Art Nouveau Arch.

[DRRRK]

Art Noveau describes a whole spirit of the times, modernismo is a term that describes a more local movement witin the whole Art Novau phase. In these times there were bigger differences between the styles of architecture in different parts of the world than nowadays. And even today it's difficult to find terms describing new architecture because the similarities are only superficial.

[asho]

I do not see why Gaudi is called Art Nouveau.

I just saw on Wiki that technically he is but his style was so psychedelically naturalistic that it does not seem to fit the profile at all.

I thought Art Nouveau was all about synthetic perfectionism and affectation.

Plus I do not think it fair to call it "gay"

For me it is much more "Old lady"

I would have thought this a fairly good way to describe art nouveau...

[asho]

gaudi is "modernismo" actually, he was more about structure than ornament

I attended a lecture a few years ago given by the team who are finishing the sagrada familia. It was fascinating to see how they were able to uncover equations built into the completed parts of the building which could inform the structural designs of the uncompleted parts for which there are no plans, only photos of models. It was amazing to see how gauidi had used nature to inspire the structure rather than simply ornament the building. to me it felt like the architectural equivalent of early flying machines modelled on birds, only far more sucessful.

[Faust]

I do not see why Gaudi is called Art Nouveau.

I just saw on Wiki that technically he is but his style was so psychedelically naturalistic that it does not seem to fit the profile at all.

I thought Art Nouveau was all about synthetic perfectionism and affectation.

Plus I do not think it fair to call it "gay"

For me it is much more "Old lady"

I don't know why you have to go and stereotype old ladies like that.

[DRRRK]

I don't know, it's like calling gothic the italian architecture of the gothic period, is the need of simplify things and put tags. Gaudi and his followers were inspired by nature, but their approach is so different...
It's my personal opinion, I try to read history books with a critic approach.
As asho said, gaudi was much more than an architect with certain aestethic preferences, he was a forward thinker and a holy "crazy" man obsessed with god.
He's work is so raw, I can't even compare it with art nouveau.

This is influenced by nature and is always called Art Nouveau.



I don't think that you have to categorize everything. Call it whatever you want. In my opinion the approach may be different, but more important than the approach are the results, and if they are similar you can lump them together if you like. There's no need to invent terms for everything and "Art Nouveau" would be no insult. As much as I admire the singularity of his work, I like my own buildings to be finished within my lifespan.
What I wanted to say with my first post is that Art Nouveau is great but that I prefer the International Style and what followed. Except Postmodernism of course. There is no place for ornaments if they are not part of the whole structure.

[swych]

This is influenced by nature and is always called Art Nouveau...

I don't think that you have to categorize everything. Call it whatever you want. In my opinion the approach may be different, but more important than the approach are the results, and if they are similar you can lump them together if you like. There's no need to invent terms for everything and "Art Nouveau" would be no insult.

Not going to try and classify Gaudi. Him and Bucky Fuller I've never been able to label because of the diverse interest/ research

I just wanted to comment on 'categorizing'. I dunno dude, Alberti was inspired by nature, so was Brunelleschi and all those followers/ interpreters of Vitruvius for that matter. it's a differnet way to interpret nature altogether, and as such requires a different label.

I thought contemporary trained architects cherish process more than anything? shooting straight for result only lands you with mannerist products. look at morphosis, UN studio, OMA- that's all process.

Evidently Gaudi did a wide range of work, for me most importantly is the development of the catenary arch, to other minor art nouveau components like street tilings, lamps, and just general surface design to mimic the sea and waves. It would be hard to argue that the excess of harbour related motifs are structural, i think that his dedication to establishing gesamkunstwerk in each building seperates him from typical art nouveau design, and as such cannot be classified as that. its not about 'insult' or not. he just wasnt that.

[DRRRK]

I did not say Gaudi was Art Nouveau. I did not say he was Modernismo either. I don't care really because as you say all artist are diverse. Modernismo is a certain Catalan style of Art Nouveau. That's what I said before.
Categorization in general is a simplication for people who don't know enough about a certain topic, no matter if it's music, art, fashion, poltics etc. In most cases it just does not work.

For us the process before the finished product may be important. But what about the visitors of a museum, the people living in a buliding? The buildings are for them and they don't care about the process. They want the best result regardless of the designing process or intellectual or philosophical background involved. That does not mean that you go straight for the finished product. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to. Because cotemporary trained architects need to earn money.

[asho]

is the ambition to working and functional building not the reason for the process?

[DRRRK]

This is getting far too theoretical here. Ambition is great but often it is too much for your client who has to pay for it. The art is to realize buildings, not to talk about it.

[Therianthrope]

I'm a complete architecture layman & neophyte. The process & mind-set involved in architecture parallels many of my own interests. I always thought I should be more interested in architecture than I am, and recently began looking into it. I found work by two architects involved in what people consider Art Nouveau. I thought some people here (who aren't already familiar with it) may also have an appreciation for it.

I can certainly see why people may call it "gay" or "old-lady," but I think that's a danger involved in any design. From my own experience, too many small details overpower the fundamentals. I don't like minimalist design either; it comes across as pretentious or lazy. I'm all about detail in moderation. I felt these particular links I posted were pretty showy, but I really like the organic nature of the ornamentals.

[STEALTH]

This is getting far too theoretical here. Ambition is great but often it is too much for your client who has to pay for it. The art is to realize buildings, not to talk about it.

I think the art is to imagine / conceptualise

To realise is CONSTRUCTION

[Heirloom]

I like swirly lines

[DRRRK]

I think the art is to imagine / conceptualise

To realise is CONSTRUCTION

Construction can be Art. Concepts can be crap.

[swych]

Construction can be Art. Concepts can be crap.

laying into 2 millenia of architectural discourse and a fashion forum really isn't a good idea. i think we should just keep the discussion around art nouveau...

i mean art nouveau is art nouveau, in the end, what makes it stand out as most of us agree are the ornaments it uses. at the same time gaudi's use of colours and sinuous curves are evocative of that, it is more massive than the works that are representative of art nouveau.

when i think of art nouveau, i think of wrought iron, expressing nature with industrial techniques new to the time. it tends to call out individual parts and detail them separately, be it window design, door design, column ornamentation.

gaudi's ornamentaion of his building treats the building as a whole, which makes it read more uniformly:









vs

[DRRRK]

To Swych

Yes, yes and, again, yes.