Cantino planisphere, the earliest surviving world map to portray America, it was a copy of the Padrão Real:

Followed by Nícolo di Caverio's planisphere, also adapted from the Padrão Real, now lost to time:

They would be the basis for Waldseemüller's map, where the continent is named for the first time:

Another very beautiful mapa-mundi, by Johannes Ruysch (1507):

@Lionino

Our home irmão.

Lisbon is looking like pastel de nata.

Yeah, Lisbon looks like a pastel because there are sugar beets there. :up:

Top of Monumento a Vittorio Emanuele II, by me.

Monumento a Vittorio Emanuele II, — Lionino

We now know a bit more about Lionino... You live in Rome! - or in an Italian city -

A sublime Neoclassical monument. It makes me sad that it shows a figure that no longer represents the Italian folk: A king...

If the Italian Monarchy was a symbol of unity, why did they get rid of this honourable institution? :cry:

Ah... Politicians and historians are always making our beautiful Europe feel (let's say) disoriented.

We now know a bit more about Lionino... You live in Rome! - or in an Italian city - — javi2541997

I don't know, Rome is one of top tourist destination of the world.

If the Italian Monarchy was a symbol of unity, why did they get rid of this honourable institution? — javi2541997

At the end of fascism and the Allies (of Satan) putting their boot on the boot-shaped peninsula, there was no chance anything but a semi-presidentialist republic would be put in place.

semi-presidentialist republic — Lionino

When the incest kicks in. :vomit:

I don't know, Rome is one of top tourist destination of the world. — Lionino

Ah, true. You are just a random tourist enjoying the privilege of being a member of the Schengen area!
Cool! Have fun, mate.

Monumento a Vittorio Emanuele II — Lionino

Nice photo, but I don't like the building. I think it's a bombastic and insensitively located monstrosity, and it reminds me of Stalinist architecture: impressive, sure, but totalitarian and tasteless.

I took this a couple of winters ago:



I don't think the building (Moscow State University) is a beautiful thing, and yet it's magnificent and photogenic. It's on Sparrow Hill, a high bank of the river, and can be seen far and wide. Looking in the other direction at the point where the photo was taken, you get a great view of the city.

I don't think the building (Moscow State University) is a beautiful thing — Jamal

You are right. The building is not beautiful, but sublime. I would have extra motivation for studying law if my university looked like that formidable architectural design.

Ma! I want to study there! Like my friends, the Brothers Karamazov! :up:

Ma! I want to study there! — javi2541997

I have spent time in one of the other Stalinist skyscrapers, the Hotel Ukraine. They’re not made to be good places to study or live or work, but just to project the power of the state. Magnificent, but inhuman—downright horrible.

But yes, I guess the prestige of the institution, embodied in the building, is surely an attraction to students.

I don't think the building (Moscow State University) is a beautiful thing, and yet it's magnificent and photogenic. — Jamal

Stalinist skyscrapers — Jamal

They’re not made to be good places to study or live or work, but just to project the power of the state. Magnificent, but inhuman—downright horrible. — Jamal

I find these statements curious. What makes a building "Stalinist"? Surely he wasn't the first person to come up with such an elementary style of architecture, that style being essentially a lack of one and laying bricks as they are in the simplest way? What makes a structure "beautiful"? You find these buildings "magnificent" and "photogenic", but lacking in something, "humanity" you refer to. Could you show some buildings that do quantify what you would call "beautiful" or "human"?

It seems the main difference is there types are "blocky" and squarish, lacking rounded curves such as Greco-Roman architecture incorporates. Curves are a bit pleasing aesthetically for a few reasons I could imagine. I heard once "there are no straight lines in nature" or something of that effect. Do the former-style of buildings therefore invoke a sense of uneasy artificiality, an alien structure that seemingly does not belong and exists only out of forced necessity? It seems, at least in my mind, the most stark contrast between the two types of buildings are those with rounded curves or more "personal touches" reflect the human effort, intelligence, and craftsmanship that went in them as opposed to mere angular blocks that could have been placed there by a machine without any human involvement whatsoever.

Just trying to better understand.

Start here:

https://www.rbth.com/arts/336582-stalinist-empire-style-architecture
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinist_architecture

You make a good and important point about curves, and it might be significant specifically with respect to Stalinist architecture, which (a) is curveless (aside from arches), and (b) replaced constructivism, which could be quite curvy.

A brief explanation…

Before the Stalinist style took over in the 1930s, a lot of Soviet architecture was part of a movement called constructivism, which was Russia’s early and influential form of modernism. It was experimental and progressive, and motivated by social concerns.

During Stalin’s rule, the priority was to build grand, imposing buildings like wedding cakes: buildings that took classical elements and then inflated and mixed them up to achieve the correct blend of popularity (by which I do not mean popularity with the people who lived and worked in the buildings but with patriotic people in general), power, and propaganda.

Then after Stalin’s death, architects were able to return to modernism again.

I should note that what I’ve said here is a big simplification.

What makes a structure "beautiful"? You find these buildings "magnificent" and "photogenic", but lacking in something, "humanity" you refer to. Could you show some buildings that do quantify what you would call "beautiful" or "human"? — Outlander

Those are very good questions.

Are the beauty and greatness of a building dependent upon our appreciation?

Could it be a possibility to value an architectural design objectively?

Most of the designs of government buildings were not really thought of sharing with the people. I mean, they were built to show the greatness of a dictator to the world. Nothing else. We could agree that Tiananmen Square is actually pretty, but its lack of humanity makes it 'ugly' or sordid. Then, we are judging Tiananmen Square subjectively.

