Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY
To me, it's a rip-off. It "most certainly isn't" what? Don't know what you are referring to in the last part of that sentence.
|
An architectural masterpiece. It's not internationally accepted as such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY
Why not? Go ahead. You do know there are bad architects, don't you? Or perhaps "Sh..." mentality is clouding objectivity?
--Pat
|
Don't know where you get that idea from. Of course there are bad architects.
So, let's start to talk about the alleged rip-off of the Rose Center by Apple.
I wouldn't necessarily call the second design 'derivative'. It could be claimed to be inspired by it, but derivative I think is stretching it a bit. To start with, the Apple design is fundamentally about a simple, minimal glass cube that kind of serves as a big lobby. The original work uses a glass box which is an exhibition space and just one part of a larger design. In terms of glass boxes, you can't look at the original and say it's the predecessor of all glass boxes. Architecture which is based on simple volumes is really common, and this kind of monumental architecture started with the pyramids and was revived by
Claude Nicolas Ledoux and
Étienne-Louis Boullée. It so happens that the medium of expression is glass. The reason for the curved roof is functional. You need to get the water off the roof so that you have less chance of snow settling on it. The ideal would be a flat roof, but it's not practical, so you try to get away with the minimum degree of curvature or slope possible so that you don't ruin the design principle of your 'cube'.
The word derivative implies that the new work arises explicitly as a result of the original, without adding to it. This isn't really true. Of course if you wanted to be picky about the term 'derivative' I guess probably over 90% of all architecture could be called derivative. This is of course different to being a blatant rip off.
The Apple store also doesn't rip off the Rose Center, because that would also involve the size of the panes, proportions, means of structural support and volume elements. Apple have used a design which is similar to a single part of another (the Rose Center is elevated on a massive masonry base which projects past the cube, has a roof which is solid, not glass, and it has a solid closed volume at one edge) and refined and improved it. The Apple store has been stripped to the point of ultimate minimalism, with an almost invisible support structure which is constructed of the same material as the cladding. On the Rose Center, the support structure is an overt part of the visual design. In the new building, it's almost non existent. Even if you take the view that the original was an explicit precedent (which is commonplace) it doesn't substantially copy the original, it only uses a part of the design, which it refines and adapts to the new context and function.
So - in terms of 'rip off' pertaining to a blatant copy, it's clearly not so. Even the glazed section isn't a rip off. Most obviously the new building has a transparent roof. Also the function is different.
Would you consider Pei's Louvre pyramid a rip-off of the orginal, but updated and translated in a modern material?
If we go back to the similarity of phone copying, the Galaxy didn't evidently add anything (apart from the logos, which aren't relevant) or take anything away from the original design, it copied it in its entirety, and copied most of the details in their complete form for precisely the same use as a direct competitor. The only really evident difference externally is the square button instead of a round one.
Now that
is a rip-off