Nation Building
- This topic has 44 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 23 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Programmes:
Ourselves Alone – Looking at state building in Ireland from 1922 to the present day.
A Place of Worship – Will seek to appraise the quality of Irish church architecture and sacred art since the foundation of the state.
Terracotta or Plastic? – Will take a critical and challenging look at the way the visual arts has been marginalised, especially in mainstream Irish education.
On the Land – Examining the radical impact the changes in Irish agriculture have had on the architecture and built landscape of the Irish countryside.
Business or Pleasure? – Will look at the very different approaches taken to the design of the workplace compared to those for leisure and play.
Some Living Space – About domestic architecture that gives special attention to the experience of urban living in Ireland.
This Permissive Society – Will examine the history of public planning policy in modern Ireland.
Nation Building: Beyond the Millennium – Looking at issues such as conservation, government policy on design and architecture, and sustainability.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AAAARRGGHH !
I missed it – working too late.
But, a couple of my friends [at least as cultured and as interested as myself] said it was very disapointing.
• Lots of style – not very good style
• Lots of drum & bass music – irritating and unnecessary
• Badly shot – especially the interviews, zooming in on people’s coffee cups or shoulder’s whilst they spoke
• Unimaginative choices of and repetition of imagesI shouldn’t be writing this probably as I haven’t actually seen it; but these were the sorts of comments I heard. Is there any truth to them?
When I say ‘disapointing’ I’m being restrained. I hope I enjoy it next week myself as a series like this is overdue. I suppose the first episode had most of the interesting stuff though. Ireland pavillion etc..
John
-
-
-
It was much better, less disjointed but I still dont like the voiceover- as it reminds me too much of documentaries made about Ireland for Irish-America.
The photography and presentation is otherwise excellent but how many people will have bene turned off by the first programme?
A pity if many have, as it was a chance of popularising architecture through the use of the most popular information medium available.
-
-
The third episode was very repetitive,
very repetitive,
very repetitive.While we had scrolling graphics in episode one, we had talking heads in episode three. No only that but very little architecture. Only good thing was the reference to Eileen Grey ,and they could not produce even a photo of E1027
-
-
HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA
I saw it again last night. God it’s hopeless.
Is it just me or is the entire thing done in extreme close-up? Perhaps the series was shot [badly] in regular format and then they went “oh crap, it looks really boring – let’s cut off the top and bottom so it’ll be in cinescope!” And then we went “Oh crap, they’ve cut off the tops of people’s heads.”There are [very occasional] potentially nice shots of lone corrugated steel sheds but the cameras too close and not even centered!??!? Eh? Was the crew blind?
They must have been – everytime they shoot one of the Nation’s Buildings… a bleeding great tractor rolls past it! Oh look another tractor… the grand finale was a shot of a totally dull structure with about 4 tractors obscuring it. Bravo.Oh yes, and containers of shite trundling along the streets. I said “hey look – it’s another big load of shite” everybody laughed at the irony. The cows arses were also quite tremendous. The edit suite: “Hey, get this! Why don’t we… now stick with me on this… why don’t we put a shot of a building just here I think we’ll get a nice juxtaposition? No, to hell with it – put in another COW’S ARSE.” Genius, Mr. DeMille, sheer genius.
What on earth is that opening title supposed to be?!?!?!?
Can you imagine for one minute what the BBC could do with this subject?
I must say, RTE has a dreadful TV comedy record but no more! Let’s hope next weeks is an improvement.
-
-
Yes – the last episode was even worse than usual. Even my normally tolerant wife is beginning to resent me watching it now.
And what the hell is this wonderful spirit of place that a cold damp two room cabin (one reserved for the pig) is supposed to symbolise? A bit late to bring Corbu to Donegal now, or can nothing else be found in rural Ireland that does not have PVC windows and a porch.
-
-
-
Are you positively sure, John?
It could have maybe possibly been a bus arse with some fur stuck on to the rear bumper. That would have maybe confused you. Also, stick on a fake tail (one you could knit yourself at home) just below the rear window and even I might think it’s a cow’s arse.
I need to be absolutely certain, john. It’s important.
-
-
Last night’s show had a few highlights but the graphics are really starting to annoy me now. I agreed wholeheartedly with Des McMahon’s view of height, skyline and public space. It was a good theory and he presented it well.
However it was another programme last night on RTE which posed more questions re architecture and restoration. A programme about the La Firenza Opera House (destroyed by fire) in Venice. It seems that there is quite a strong feeling towards rebuilding it in a modern idiom rather than replacing it with facsimile. It seems that in Venice, they have a habit of slavish restoration, when the 16thc. tower of St Marks collapsed in 1904, they simply replaced it with an identical one.
This programme made me think more in the 20 minutes I saw of it that the entire series of Nation Building to date.
