tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531343.post5245604577303954831..comments2024-03-29T04:41:47.761-04:00Comments on A Weekly Dose of Architecture Books: Charles Jencks's Evolving 'Evolutionary Trees'John Hillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14842328320680692310noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531343.post-67416365709966579242015-03-18T09:22:09.826-04:002015-03-18T09:22:09.826-04:00Thanks for pointing that out, John. Ashamed to say...Thanks for pointing that out, John. Ashamed to say I wasn't aware of Barr's chart. Looking at his chart and the others <a href="http://www.artnews.com/2012/10/02/momaabstractionfaceboo/" rel="nofollow">collected by MoMA at ArtNews</a>, I think a distinction between those and Jencks's charts, something that puts me in favor of the latter, is that Jencks opts for blobs while the others are more line-based. To me this makes Jencks's charts less directional or linear. Time is supplied in the X-axis, but certain movements don't necessarily lead to others or aren't connected strictly to certain other ones. Instead the movements and personalities float and gain meaning through adjacency and size. Not sure if that makes his better, but I think that's one reason I like appreciate them so much.John Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14842328320680692310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531343.post-79501792726547540952015-03-18T08:22:39.789-04:002015-03-18T08:22:39.789-04:00It seems likely that Jencks got the idea for these...It seems likely that Jencks got the idea for these diagrams from Alfred Barr's evolutionary chart of Cubism and Abstract Art (1936). This chart has recently enjoyed quite an after-life:<br />http://www.artnews.com/2012/10/02/momaabstractionfaceboo/John L. Heintzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975319031276131980noreply@blogger.com