From: olasov@cs.columbia.edu (Ben Olasov)
Subject: Re: automotive design and architecture
Followup-To: alt.architecture
Originator: olasov@ground.cs.columbia.edu
Organization: none
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:06:50 GMT

churayj@yalevm.edu (raymond Chung)
 
> Has anyone else thought about how automotive design has a totally
> modern-minded design aesthetic and how this aesthetic pertains to
> architecture?  It seems obvious to me that everything about a car's design
> (a car built today) is functionally-derived, whether it is actually
> functional or not: hood ornaments have been disposed of; hub caps, most of
> which DO nothing but cover lug-nuts, always look structural, with
> spoke-bracing, or wind-channelling vents; sheet metal has been radically
> rounded so as to suggest aerodynamic efficiency, although it is mostly a
> suggestion and not an operative design; even color decoration is severely
> limited, perhaps because there is no functional cue as to what color a car
> should be, and absolutely no reason to go beyond one color.  Etc.
 
I could imagine a car with boxy, Jeepish shaped chassis with
'industrial' detailing such as exposed, finely machined rivets
on the surface that would be interesting and something like beautiful,
yet not based on an aerodynamic image.
 
> Architecture is similar to the automobile in that it is a functional thing,
> with various designs, and a strong artistic content.  But architecture has
> a long tradition of going outside of the function of building, bringing in
> ornaments of plants, people, etc.  Then there was the bauhaus, and they
> tried to stick only to the function of building.  Mies eventually expressed
> only such things as the vertical supports of his skyscrapers, and that
> seems like the same, modern mentality of car design.  But what is it about
> architecture that demands something more than functional expression?  Or
> why do cars insist on only functional expression?  Market demand?  If so,
> why shouldn't architecture be judged according to market demand as well?
 
First of all, there's much more than functional expression going on in
Mies' work.  There are specific formal references to Schinkel,
structural organizations of the Italian Renaissance - and generally a
preoccupation with form and the language of architecture.  For
example, if you look at the section details of some of the I-beam
columns in his buildings, you'll see they weren't just stock sections.
- they were built up sections very carefully designed to produce a
very specific image.  One formal concept of the exterior steel 'H'
sections on the Seagram Building in New York was to create 'a veil of
space' around the building.
 
The cultural expectations of architecture are substantial, maybe
greater than that for automobiles, partially because architecture has
to exist by public consensus in some limited way.  Architecture is
specifically designed to support the things we do and reflect the
things we value, both of which are continuously changing.  In that
sense, architecture is a way of defining culture, which is why it's an
essential way we analyze the condition of a society at a given moment
in history.
 
Apologies for the delayed response...


Ben


-- 
Ben Olasov		olasov@cs.columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.architecture