Art, Architecture & Cars (was "Wither Vintage Ferrari Values")

Hi Tom:

Yes, kind of. Something that would get the attention of people who are not there just to see the cars, engineering, and history. To use a counter-example - Bill Harrah's original collection, housed in a couple of huge barns/Airplane hangers. Simply astounding, but still unfulfilling.

If I could tell you exactly what I meant I would be as good as you designers. If you think of what is required to house and display a collection of - for example - 150 to 200 of the worlds most beautiful cars, but without it being only about cars, but also get the flavor of the century which produced them, you would have it.

And maybe such a display exists in the world - I have not travelled enough to see a very good sample of displays.

I'm sure that is an inadequate description - certainly not a design spec - but my fantasy.

Cheers
Warren

 

if you want historic perspective, you might want to do several buildings starting with a horse barn and ending with something modern.

the ford factories designed by (was it kahn?) (i remember he was a jewish architect which was ironic since ford was a fairly rabid anti-semetic) were very nice for their time with energy saving sawtooth clerestory windows admitting light in regular rows.

the buildings housing the ford museum also use similar design if i remember correctly.

of course there is a car dealership in new york city which was designed by FLW which used some ideas similar to the guggenheim museum which i believe came a bit later. i think the dealer ship was for max hoffman originally, one of the most famous early imported car magnates.

i have always wanted to have a try at designing a car dealerhip.

most of them around here are dreadful metal buildings.

tom w

 

Tom,

In the Netherlands there is a whole movement to make ultra modern dealerships. This one is very special. It is located "in" a soundwall next to a highway. Architect: Kas Oosterhuis
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I've noticed euro big-volume makes...Volvo, VW, Audi, etc., around here doing some very interesting, forward-looking, and not inexpensive things with their new facilities...nothing like your pics yet, though. Texas = $$$ market and it won't be surprising to see similar popping up here in the near futre.

Having done residential work, I've had the opp to design and outfit some nice collector-car garages. I'm currently designing a very modest version for our new personal home...need to be able to put in a small bend-pak car lift somewhere down the line, open the 330 GT doors wide, and have space for my tools and good elect supply and lighting, and get the 4Runner in also.

 

Wow - lots of great thoughts here!

Tom, you are right it was Albert Kahn who designed Ford's factories. He was a great architect with many structural, lighting and facility planning innovations. He also designed the famous (now abandoned) GM headquarters and Ford's Rouge River facility. His 1913 Highland Park building for Ford was the largest in he world at the time. It is now used as a spare parts facility - would be a fantastic location for a car museum! see: http://www.architectureweek.com/2000/1101/culture_1-2.html

Rijk - great deck and car showroom example! Frankly, american design and engineering seem to have fallen fare behind Europe. I can't imagine anybody doing a showroom this beautiful in the states....

Warren - wanted to respond yesterday to your inquiry but have been too busy. There's a book out there on great garages - saw it at Barnes & Nobel? About car museums.... I think that Harrah's Ice House in Sparks is the best I ever visited. The new National Car Museum in Reno attempts to situate cars in historical vignettes but ends up looking Disneyesque. The worst car museum building is the Blackhawk Museum in Danville, Ca. The place is a mausoleum (all black, horrible lighting - yuck) but has great cars.

Of the best, two private (virtually inaccessible) museums also come to mind. First, Arturo Keller's collection in Petaluma, Ca. Keller has the world's largest collection of Hispano Suizas plus probably the finest private collection of Mercedes (including a W159 and Fangio's gullwing) and another 130 very special cars in a vineyard with views of the San Francisco Bay. The building is partially set into surrounding hills and is unassuming. It was designed by Ricardo Legorreta. The other is in a 14 century castle about an hour south west of Bilboa. Have forgotten the owner's name. The collection is focused on Rolls Royce. Lots stone an gargoyals, ivy everywhere - it all seemed quite fitting for Rolls....

 

PROGRAM NOTE: I renamed 'Cars that influenced your design'. in an attempt to open it up. It is now called Cars & Design. FerrariChat administration felt the thread too broad for inclusion in Ferrari section and so moved to 'Off Topic - Cars and Motorcycles'.

Hope that you'll check it out here: http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=142752

 

very nice article about Albert Kahn's work.

thanks for sharing.

tom w

 

I can't stand Gehry's work. Total abomination of aesthetics, IMO.

 

Apparently, you and I are the only ones that agree to this.

BTW, http://autoextremist.com/page2.shtml has some period GM photos of the golden years. The original Stingray by Bill Mitchell is as good as anything Pinifarina ever did.

 

Henry,

This is the main dilemma in Art. You can never say of Recognized Art that it is an abomination, because then You are uncultured. And if Gehry's architetecture is Art, then........

For architects it's even worst. If I don't like Gehry, I'm jealous.

Weasel that I am, and taking both of the above into account, I just love Gehry.

