Jump to content



Recommended Posts

Flooding the Farnsworth
Thursday, August 30, 2007

From the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, via Edward Lifson a.k.a. The New Modernist, some photos of Mies van der Rohe's Farnsworth House under threat by floodwaters from the Fox River, this after visits from Brad Pitt and one other nominal celebrity.
Preservationists and Modernists certainly must be agonizing over these photos.
Iconoclasts, on the other hand, must be praying for yet more torrential downpours.
One regular Pruned reader, an avowed anti-Modernist, sarcastically asked us if this is what “they” meant by “architecture engaging with the landscape”? He was wondering, or so we assume, whether architectural historians, critics and students--in overpraising the house (and Philip Johnson's Glass House and Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water) for harmoniously intertwining with nature--are simply full of shit, as what they think of as a harmonious engagement (or the idea of those high priests of Modernism “designing with nature”, or at the very least acknowledging context beyond formal and material concerns) is an illusion.
“Nature has been subjugated. There, it is expected to be static, as structured as the building. That or it must act within a prescribed set of parameters. Abnormal hydrology is frowned upon, for instance. So harmonyschmarmony. But thankfully, when things like this happen, architecture is laughingly displayed as impotent.” Too harsh.
In its defense, however, the house does look beautiful and quite striking in its state of quasi-failure.
Meanwhile, we are eagerly waiting to hear, hopefully accompanying other reports of Brad Pitt's generous donation to architecture, that proposals are underway for a levee system to protect the Farnsworth, millions of dollars worth of flood protection that most assuredly will fail in order to further sustain the illusion. We're waiting, because it will be hilarious to hear them.

in http://pruned.blogspot.com/2007/08/flooding-farnsworth.html


Ha quem tenha referido que a casa fora concebida desta forma por ordem ideologica. Segundo Hegel deve existir uma separacao da natureza do homem e ai a arquitectura deve estar desligada da natureza. Esta casa era o exemplo ideal dessa leitura da arquitectura hegeliana...


Como se pode ver... essa teoria pode ser ddeitada abaixo com uma questao:

Nao terah o arquitecto concebido a casa desta forma para prevenir cheias e afins?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Penso que o facto do edifício elevar-se um pouco do solo não tem nada a ver com estar desligado ou ligado da natureza, mas sim com uma ideia de estética que o arquiteccto pretende, além das razões óbvias de higiene e durabilidade. É uma estética diferente daquela casa do Philip Johnson, que assenta directamente no solo, com o pavimento praticamente à mesma cota, e tampouco é uma elevação de um piso. É apenas uma pequena elevação de cerca de 1m, que atribui uma leveza quase "divinal" àquele objecto. Essa deve ser a razão principal. Se funciona para as cheias, melhor ainda!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.