The trouble is that designs like these are incredibly over-thought and full of purpose, but that purpose is so far-fetched and strange (and probably pointless) that no one gets it and the whole building just turns into a dumb novelty. Many architects don’t seem to realize that if no one has any idea what a design is supposed to mean or if it even means anything at all, then the design has failed.

“Buildings,” Richard Neutra once said, “require careful attention because they are not nomadic tents that can be moved…such man-made surroundings envelop the child, the adolescent, and the adult like an inescapable fate.”

And speaking of inescapable fates, one has only to cast an eye on the architecture of Richard Meier who, in one fell swoop of his soaring psyche, managed to destroy Grand Army Plaza, a Brooklyn landmark. Like too many architects he aspires. Perhaps all men aspire, but none more than architects. I don’t believe an elephant would have built a pyramid or a parthenon even were he upright and prehensile. I do believe that if an architect had his own way, he’d make himself king for a day; he’d draw up a plan for the future of man and man would have nothing to say.

“Good, original architecture depends just as much on an understanding public as on its creator,” mused Walter Gropius. I’m still waiting.

Architecture is one of the most obvious, and most difficult, ways to incorporate art into our everyday lives. Those whose genius devised the design behind medieval Gothic churches in Europe; the Byzantine buildings in Greece and later reconfigured in Russia; the delicate shapes of shrines in Japan, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia; the infamous Taj Mahal in India; the beautiful tipis of Native Americans - all of these, and more, were created with more than just shelter, worship or other more practical use in mind. These were gigantic artistic venues, were marble and coloured glass and granite and wood and paint and chalk and clay and every other possible means for creating some sense of visual, subconscious messaging was utilized. I doubt anyone would question the ingenuity of Frank Lloyd Wright - I know many people who dislike his work, but they do appreciate it for the spark of brilliance behind his design.

Yes, many architects may aspire to greatness that may or may not be beyond their means to design. However, architecture is one huge facet of our evolving culture, and without it, many other things slow their pace in terms of expression and creativity.

“I believe it better though that we educate our young aboput purchasing and living in any of these corporate contract structures. HOA’s, COA’s, CID’s, PRD’s, etc., are one way tickets to h___, forelosure, discrimination and financial ruin, in far too many cases. Beauty and elegance from the outside says nothing about the horrors, deceit, prejudice and ignorance lurking inside.”

Um, wow.

Did you read this article or not?

This article is about the design of corporate business structures, not residential buildings. The concept presented of ‘Neuro-Architecture’ seems, to me, more of a concept regarding the ingenius presentation of architecture as a sub-conscious marketing ploy that plays on emotions and thought patterns evoked by particular colors, shapes, textures, and materials utilized in a building’s construction and overall decor.

Please read the articles here before commenting on them - it’s annoying for those of us readers who are here for creative intellectual stimulation to be brought off of a design high by comments like yours.

bijal

www.neuropimp.com