Meme Thread... no politics

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

Reminds me of GM's Vert-i-Pack. 

In defense of modern architecture... I present the Smithsonian African American History Museum. Pictures do not do this structure justice. The outer layer are these intricately cast panels. It stands in stark contrast to the other beautiful architecture around it. It is distinctly modern and one of the more attractive structures in the national mall.

Debating esthetics is a fools errand anyway. Changing a persons mind is only marginally more likely than if one were to debate politics. It does make it more interesting if one is able to articulate their feelings rather than merely giving it a thumbs up or down however.

NickD said:

The Deconstructivist building in your previous post is pretty bad, agreed.  Spatially it sucks, too, which is what makes it really unforgivable.

But the '70s-vintage Peter Eisenman houses are damn nice.  The way views and natural light are handled is pretty special.

By the way, here's the 'private' side of that Modernist house:

Yeah, I'd live there.

My parents met in art school, my dad made a career out of painting race horses and the people in the horse racing industry. 

Having grown up in such an environment, and consequently opinionated, I think that for me, my judgment of art comes down to a couple of factors. 
 

First-if it requires you to peruse some complex explanation because the piece can't stand on its own, it's schlock.  I liken it to a conspiracy theory, where you have to be an insider to understand it. This allows you to feel superior to others who don't understand. 
 

Second-it's not crucial, but really is best to have some exemplary skill to produce the piece.

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

First-if it requires you to peruse some complex explanation because the piece can't stand on its own, it's schlock.

Agreed.

There is truly excellent abstract art and there is terrible abstract art.  What gives the abstract genre a bad name is the $42M smear of vandalism / murder scene in the original post.  Compositionally it's just not $42M interesting.  Same goes for a lot of the more famous avant-garde artists like the ones below.

Jackson Pollack:

Jasper Johns:

That stuff, particularly the Pollack, does nothing for me.

These artists did also make some work that was visually and compositionally interesting.  But over-intellectualizing something does not make up for a shortfall of aesthetic interest.  Not necessarily beauty -  but interest.

I find abstract art to be pretty useless. Basically, if it looks like a 5 yo had an accident with a magic marker or a bottle of paint, I don't consider it art. 

I wouldn't live in the house either. I find it fairly monochromatic and boring. Walking up to that door would feel entirely too much like walking into my doctor's office. Hard pass. My tastes in modern design run more toward modern structures and natural materials in natural settings. 

The good news is I don't have to like it. The even greater news is outside of this discussion no one would even know I didn't like it because those opinions are so subjective that no two people will agree. 

Besides, 

I don't think "exemplary skill" is necessary at all, at least not in the common understanding of 'skill' as meaning 'perfect technique'.  That's just a tool to be used in getting the vision and feeling and message across.  Technique can be a powerful tool, but it will not make up for lack of vision.

That's true in music, too.  David Gilmour can say more in 12 notes than Yngwie Malmsteen can say in 1200, even though they take the same amount of time to play.  Neil Young is rated as a great guitarist, even though half the time he sounds out of tune.  But the feeling gets across well.

There's something going on in this one.  It's totally abstract and not representational - there is character and strory you can read into it, if you want, but it's also interesting in a purely visual sense:

In reply to Duke :

There are some damn good reasons why most houses aren't built that way. No room for insulation- check. No porches to block summer heat - check. No blinds on the weirdly shaped windows- check. E36 M3 water management flat roof - check. Etc... "modern architecture" houses are almost always hilariously bad  at being houses. Artistic interpretation are the least of the problems with them. 
 

On the other hand, drawings in shop manuals from the 1950s -1960s are true modern art. The subject is modern. The medium is art. I question anything that is just blobs or out of context junk. 

tester (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Duke :

There are some damn good reasons why most houses aren't built that way. No room for insulation- check. No porches to block summer heat - check. No blinds on the weirdly shaped windows- check. E36 M3 water management flat roof - check. Etc... "modern architecture" houses are almost always hilariously bad  at being houses. 
 

