To be frank, this has probably been one of the few times I have been able to acquaint myself with Gaudic architecture. Needless to say, I was and still am amazed as to how the architect instilled in his work a certain duality that reflects its harmony to nature as well as its “Spanish Plateresque” heritage. In our previous discussions on Gothic architecture, I recall that a certain number of us felt that it was lacking in certain characteristics, whether they dealt with its relation to nature or its ruggedness. With Gaudi however, its style has been nothing less than pleasing to my eye and the aforementioned duality seems to whisk away most of the doubts in my mind about its “truth to nature.”

As Prianka and Liz noted, Gaudi's work is very true to nature. Whether it is the nonlinear and curvaceous outlines of the building, the symbolic reference to the ocean, or the “whimsical and flowing” aspects of its structure, (Megan S.) the buildings seem to be in tune with their Mediterranean port city of Barcelona. In addition, it came to me as no wonder that Gaudi preferred to construct his buildings out of “earthy and innovative ideas,” using “ignoble materials” like unfinished brick and wrought iron whenever possible. (van Ryzin, Bump 580) By doing that, he seemed to bring the idea of harmonizing with nature full-circle by showing both resemblance and substance in his works.

To a certain extent, Gaudi's architecture is infused with a certain kind of life. Contrary to the “Roughness” of Gothic that Ruskin describes in reference to inanimate things in nature such as mountains, Gaudi's Casa Battlo comes alive: “It's little wonder that Casa Battlo long ago became known as the 'house of bones' or 'house of the dragon.' By day, it glows and shimmers in the sun. By night, illumination exaggerates all its fantastic ins and outs.”(van Ryzin, Bump 581) And though it is clear that Gaudi's style was a derivation of the Gothic, the buildings by “God's Architect” are animated, living, and dynamic. (I guess God's architect is a good nickname for “instilling life”)

Rather than symbolize nature like the Gothic style, Gaudi's architecture seems to mimic its actions and tendencies.

What's questionable, however, is how well the interior of the building accomodates it's much needed purposes or uses. Though the exterior may be calibrated to nature, I cannot help but insert my personal pragmatic bias when dealing with how Gaudi's buildings actually functioned intrinsically. What “sort-of” (Brad) sufficed to combat the aforementioned problem was found in Gaudi's “Sagrada Familia,” where he had “envisioned a temple longer than 300 feet with a central tower 560 feet tall” that was also meant to represent the twelve apostles and Christ with its “twelve towers and a sinewy, twisting bulbous central one.” (van Ryzin, Bump 583)

As a personal opinion, I feel as if the Gaudi style of architecture is mellow and benign with its rounded curves and flexible structures. Compared to the “ruggedness” and kind of malevolent “vibe” from Gothic architecture, I personally would not mind Gaudi. Though the Gaudi style of architecture fits a place like Barcelona well, I am not entirely sure how it would serve any other purpose besides an aesthetic one at a place like U.T (or let alone Austin)

Maybe if we fused modernism with Gaudi we can put the style into good use...just maybe.

The outcome would either have to be very horrid and grotesque or brilliantly beautiful.