Maybe what's needed is the Architectural versionof the Pantone color guide
- i.e., "what does this color (or in this case, design) communicate?"
That's not something that people think about consciously, and many people don't seem to think about at all. Which is why "fashion" is popular - if you wear what this or that magazine *tells* you (the ubiquitous, not th epersonal, you) to wear, then you don't have to strain your brain with developing any sense of personal style (i.e. self expression - hard when there is nto much oindividuality there to begin with...) or any sort of color sense.
It's sort of like only cooking by strictly following receipes - no matter how bad they taste. Easier than learning the scents and flavors of the many spices, and how they compliment one-another when used with various different foods.
Similarly, if a client reads in some self-proclaimed "style-setting" rag that such-an-such a building style is "hot" (jeez I hate that term), then said client can just run on autopilot and tell the architect "do something like this".
So the architect gets to figure out how to adapt a predermined given to a certain situation, as opposed to starting from scratch to create a piece of working art. Which I'd think would be frustrating to architects but that's only my guess...
Yup. Everything had to be thought up for the firt time at *some* point - and I'm sure that some people grumbeled at some point about the idea of the igloo, or the idea of using a disassemblable and portable wooden floor in a yurt, just as I'm sure that some people, upon first visiting Notre Dame or the Sistine Chapel (not to be confused with teh cysteine chapel ;) ), though, "good grief, look at this newfangled piece of nonsense", or somethink of similar sentiment.
After all, Santa Clause is now considered some sort of immutable Tradition, when actualyl, he was pretty much invented by, *IIRC*, Thomas Nast in the late 1800's.
The Saltbox "style" started out as a way to cut the heat loss due to prevaling cold northeast winds, but now, is merely a "traditional style".
Yup. Mostly,"traditional" merely means "DAR-vintage White Anglo Saxon Protestant roots". My traditions were from Eastern Poland, and Slovakia. Thus, irrelevant, or tacky, or inferior, or laughable, and so on. Slavic wooden architecture (the most obvious example being the buildings at Kizhi Island, but there are many beautiful examples I've found online).
OTOH, this remains one of my all-time favorites:
In terms of actual histpry of this continent, things likethe Iriquois long house, the plain's indoans' teepees, and the SouthWest's Pueblos are more "traditional".
In the end, it's unfortunately true that "one man's tradition is another man's trash", and who is it who ends up defining which is tradition, and which is trash...
IOW, as you (the personal you, as in 3D Peruna) IMO make an excellent point.
IM, they oughtn't be called "Arch Profs" - maybe "Arch Theory Profs", or "Arch Philosophy Profs", but actual "Arch Profs" ought to be folks who've actually *done* architecture.
But that's just ol' layman me...
Exactly. It's not a matter of talent, but of marketing.
Or 'elephant dung" ;) IOW, design something patterned after it. Woo-hoo!
Been trying to figure that one out myself. She isn't attractive and doesn't have much of a voice. MArketing I guess. "Girls just wanna have fun", and promoters just wanna get rich...
There too, who defines "beauty"? As has been asked through the ages: why should someone else (such as our "traditionalist") have to right to have his definition applauded and adopted, but mine boo'ed and rejected?
"beautifully" - it's an adjective (yeah, it *is* just me being anal ;) )
THe silly thing is that, in a way, the foundation of beauty is - I almost hate to say it! - how the form foloows the function. OK, that argument can get "way out there" so to speak, but IMO the essence or the intent is pretty fundamental. A building is (or can be) Art, but first, it is a building, IOW, it's raison d'etre is to fulfull a human function or set of functions, as opposed to sculpture, whose function is basically to look interesting.
If the building functions poorly, then, well, not to put too fine a point on it, basically crap. A Chambered Nautilus shell is a classic and ages- old example of beauty, but its function is an inextricable part of that beauty. That is true of all natural forms. If a building doesn't function, it's really difficult (if even really possible) for it to be beautiful, *redgardless* of what style decor is used. The style is like the flesh - muscles and overlying skin - and the functional form is the skeleton. A shark is beautiful, an arctic tern is beautiful, a horse is beautiful, because they are perfect expressions of function, especially, of the perfect integration/interaction of environment and creature.
One problem with buildings, IMO, is when people try *so* hardto be "stylish", that they forget about the skeleton. Or, as the saying in the house-flipping market goes, "Just put some lipstick on that pig, and somebody will buy it".
Consider the bust of Nefertiti - definitely *not* a case of a "pig with lipstick". Now consider many of the "fashion plates" that the media screams at us are beautiful - yuck. Same is true in architecture. Beauty starts from the very first mundane brick, the first quart of concrete that gets poured. It's got nothing to do with whether teh skin is "traditional" or "art deco" or whatever.
At least, that's my take on it.
Plus, let's not forget that, if his notion of "traditional" is Colonial, then technically, by comparison, even Victorian is "Avant Garde". Or is Vict. OK, but Art Deco "avant garde"?
Is this "too avant garde", even tho' it's 60 years old, if the info is correct?
Good points.
Jeez but you're demanding ;)