There's never been an architecture general before.

What’s “draw Bridgman twice” for architecture? I’m personally interested in drawing indoors/building background. It seems a lot of books recommended for backgrounds are usually for landscapes, outdoors greeneries.

Étienne-Louis Boullée was truly a master of creating not only MASSIVE structures but ones with Gravitas

>>7664264 (OP)
If I had taken architecture instead of civ eng
I'd make the thread

>>7664264 (OP)
I love Boullée like u wooden believe

>>7664264 (OP)
>>7664302
>>7664321
I don’t get it. These are fake fictional buildings, right? There is nothing like it physically on Earth. What’s the point then? Like some kind of isekai fantasy settei?

>>7664342
You see, some people like to make things up because it's fun. The world is already there. So it's fun to make up things that aren't there.

>>7664342
Before things can exist, they are first designed.

>>7664342
Capriccio

Does anybody here draw architecture pieces and/or architecture panels in a comic or something? Masters are nice but I want to see what anons made.

>>7664264 (OP)
I actually really dislike Boullee's work.
Its size is its whole message, but there is nothing classical about it.

No human can appreciate the details of the entablature or the capitals of the columns because despite their size, they are so high up and in such numerous quantities that they are completely impossible to discern.
Did you even notice that there are statues lining the top of the building, as well as the top of the base part, what are they statues of? who do they depict? We cannot appreciate the skill of the sculptor in these statues, they are reduced to meaningless blobs.

The only thing you can appreciate is its simple geometric shape, which a far smaller structure is perfectly capable of having just as well.
It's sheer size may have been impressive in the 1700's but there is scarcely any limit to the size of buildings today with modern steel construction. Atleast this building is not particularly impressive from a construction point of view.
Would these buildings be made less impressive if they were reduced in size? I argue the opposite, they would be improved if they were reduced in size! Because atleast then you would be able to appreciate the ornament of the architecture.

>>7665288
Pic related, even in its ruinous state shows a clear geometry, not entirely too dissimilar from OP's building, atleast in the sense that it has a prominent arch running through the middle of it. It is an arch afterall.

However unlike the Boullee building, in pic related you can appreciate teh smaller details. You can take it all in rather than solely the geometry. There probably would have been statues in the niches, and they would be able to be appreciated by passerbys.

>>7665289
To pick a building closer still to OP's, The Pantheon of Rome, the inspiration behind virtually all domed buildings since its creation.
It is true that it is as big as the Romans could possibly make it, and in that sense it too has only size really going for it, but we must thank the Roman's inability to produce anything bigger for if they had, it would have been a worse building.

Compared to Boullee's, the Pantheon of Rome is small, and its details can be appreciated. It's lower part is not too much bigger than any other temple of its day, they are reasonably sized, and the niches which held statues of the gods were easy to see.
You can take it all in. Its details are not reduced to noise

>>7665291
I have a similiar complaint with Indian and Gothic architecture.

There's so much going on that it is just reduced to noise.
If you asked a child to draw a greek temple, they would probably do quite well, they would draw the stepped base, the columns with their fluting, probably ionic capital, they might forget the entablature, and then they would top it off with the roof pediment and they'll probably get the shape right. It would look like a greek temple and they would have appreciated its proportions and details.

But if you asked a child to draw pic related, what would they do? They would have no choice but to draw a bunch of scribbles vaguely in the shape of the building, for none of details can be appreciated, and if they cannot be appreciated, why even have them. This is not a beautiful building, it's just noise, and mere geometric shapes are not good enough for architecture, there must be ornament.

>>7665297

>>7664342
this fella has no imagination