Love FLW but it’s Missouri for one, and second many post-modern houses aren’t known for being reliable in terms of move-in ready. Most notably with roofing issues. A lot of PM homes require some level of repairs.
>National Register Of Historic Places
You probably can’t hecking mow the lawn without getting forms filled out with the zoning board and federal government
Looks like a state park bathroom, how is this supposed to be good architecture? It’s completely unremarkable in every way, a generic mcmansion looks better.
It’s not horrible, it’s just incredibly generic. Not to say mass projects are exactly comparable, but nobody will ever not be awestruck by the Cologne Cathedral, Notre Dame, or St. Peter’s. I’m not sure how we can call this a masterwork of architecture when nobody would ever think anything of it without the famous name. Nobody would even say "wow, that’s a pretty house!".
I disagree with this. If a work isn’t great enough to stand on its own, outside of its context, then it’s not great. Classical music has been parodied to death and many pieces still shock me with their sheer beauty. For a work to be truly great it doesn’t need to be innovative, although that’s great. What really matters is pure mastery, beauty, and craftwork. Maybe it wasn’t generic at the time, but I think that reveals that it was never that great to begin with. Pure innovation does not great art make.
An idyllic house in the Alps, or on the Atlantic, will still be beautiful and idyllic even though we’ve seen far more houses like that than FLW works. Beauty doesn’t disappear when you remove the context, if it does then it’s not true beauty.
Anonymous says:
you self-important poof.
Anonymous says:
Name calling won’t make this house look anything but mediocre
Anonymous says:
>people come along after and copy/adapt your innovative design >suddenly your work is generic
only to a brainlet.
Anonymous says:
It only becomes generic if your work wasn’t that great to begin with, and you only had the first mover advantage on a new style.
Anonymous says:
you don’t know what words mean, you vacuous oaf.
Anonymous says:
Again just name calling, why am I wrong?
Anonymous says:
because context is NECESSARY to appreciate art, your assertion that McCartney House is generic simply because it superficially resembles later structures in an entirely different context (residence vs public accommodation) is stupid.
you either don’t know what generic means, or you think your personal opinion of the structure somehow rewrites history and destroys context.
so it’s either you’re a self-important poof, or a vacuous oaf, you take your pick.
Anonymous says:
It looks bland and mediocre either way. I appreciate that he innovated new styles, but I’m not going to appreciate it as great art unless they still stand out amongst modern architecture.
Anonymous says:
that’s why you’re stupid, anon.
Anonymous says:
It’s like with old vidya, you can appreciate old games that paved the way for new stuff, but some old games just don’t hold up. Many do, and I’ll appreciate those much more.
Anonymous says:
vidya isn’t art, kid.
Anonymous says:
It looks nice, but the name adds way more value than it’s worth.
Love FLW but it’s Missouri for one, and second many post-modern houses aren’t known for being reliable in terms of move-in ready. Most notably with roofing issues. A lot of PM homes require some level of repairs.
>Missouri
lmao try again
Milwaukee, even worse.
my bad, it’s obviously Misconsin.
it’s Mount Idaho, retared
american education
Shut up, thirdie I’m sick of thirdie opinions
The roof looks fine, the garage might have some rust
Kalamazoo missouri lel
>postmodern
gtfo with this shit. it’s modern, not postmodern.
if you can’t deal with leaks don’t buy an old house or any modernist structure.
not boomers not ugly, get better taste
Post modern architecture was from the early 1980’s to the early 2000’s. Dummy.
Oh, say, now THAT’S trash!
These houses are so ugly. Something was wrong with boomers.
>National Register Of Historic Places
You probably can’t hecking mow the lawn without getting forms filled out with the zoning board and federal government
Looks like a state park bathroom, how is this supposed to be good architecture? It’s completely unremarkable in every way, a generic mcmansion looks better.
>state park bathroom
This is what I thought as well, but I was too lazy to post it.
It’s not horrible, it’s just incredibly generic. Not to say mass projects are exactly comparable, but nobody will ever not be awestruck by the Cologne Cathedral, Notre Dame, or St. Peter’s. I’m not sure how we can call this a masterwork of architecture when nobody would ever think anything of it without the famous name. Nobody would even say "wow, that’s a pretty house!".
it wasn’t generic at the time it was built.
context is necessary to appreciate art.
I disagree with this. If a work isn’t great enough to stand on its own, outside of its context, then it’s not great. Classical music has been parodied to death and many pieces still shock me with their sheer beauty. For a work to be truly great it doesn’t need to be innovative, although that’s great. What really matters is pure mastery, beauty, and craftwork. Maybe it wasn’t generic at the time, but I think that reveals that it was never that great to begin with. Pure innovation does not great art make.
An idyllic house in the Alps, or on the Atlantic, will still be beautiful and idyllic even though we’ve seen far more houses like that than FLW works. Beauty doesn’t disappear when you remove the context, if it does then it’s not true beauty.
you self-important poof.
Name calling won’t make this house look anything but mediocre
>people come along after and copy/adapt your innovative design
>suddenly your work is generic
only to a brainlet.
It only becomes generic if your work wasn’t that great to begin with, and you only had the first mover advantage on a new style.
you don’t know what words mean, you vacuous oaf.
Again just name calling, why am I wrong?
because context is NECESSARY to appreciate art, your assertion that McCartney House is generic simply because it superficially resembles later structures in an entirely different context (residence vs public accommodation) is stupid.
you either don’t know what generic means, or you think your personal opinion of the structure somehow rewrites history and destroys context.
so it’s either you’re a self-important poof, or a vacuous oaf, you take your pick.
It looks bland and mediocre either way. I appreciate that he innovated new styles, but I’m not going to appreciate it as great art unless they still stand out amongst modern architecture.
that’s why you’re stupid, anon.
It’s like with old vidya, you can appreciate old games that paved the way for new stuff, but some old games just don’t hold up. Many do, and I’ll appreciate those much more.
vidya isn’t art, kid.
It looks nice, but the name adds way more value than it’s worth.
>/fashion/ – Fashion