I had forgotten about ghost sniper. Was that the kid in Seattle who kept
harping about sprawl?
Seems ot me that THE DOOGS!!! got to Chris once or twice too. Whatever
happened tothat guy? Is he at Gitmo?
And where's brudgers? Oh wait, I know, but I ain't tellin'!
And oh, BTW, I'm not dead yet.
Nice to see some of the old names. Even ones I've had battles with... some
dating back to the turn of the century.
Of course, Don is like a cockroach, this forum will never get rid of him.
Lucky Pierre, Ken, The Multi-dimensional Piranha, Soup, er, Rico DuJour
Master architect who takes more vacations than one man should be allowed,
As for those battles, Edgar, we got into something about schools or arch
education I think. And was it Dezignare that thinks all states should
Chris weighed in on a lot of things back when this forum was more relevant.
I remember a lot of back and forth with Marcello. Those guys could go on
about all that history and theory stuff for days.
But mostly I remember how he could handle me. I gave him shit at times just
because he was too nice. We had disagreements but he had a knack for reading
the inflection in my writing without my having to resort to emoticons. It's
a skill that most of the youngsters do not possess and it's so fun to see
panties get wadded up.
What pissed me off about Chris was that, for the most part, he put up with
fools -- sometimes by ignoring them.
It pissed me off because I haven't the strength.
Sometimes I think that I want to be like Chris when I grow up.
Groups are what their members make them.
I still prefer the fact that there's no "baby-sitter" here as such.
(You have your own if/when you want to use it [not that it necessarily
works very well, or that your actions don't somehow belie your apparent
use of it ;] )
On forums with "net-nannies", people drop off, too. I've spoken more
about this on here before if you want to do a search.
Frankly, Don appears to be off his rocker sometimes, but then, who
"Too bad she won't live... But then again, who does?"
Is thre any collection of his writings? I seem to recall he'd written a
book or two; I cna check that, but does anyone know of anything else? He
had a great many intrersting and IMO excellent thoughts, and expressed
them very well and often beautifully...
Or maybe this one?
I guess I could start writing for days on the discussion....about half
of which would be questions...so please consider this post an act of
"thinking out loud" rather than a definitive reply. I won't try to make
a tidy essay...just a series of thoughts.
1. Sorry....I haven't read the book but certainly someone here has.
2. My words may sound a little academic, but they are real thoughts of
practicing architect....one who only makes a living by designing real
buildings for very real clients. I do believe, however, that we have the
honor and the challenge to use thought in our work...even though
sometimes it is no more than thought about how to get a school board to
listen to its teachers. Our website has some of my papers that others
have described as useful...and the intro talks about this...."The Demon
of Consciousness". My own work occasionally manifests real thought...and
I hope this will increase now that I am entering the "second half of
3. I would like to question the fundamental method of dialectics that
underlies Rowe's premise as you describe it. Much thought in the 20th
century (the past, you know!) used the intellectual model of
dialectics...positing opposites in conflict....to describe ideas,
trends, etc. While it received its most famous push from Marx (Karl,
not Groucho)...this approach was so universally assumed that it was
almost invisible. However, I once heard Stanislaus Fung (a delightful
professor from Adelaide) remind us that there are other ways to think
about phenomena....instead of seeing things as opposites in conflict, we
can see them as "poles"...two ends of the same thing. For instance,
most plants have roots and leaves....but they are not in opposition to
each other...they are equally necessary, although different, aspects of
the same reality. It is possible that the whole notion of "the idea of
architecture" versus "relation to nature" is simply a failure to leave
the 20th century behind. Maybe we need a new model for thinking about
different aspects...Fung's idea of poles...inextricably bound to each
other but different. Sadly, I think that Rowe may be right that many
20th century architects fell into the trap of using dialectical thought,
and therefore felt obligated to choose between "architecture" and
"nature". Fortunately there were others, notably Alvar Aalto, who
rejected this and gave us another model for modernism.
4. I think there may be something to this idea of "architecture versus
nature"...but only as a historical description of what people
thought....not as a theoretical model for an inevitable reality. It was
probably inevitable, because so much of modern thought, in all
disciplines in the late 19th and early 20th century, involved a crisis
of self-identity for the disciplines (the reasons can be found in any
discussion of the dramatic social, technological, political and cultural
changes that took place between about 1870 and 1918). Painters asked
"what is painting?"...composers asked "what is music?"...physicists
asked "what is matter?"...and architects asked "what is architecture?"
Of course ONE way to understand a thing is to compare it to other things
and look for the differences. I think it was inevitable that some
architects would look for the essence of architecture in its birth in
the human mind....and to try to do this by setting up an opposition to
some "natural" order.
5. I personally think the truth is more complex and interwoven (I once
presented a paper in Auckland called "Dancing on the Threshold of
Thought" that presents a thought-model in which opposites dance with
each other instead of shooting at each other....maybe I'll post it when
we do our next website housekeeping). One example is here in San
Antonio...very old and very solid....and I used it to make this same
point for a group of architecture students from Mexico City. In the
1700s the Spanish built a system of "acequias" throughout San
Antonio...small canals to carry water to the small farms and produce
gardens of the inhabitants. The water came from the river, and since
the fields were always higher than the river, they needed some way to
bring the water to the higher level. Now in many places this was
accomplished by physically lifting the water...but the Spanish had
learned another less-energy-demanding approach from the Muslims who
civilized southern Spain. Instead of raising the water....they would go
upstream to a point where the water level was approximately that of the
fields they wanted to irrigate...and there they would build a small dam,
to raise and maintain the level of the water. Then they would cut a
ditch ("acequia") from the newly-created pond to the fields a few miles
downstream. Now..to get to my point...so I can take my wife to
dinner...there is one place at which the man-made water course must
cross above a natural water course. The solution is obvious...to build
an aqueduct, a bridge to carry the man-made stream over the natural
stream. But for me this 250 year old elegant little stone structure, in
the south side of my hometown, is a direct manifestation of the
duality/polarity that is architecture. It is a clear and unapologetic
construction of an intellectually-determined line, carried across a
natural meandering line, and the physical manifestation is made of stone
and geometry. The naturalness of nature is enhanced by the presence of
the human construction...and the clarity of human thought is enhanced by
its juxtaposition with the natural.
6. I think this approach I recommend can be found also in Heidegger's
notion of the "world and the earth" described in "On the making of the
work of art".....and in Lao Tsu.
Often, but not always. Most architects in this jurisdiction work in very
small firms with very little support from non-pro's. A very large minority
need nothing but a printer, and a courier.
Spout off? Anybody can spout off about just about anything in our system. My
point is the they do not *decide* what it is. That's done through
regulation. When you are found to be unprofessional your name usually ends
up published somewhere....you might also be stripped of your standing.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.