-
-
-
-
The couple of modern looking buildings that ARE in Venice – as far as I’m concerned – have NO right to be there. It disgusts me. Venice is special, it’s not just a city, a collection of functional buildings.
No,
Venice is a complete work of art. If a Renaissance painting is damaged do you fill the hole with a cow’s head in formaldehyde? A video installation? -
Yes Venice is special but it must remain a liveable city for it to be so special, not just an image. There are a few lovely modern pieces in Venice by Carlo Scarpa – the Olivetti buillding (now an art gallery)on Piazza San Marco is one example.
The challenge facing Venice now is how to preserve its essence and yet allow communities to remain there and even to grow.
It cannot just rely on tourism as a source of income or it risks becoming a self-parody. -
This Permissive Society.
I thought this week’s episode made some good points, especially highlighting past and present mistakes in planning: maybe these issues will get a wider airing now.
Are there any details on the web about the plans for Ballymun? Initially, it sounded good – getting the residents involved, running courses, etc., but from what I saw of the model, it looked like a run-of-the-mill suburban estate, and course shown seemed more about kitchen planning than urban planning.
What is more, Orly wouldn’t be my first choice for a development model, French urban planning is right down there with the British (i.e, crap) – much better to look at post-war Germany or post-wall East Germany. -
Yes a better episode but
– why did we hear little or nothing of the commitment to flats which was unique to Dublin corporation in the 1930’s, a serious effort to avoid sprawl.
– no mention of the huge housing programme initiated by the first Fianna Fail government.
– no mention that there was little or no housing control until the 1960’s.
– no real mention of (any of) the very questionable planning decisions (brown envelopes?)
– no mention of the Section 4’s
-
does anyone else feel that the thematic approach taken by nation buiding was ill advised? i found it extremely fragmented and repetitive. the only programme that seemed to hang together coherently was the one on church architecture. the other episodes had an annoying habit of backtracking over subject matter already covered ie public housing, architecture and national expression etc. still, it has been a welcome excercise in highlighting that sorely neglected area, irish design.
-
I personally think they would have been better off with the “Seven Ages” approach – decade by decade, and have a ten minute round table discussion of the decade interspersed throughout the programme.
I personally have found the series disappointing if not completely uninteresting. I found the Kevin Roche advertorial / corporate video to be far more interesting, better photographed and on the whole a much better documentary.
-
Yes Paul – I totally agree. A chronological approach would have worked best. Simple, arbitrary but logical. Did they think we’d fail to relate a discussion on urban planning from one episode to that in another? They may have feared we’d forget by the next week. Hence – discuss one subject at length per episode. By segregating the issues/elements like this they ran the risk of ignoring other influences on those elements. Just my opimion – not necessarily the right one.
Oh, Daniel – I’ll be back in Venice in 3 week. I was actually only just there in November last but still can’t remember the Modern Olivetti building in Piazza Di San Marco that you mentioned. I’ll make a point of seeking it out.
Cheerio
John -
It is very unfair to compare Nation Building with Seven Ages – Seven Ages was made with a huge budget and support. Seven Ages is not without its critics. In between trips to Venice, people should not forget that the subject of architecture/design/planning is held in fairly low esteem by the vast majority of Irish people. Architects themselves despite the rhetoric have stayed out of domestic housing for all sorts of reasons, principal among them, the ‘low fee/high work’ ratio. Nation Building is a good starter to get people taling. It is not for the converted, but rather for a more general audience. Logistically and logically, organising the stories on a decade by decade basis would have been a a very difficult continium to manage. Audiences do forget, in fact very quickly. Also the housing issue and the Dublin Corporation response was covered.
-
Well now it is over a final reflection – not worth watching.
Too many stomach churning graphics, too many talking heads and above all little film of buildings. After all they dont move in real life and there is no reason for not fiming them as static objects. How often did we see some of the clips 5/6 times for the “Shannon road trip sequence”?
-
All in all….
…. i was really looking forward to it as I thought it would help to get the general public interested in architecture… it didnt, it was a major turnoff… they found it cumbersome and slow….
…. even as someone with an interest and a small knowledge, I couldnt watch it either.
… very disappointed in the end
-
-
http://www.skewarch.com/architects/scarpa/olivet1.jpg
the building does exist, although is now an art gallery. It used be a showrrom for Olivetti. It is located on St. Mark’s Square.
Try the skewarch site for more info on Scarpa. -
-
-
Something that strikes me about the perception/presentation of architecture and design in this country is its incredible lack of humour. The little bit of Nation Building I saw took itself far too seriously, and the funereal theme music must have appeared so forbidding to the non-initiated.
Anything to do with architecture/design/urbanism is presented so….drearily.
We have so few humorous architects or journalists. Can’t we take a joke???? For god’s sake they’re only bloody buildings.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
