WARNING:This blog contains copious amounts of adultGAY material. If that's offensive to you, please leave now. All pix have been gleaned from the internets so, if you see a picture of yourself that you don't wish to have posted here, please leave a comment on the post and I will remove it with my apologies. I REPEAT:If you see a picture of yourself that you don't wish to have posted here, please leave a comment on the post and I will remove it with my apologies.
You know, I am kind of torn about modern "Art Deco" (as well as other styles) buildings such as Parkview Square.
While - without a doubt - beautiful, this and a few other examples of modern architecture trying to mimic these vintage styles are more representative of a Disney wet dream than a true representation of the period that they are trying to preserve and showcase. It's like an architect and investor sat down and said, "Okay - we have this much square footage. Let's try to cram as many examples of the period into that box as we can!" And they do... to the point that instead of being authentic, they become museums that do nothing more than exemplify every one of the period's characteristics.
Very few buildings authentic to the period had this much decoration or Art Deco characteristics and for good reason - while very stylish (and could be ornate), they were expensive. We have to remember that the height of Art Deco the US was on the verge of, and then in the grips of the Great Depression. The ornamentation was streamlined and either minimized or stripped completely out for the Moderne period that followed ("poor man's" Art Deco).
SO, beautiful? Yes, absolutely gorgeous. Authentic or representative of the period? Not so much... I enjoy buildings like this much more if you take each individual characteristic and enjoy it for what it is, rather than the sopping, overly made-up mess the whole represents.
Even a lady knows that before walking out the door, you look at yourself in the mirror and remove one piece of jewelry so you can't be accused of being "overdressed."
Agreed. My eye doesn't have a problem with the exterior of the building, but the interior...Let's say it looks like Art Deco artists Ruhlmann, Frank, Dufrene, Gray, Dunand and Lalique(from Google) all wanted a piece of the action, puked all over everything on the inside, and this was the result. Again, in art, "Less is more."
Having spent time in Singapore, I find this building a bit "out of sync" with the rest of the place. Except for some well-preserved colonial-era buildings, the place is ultra-modern. I like art deco, but this is, imho, totally out of place.
Agree with you completely, Big Dude! Singpore has beautiful classical architecture like the Raffles Hotel and the National Art Gallery, but then there is this hodge-podge of modern stuff like the Esplanade Theaters, Marina Bay Sands (buildings with the "ship" on top), and The Interface.
I have no issues with modern architecture at all! But it seems like Singapore is almost trying to go head to head with Dubai with just the most over-the-top crazy stuff ever built! While this approach has produced some beautiful buildings, there is just absolutely no cohesiveness to the city at all anymore.
You know, I am kind of torn about modern "Art Deco" (as well as other styles) buildings such as Parkview Square.
ReplyDeleteWhile - without a doubt - beautiful, this and a few other examples of modern architecture trying to mimic these vintage styles are more representative of a Disney wet dream than a true representation of the period that they are trying to preserve and showcase. It's like an architect and investor sat down and said, "Okay - we have this much square footage. Let's try to cram as many examples of the period into that box as we can!" And they do... to the point that instead of being authentic, they become museums that do nothing more than exemplify every one of the period's characteristics.
Very few buildings authentic to the period had this much decoration or Art Deco characteristics and for good reason - while very stylish (and could be ornate), they were expensive. We have to remember that the height of Art Deco the US was on the verge of, and then in the grips of the Great Depression. The ornamentation was streamlined and either minimized or stripped completely out for the Moderne period that followed ("poor man's" Art Deco).
SO, beautiful? Yes, absolutely gorgeous. Authentic or representative of the period? Not so much... I enjoy buildings like this much more if you take each individual characteristic and enjoy it for what it is, rather than the sopping, overly made-up mess the whole represents.
Even a lady knows that before walking out the door, you look at yourself in the mirror and remove one piece of jewelry so you can't be accused of being "overdressed."
Agreed. My eye doesn't have a problem with the exterior of the building, but the interior...Let's say it looks like Art Deco artists Ruhlmann, Frank, Dufrene, Gray, Dunand and Lalique(from Google) all wanted a piece of the action, puked all over everything on the inside, and this was the result. Again, in art, "Less is more."
DeleteHaving spent time in Singapore, I find this building a bit "out of sync" with the rest of the place. Except for some well-preserved colonial-era buildings, the place is ultra-modern. I like art deco, but this is, imho, totally out of place.
ReplyDeleteAgree with you completely, Big Dude! Singpore has beautiful classical architecture like the Raffles Hotel and the National Art Gallery, but then there is this hodge-podge of modern stuff like the Esplanade Theaters, Marina Bay Sands (buildings with the "ship" on top), and The Interface.
DeleteI have no issues with modern architecture at all! But it seems like Singapore is almost trying to go head to head with Dubai with just the most over-the-top crazy stuff ever built! While this approach has produced some beautiful buildings, there is just absolutely no cohesiveness to the city at all anymore.