5 min. interview with an owner of a Lautner house
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0P7M3p8YKE&feature=player_embedded#at=107
An all-too-common
story: iconic house is mangled by successive owners, finally acquired by "sensitive rescuer," who proceeds (with high-profile restoration architect in tow) to save the house, while inserting his own "improvements." A house is a home, and needs to serve the current occupant's needs -- icon or not.
Not my favorite Lautner design, in any event. It's always a treat to hear first-person accounts . . .
I love a lot of mid-century...
I love a lot of mid-century modern architecture, but I cannot stand those cheesy stone facades and chimneys that seemed to be pretty common in that era. It just seems so odd to me that someone as forward thinking as Lautner would include so much of it in this home. It just doesnt seem like it belongs there.
What makes stone "cheesy"?
...as opposed to any other material like wood, brick, or anything else one would use on the exterior or interior of a house?
The dark textured stone (lava?) Lautner used on the chimney of this house is repeated on interior walls as well and I think makes an interesting contrast to the smooth, light, fluid, cement.
It strikes me as the same kind of illogical prohibition of material as "I don't like wood furniture" that I have heard on this very forum. I would think that any material could be used well or poorly, depending on the design.
I grew up in a town that was...
I grew up in a town that was seemingly stuck in the 1970s so this type of stacked lava rock and granite was everywhere. It just looked so cheap to me in person. It also strikes me as overly busy and downright sloppy with the exposed mortar.
Stone would make a nice contrast in many of these mid-century homes, but how about some flat smooth cut stone? The aesthetic just never seems to fit in with these types of modern homes.
sophia
Your arguments against anything and everything mid-century seem to add up to nothing more than "I don't like it". You never back it up with anything substantive beyond the idea that it is not your personal taste. It's fine if you don't like it much. We all have our own tastes and preferences.
You resort to insults and accusations when you can't get others to agree with your point of view.
Were you abused with a piece of lava rock as a child?
Battered with an Eames LTR?
Terrorized by a Herman Miller Nauga toy?
No big deal if you don't like it. But is no one else allowed to?
well sophia
You never answered any of my direct questions back on the other thread. Just a bunch of BS insults.
For instance, in reply to your assertion that there were many "traditional designers" that had more impact than Ray and Charles in the last 100 years, I asked you to name just one.
No answer.
I rest your case.
Eameshead,
You see this is...
Eameshead,
You see this is you conveniently misreading my original statement.
I said that there are plenty of tradional furniture designers who have made furniture that is infinitely better made than the Eames. Furniture that has survived 100 years of use and is still intact and usable, whereas your typical Eames chair from the 1970's is falling apart... but to answer your own question, what impact did they really have? Name a single major designer since then that was inspired by the Eames?
Dont believe the Herman Miller hype, whos only job is to continue selling overpriced crap to people like you.
Lunchbox, I'll keep it short. You are a poser.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com