| Revision as of 13:13, 19 August 2005 editSolipsist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,504 edits Reichstag - inappropriate picture← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:57, 19 August 2005 edit undoMuchosucko (talk | contribs)1,494 editsm →ReichstagNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ==Reichstag== | ==Reichstag== | ||
| Why was the image of the ] changed back to ]. I've noting against that picture and it is a fine illustration of the Reichstag, but it is a poor illustration of the work of Norman Foster. It mostly shows the 19th century ] facade of ]. No doubt there are a lot of internal changes too, but yes the principle contribution by Norman Foster and ] would be the dome. As such ] or ] are the more appropriate illustrations here. Not to mention the fact that geometrically faceted, curved glass structures such as ], are pretty much the signature of Foster and Partners. -- ] 13:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC) | Why was the image of the ] changed back to ]. I've noting against that picture and it is a fine illustration of the Reichstag, but it is a poor illustration of the work of Norman Foster. It mostly shows the 19th century ] facade of ]. No doubt there are a lot of internal changes too, but yes the principle contribution by Norman Foster and ] would be the dome. As such ] or ] are the more appropriate illustrations here. Not to mention the fact that geometrically faceted, curved glass structures such as ], are pretty much the signature of Foster and Partners. -- ] 13:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :Normally, I'd agree with you -- we should focus on what he created, but additions to old buildings are special cases, and especially so in this case. The proposed picture takes Foster's addition completely out of context. Yes, it is important to show the fine details of the dome, but the new picture can't see the forest for the trees. Flip between the pages and tell me which one shows the work of a master? The old picture shows the old architecture: As it should. One hopes Foster respected it. The reason the Dome succeeds is in context, its position in the forest, -- as the symbol of a new, transparent German government that invites public inspection, a glass lens set atop the seat of power -- less important are the facets, geometry, and glass of the dome itself -- that is, the individual tree in the forest. In this sense, the old picture reflected why the dome succeeds better than the proposed pic, which isolates it and diminishs its value. The proposed pic is very good. I would not object to you putting it in if you insist, but I think its a poor choice for the reasons I listed above. --] 13:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:57, 19 August 2005
Foster Associates
At the moment, Misplaced Pages seems to consider Norman Foster as synonymous with Foster Associates (or Foster and Partners, it looks like the name has changed). I'm as guilty as the rest, having just added the Stirling Prize details to this page. However, I understand that there are several other significant architects who are part of the architectural practice who may have had more input on some of the buildings listed here.
It would be good to write the article on Foster Associates and straighten out some of the attributions. -- Solipsist 07:52, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Splitting Foster Associates out from Norman Foster is an excellent, and indeed overdue, idea. I don't think, however, that you'll get much traction on attributions beyond that - it's pretty common knowledge that a bunch of Foster's most famous recent buildings, including the London Town Hall and The Gherkin, were largely designed by Ken Shuttleworth - but Foster Associates don't credit individuals, or say who did what proportion of a project. - John Fader
- OK, done. Its at Foster and Partners and if anyone can improve it, please be bold. Now we need an article on Ken Shuttleworth. -- Solipsist 08:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
who really does the work?
Is it really Norman Foster who designs all the works? I guess nowadays, it's mostly his team/company that does all the important fundamental work (statics, function, technique etc.), with Foster only being the persons that makes up the look. --Abdull 21:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- see Foster_and_Partners#Senior_partners. -- Solipsist 21:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Reichstag
Why was the image of the Reichstag changed back to Image:Reichstag mit Wiese.jpg. I've noting against that picture and it is a fine illustration of the Reichstag, but it is a poor illustration of the work of Norman Foster. It mostly shows the 19th century Neo-Palladian facade of Paul Wallot. No doubt there are a lot of internal changes too, but yes the principle contribution by Norman Foster and Foster and Partners would be the dome. As such Image:Reichstag-rooftop.JPG or Image:Reichstag coupole.jpg are the more appropriate illustrations here. Not to mention the fact that geometrically faceted, curved glass structures such as the new roof on the British Museum, are pretty much the signature of Foster and Partners. -- Solipsist 13:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Normally, I'd agree with you -- we should focus on what he created, but additions to old buildings are special cases, and especially so in this case. The proposed picture takes Foster's addition completely out of context. Yes, it is important to show the fine details of the dome, but the new picture can't see the forest for the trees. Flip between the pages and tell me which one shows the work of a master? The old picture shows the old architecture: As it should. One hopes Foster respected it. The reason the Dome succeeds is in context, its position in the forest, -- as the symbol of a new, transparent German government that invites public inspection, a glass lens set atop the seat of power -- less important are the facets, geometry, and glass of the dome itself -- that is, the individual tree in the forest. In this sense, the old picture reflected why the dome succeeds better than the proposed pic, which isolates it and diminishs its value. The proposed pic is very good. I would not object to you putting it in if you insist, but I think its a poor choice for the reasons I listed above. --Muchosucko 13:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)