Charlie Rose

danono  11/18/2010 10:03 AM Report

( http://www.findsoso.com / )

(( http://www.findsoso.com / )

We need your support and trust!!! Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps To our website Walk around A look at Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth You'll find our price is more suitable for you.

Welcome to our website ( http://www.findsoso.com / )

Thanks to the support!

( http://www.findsoso.com / )

( http://www.findsoso.com / )

( http://www.findsoso.com /

doodahdaze  04/24/2010 08:25 AM Report

Oh, I'm sorry, let me be more clear. By "too modern" I mean, 'sterile and boring', 'not original and lazyly conceived' yet, 'remarkably politically correct' <sigh>.

There, I hope that critique fits a definition you can understand. :)

kwetx  04/22/2010 08:11 PM Report

I think that we have to recognise the intrinsic value of aesthetics in architecture. Too often we separate the function from the form, and think that beauty follows as a natural result of efficiancy but it just takes a look at what's out there to see how untrue that is. Back in the 60s we realised the futility of relying on "form follows fuction" when that responsibility is placed on individuals with average artististic ability. We are lucky there are architects like Nouvel to remind us that Art is possible in builings, and that it is a somewhat intangible element, born of creativity and intuition... and practised well by a select few.

No two buildings should be alike (another folly of mid-last-century and the "International Movement")as no two situations are alike. What on earth would make someone think there IS a singular "meaning in things"?! It would be a very dull world if there was!

And you would have to be 100 years feel something is "too modern". That attitude is for Disneyland (or Vegas. Should contemporary buildings only be designed to look "classic" or "traditional"? Or is "too Victorian" or "too Beaux Artes" a valid criticism? Or perhaps "modern" is now too "old-fashioned"? Nouvel's buildings are anything but old-fashioned.

doodahdaze  04/18/2010 08:05 AM Report

I have to laugh. It sounds as though that 'architects' want the same thing everybody would like, "a client who knows what they want.". I'm sure life would be easy for everybody; AND ALL 'prices' would go down across the board.

I don't care for this guy's style too much; TOO modern. The first building, with the windows shaped like Ashlar stone was/is pretty 'plain' at best; it reminds me of something left over from the mid-60s. The rest of his work looks like spaceships, and the interiors look like they were built for Communists.

Not impressed, especially after seeing the work of far superior, previous guests of Charlie Rose.

REMant  04/16/2010 02:04 PM Report

Nouvel actually strikes me as the photographer, a romantic, while Bresson more the architect, the designer. Despite his protestations, the buildings appear to be mostly art, not functional, nor did he describe them that way, while Bresson's photographs, except for his explicit portraits, like any good journalist's, are not posed like statues, and always tell a story of immediate human relevance. The buildings seem like monuments; the pictures, a living thing. A good architect anticipates how his building will be used and makes it possible to the greatest extent possible; a good photographer anticipates what will happen. Both participate in the process of life in that way; neither just produces an object. I remember watching Larry Burrows work in Vietnam. His subjects were not like animals in a zoo. Now ppl usually do not speak about Wright in this manner, but thinking at least of his houses, one can see the utility in them as an environment, and so it may be with Nouvel. Good design usually turns out to be attractive to us, as well. That's clear in nature, but think of the classic colonial with central chimney and tall windows, a paragon of efficiency. So also a Chinese stir-fry for that matter. Nouvel says he tries to make every building different. How can that be?! Isn't life about figuring out the meaning of things? Does something come from nothing? Where is the element of design in such a scheme? Ppl who believe in creation are in the last analysis skeptics, tho, of course, they would deny the imputation as well.