Talk:Architectonics

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This sounds like a disambig page. Xaxafrad 06:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

made some improvements[edit]

Add some historical notes. will have to get the citation on the german though. Architectonics, as I have heard it used is not always a question of deformation, so took that out. I have heard it used for some very simple structures, and indeed that was its 'original' implication in German when it was used to describe barns and the like.

Gehry?[edit]

Those who use 'architectonics,' as far as I know, would not really point to a building like the Dancing House by architect Frank Gehry. The geological argument is interesting, but etymologically, it would be a new varient on the word, I would think. Maybe that is the way to go. If that is true then one should mention more examples.Brosi 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ginger part of Dancing House has exposed structure, which is probably the source of that misunderstanding. The issue of plate tectonics is totally wrong, and is probably a messy edit. Kenneth Frampton explains the origins as having to do with the craftsman (tekton) who made the building with a structure. I will edit as necessary. Stakhanov 08:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia article or dictionary entry?[edit]

Is this really an encyclopedia entry? All there seems to be is a series of definitions with etymology, some of it speculative. Mdotley 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a citation needed after the assertion that architectonic was used by Aristottle in his politics, which is dumb because that IS a citation, Author: Aristottle, book: The Politics. Yeah, I'd like a link to that part of that book hosted on a reliable site, but what more citation is being asked for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.144.236.194 (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bizarre page[edit]

There is a lot of banality here. No citation on Aristotle to begin with. 'Architectonics" is confused with 'techtonics' - BOTH words that are what a friend of mine calls 'architect-speak' and are not really worthy of an entry unless one really does a sociological study of the term, its origins or at least use in the German nineteenth century aesthetics, which got translated (many times over) into an architectural cliche,Brosi 01:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to do what they call in archispeak a "yeabut." Tectonics has a very clear meaning, as explained by a number of architecture theorists, and it, as a concept can be traced way back into the 18th century French Neoclassicism. Architectonic is straight-up archibabble, as far as I am concerned, although it does generally seem to mean a building with glorified structural rationalism. I'd like to fork the ideas along the lines of Kenneth Frampton, but I just don't have the time. Stakhanov 04:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]