Talk:Fantastic architecture

architectural style

Do we have any examples of anyone else calling this "fantastic architecture"? The term made me think of the impossible drawings of Piranesi or Le Corbusier. Could the information here not be better placed in novelty architecture? Warofdreams talk 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have run across the term periodically, but it was not used in architecture school. However, here are some references:

RIBA (Roybal Institute of British Architects) has a website on it.

It was referenced on the Wisconsin link on this page.

I ran across it when starting the stub for the Airplane Service Station in Knoxville.

There are several books on it. "Fantastic Architecture", Conrads, 1962; "Fantastic Architecture", Michael Schuyt and Joost Elffers, 1980; "Fantastic Architecture", Dick Higgins and Wolf Vostell, 1971. Novelty architecture is a wikipedia article, but that is a description and not a style.--Baxterguy (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Novelty architecture, as proposed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although these two ideas are similar, "fantastic architecture" is a term found in a number of books about historic architecture that I've come across lately. At least three or four books use the term in reference to the Sauer Buildings Historic District. The references are on that page, as well as the page for Frederick C. Sauer (and on that talk page). Leepaxton (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine and good, but a bunch of books doesn't establish that these are two different things. Telling us what the difference is does that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fantasy could be considered a novelty, or visa versa, but their definitions are not necessarily exactly the same. For example, the word "novelty" denotes "something new and unusual; an innovation", whereas a fantasy doesn't have to be based on something new or modern. For example, Frederick C. Sauer's Sauer Buildings Historic District is based along somewhat medieval "castle-esque" styles. Fantasy denotes something that derives from "creative imagination; unrestrained fancy" and/or "fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements". A fantasy could be based on anything, new or old, but a novelty usually denotes something new, relatively modern and unusual. The similarity between fantastic architecture and novelty architecture is that they are generally considered to be "unusual". They could be roadside attractions, or not, and/or they could serve a legitimate function other than just ornamental. An architect who takes their fantasy-inspired work seriously may prefer using the term "fantastic architecture" over "novelty architecture", perhaps because one definition of novelty denotes "small, cheap, new, ornament, or trinket". These things relating to the word "novelty" may imply something that is used to catch the eye for advertising purposes along a roadside or for a laugh. However, some fantasy-inspired structures can be functional and legitimately sound examples of architecture, as is also the case with some examples of novelty architecture too. Leepaxton (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, for fantastic, we would have Neuschwanstein, while those cowboy hat buildings would be novelty. I get it. Fantastic is much more likely to be inspired by historic buildings, while novelty is much more likely to be inspired by everyday objects. Thank you for this clarification. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you have the right idea. A place like Martin Castle could be considered fantastical. Also, the Watts Towers would be a prime example of fantastic architecture. On page 436 of Franklin Toker's book Pittsburgh: A New Portrait (2009, University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 978-0-8229-4371-6. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)) he says, "the supreme American fantasy structure, which is Simon Rodia's Watts Tower, from the 1920s, in Los Angeles." I do think there is a difference between these types of structures and the novelty architecture structures such as the Teapot Dome Service Station (which is still a neat building). Both could be considered art. Both may be meant to catch the eye, perhaps, but the novelty buildings, such as the donut shop shaped like a donut and whatnot are (or were) usually a form of advertising for places of business along a roadway, and many have become roadside attractions. Whereas, the Watts Towers and the Sauer Buildings Historic District are examples of work by architects designing structures to suit their whimsical fancy, as are the fantasy structure houses that some people build to look like unusual castles or palaces or whatever. These structures aren't necessarily meant for advertising to sell products such as donuts or hamburgers, or to become roadside attractions or tourist spots (though some of them may be considered roadside attractions too). These are unusual works of architectural fantasy art for whimsical fancy that also may have a practical purpose or not. Leepaxton (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I tagged this article for a rewrite. This article is written as if novelty architecture and fantasy architecture are the same thing. As the discussion above reveals, they are not. I will work on it when I have a chance, but no guarantees that I can do it quickly. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written in and removed the tag - but the article is very much a stub, now. I'll work on it some more. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fantastic architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130123085844/http://www21.flickr.com/photos/amberlrhea/sets/72157594337161780/ to http://www21.flickr.com/photos/amberlrhea/sets/72157594337161780/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]