I think I came to the conclusion that it is hard to have an objective opinion on a building. If I see a Soviet building I will think of Stalin, and if I see the Coliseum I will have the bloody fights of gladiators in mind, etc.

During Stalin’s rule, the priority was to build grand, imposing buildings like wedding cakes — Jamal

Interesting.

I search on Google 'Wedding Cakes' buildings in Spain, and then it showed this one as the most famous: HH Cielomar

This house, once owned by a Catholic gambling czar and alleged petty-criminal here in Melbourne, was always referred to as a wedding cake. Decades ago, I used to smoke cigarettes on the balcony. I'm not ordinarily a fan of the grotesque mansions of the nouveau riche, but this one has some classical appeal.

I am not a big fan of grotesque mansions either. I think it is unnecessary to live in a large building, but rich folks tend to be 'pompous'...

It has some classical appeal, yes. It seems that the Catholic gambling czar had good taste regarding architecture.

It is very interesting that we could make a 'first impression' on people depending on the buildings they live in.
We could say that the Catholic gambling tsar was pompous and showy.

What should we think about the people who live like sardines in a tin in buildings like this one?

What should we think about the people who live like sardines in a tin in buildings like this one? — javi2541997

I'll wager the apartments in that building are far more spacious and varied than most of today's apartment blocks. It's a famous example of organicism--and this goes back to what @Outlander was saying--in which curves are an important element. Since it's an example of serious, thorough, imaginative architecture, the design carries through to the interiors, i.e., it's not a matter of a decorative facade with a boxy interior as in other styles of architecture.



(although it has to be admitted that this is probably the penthouse)

And here's a better image of the exterior:



https://jaimevalcarce.es/casas-de-autor-edificio-torres-blancas-en-madrid/

No image is showing up for me. I'm guessing it's this one:



It reminds me of the rich houses of the US South (Louisiana?) Maybe the appeal is its simplicity. It is not over-decorated or showy.

Why were you smoking at this house?

I'll wager the apartments in that building are far more spacious and varied than most of today's apartment blocks — Jamal

Absolutely. The flats are very spacious and the prices per m² are expensive there. The building is located at both Avenida América and Corazón de María, which are one of the 'top' and rich neighbourhoods of Madrid.
Oiza - the architect - said that his plan was to build a building that looked like a tree with its branches. It is one of the most iconic constructions in Madrid nowadays.

Note: I checked in the land registry and it says that each flat has an average of 127 and 200 m²

It's a famous example of organicism — Jamal

Some say it is Brutalist too, but I don't have enough knowledge of architecture. :sweat:

And here's a better image of the exterior: — Jamal

Yeah, it is iconic. But that wall made of concrete reminds me of all the buildings built on Franco's era. :lol:

Casa Mila, Gaudi. Curves :)

Some say it is Brutalist too — javi2541997

Yes, I'd say it fits in that category too.

Casa Mila — mcdoodle

La Pedrera, a masterpiece. :up:

I love Gaudí.

My favourite architect.

Wanna see some soul-crushing, ugly building?

Edifício Copan, São Paulo. Fitting for such an ugly city. I remember watching a documentary on it years ago, subtitles are not that bad.

Niemeyer, one of my most disliked architects.

Why were you smoking at this house? — Jamal

Yes. Oh, the owner died in the 1950's. It was just a big house near where I lived back then, attached to a school. I used to walk past it a lot and sometimes stop by.

Wanna see some soul-crushing, ugly building? — Lionino

Ugly? Soul-crushing?

I get it. Brutalist architecture is not your cup of tea. But I would not call those buildings or structures ugly but unique, and this is what makes them special, at least to me.

For example, wouldn't you feel delighted living here?

It gives me a feeling of calm and chill. The neighbours say 'good morning' and everything is quiet when you come back home after a long day at the office...



***
And what do you tell me about this bus station? The trip to nowhere that we will all take one day. :heart:

A beautiful image of philosophy as transcendence and ascent. Reminds me Dante getting to talk to all the Pagan philosophers in the early Cantos.




A lot of star power in this picture, like an NBA superteam of thinkers!

Good choices. The second one is the bus station in Preston, Lancashire. The first one looks like the UK too.

But I’ll have to side with Lionino regarding the building in Sao Paolo. It’s not Brutalist, anyway, I don’t think. I do appreciate its sheer monumentality, though.

The second one is the bus station in Preston, Lancashire. — Jamal

Oh! Wow! Thanks for telling me it is actually a bus station. I promise I thought it was an airport the first time I saw the picture!

The first one looks like the UK too — Jamal

Yes. :smile: It is located at Park Hill, Sheffield.

https://parkhill.estate/#gallery

Ah yes, the Park Hill Estate is quite famous in Britain. Well, at least among those of us who are nostalgic for utopian social housing.

Which makes me think, who would you draft for your five man starting lineup for your philosophy super team?

Nietzsche has the will to power, and would be a great, aggressive scorer. But he's also sort of like a Kyrie Irving, a bit of a lose canon who is going to pick up a lot of ad hominem fouls and might not play the best defense.

Socrates is clearly going to be the best guy up in the paint, engaging in close range dialectical, but you also need shooters who can drop way into the back court of abstraction and sink threes like Hegel.

Then you have Aristotle and Aquinas. They don't have the flashy prose dribbling of a Nietzsche or an Augustine. However, they are good all around, playing great D, slowing the offense down with definitions. They're not going to be exciting like a Nate Robinson, more like an Al Horford, picking up rebounds, crashing the offensive glass—but that's what wins games in the end!

You also need to consider verticality. If you don't have players like Plato and Plotinus who can ascend, you're going to get killed in the paint and on the boards.