View Single Post
  #185  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2010, 5:32 AM
Jasoncw's Avatar
Jasoncw Jasoncw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
Perhaps you didn't read what I posted. No matter how you word your argument, you are still obsessed with style. What is "right" to you may be wrong to someone else. No building is perfect. Some excel in areas where others fail. This is like passing value judgments on art or music. You can hate hip hop but love classical, but when it comes to execution you see value in both genre.
So are you saying that architecture is only a matter of executing styles?

Quote:
In all due respect, you know I value your opinions. But if it's all subjective then why come into this discussion. Do you expect to enlighten us or just want to hear all the push-back?
I'm not saying it's subjective. I don't believe in subjectivity (I believe that individuals make rational conclusions based on their personal knowledge, and that if everyone had super-brains with access to all the knowledge in the universe, and the ability and willingness to process it, everyone would come to the same conclusions). You were saying that my own position wasn't legit, because it's an armchair position, and you were saying that the debate itself wasn't legit, because the issue is a subjective one. I wasn't saying that positions are subjective, although looking back I can see how what I wrote could read that way.

Quote:
This is a big problem. Architecture is not art. Architecture has real constraints based on actual programmatic, functional needs of habitation and urbanism.
imo, art is defined as the expression of emotions and ideas (philosophies, ideologies, principles, etc.). The definition of art has and will always be debated, but I think on a basic level that is an agreeable definition. Form follows function is a principle, and if you design a building where form follows function, then that is an expression of that principle. Form follows function is an integral part of several movements.

However, I think your statement is a fair one, because if architecture is not art, then ideas are a non-issue, and my critiques of the ideas of neo-traditional architecture would also be non-issues.
Reply With Quote