Comments on: Is Symmetry in Architecture Dead?

By: Maria

Maria — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 05:49:45 +0000

I really like the "twizzler building."

By: greeps

greeps — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:56:00 +0000

Please. THe building is gorgeous. Even if you disagree with the modern aesthetic, architecture is functional art. Visit Pentagon City (across the river from Washington DC) and see what you get when you take the approach that architecture need not be interesting. Yikes.

By: dolphin

dolphin — Sun, 04 Sep 2005 05:36:00 +0000

Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I think the first two buildings that you show are quite beautiful. Symmetry is a huge no-no in modern art (usually, it depends on what you're trying to express). Symmetry reduces visual tension to almost nothing and can often lead to a very visually boring work. On the other hand, it can evoke authoritative power and dominance. It depends on what these buildings house.

I usually defer to your knowlege of law since you have more education than me in that field, but my degrees are in music and art and I have to categorically disagree with this statement:

All else equal, symmetry is more aesthetically pleasing than asymmetry.

Nine times out of 10 this is not the case. Symmetry is boring. Look at the average snapshot and compare it to the work of a professional photographer. The biggest difference. The snapshot taker plants his subject in the middle of the frame resulting in movementless symmetry. The photgrapher will usualy place the subject to one side or the other or take the picture at an angle. Anything to break the symmetry.

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 22:57:21 +0000

...there is also nothing wrong with aesthetically pleasing construction...

I'm not arguing for austerity architecture -- that's how most government buildings are designed, and they look hideous.

My point is that frivolous destruction of symmetry is NOT aesthetically pleasing.

This twizzler building could have been designed with exactly the same style, materials, etc., but just without the twizzle, and it would have been cheaper to build AND more attractive.

By: dolphin

dolphin — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:57:11 +0000

Nonsense. That building is gorgeous. There's nothing WRONG with practical building but on the otherhand there is also nothing wrong with aesthetically pleasing construction.

If we only did what was practical we'd have to get rid of everything that doesn't serve a specific practical function. What kind of world would that be?