so, did Loos believe we should toil less on superficial oranment, or more on a refined minimalism? (or is a refined minimalism the product of a refined spirit which we should cultivate...)
Sighhh..The irony of philosophy !
The title of this thread can also substitute as a discussion about our pay-scales.
ahhhh, then that would be true minimalism
everything is simple, yet the simplest thing is difficult (von clausewitz)
takes a lot to do a little, takes a little to do a lot (ochona)
The notion of concealment reminds me of a few things:
1. Coming Apart at the Seamless--this title was a reaction to the notion of seamlessness in design that was somewhat topical in the late 1990s/early 2000s; At least van Berkel and Bos did some writing about it in MOVE.
2. rammed into an envelope
3. "No Visible Means of Support"--throughout the 1980s, I happen to have practiced an art where "visible means of support" were indeed exploited (e.g., which could also be entitled "coming apart at the seamless", plus you'll find the first written manifestation of Rita Novel 1985.08.25).
4. "Ornament is the adoration of the joint". It's safe to say that this quotation had a lasting persuasive effect on my aesthetic.
ochona, I'm definitely a "takes little to do a lot" kind of guy.
Harvard design magazine has a great article on this topic in the latest issue
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.