RICK JOY

Do you think his use of materials and building forms are convincing? Use specific examples.Yes, I think his materials and forms are convincing.  His material pallet is limited to natural materials: rammed earth, steel, wood, concrete, stone, and glass which helps give his architecture a warm feeling.  His forms are also familiar which help make his architecture relatable to people who might not normally be into modern architecture.  The house in Vermont uses the vernacular gabled roof form but makes it new and modern through material detailing.  The use of the steel trusses allow the volume inside to be much more spacious than if it was wood framed.  The houses in Arizona use similar vernacular forms: single pitched roofs, but through the use of steel roof structures allowes the interior to be more spacious than a traditional wood framed structure.  What I think makes his architecture convincing is he is able to combine the traditional with the new in a subtle way which creates a timeless kind of architecture.

Do you think the experimental characteristic of his projects is in anyway compromised by his fundamental basics?  No, I think it makes his experimentation better with the fundamental forms he uses.  The experimental details he is designing are able to be be more visible and contrast with the fundamental forms he uses.  I think if he used experimental forms it would take away from the subtle details he is articulating.  I enjoy the contrast in new modern details with traditional vernacular forms.  One of my favorite details is the way he joins 2 pieces of glass without a mullion.  I think this detail is only possible in the Arizona climate or in Japan where they don’t care about thermal insulation.