 

I'm not an artist, but I believe in the traditional notion of good and bad, attractive and unattractive. What Gehry does is an expression, but it is an expression that I tend to find horrid!

 

Rijk and Henry - I think that you are both right! Ok, that may seem impossible - hear me out. First, everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion. Second, there are good and bad opinions. In my (not so humble) opinion the best opinions are well reasoned and articulated.

While its perfectly fine to share opinions, it would be more informative, and supportive of further discussion, to explain the basis for one's opinions. Doing so often leads to new insight, if not into one's own point of view at least into that of others. Henry, I'd love to hear why you don't like Gehry's work. Is it because it doesn't fit your definition of good taste, because it simply looks ugly to your eye...?

Jon

 

Looks like this thread is cranking right along!

I'll add inane comments from time to time to help keep it going.

 

Henry,

That last comment went out too quickly and came out exactly the opposite of what I wanted to convey. Now its too late to edit.... so I will add another note.

This thread (among many) seems to have been circling around the issue of taste and opinion... Personal opinions are great. My earlier statement was poorly worded, too judgemental. I said that there are 'good and bad' opinions. This really isn't the issue for me.

What I should have said is that the best opinons are the most useful ones. Useful opinions encourage discussion, add insight...... Its one thing to know that somebody likes or doesn't like something, its another thing to know why. Ok, lots of times we don't know why we respond to things the way we do. Expressing a 'like' or 'dislike' is a way to begin thinking about it. Seems best when we don't stop with such statements but rather continue on to explore why, how, because....

Jon

 

JCR - great link! Really like the enclosed picture - it shows how each car was concieved with its own character yet belonged to a family. The Nomad is especially interesting at the front and tail lights! I wonder what (if any) cross influence there was between Mitchel and PF?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

This is a great thread - probably my favourite on the whole forum. I've had a lifelong interest in architecture, but have only recently started learning about it in any great detail. So far, my personal favourite is John Lautner - I love his work, particularly some of the houses he did in the 60s - a vision of a space aged future that we are yet to see (Chemosphere and Garcia Residence are great examples of this). I'm beginning to get ideas about going back to university to retrain and become an architect (though I can't afford to go without my income for the time being...). I'm also a fan of Frank Lloyd Wright's work, and find a number of the Case Study Houses to be very appealing.

One unusual point that I'd like to bring up is that 'art' (by which I mean paintings, sculpture, etc) rarely appeals to me (nor do I dislike it - it rarely moves me one way or the other), whereas 'design' (architecture, cars, furniture) usually has an affect on me - it's as though 'art' isn't relevant in my mind, whereas I'm fascinated by the design of anything usable or that has some use.

First image is Chemosphere (Malin Residence), second is Garcia Residence
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The Nomad was supposedly destroyed. There was a guy named Norm that worked for GM that supposedly stripped all the chrome off it before it was hauled away to the scrap yard. But nobody ACTUALLY saw it destroyed at the scrap yard. Therefore, for decades everybody has been looking for the long lost Nomad. (At least that's the way it was years ago. Don't know if it has been found since.)

 

GTSguy, I don't like Gehry's work because it is hard on my eyes: it is simply unpleasant for me to look at it.

I don't like the modern - perhaps the post-modern definition of art - whereby traditional values are supplant in favor of the "all is art" notion. In my opinion, this has created a lot of crap and a lot of mediocre individuals have become artists. I'm not referring to Gehry, as the technical aspect of putting all that together is still sophisticated and even respectable, but many others who under the banner of art do things such as mixing of two popular brand of popcorn machines, or something equally silly, in an effort to make a comment on corporate mergers and the hypocrisy of capitalsm, for example. You understand my example, correct? Art doesn't need explanation, metaphors, similes, etc.

Art should be pure, it should be perfect. Art should be so that when you look at it, you realize why it is beautiful. This is why I don't like Gehry's work, because I look at it and I struggle to find beauty.

 

Henry,

There is Art, its quality survived the test of time and it will be easy to the eye. Then there is art that still needs to be time tested. Art should to be cutting edge, non-commercial (hahaha) and futhering society. Put up unconventional mirrors and be, by definition, not understood.

Rembrandt was cutting edge in his time. I like this painting of Jan Six. Look at the red cape, the gold embroidery are just abstract paint stripes. This in a time where every detail was painted painstakingly. Jan and Rembrandt were friends and he, against all tradition, he let Rembrandt do the first abstract "representation" of wealth.

This brings me back to Horta. I do not "care" about the Art Nouveau architecture he had as a language. Even though he was a great Master at it. The special aspect of Horta was that he had a totally modern mind. He made truly spacial designs that were really 20th century modern. He just did not have the architectural language yet, since modern architecture had not been invented until the early 1900's.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Henry - I agree with Rijk (great Rembrandt reference!). Clearly you and I are operating from different perspectives. That said, your position is understandable. I felt the same way about Le Corbusier, Michael Graves and others at one time. If I can offer one thing, it is only to suggest that with greater exposure to his buildings you might change your mind.