Not necessarily, from either a physical or domestic standpoint.

There is plenty of room for insulation in those walls.  Nothing is stopping that from being double-pane insulating glass.

Despite the big expanses of glass, is the interior overexposed?  No.  Light is carefully controlled.

Blinds aren't necessary because the windows at the front are all narrow slots or filtered by those vertical slats.  The big windows all face the rear of the lot and its surrounding vegetation.  It's private.

Properly designed and constructed flat roofs are just as watertight as pitched roofs.  It's all about water management.

Just because it does not look like the common perception of a "house" does not mean it is a bad house.

In reply to tester (Forum Supporter) :

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

Reminds me of GM's Vert-i-Pack. 

I have never seen a stock Vega up close and personal, but it boggles my mind that they probably had to re-engineer all sorts of things related to fluids, just so they could stand the cars up on end for a one time train ride.  

Did the automatic transmissions have dipsticks, and if so did they snake all the way to the back of the trans?  What did the cooling system look like?  The battery?  The oil pan and such?  The brake master cylinder?

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

They were shipped with fluids. An article in the Railway Age has this information. I'll bet some of these modifications are head scratchers for mechanics who come across them today. It apparently cut the cost of transportation by 40%.

Chevrolet’s goal was to deliver Vegas topped with fluids and ready to drive to the dealership from their distribution point. In order to be able to travel nose-down without leaking fluids all over the railcar (and onto the tracks), the Vega’s engineers had to design a special engine oil baffle to prevent oil from entering the No. 1 cylinder of the car’s inline-four engine. Batteries had filler caps located high up on the rear edge of the case to prevent acid spills. The carburetor float bowl had a special tube that drained gasoline into the vapor canister during shipment, and the windshield washer bottle stood at a 45-degree angle. Plastic spacers were wedged between the powertrain and chassis to prevent damage to engine and transmission mounts. The wedges were removed when cars were unloaded. The doors were closed with a forklift tractor (see illustrations).

From Motor Trend:

GM wanted to ship the cars in as close to ready-to-drive condition as possible in order to minimize the labor required at unloading. That meant the cars had to be full of fluids, including gasoline in the tank, but there could be no risk of those fluids spilling during transport...

(list of modifications)

...When the Vega Vert-a-Pac cars were unloaded, the crew merely had to remove the plastic spacers that protected the powertrain, crank the engine until the fuel bowl filled, and drive away. 

That's a lot of Vegas.

Art

Art Institute of Chicago

Duke said:

I don't think "exemplary skill" is necessary at all, at least not in the common understanding of 'skill' as meaning 'perfect technique'.  That's just a tool to be used in getting the vision and feeling and message across.  Technique can be a powerful tool, but it will not make up for lack of vision.

That's true in music, too.  David Gilmour can say more in 12 notes than Yngwie Malmsteen can say in 1200, even though they take the same amount of time to play.  Neil Young is rated as a great guitarist, even though half the time he sounds out of tune.  But the feeling gets across well.

There's something going on in this one.  It's totally abstract and not representational - there is character and strory you can read into it, if you want, but it's also interesting in a purely visual sense:

I like this one. Others I haven't cared as much for, but you are correct in that this one is about... something.

IMHO: The best art leaves you with QUESTIONS, not answers.

...semi related, here are two pieces of art in my living room.

The first is a photo print purchased from a sushi restaurant a couple miles from GRM HQ. I love how random the water is.

The second is an artist I discovered at the Whole Earth Festival at Davis (as hippy as it sounds).

Neither piece of art (and yes, that photo is Art) has classical precision. Both are quite modern. I love them both.

To a certain extent it seems that we are complaining about something that doesn't effect us. Don't like modern art? Buy something old. Or find someone still working in the old style. It's kinda like saying, "Damn, Basketball players sure have a lot of attitude!".  Bothered? Then go watch football. 

Back to the topic at hand...