| Gallery, Projects and General > Project Logs |
| Webster-S Build |
| << < (8/8) |
| doubleboost:
Propper job :bow: :bow: :bow: Files and fine emery classic :bugeye: :bugeye: :clap: :clap: John |
| raynerd:
I was fearing you were going to say that :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: Note to self - "must practice more and try harder!" |
| PekkaNF:
--- Quote from: srm_92000 on July 11, 2011, 03:19:12 PM ---Pekka, Had me reaching for my dictionary then :bow: Thanks --- I think? :scratch: Seriously though can I use your previous terms, so if anyone asks I can say it was designed along the 'reverse transitional art deco functionalism lines. Sounds GREAT :) --- End quote --- Anytime.. you can even own it or blame me for the consequences when somebody is first putting the timeline of different styles together and then logically trying to piece together the obivious and not feeling any viser! If you feel it describes it, then you'll be defining it. When you see "folks" having this kind of exchange over it, you know you are into something: http://www.cheftalk.com/forum/thread/49716/what-does-deconstructed-mean Truth is that I have an interest of different styles and their underlying ethos, but I still don't understand it any better than a lamb over a coffee, but what I'm lacking on skill or knowledge I'll ace with humor. Very often it's not even funny, very often just plain weird. Like - the whole idea of functionalism was pretty cool, but did they actually managed to produce anything functional? In practical and technological sense. The icons we know were definately a distinct style and a very recognizable form language, but hardly never functional on classical sense. Art deco is harder to describe, but it was a more gradual and less disciplined transition from earlier. Don't you need that functionalism needs a little regression? Pekka |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Previous page |