WARNING: This blog contains copious amounts of adult GAY 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.
Joyas arquitectónicas,Amigo venezolano, Cúcuta
ReplyDeleteAw, now see Rick? You know the way to my heart...!
ReplyDeleteGuilded Age mansions were - justifiably and objectively - the pinnacle of elegance and sophistication and where truly architects, artists and even the humble laborer understood that beauty of form was just as important - if not more (in some cases) - than function. Very few styles and periods that followed (notably art nouveau, art deco, arts and crafts and streamline moderne) - even when stripped down to a minimum of the ornamentation - echoed the care and attention to detail, beauty and just plain fun that the late Victorian/Edwardian/Guilded Age styles did.
Now I'm not saying that today we need a ~175,000 square foot behemoth like Biltmore, or even the ~140,000 square feet of Breakers to live (and have the ostentatious presumption to call it a "cottage"), but the principles of upholding beauty and ornamentation equally hand-in-hand with function and expense could take us a long way. Besides... pretty things make us happy. 😁
Thanks Rick!
I would argue that even FLW's Prairie Homes were beautiful.
DeleteAbsolutely, whkattk - that's why I listed it as "Arts and Crafts" and not just "Craftsman," LOL - Prairie style (really, just a stylistic update to the classic American Four-Square) falls in that broad "Arts and Crafts" classification.
DeleteFLW was a genius and did a great deal to advance architecture - but also was (perhaps inadvertently) complicit in that "function vs form" streamlining. FLW moved the pendulum away from the ornamentation and elegance of late Victorian/Edwardian and towards the stripped down versions that is the norm for today. My only point is I think the pendulum moved a bit to far (why do we always go to extremes in stuff?) and no longer value beauty beyond basic elements.
RBrysco - You are very welcome.
DeleteBiltmore is nice...but the other ones I love even more! Especially the second.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with RBrysco above. No need for such immense homes, but where is the quality, craftsmanship and the beauty and ornamentation that can still be done in smaller homes, instead of theses home "nothing there one day, three months later completed homes"??? Cookie cutter, dime a dozen homes I call them. Meh. Give a older and one with some warmth and character any day.
LOL the second one is The Breakers, Mistress Maddie; it's just the south facing view of the house instead of the front or back.
DeleteBut like you, I cannot *stand* cookie cutter homes; I see them thrown up all around me as I live in a somewhat rural area that is now becoming "the next hot area" to live in, and find them grossly disproportionate McMansions on a postage stamp sized piece of land that all look like some genetic replicating experiment, TBH.
My house on the other hand, is 125 years old and has it's own character and style. :)
Yikes! What a follow up to the previous post. The irony is not lost on me.
ReplyDeletePat - You saw something that I hadn't noticed until you pointed it out.
Delete