# Can simple be beautiful?



## Cyrus (Jan 28, 2005)

A building can be simply beautiful, like a house in Kashan:


----------



## heywindup (Dec 12, 2009)

No. The more over-the-top complicated it looks, the better.


----------



## heywindup (Dec 12, 2009)

On second thought, it can if done right:


----------



## WAMdotORG (Feb 21, 2010)

Yes, simplicity can be (and is inherently) beautiful, but that ultimately depends on the mind of the individual. There is a duality here that makes this conversation quite intriguing; without the other, each concept (simplicity and complexity) is without appreciation. The best designs are the ones that carry their concept through to the detail, be it complex or simple. That being said, achieving a simplistic result that carries through to the tectonics of construction requires more effort, because there is less to respond to, so each constituent part requires a more thoughtful placement and design to achieve the same result.

Personally, I prefer simplistic and pure designs (like the work of SANAA and Felix Candela), but there is an inherent beauty to both approaches. The work of Norman Foster (another favorite of mine) can be seen as complex tectonics that achieve a simple overall design statement.


----------



## shabangabang (Sep 17, 2009)

I think simple can be beautiful if done right. If there are no striking patterns or complicated structures then all the attention is drawn to the structure as a whole.
The example given of 7WTC is a brilliant example of a simple design finished to perfection.


----------



## Concrete Stereo (May 21, 2005)

I'm not sure if I feel like going into this discussion.

Complexity isn't inherently beautiful, neither is simplicity. Beauty lies in purpusefulness and wellcraftedness. The Trevi Fountain really is a fairly simple design, with very worked details. But so is the Barcelona Pavillion of Mies van der Rohe.

Minimal formalism rarely makes minimal architecture, it is mostly combined with very rich materials, textures, space and light, and very well crafted details. Which is in itself -obviously - as ornamental as baroque ornaments. On the other hand, baroque - in all it's expressionism - will always work from a very minimal and rhythmical backdrop, to create 'white-space' for well seperated and purposefully ornamentend elements (doors, windowframes, arcades, etc).

As an architect, there really isn't much difference between using a calmly materialized wall, treating the windows and doors like pictures in a well worked frame, and on the other hand a very delicately materialized wall with the windows and doors as no more than openings in the material of the wall. Both tricks are used in the same building.

Let's put some references, and you can judge. Then again: please note that not every building is the Louvre - a building has the monumentalism that fits it's role in the city. A Amsterdam Canal house is extremely simple and sobre - even though it is a palace - if compared to the opera, because if it was not, the owner of the house would be ridiculed for being incredibly uncultivated.



The most famous icon of minimalism: Barcelona Pavillion by Mies van der Rohe. Very minimal in formal language, but incredibly expressive and ornamental in everything else (material, dramitic spacial relations and in light, the use of art, reflection, lines)





























Herzug & de Meuron, Caixa Forum Madrid: Example of the two ornaments at the same time. Where the old building used the neutral backdrop with the window as picture frame, H&dM used this wall with the closed windows a expressive architecture texture, with unaccented windows. Also the top part is pure minimal materialism, but is nevertheless very ornamented.











Peter Zumtor, the Godfather of the new minimalism has - like Mies van der Rohe had - the most feeling for material of all architects of this time. Materials are often specifically developed for his buildings, and the details are worked into perfectionism. His buildings actually use a combination of the 'classic' windows as elements and 'modern' windows as holes.

Vals:




































Köln:





















David Chipperfield





















Luis Barragan





















Valerio Olgiati












In the end, there really isn't much difference between the 'simplicity' of David Chipperfield and the expressionism of Boroque. To the extend that the last built project of David Chipperfield was to rebuild an arm of the Neues Museum in Berlin that you won't even notice at first sight.


----------



## EvilCapitalist (Jan 12, 2010)

Excuse me, but the idiocy in this thread is incredible. If you can't appreciate minimalism and modernism, I can safely say that you are artistically illiterate.


----------



## dark_shadow1 (May 24, 2009)




----------



## Concrete Stereo (May 21, 2005)

^^ where is it? Very pretty!

It reminds me of Louis Khan's Salk Institute


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

EvilCapitalist said:


> Excuse me, but the idiocy in this thread is incredible. If you can't appreciate minimalism and modernism, I can safely say that you are artistically illiterate.


Congratulations for getting awarded with "most idiotic comment of the week" :applause:
Go get some!


----------



## dark_shadow1 (May 24, 2009)

Concrete Stereo said:


> ^^ where is it? Very pretty!
> 
> It reminds me of Louis Khan's Salk Institute


It's a part of Israel's Supreme Court.


----------



## EvilCapitalist (Jan 12, 2010)

erbse said:


> Congratulations for getting awarded with "most idiotic comment of the week" :applause:
> Go get some!


The irony of this comment is simply sickening... Anyways...

Before anyone gets the wrong impression, I appreciate ornament, but it is certainly not the only way to express a structure. Art is certainly based on opinion and I respect anyone's opinion on such a subjective matter, but when people make gigantic, broad-stroke comments on entire styles, such as many of the people in this thread, I take umbrage. To say that all "simple" buildings are ugly is to equally heinous as to say that all ornamented buildings are beautiful.

