<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Technicolor Bloom by Brennan Buck</title>
	<link>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/</link>
	<description>architecture and design magazine</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:38:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eva</title>
		<link>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-153821</link>
		<dc:creator>Eva</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:14:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-153821</guid>
		<description>Xtiann-

Read the above sentence at a pace your mind needs to absorb it. 

Basic idea translation of above paragraph quoted by Xtiaan: 

This 'topological form'  (a reasonable, correct description) is great because it incorporates windows, and structure into the way the the thing was thought of from the beginning.

They are stating that this is different than a form that needs to be 'jacked-up' after it is designed, or 'punctured' with windows post-design.  We all know how many digitally-driven architectural projects are conceived in that post-operations manner. The above paragraph simply says that the digital technique and aesthetic feeling used to design the project, took the creation of structure and windows into account- from the very beginning.  

I'm definitely in favor of eliminating bullshit from Architecture, but I don't like when critics think it's cool to pretend to be  Morons...

Xtiaan, I think this at least, is a bit more than just "purdy" as you say..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Xtiann-</p>
<p>Read the above sentence at a pace your mind needs to absorb it. </p>
<p>Basic idea translation of above paragraph quoted by Xtiaan: </p>
<p>This &#8216;topological form&#8217;  (a reasonable, correct description) is great because it incorporates windows, and structure into the way the the thing was thought of from the beginning.</p>
<p>They are stating that this is different than a form that needs to be &#8216;jacked-up&#8217; after it is designed, or &#8216;punctured&#8217; with windows post-design.  We all know how many digitally-driven architectural projects are conceived in that post-operations manner. The above paragraph simply says that the digital technique and aesthetic feeling used to design the project, took the creation of structure and windows into account- from the very beginning.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m definitely in favor of eliminating bullshit from Architecture, but I don&#8217;t like when critics think it&#8217;s cool to pretend to be  Morons&#8230;</p>
<p>Xtiaan, I think this at least, is a bit more than just &#8220;purdy&#8221; as you say..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: xtiaan</title>
		<link>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-152217</link>
		<dc:creator>xtiaan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:22:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-152217</guid>
		<description>it looks purdy

"It proposes a method and a set of aesthetic principles that extend the architectural potential of topological form by incorporating architectural systems such as structure, aperture, fenestration and construction directly into the project’s geometry"

this is so heavy on the art wank its gonna implode, its a pretty folly, be done with it!
colour used serves only to further confuse the issues here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it looks purdy</p>
<p>&#8220;It proposes a method and a set of aesthetic principles that extend the architectural potential of topological form by incorporating architectural systems such as structure, aperture, fenestration and construction directly into the project’s geometry&#8221;</p>
<p>this is so heavy on the art wank its gonna implode, its a pretty folly, be done with it!<br />
colour used serves only to further confuse the issues here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gaque</title>
		<link>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-152136</link>
		<dc:creator>gaque</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-152136</guid>
		<description>technically cool. but the STYLE is just embarrassing...

this idea of  "incorporating architectural systems such as structure, aperture, fenestration and construction directly into the project’s geometry" is very fascinating and has lots of potential--however this project really seems like only an exercise in sexy-ass-modeling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>technically cool. but the STYLE is just embarrassing&#8230;</p>
<p>this idea of  &#8220;incorporating architectural systems such as structure, aperture, fenestration and construction directly into the project’s geometry&#8221; is very fascinating and has lots of potential&#8211;however this project really seems like only an exercise in sexy-ass-modeling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: adjSpcs</title>
		<link>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-151422</link>
		<dc:creator>adjSpcs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:08:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-151422</guid>
		<description>I find this project to be missing quite a bit in terms of a conceptual discourse. Obviously, the designer has an interest in the affective dimension of space, and thus architectural design; however, the overall effect leaves me wanting more. Perhaps, more through less. The use of subDivision tessellation is also quite distracting. If the project is exploring issues related to recursion and subsequent distortions why not just say that and be on with it? Otherwise, the project comes off as a bit confused and too heavily reliant on buzz terms and techniques.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find this project to be missing quite a bit in terms of a conceptual discourse. Obviously, the designer has an interest in the affective dimension of space, and thus architectural design; however, the overall effect leaves me wanting more. Perhaps, more through less. The use of subDivision tessellation is also quite distracting. If the project is exploring issues related to recursion and subsequent distortions why not just say that and be on with it? Otherwise, the project comes off as a bit confused and too heavily reliant on buzz terms and techniques.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: El Greco</title>
		<link>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-151379</link>
		<dc:creator>El Greco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-151379</guid>
		<description>I guess if you lasercut grandma's Venetian doily it becomes cool... to some.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess if you lasercut grandma&#8217;s Venetian doily it becomes cool&#8230; to some.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fling</title>
		<link>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-151098</link>
		<dc:creator>Fling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:10:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-151098</guid>
		<description>The experience seems be like being trapped in Jordan's underwear drawer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The experience seems be like being trapped in Jordan&#8217;s underwear drawer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Igor Kebel</title>
		<link>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-151038</link>
		<dc:creator>Igor Kebel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:32:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-151038</guid>
		<description>Technologies and techiques form our thoughts,  and this piece is a rather an enjoyable example of such a mindset.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Technologies and techiques form our thoughts,  and this piece is a rather an enjoyable example of such a mindset.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: johnny utah</title>
		<link>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-150994</link>
		<dc:creator>johnny utah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:13:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-150994</guid>
		<description>tesselate!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>tesselate!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ubertect</title>
		<link>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-150791</link>
		<dc:creator>ubertect</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:46:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-150791</guid>
		<description>What was it? Convert Nurbs to Polys, Polys to Subdivs and then?
Congrats on realizing this thing- a monument to the tools we tool around with ; )</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What was it? Convert Nurbs to Polys, Polys to Subdivs and then?<br />
Congrats on realizing this thing- a monument to the tools we tool around with ; )</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rodger</title>
		<link>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-150770</link>
		<dc:creator>rodger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:11:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dezeen.com/2008/07/09/technicolor-bloom-by-brennan-buck/#comment-150770</guid>
		<description>oh, i don't know. a technical tour de force maybe. as a piece of design, its a blah application from a facile computer skilled pattern maker.  ie. its way underdeveloped conceptually, and in reality it looks like a mess.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oh, i don&#8217;t know. a technical tour de force maybe. as a piece of design, its a blah application from a facile computer skilled pattern maker.  ie. its way underdeveloped conceptually, and in reality it looks like a mess.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
