When I first saw this image on an auction website I immediately thought I would like to bid for it. There was only one picture, so I made further inquiries and the auctioneer produced several more images, including the one below. It was suggested in the particulars that it was "possibly part of a larger construction", and the new images proved that. But they also sealed my decision as far as not wishing to bid, as I felt unable to use the piece without a considerable amount of alteration.
And this was despite the starting bid being a relatively modest USD100. It sold for USD600. Also the size of the piece: 25" high and 32" long would have made it a rather large mistake.
This fruitwood and ebony model of the Temple of Neptune at Paestum c.1840 was offered by Christie's at a significantly higher estimate of USD3,800-6,000 and achieved USD7,652.
And finally, this architectural model of Easton Neston c.1694 by Nicholas Hawksmoor, is part of the collection owned by the Royal Institute of British Architects, and is being displayed at the V&A's Architectural Exhibition Gallery, which I shall go and visit next month, whilst in London.
The exhibition is centred on this Hawksmoor piece, and through architectural models by Wren, Vanbrugh, Hawksmoor and Talman, it traces how engravings of continental structures were translated into English buildings.
Somehow and from somewhere, I really would like to own an architectural model. I'm not suggesting that the V&A would be my source! But I shall be scanning auctions for this additional interest.
4 comments:
Not so many time ago models were as important, or even more, than plans and elevations. Nowadays, with computer modeling and rendering models are more virtual than material.
I think that with those models common people and also architects can understand better the Architecture than if they stucy plans and elevations.
Kind regards.
And they are very pretty to look at too!
I'm a fan as well, and I am so looking forward to viewing more on your posts.
Computer generated models just aren't the same. You can have a simulated experience walking through the structure, but it isn't an object to behold as an actual physical model offers. However, I think it depends what you were trained on -- I was trained to build models with foam core and balsa wood. Problem is, they never held up with all my moves.
Yes, I'm sure it does depend on your training. I like the physical models for their beauty more than anything else. Computer models allow much more creativity, variation and change, but they don't look very pretty as a physical art piece!
Post a Comment