BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"J. Bryan Blundell" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
BP - "Magma Charta Erupts Weakly"
Date:
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 15:04:00 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
Vernacular is not simple, not complex, not common, not elite, not a
style.
Vernacular is form following function, is defined by its social and
environmental setting, is based on heritage, is not aware that it is a
style. If it is aware that it is a style, it is most likely not
vernacular. Vernacular can be innovative in improving function while
maintaining the links to heritage in how the forms express themselves.
Improved function can influence form.  It is not self conscious in the
same way as style designed structures, it is self aware.

=====
Mary Christina Manning wrote:
>
> So are the buildings that are being constructed today (simple homes
> specifically) vernacular?  Because your definition would exclude them, being
> built/designed by architechts and all.  Yet, I would not classify the
> typical American home today as belonging to the "elite".
>
> Caver Chris  ^V^
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> The difference between vernacular (or "folk") architecture and regular
> architecture, as defined in my American Studies and Cultural Geography
> courses, was that folk/vernacular architecture is made up of those buildings
> built by local people, and that "regular" architecture is made up of those
> buildings built by architects -- experts, elites. Perhaps this will throw a
> cat among the pigeons.
> Your friendly geographer
> Hilary
>
> At 01:4 PM 9/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>  >On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Mary Christina Manning wrote:
>  >
>  >> But isn't all architecture affected by these elements?  What
> distiguishes
>  >> vernacular from "regular"?
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  >I would put forth that vernacular="regular" and non-vernacular="weird"
>  >
>  >vernacular is also likely to mean "old, before they developed
>  >the stunning taste that we have now" or "old, before we developed the
>  >horrible economic pressures that force our buildings to be so ugly"
>  >
>  >i fear it is somewhat subjective.  alas.
>  >
>  >(alassie?)
>  >
>  >-brad
>  >
> Hilary Lambert Hopper
>
> "If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood me."  - Alan
> Greenspan
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2