An opinion is an opinion, but some participants in this thread have revealed that they are incapable of enjoying any part of vast, varied volumes of work that have been worked on by thousands of people based on preconceived notions. To be incapable of understanding is to be illiterate. I stand by my original post.


----------



## JmB & Co. (Jan 5, 2008)

goschio said:


> Postmodernism and Art Deco are my favorite modern styles. I really like geometry and harmony in buildings.
> 
> Look at this. Simple but beautiful.



Dude, thats not "SIMPLE"! Its an ornamented Art deco building.


----------



## heywindup (Dec 12, 2009)

Does anyone actually consider this "beautiful"?


----------



## hugh (Mar 8, 2005)

'Can simple be beautiful?' - the question is ridiculous.


----------



## RavenSS (Apr 8, 2010)

_--Deleted--_


----------



## Iluminat (Jan 16, 2008)

heywindup said:


> Does anyone actually consider this "beautiful"?


I would say it's interesting or even "cool", unlike most boring buildings you see all the time. Brutalist buildings might be not beautiful in traditional sense, in a way they're like a protest to this kind of "cute" aesthetics, they are dissymetric on purpose but in a way also more classical than modernism with all this complicated concrete detail, often unpractical etc. It was one of the most fascinating styles in architecture, not necessarily beautiful but architecture doesn't have to be beautiful.


----------



## Wey (Jul 8, 2008)

As far as I'm concerned, simples IS beautiful. They're too sides of the same thing.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Simple is not the same as bland.
Simple is note the same as lack of detail.

Complex is not the same as detailed.
Ornate is not the same as beautiful.

Brutalist modern buildings, such as Boston's City Hall, are anything BUT simple. The Great Pyramid is anything but complex.


----------



## Gated (Apr 13, 2010)

Cloudship said:


> Simple is not the same as bland.
> Simple is note the same as lack of detail.
> 
> Complex is not the same as detailed.
> ...


Why necessary?


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

JmB & Co. said:


> Dude, thats not "SIMPLE"! Its an ornamented Art deco building.


If you compare it to some of the european baroque architecture it is extremly simple. Just look at the ornaments. Just very simply geometry and no complex strucutres. Of course it gets always simpler and simpler. A white box with a single door and nothing else would be the simplest possible. Don't think there is a clear definition of "simple" Its always relative to something else.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Isn't it all obvious? It's like asking if food needs to be cooked to be tasty.


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

^ No, it's not. That'd be the question "Can architecture be beautiful?" which is a whole different thing. While there are assumebly few people who like raw steaks, there might be many who dislike simple architecture in general.


----------



## Ashok (Jul 17, 2004)

heywindup said:


> Does anyone actually consider this "beautiful"?


It is simple, and very beautiful indeed.


----------



## JmB & Co. (Jan 5, 2008)

goschio said:


> If you compare it to some of the european baroque architecture it is extremly simple. Just look at the ornaments. Just very simply geometry and no complex strucutres. Of course it gets always simpler and simpler. A white box with a single door and nothing else would be the simplest possible. Don't think there is a clear definition of "simple" Its always relative to something else.


May be you are right. This thread is too subjective IMO . . .


----------



## ArchiTennis (Jul 3, 2006)

Concrete Stereo said:


> ^^ where is it? Very pretty!
> 
> It reminds me of Louis Khan's Salk Institute


The plaza space was designed by Luis Barragan. Khan wanted a plaza filled with trees. 

My favorite is Philip Johnson's Glass House:


----------



## LAX 777 (Jul 25, 2006)

ArchiTennis said:


> The plaza space was designed by Luis Barragan. Khan wanted a plaza filled with trees.
> 
> 
> Barragan felt the view to the ocean shouldn't be spoiled and anything that was added would do just that so he came up with the water trough.


----------



## home300m (Apr 14, 2010)

LAX 777 said:


> The plaza space was designed by Luis Barragan. Khan wanted a plaza filled with trees.
> 
> 
> Barragan felt the view to the ocean shouldn't be spoiled and anything that was added would do just that so he came up with the water trough.


No. How'd suggesting the'Yd spoiling the view. :no:

- they shall not.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

Some would call this simple; I'd say it's extremly beautiful.


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

^ That's beyond my definition of simple.



That's simple. 








Source









Source









Source



Plain and ugly, I'd add.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

How could people ever consider that beautiful?


----------



## Iluminat (Jan 16, 2008)

> That's simple.


Actually mostly more complicated than this "cute" little house.



> How could people ever consider that beautiful?


Because people have different tastes :dunno: I love first example it's so elegant.


----------



## ***** (Apr 2, 2008)

http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/Brutalistlondon.jpg

http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_115746_459409_klaus-kinold.jpg

This is ugly with big U like this


----------



## Huti (Nov 13, 2008)

Because people have different tastes :dunno: I love first example it's so elegant.[/QUOTE]


x2


----------



## Concrete Stereo (May 21, 2005)

it seems the question has changed to 'can simple be ugly' ...

but *****, you've got to love that big bastard. It's not a cute little house in a charming surrounding, it's a machine. But that's some serious muscles!


