< John Pawson
- Started
- Last post
- 46 Responses
- cloned0
gruntt-
sounds like you're seeing it just about right my friend
- ********0
the site is difficult to read—the colors and type size/choice are working against legibility here.
the grid is actually not consistent, and definitely not capitalized on here—in terms of creating hierarchy.
The work is alright—hard to tell what is going on though, in terms of what he has done, what the actual content of many things are, etc.
The aesthetics is an entirely other issue—a subjective issue—you can argue about it endlessly
- tkmeister0
i think his architecture is great, but not so sure about the website. it can be improved in many areas.
- uncle_helv0
James I meant technically in the designer as critic sense, but as a viewer the information is clear, ordered, and the clicking isn't doesn't really hinder (it's not like it's having take you through to whole new pages)
Lets be honesty, you are only going to looking at this site if you have an interest, whether comercially or out of admiration, study, etc. So as an anthology of the works of Pawson, it gives a nice simple insight, but encourages a further read through the various books etc.
Aeshetics, I believe it is very much like what I have learnt and understand Pawson as Architect/designer, the site has a purety to it, it is simple, it has no visual distractions from the information available to absorb, the navigation is easy to follow(regardless of sub navs, click throughs or whatever) but the information still remains clear and ordered in an elegant, beautiful manner.
Sterile, boring, empty, whatever else you wanna call it. I think this is a good vehicle for Pawson.
- ********0
of this kind of site I like Howry and Hingston the best, although I haven't looked at them in a while, so don't blame me if I'm wrong
- Jnr_Madison0
As Milton Glaser put so well:
LESS IS NOT NECESSARILY MORE.
Being a child of modernism I have heard this mantra all my life. Less is more. One morning upon awakening I realised that it was total nonsense, it is an absurd proposition and also fairly meaningless. But it sounds great because it contains within it a paradox that is resistant to understanding. But it simply does not obtain when you think about the visual of the history of the world. If you look at a Persian rug, you cannot say that less is more because you realise that every part of that rug, every change of colour, every shift in form is absolutely essential for its aesthetic success. You cannot prove to me that a solid blue rug is in any way superior. That also goes for the work of Gaudi, Persian miniatures, art nouveau and everything else. However, I have an alternative to the proposition that I believe is more appropriate. ‘Just enough is more.’