tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178184459929182520.post9174673529220781630..comments2024-03-09T16:52:15.366+11:00Comments on Steve King about Architecture: Mysterious mathematics 3steve kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01977535985183428085noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7178184459929182520.post-13124193849909649042014-05-08T11:36:14.120+10:002014-05-08T11:36:14.120+10:00Having quite an interest in mathematics and archit...Having quite an interest in mathematics and architecture, this post has sparked my attention to the fact that the buildings critiqued have really only been based of the idea of visual connotations of geometrical shapes rather than the principles and possibilities in which mathematics can really produce. After reading your post and the '10 Amazing examples of Architecture inspired by Mathematics,' it is evident where the main problem lies; in the author's attempt to portray a mathematical description of the building without having a full understanding of how complex the subject really is. I believe that it is not enough just to pick and choose these select few buildings and claim how amazing they are due to their 'mathematics' when really they have been based on a parabolic, hyperbolic of 'integral' shapes without further discovering their possibilities. Unless the building started with a particular formula in mind with a clear concept, I highly doubt that these so called 'mathematical buildings' like the Mobius Strip Temple and Barcelona’s Endesa Pavilion would have been based on the pure idea of a 'twist' or 'geometric shapes' without it being by an accident to begin with. <br /><br />It appears to me that before authors should praise the mathematical abilities of the architect's intent, they should start at the beginning and refer to the older architecture and how man relates to it. Gaudi's Sagrada Familia cathedral is a good example at how carefully considered each element of the building was designed particular through the mathematical side. Again, after the reading it does appear that the author only glazed over its main features without focusing on some of its most delicate and technical ones. Perhaps the architecture would look more thoughtfully designed rather than it appearing like it had been made on sketchup in ten minutes. Another issue with this is the parametric modelling. As I only have a basic understanding of some of the programs including Rhino and Grasshopper, it is easy to get lost in the 3D modelling software and fall upon new designs that the one originally intended.<br /><br />In terms of the Integral House, this one really annoys me for the reason that it was designed from a pretentious musical mathematician who thought he could just combine the two together just because they a violin and an integral sign may look similar. This building could be taken purely as just a house designed to represent the musical side with the curves representing the violin and the glass and wood paneling to represent a vertical stave! It's almost as though the 'mathematics' of the integral came as an afterthought once he realised the two might actually go together. <br /><br />Apart from this, my argument seems more to lie in the question as to why these buildings in particular are recognised as the top 10 rather than the many other ones such as the Mercedes Benz Museum, the Guggenheim or even the basic triangular pyramid at the Louvre!Alycenoreply@blogger.com