|
danielsarch (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
hehehe don't tell me your one of those critics that dance around the question with fancy words but never answer it directly? I simply said that the Effiel Tower was hated around its time of erection and in our modern time its the very icon of Paris. you barely responded as to why the Effiel Tower turned from hideous to the essence of Paris...if you say culture made society see it as beauty so quickly, then i guess anything can turn beautiful over night pretty much hehehe
Theologikos (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The Eiffel tower is an example of something that our culture teaches us is beautiful. Angelina jolie is beautiful because she has characteristics that evolution has caused us to favour. Beauty is both culturally and genetically determined. Some things, like enjoyment of a good view, are universal, hence usually biological, while the awe for architectural simplicity is cultural. For the cultural i agree: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder or culture. Not for the hard-wired biological.
danielsarch (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
you know its so funny that you say the vast majority clarifies the "right" answer. Since you study architecture, you should know that the Effiel Tower was thought of as "ugly" and was so close to being torn down due to the majority's view of it. Now look in our modern time the Tower is the very icon of Paris. So what do think about what I said? I take criticism very kindly so you can feel free to say whatever. ; )
Theologikos (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. There are human universals. When asking large numbers of people the wast majority agree on what is beautiful and not, especially those not indoctrinated by the education. Ask 10 people yourself whether they find Canterbury Cathedral or some same-sized warehouse most beautiful. Ask anyone whether Venice or London is most beautiful. Ask anyone whether Angelina Jolie or the Queen of England is most beautiful. The wast majority will answer the same
Theologikos (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I couldn't agree more. I am studying architecture and long for the attempt of clarity in scientific writings, where jargon is used when needed, instead of architecture pseudophilosophy where it is used as substitute for good ideas.
theiamania (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
There are not many professions that are as full of bullshitting as architecture. And I am one of them, so I know how meaningless these rambles of words really are. Its embarrassing, and the discussion of architecture needs to be saved from these people whose only accomplishment is to detach architecture even further from the realm of the real
charlesnsiegel (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
He has a hard time expressing his ideas in words because he doesn't really have any ideas. The only idea behind this style of architecture is to attract attention to yourself by doing something weird and different. But the architects have to justify it, so they invent theories so arcane that no one can see they are not really saying anything. The plaza of this building is the bleakest public space I have seen: whenever the wind blows, it fills up with a whirlwind of dust and trash.
danielsarch (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
There is never a wrong or right approach in architecture. I know this phrase is corny, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
ccaioc (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I would definitely love to have something of his in downtown São Paulo. It would be a fantastic rupture with that ugly, grey and unimaginative district.
eman3310169 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Such a genious...yet so damn confusing. He really is the next level of architects--Sustainability, creativity, and functionality. I hope i can someday reach his level of architectural ability, he truly is an inspiration for me and many others. |
