Just to clarify: The Guggenheim was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, not Frank Gehry.
But obsolete, you're correct. Johnson is concerned with the designer's personal influence on the work and not external influences.
When Johnson addresses Structure he is really introducing the antithesis to Utility. It is based around viewing architecture as a purely sculptural form, devoid of function. Just because your building is formally beautiful, does not make it successful. A building must operate and must function to a certain standard.
In this sense, I believe fashion often has more liberal leeway. Clearly, some of the designers we respect here either consider function as secondary or the lack of function as a means of furthering their concept — which is not necessarily a bad thing.
I've been thinking more about this. What about the crutch of Process? Sometimes when I see a finished work there is an elaborate process behind it whether that is object dying, handmade features, etc.. And regardless, the end result is pretty unattractive. Sometimes I find that designers will rely on a proven, self-imposed system to create a good work in the end — and yet it doesn't always happen that way.
Last year I saw a lecture by a woman Anne Lindberg. She is a visual artist who relies often on systems she has created for herself. She develops a process and creates a large body of work following that process. Here is an example piece:
This was created using a customized architect's drafting board. The board was a wall length both wide and tall and the straight edge going across it is enormous. Moving only a centimeter or two at a time across a piece of paper sometimes 15-20' long, she drew lines with varying weight. Clearly, the result is quite beautiful. But after the lecture, I asked her if she accepted every piece she created with this method. And she didn't. She said she discarded about half of her drawings because even though she followed the process each and every time, there was a quality to the piece that was still sub-par.
I think this is an interesting example of how some proven methods could still result in a flawed final product. Does anyone know of instances where a designer has created a garment under a specific premise that has been successful before but not another time?
But obsolete, you're correct. Johnson is concerned with the designer's personal influence on the work and not external influences.
When Johnson addresses Structure he is really introducing the antithesis to Utility. It is based around viewing architecture as a purely sculptural form, devoid of function. Just because your building is formally beautiful, does not make it successful. A building must operate and must function to a certain standard.
In this sense, I believe fashion often has more liberal leeway. Clearly, some of the designers we respect here either consider function as secondary or the lack of function as a means of furthering their concept — which is not necessarily a bad thing.
I've been thinking more about this. What about the crutch of Process? Sometimes when I see a finished work there is an elaborate process behind it whether that is object dying, handmade features, etc.. And regardless, the end result is pretty unattractive. Sometimes I find that designers will rely on a proven, self-imposed system to create a good work in the end — and yet it doesn't always happen that way.
Last year I saw a lecture by a woman Anne Lindberg. She is a visual artist who relies often on systems she has created for herself. She develops a process and creates a large body of work following that process. Here is an example piece:
This was created using a customized architect's drafting board. The board was a wall length both wide and tall and the straight edge going across it is enormous. Moving only a centimeter or two at a time across a piece of paper sometimes 15-20' long, she drew lines with varying weight. Clearly, the result is quite beautiful. But after the lecture, I asked her if she accepted every piece she created with this method. And she didn't. She said she discarded about half of her drawings because even though she followed the process each and every time, there was a quality to the piece that was still sub-par.
I think this is an interesting example of how some proven methods could still result in a flawed final product. Does anyone know of instances where a designer has created a garment under a specific premise that has been successful before but not another time?
Comment