Gehry had an exhibit and gave a lecture at Harvard in 1980. This was just as he was getting known. Gehry felt stifled by architectural conventions of the 1970s. His work was a deliberate design response. At the lecture he showed pictures of Loyola and his own house among other things. Exposed plywood, chain link fencing - his kitchen floor was asphalt! As I remember his opening lines were something like 'I like the unlovable, cheap, and lowly things - I like the undesigned, the humble, the inexpensive....'

Of course, many sitting around Harvard's 'hallowed halls' were somewhat confused, huge arguements went on for years afterwards. But I was thrilled and in complete agreement with Gehry from that moment on. I'd been doing collages for years and had enjoyed the odd relationships of dissimilar images and objects (this still informs my best designs). Of course, Gehry's work is no longer as casual or 'inexpensive' as it once was, but a theme of anti-establishment remains. It is no mystery that you find the work objectionable - many agree with you.

But I take a different tack. I believe that nothing (no thing) is perfect. Everything has a compromise somewhere. Absolute perfection is profoundly useful as an idea and a standard by which to measure progress. But it is quixotic when used as a goal. As the old saying goes - 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions...' And so too definitions of art and 'good and bad taste'.... As Rijk rightly notes, what is at one time highly controversial (imperfect with it's times) often later becomes visonary.

Although many consider Ferraris 'ultimate cars' we all know that they are full of imperfections. Their success is found in the balanced of their imperfections... The key to great design is how to make the right compromises, not how to do things with perfection. Gehry, bold man that he is, chose to make a celebration of imperfection the heart of his designs.

Ok, I am a maverick. Go ahead, make my day! But, like Gehry I enjoy many things others overlook. Years documenting the 'imperfect' vernacular moderne architecture of unknown lay folks all over the world, my perspective is clearly suspect! I'll take grimy broken tile and mirror and hand formed stucco over perfection any day!

Jon
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Rijk - I have never thought of Horta in these terms - great insight. Although he was more modern, Otto Wagner is similar, as modern as the Vienna Post Office is, it remains very traditional.

Dude - good buildings! Especially Lautner, he's a real favorite. Did you know that the the Chemosphere was recently restored by the owner of Taschen books? This building reminds me of Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion car... (see: http://shl.stanford.edu/Bucky/dymaxion/) Both were designed to look modern and mass produced.

Jon
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Quite interesting. So if/when found it should be re-named the 'Normad'?

LOL

 

I heard that Taschen had bought Chemosphere - I have the taschen book on Lautner, when I heard, I thought 'so that's why they chose to put Chemosphere on the cover' (though in fairness, Chemosphere is probably the most revolutionary Lautner design). I'd never heard of the Dumaxion car before - very interesting.

A Lautner house is currently for sale - Segel House - currently owned by Courtney Cox and David Arquette. The asking price $33,500,000 (does anyone else find it amusing when a house is as expensive as that and they still bother with the extra $500,000 as if $33,000,000 isn't enough?). http://www.sothebysrealty.com/PropertyDetails.aspx?R=100303447

 

I'm right there with you my friend, although with a particular emphasis on sustainability and reclaimed materials. I particularly love it when such elements are used with a humourous twist as in 'container city' http://www.containercity.com/

We have a fantastic TV show here in the UK called Grand Designs which follows self-builders. A few of the houses that have been featured have been built out of straw bales, which I think is superb! See the following links for straw bale houses:
http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/grand-designs/houses/S/sussex_woodman.html
http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/grand-designs/grand-designs-abroad/lot.html
http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/grand-designs/houses/I/islington.html

A few other houses from the series that I really like are below:
http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/grand-designs/houses/D/dorset.html (Check the Frank Lloyd Wright influence!)
http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/grand-designs/houses/C/clapham.html
http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/grand-designs/houses/P/peter.html
(For a full list of the houses they've featured, click this link: http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/grand-designs/houses/index_archive.html)

Sadly none of the above are typical of the houses built in the UK these days, most of them are mock, hybrid tudor/georgian/edwardian messes that don't relate to anyone or anywhere: http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article1356214.ece

On a side note, another house I adore is Charles Deaton's Sculptured House: http://www.kentwoodhomestour.com/kentwood/sculpturedhouse/home.html

 

dongerdude - Thanks for the references! Really like the container stuff in particular. I am sure that the other references are good buildings but I have not had a chance to really check them out yet. There are folks doing hay bale here too. Interesting idea, but expensive here as earthquake structure required in addition to hay. Prefer more modern designs also.... More and more I think that we need to become more sustainable... although I rather dislike the word due to its overuse here. The idea is absolutely right though......

Jon