Traynor said:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

It is a great truism, but only useful if each beholder asks of themselves. Why is it beautiful to me?

If your only answer is "Because it's so cool how the walls undulate and it's amazing how they do that" then I have made my point.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have to disagree again. Beauty is a visceral reaction...a gut feeling. Just because one can't express themselves in finer terms than "because it's cool" does not invalidate their feeling that it's beautiful. Gehry obviously finds beauty in a piece of crumpled paper and can most likely describe that beauty in more educated terms, but just because a less educated 'me' can't express it in the same way does not mean I'm wrong.
 
You are grasping at straws.

Ancient ruins are beautiful NOT because they are ruined, but because of what they once represented. The marvel of the complex construction in an early age of man's development is the achievement, NOT that they decayed since then. The beautiful lines, proportion, materials, artistry and execution of the original building are all still seen in its ruins... The decay in of itself is not the beautiful part.

That was a bad analogy and to evoke 911.... Just painful.

The beauty in that was the poignancy of the great loss of humanity and the resilience of the human spirit, NOT the smoking crumpled mess in of itself.
 
Last edited:
Traynor said:
You are grasping at straws.

Ancient ruins are beautiful NOT because they are ruined, but because of what they once represented. The marvel of the complex construction in an early age of man's development is the achievement, NOT that they decayed since then. The beautiful lines, proportion, materials, artistry and execution of the original building are all still seen in it's ruins... The decay in of itself is not the beautiful part.

That was a bad analogy and to evoke 91.... Just painful.

The beauty in that was the poignancy of the great loss of humanity and the resilience of the human spirit, NOT the smoking crumpled mess in of itself.
Click to expand...

I would appreciate that you avoid imposing your beliefs on how my mind works - I think I know it better than you do, and I also know what I like and why I like what I like better than you do. And to rebutt - there are often times nothing beautiful of the original structures in their prime conditions, much less artistry. The decay, the chaos, the ruining created the beauty.

As to pain, well, there is beauty in it as well, no?

AoD
 
Last edited:
Traynor said:
You are grasping at straws.

Ancient ruins are beautiful NOT because they are ruined, but because of what they once represented. The marvel of the complex construction in an early age of man's development is the achievement, NOT that they decayed since then. The beautiful lines, proportion, materials, artistry and execution of the original building are all still seen in its ruins... The decay in of itself is not the beautiful part.
Click to expand...

If the damage and decay isn't beautiful then why haven't we restored the pyramids to their original state? Why hasn't the Colosseum been rebuilt? Why haven't the fallen stones at Stonehenge been placed back where they were intended to be? There is beauty in what was, but there is also beauty in the decay.
 
I meant painful as in I groaned when you brought it up because it was so ridiculous an analogy.

If a giant pile of smoking, twisted metal and crumpled concrete is beautiful just for its own sake, then I defy you to put a giant pile on your front lawn and making no reference to 911, expect your neighbours and the city to think it's beautiful too.

It was ONLY beautiful IN the context of which it happened.
 
Last edited:
Traynor said:
If a giant pile of smoking, twisted metal and crumpled concrete is beautiful just for its own sake, then I defy you to put a giant pile on your front lawn and making no reference to 911, expect your neighbours and the city to think it's beautiful too.
Click to expand...

And I quote:

Oh, other people like it, so it must be good... My mistake.
Click to expand...

Your words, not mine.

AoD
 
Ramako said:
Indeed. I think the middle and west tower both have the potential to be very beautiful, especially if the latter is clad in some kind of bronze or copper coloured material. I'm not a huge fan of the east tower.
Click to expand...

I kind of like the eastern tower (I'm assuming that's the one on the right in the image) and the way its folds follow the folds on the middle tower. At first glance each of them looks very dissimilar to each other, but a lot of the mid-level detail has a matching form on each tower. I think that's why each tower needs to be about the same height and scale...the matching details between the towers wouldn't translate well if they weren't the same height.
 
Real life Gehry tower - 8 Spruce in New York.

6965396966_18e1abe6dc_b.jpg


beekman200.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 6965396966_18e1abe6dc_b.jpg
    6965396966_18e1abe6dc_b.jpg
    73.6 KB · Views: 469
  • beekman200.jpg
    beekman200.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 468
My interpretation of Traynor's argument is that Gehry attempts to garner our attention through sensationalism. I would argue that such a method has been commonly used in painting, sculpture, fashion, music, food, etc. Many artists love to shock our emotions by expressing violence, unpredictability and controlled chaos. Such characteristics are what define deconstructivism. Personally, I love this style, not because I'm 13 years old, but because it flagrantly clashes with the mainstream and makes a statement. To me, the very fact that so many find this building offensive validates the merit and significance of such a design. Iconic design is rarely met with enthusiasm and is rarely economical to build but I think Toronto has much to gain from such a building.
 
The notion that 'beauty' is the be-all and end-all of art and design strikes me as rather simple (though I appreciate the passion). It's like claiming art cred' while insisting on Thomas Kinkade over Pollock, or something.
 
Regardless of what some of you think, I think the latest render is 'absolutely spectacular' and I hope it gets built. Good architecture should be provocative and this certainly passes that test with flying colours.
 
Tewder said:
The notion that 'beauty' is the be-all and end-all of art and design strikes me as rather simple (though I appreciate the passion). It's like claiming art cred' while insisting on Thomas Kinkade over Pollock, or something.
Click to expand...

This was a point I wanted to make as well. Just because something is not beautiful on its face does not mean that it lacks legitimate artistic merit or substance. Often an artist is trying to express something beyond "this is beauty". Though it may not be pretty, a tower of twisted metal is certainly an interesting expression that would evoke a lot of different interpretations.
 
Laughable coming from you 3Demented!

-----------

The difference is I don't need everyone else to hate it to justify my dislike for it. I just know I don't like it and I am secure in that preference even if I am the only one... Whereas most defenders of something like this need to convince the others that it is good, in order to feel secure in liking it themselves. Sound familiar... you know who you are Adma

Go ahead and love these buildings. Good for you. I am only telling you why I find these designs repetitive, unsophisticated, kitschy and one dimensional.

Furthermore I don't believe these designs will hold up through time and be considered classic. Almost ALL classic architecture holds up through time and even spawns a revival of one kind or another. Two hundred years from now will we see Crumpled Revival or Neo-Crumpled? I think not. I think this style will go the way of the Blue Velvet Tuxedo: Once the height of fashion and avant-garde but considered kitschy and amusing now.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top