Talk:Architectonic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
This sounds like a disambig page. Xaxafrad 06:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] made some improvements
Add some historical notes. will have to get the citation on the german though. Architectonics, as I have heard it used is not always a question of deformation, so took that out. I have heard it used for some very simple structures, and indeed that was its 'original' implication in German when it was used to describe barns and the like.
[edit] Gehry?
Those who use 'architectonics,' as far as I know, would not really point to a building like the Dancing House by architect Frank Gehry. The geological argument is interesting, but etymologically, it would be a new varient on the word, I would think. Maybe that is the way to go. If that is true then one should mention more examples.Brosi 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Ginger part of Dancing House has exposed structure, which is probably the source of that misunderstanding. The issue of plate tectonics is totally wrong, and is probably a messy edit. Kenneth Frampton explains the origins as having to do with the craftsman (tekton) who made the building with a structure. I will edit as necessary. Stakhanov 08:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Encyclopedia article or dictionary entry?
Is this really an encyclopedia entry? All there seems to be is a series of definitions with etymology, some of it speculative. Mdotley 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a citation needed after the assertion that architectonic was used by Aristottle in his politics, which is dumb because that IS a citation, Author: Aristottle, book: The Politics. Yeah, I'd like a link to that part of that book hosted on a reliable site, but what more citation is being asked for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.144.236.194 (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] bizarre page
There is a lot of banality here. No citation on Aristotle to begin with. 'Architectonics" is confused with 'techtonics' - BOTH words that are what a friend of mine calls 'architect-speak' and are not really worthy of an entry unless one really does a sociological study of the term, its origins or at least use in the German nineteenth century aesthetics, which got translated (many times over) into an architectural cliche,Brosi 01:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to do what they call in archispeak a "yeabut." Tectonics has a very clear meaning, as explained by a number of architecture theorists, and it, as a concept can be traced way back into the 18th century French Neoclassicism. Architectonic is straight-up archibabble, as far as I am concerned, although it does generally seem to mean a building with glorified structural rationalism. I'd like to fork the ideas along the lines of Kenneth Frampton, but I just don't have the time. Stakhanov 04:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
