Kerry Thompson Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Can any one provide any background? http://www.b-board.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=382 Cheers Kerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Mann Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Looks like the work of Re Coblusier! No doubting that its a complete rip-off of Ronchamp but I kind of admire them for liking a great piece of architecture so much that they built one for themselves. They've been doing it in Las Vegas for years so why not in China. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Alexander Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Looks like the work of Re Coblusier! No doubting that its a complete rip-off of Ronchamp but I kind of admire them for liking a great piece of architecture so much that they built one for themselves. They've been doing it in Las Vegas for years so why not in China. Jim Maybe it was "R"e Coblusier! Thats an impressive copy- you can't get out of country bring great works of architecture in country, I guess. Wish I could read the asian text. It's kind of unsettling seeing a typical looking american style tri-level type house in the background. It's all very very strange, something is not quite right. Can someone translate the text, please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onslaught Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 It's Le Corbusier. http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Notre_Dame_du_Haut.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVIANS Cedric Architect Posted May 7, 2004 Share Posted May 7, 2004 yes .. it's a LeCorbusier Architecture... the church of ronchamp in french.. "Notre Dame d'en Haut" yes, because the original is placed in top of a hill it is hacking pure and hard.... the children and small-children of LeCorbusier can carry felt sorry for... I nevertheless advise you to come to see in France this building. the truth of your own eyes good night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salf Posted May 7, 2004 Share Posted May 7, 2004 Being Le Corbusier what he is...shouldnt be some kinda "Le Corbusier foundation" or soemthing that protects his work fomr rip off like this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbr Posted May 7, 2004 Share Posted May 7, 2004 It's a tought call about things like this. On one hand, it's better to have a 'copy' of a great piece of architecture than the typical architecture (ALL architects, unfortunately, think they are good). On the other hand, it's a cheap rip off without meaning or context. In some ways, especially considering the level of detail with this copy, it diminishes the significance of the original. You used to have to travel far to get to Ronchamp (too far for my Europe trip), which made it even more special for those that made it. Now there is 'another'. I don't think las Vegas is the same. The 'architecture' of Las Vegas is pure kitsch - they make no qualms about how ridiculous it really is. All for show, so to speak. This copy is pushing towards a counterfeit, imo. The danger with this is that it will take away from pushing boundaries with new design and instead go with what is 'safe' and tested. They easily could have hired a good architect to design a building that is new and unique, and possibly for much less (depending on the documentation they could get on Ronchamp). The largest problem is, where do we stop? Originality is something that is slowing fading as globalization strengthens. Homogeneity will run rampant if people are not careful with what they qualify as 'good'. Just some thoughts...kinda worked my opinion out as a went :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcorbett Posted May 8, 2004 Share Posted May 8, 2004 You need to look at the silver lining of this: If France is ever wiped out, we now have a backup copy. Any CG artist who has lost a model should recognize the value of backing up their work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gus_webb Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 LOL!!!! that's fantastic, tom. i hadn't looked at it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Cassil Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 This is really weird! My neighbor just finished building falling water! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csven Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 this brings up some interesting issues. is it okay to copy architectural work that cost millions to develop? i remember a photographer being sued for selling pictures of Pei's Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame (Cleveland). even tho publically financed, selling pictures of the structure (framed by itself, not with city backdrop) was ruled to violate the design's copyright and the photographer was forced to stop. don't know if it ended there or got appealed. seems to me an actual copy of a building is more egregious than just taking a photo! i've also been wondering about this in regards to the cg models used here. is it okay to replicate the design of furniture in CAD and then sell that as a product? especially now that this CAD can be a valuable commodity for companies like Herman Miller who can either sell it for profit or use it to enhance their business? how long before an office furniture company sues to prevent this kind of practice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtiscareno Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 In Juarez, Mexico they have a "up-scale" residential development called "Campos Eliseos" Champ Elysees. Well they have at the entrance of this grand development a small scale replica of the Arc d'Triumph, and some other French Icons trough out the complex. I think that copying architecture is so bad, unless it is for enterteinment like Las Vegas or Disney or some themed restaurant(not real architecture). Ronchamp, the Arc, especially fallingwater, are a direct response to the time and space where they exist, fallingwater could not happen anywhere else, it may have been something esle depending on many factors but for sure that response could not have happen anywhere else. And so it goes to all other "real architecture". To be honest the profesion as a whole is so prostituted that now anything is called "architecture". And please don't think that I call "real architecture" only what the starchitects are doing, what about responding to time, factors, enviroment, culture, etc , like adobe houses in the southwest, traditional japanese houses, mud buildings in the african desert, etc. I think people will continue to copy architecture just like you see countless copies of works of art, that does not mean that it is real, IT IS JUST SAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munz Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 In literature after a certain length of time, I believe 100 year, the author no longer retains the copy rights to the piece and it is fair game to be used by anyone. This is the reason a few years ago a half dozen Shakespeare movie were made...they were free screenplays ready for the making. Perhaps there is something simular in architecture...after x-year the architect has no rights, and considering the profession I wouldn't be surprised if it was a shorter period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcorbett Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 I think "copyrighted architecture" is potentially a slippery slope, because at what point does one designer end and another begin? And who owns that copyright - the architect, the client, the contractors, the material manufacturers? Simply put, there are very few buildings in existance that do not borrow at least some influence from other buildings and designs. While something like an identical copy of Ronchamp does seem odd, it is not as if Corbusier is suffering because there were no royalties. To introduce copyright law for architectural design is to invite lawsuits where an architect is sued by Frank Gehry because his use of titanium cladding constitutes sampling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kid Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 today we had a design submission, and a scaled down replica of FLW's Johnson Wax building appeared on the gallery wall... suffice to say...that student failed with flying colours... maybe that student should have copied the "Notre Dame d'en Haut" instead? shameful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 I think "copyrighted architecture" is potentially a slippery slope, because at what point does one designer end and another begin? And who owns that copyright - the architect, the client, the contractors, the material manufacturers? In the United States there is a specific copyright for architectural works, which would by default go to the creator. The owners of both the Chrysler Building in NY and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame have tried to enforce that against graven images of those buildings. In both cases I believe they failed, since images are obtainable from a public location. Anyway, check USC Title 17 on http://www.findlaw.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csven Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 got me wondering what happened to the R 'n R Hall of Fame. here's the court document: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/IP/trademark/rock_and_roll.htm interesting reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollux Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Quite interesting that someone decided to copy Rochamp, specially considering that Le Curbosier himself ripped the desing from "The Church of the Passion" designed by Hans Schauroun in 1945 (Germany). -I bet most people didn' t know that Rochamps wasn't "The Original" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 My opinion is if someone can have Michelangelo's David in the front garden of their 2 bed semi (and I have witnessed that) then why should other 'artforms' be so sacred. Sincerest form of flattery and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now