![]() ![]() In other words, all these things are mixed up in it but basically it is the last of the modern, in the sense of the historic way we treat modern architecture today, the simple cube. The Glass House stylistically is a mixture of Mies van der Rohe, Malevich, the Parthenon, the English garden, the whole Romantic Movement, the asymmetry of the 19th century. In my case, there were a lot of historical influences at work. Mies’ was, of course, primary and mine was an adoption from the master, although it’s quite a different approach. Mies van der Rohe and I had discussed how you could build a glass house and each of us built one. ![]() “In the case of the Glass House, the stylistic approach is perfectly clear. Although today open space floor-plans are common, it was highly unusual in 1949. It is separated from the living room by a series of built-in storage cabinets with walnut veneer. The “room” with the greatest privacy is the bedroom, which also contains a small desk. The fixed furniture plan contrasts with the surrounding landscape, which is ever-changing through weather and season. The living room is the focal point of the house, and like nested boxes, it is the center from which the site is successively occupied: living room, house, courtyard, and landscape. A rug defines the living room area, while seating around a low table anchors the space. Despite the very modern style of the house, the layout could easily be a colonial home, something Johnson noted.Īs detailed in the floor plan, the placement of furniture throughout the house is precise. Although there are no walls, Philip Johnson referred to areas within the rectangular, loft-like space as “rooms.” There is a kitchen, dining room, living room, bedroom, hearth area, bathroom, and an entrance area. The floor plan of the Glass House reveals a fairly traditional living space. It is a small version of a marble sculpture that is in the lobby of the New York State Theater (now David H. The sculpture, Two Circus Women, by Elie Nadelman stands opposite. Barr, Jr., the first director of the Museum of Modern Art. The image, Burial of Phocion, depicts a classical landscape and was selected specifically for the house by Alfred H. ![]() A seventeenth-century painting attributed to Nicolas Poussin stands in the living room. In fact, Mies designed the now iconic daybed specifically for Johnson. Most of the furniture came from Johnson’s New York apartment, designed in 1930 by Mies van der Rohe. Since its completion in 1949, the building and decor have not strayed from their original design. ![]() Philip Johnson, who lived in the Glass House from 1949 until his death in 2005, conceived of it as half a composition, completed by the Brick House. The house, which ushered the International Style into residential American architecture, is iconic because of its innovative use of materials and its seamless integration into the landscape. Each of the four exterior walls is punctuated by a centrally located glass door that opens onto the landscape. The house is 55 feet long and 33 feet wide, with 1,815 square feet. Invisible from the road, the house sits on a promontory overlooking a pond with views towards the woods beyond. The Glass House is best understood as a pavilion for viewing the surrounding landscape. ![]()
0 Comments
![]() ![]() Also, shirt but very useful ebooks like “Take Control of LaunchBar”. But just the fact that small verbs, or keywords, is needed to execute things… it’s just not intuitive - the way Objective Development has created LaunchBar is incredible.Īlso, we’ve got the equally good documentation and user guide. And sure, it’s no longer as hyped or frequently name dropped as Alfred, but I don’t care.Īlfred looks so modern and “friendly”. I probably use a minority of all big features. It gets you faster than you type.īut it’s built-in smartness is just enormous. Objectively it is, and maybe Alfred is too, but LB feels instant. ![]() On a subjective note, LaunchBar feels like (very) Fast Software™. These two features alone, alongside the launching of apps, would be enough for a great Mac utility app. The calculator and the insanely smart parentheses is so fast, intuitive and powerful. I use the clipboard manager hundreds of times per week (and it’s saved me from losing important information many times). I also think it’s not a great first time experience for the average users - but for most of you reading this, LB is just unparalleled. It doesn’t look super modern to the average user. More important is I’m pretty confident it can’t become built in the way LB is. I don’t feel at home in Alfred and it’s not built into my muscle memory like LaunchBar is. ![]() There are so many great applications, but I do think LB would be the one application I really could measure a serious loss in efficiency/productivity (and I think, fast usage resulting in less context switching). The moment I pause any new attempt to get along with Alfred, and resume my use of LaunchBar - it’s like coming home again. I’ve purchased the Powerpack for Alfred years ago. “Why would I switch to Alfred from LaunchBar?” Hilariously, I also find myself doing self serving searches like this: Of course, I’m in my bubble just like everyone else is in their own bubbles.īeing an app junkie, and a Mac user for fifteen years, I’m always searching for better ways to tweak my Mac experience. Plus, it’s far easier to develop your own Alfred workflows–Alfred’s kind of all about that–than write your own LB scripts. Generally speaking, LB is always a little more streamlined, with Alfred spending that efficiency on an interface that persistently displays more guidance. It just seems like at every turn, the functionality of LB and Alfred converge so that whatever you can do in one, you can do in the other. For example, I use “Send via AirDrop” all the time, and wish there were an Alfred workflow/File Action that would do that from Path Finder, not just finder. As I did with Alfred workflows repositories, I browse them all every once and a while to see if there’s anything I can use, and those few get memorized through frequent usage, just like Alfred’s workflows. You can send things to these actions, and they all have names that make their functionality obvious. I see 137 actions in LaunchBar, which you can list by launching it, then entering “Actions” and browsing into the category. ![]() ![]() ![]() The two boards were arranged so that they were almost immovable, making it difficult to spread the wings of a butterfly or moth, as well as challenging to maintain the spread. ![]() It was a very scientific “board” that was made of two boards of soft wood, however even the softest wood was not very soft. When I was a kid and my entomology collecting interest was in full swing, my dad made me an “official” Lepidoptera spreading board. Styrofoam Spreading Board with Pinned Regal Moths, July 2012 And, I replace the moth balls in each case about twice each year for that purpose. I have well-preserved them by placing many moth balls at the bottom of the display case to ward off Lepidoptera-eating pests. ![]() Included in the photo of my display are twelve Regal Moths (also known as Royal Walnut Moths, Citheronia regalis), two Waved Sphinx Moths ( Ceratomia undulosa), one Small-Eyed Sphinx Moth ( Paonias myops), one Imperial Moth ( Eacles imperialis), one Rosy Maple Moth ( Dryocampa rubicunda), one Ornate Tiger Moth (also known as Virgo Moth, Apantesis ornata), one Black Witch (also known as Giant Noctuid, Ascalapha odorata), and two Io Moths ( Automeris io). In this photo are moths that I collected from Florida and – mostly – North Carolina in 2006. I have specificially included this photo here to reflect the display of butterflies and/or moths. Pictured above is a photo that represents half of one of my Lepidoptera display cases I have 13 cases in all. Partial Display of Moths, Collected in North Carolina and Florida, 2006 ![]() |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |