www.quondam.com/17/1619.htm

Re: seagram's building
2001.09.09 14:09

When I read the questions regarding the Seagram's building, I thought about the difference between the 'images' and the 'reality'. In this particular case, the reality is what R. saw yesterday when he rode all around the Seagram's building, and the images, which are all at a remove from the reality, are what is currently exhibited at MoMA/Whitney, plus the long published pictures in books and magazines, and the (iconic) images of Mies and his buildings that are taught to varying degrees in architectural history and design classes. To some extent, this issue of disparity between (architectural) reality and how (architectural) reality is presented has already been discussed, or at least noted, here at architecthetics.

So which is the most valuable aesthetic when it comes to architecture?

Is 'what a building really is' that which is most valuable in terms of being the harbinger of architectural aesthetics?

or

Is the real harbinger of aesthetics the way in which architecture is presented (which is largely separate from the building itself)?

or

Is architectural aesthetics really only that non-tangible (or at least non-built) apparatus that sets up the presentation (of the image) and in turn more or less subliminally sets up the platform of appreciation within the minds of those receiving the image?

««««

»»»»