🚀 go-pugleaf

Simon Belmont <123@abc.xyz> wrote:

>"Todd Michel McComb" <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote

>> Hearst really lived there, so it wasn't about attracking gawkers,
>> but it _was_ about vanity.  There are some interesting pieces there,
>> and some interesting historical anecdotes, but the overall aesthetics
>> of the place is simply awful: totally garish, with way too many
>> pieces put together haphazardly, no overall theme or broader design
>> symbiosis, etc.  It's about as trashy as millions and millions of
>> dollars of architecture and art can be.  Still, it *is* an 
>> experience, and the surrounding countryside is very nice.

> After seeing a few exterior pictures of the "castle" and all
> its auxillary buildings I must agree with you: the place is
> train-wreck. straight up.  At the same time it might be cool see
> it for myself to dissect what all the fuss comes from. I suspect
> it is mostly a source of pride for CA.

It is the work of reknowned architect Julia Morgan, combined
with the eccentricity of Hearst himself, who lavishly funded
Morgan to travel to europe in search of pieces of structures
and art to bring back and incorporate into Hearst Castle.
If you even a passing interest in architecture, you probably
want to see the place once.  The swimming pool is amazing
(and the pool at another Morgan building, the Berkeley City Club,
is a smaller version of similar design).  It is certainly
full of aesthetic risks.

Morgan also did the Officer's Club at nearby Ft. Hunter-Liggett.
(Which I can't remember -- did it survive the large fire
there a few years back, or was it destroyed?)

Steve