----------



## heywindup (Dec 12, 2009)

These are also simple:


----------



## ainttelling (Jun 3, 2009)

heywindup said:


> These are also simple:


[edit]


----------



## JoseRodolfo (Jul 9, 2003)

Niemeyer architecture - são paulo - Brazil


A Theater















































Oca, an exposition place:













































Bienale Pavilon:


----------



## JoseRodolfo (Jul 9, 2003)

A house by architect Marcio Kogan, Paraty - Brazil










































More pics here: http://www.arcoweb.com.br/arquitetura/marcio-kogan-residencia-paraty-09-11-2009.html


----------



## OldWorldResident (Mar 26, 2010)

Can simple be beautiful? 

YES !!!




:master: Wright


----------



## not031 (Apr 21, 2010)

I think beauty is depend on context and surrounding APPLY into the architecture even it simple or not
what if the Great Pyramid of Giza locate at the busting city like New york, does the pyramid still beauty?

Seagram building in New York is my favorite









coppright : http://brianabbott.net
http://brianabbott.net/photos/2010/02/04/night-windows


----------



## skyscraper100 (Oct 22, 2007)

yes.


----------



## skyscraper100 (Oct 22, 2007)

^^ its in beijing, the beijing opera house


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

YES! 

people mistake simple architecture with low quality architecture. look at the simple lines of the housing all along the mediterranean. another example would be the cubist adobes in the southwestern US. they might not have ornament, but they do have proportion, practicality, etc.


----------



## skyridgeline (Dec 7, 2008)

*"Simple"*

panoramio.com​
 
panoramio.com


panoramio.com


----------



## Concrete Stereo (May 21, 2005)

Castelo Novo by Comoco Architects:


----------



## shabangabang (Sep 17, 2009)

skyscraper100 said:


> yes.


Fantastic.:cheers:


----------



## MattTheTubaGuy (Feb 12, 2009)

that Beijing Opera House is incredible!

could you define simple architecture as architecture that you can recognise instantly by it's outline? or that you can describe the shape in a sentence or two, and someone could build a model of it. 
eg. The Shanghai Tower is a round cornered triangle cylinder that twists and tapers and has a sloped top.
I guess that's the shape though, not the building itself, of which the exterior materials can make a difference.
Just imagine the twin towers with a really shiny glass cladding:nutsI can't imagine that actually!)
eg, the Sydney Opera House, and the SWFC.
I actually think the (exterior of the) Sydney Opera House is quite simple, with clean cut edges, and the curved surfaces just sections of a sphere.

the Shanghai Tower isn't particularly complex in design, just a round cornered triangle cylinder that twists and tapers and has a sloped top.

Are there any rectangular buildings that have a very smooth consistent cladding all over?

I wonder what the pyramids would look like in NY, because they aren't exactly little. somewhere in mid town would be interesting.


----------



## No1_Saint (Jul 1, 2009)

*Raukokore Anglican Church, Eastern Bay of Plenty NZ*

Yes...I think it can.




























Designed and built by my Great-Great-Grandfather in 1890 something.


----------



## yester (Apr 29, 2010)

simple can be beautiful if it's not ugly


----------



## girlybag (May 1, 2010)

fritfri said:


> ^^ This is not very good.
> 
> Complexity is like this - the old East Saxonians, for me this is just easy to design.
> 
> But . . . this is for . . . the "helmet guy".


Got it from the home?


----------



## skyridgeline (Dec 7, 2008)

*"Streamline"*

All pictures from meckleychina's Flickr page:


----------



## socrates#1fan (Jul 1, 2008)

All this modern stuff.


----------



## Urbanmaking (Oct 11, 2008)

Portugal Pavillion by Architect Siza Vieira for the 1998 Lisbon World Exposition.
Simple, but aesthetically and technically audacious.


----------



## socrates#1fan (Jul 1, 2008)




----------



## skyridgeline (Dec 7, 2008)

Logshan Xinxin Town Church, Beijing:

chinese-architects.com









chinese-architects.com


----------



## Amrafel (Nov 26, 2006)

see the architecture of last Pritzker prize winners....yes, minimalism can be really beautiful


----------



## Concrete Stereo (May 21, 2005)

^^

Couldn't agree more.
SANAA, Peter Zumtor and the very probable winner of the next Pritzker prize David Chipperfield. The new wave in architecture is defenitely delicate and worked, unspectacular and very very beautiful.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

OK, I think we are getting really confused here. Simple is different from minimalist, and different again from undecorated. Some of the modern examples posted are anything But simple. They may be minimalist, or even stark, but they are NOT simple. And some of those more traditional buildings are simple, some are rather complex.


----------



## buffyscrubs (May 18, 2010)

little house in a charming surrounding, it's a machine. But that's some serious muscles!


----------

