Quote:
|
The Sarah Palin analogy is always in the back of my head, although I avoid it since imo comparing anything with Sarah Palin is a low blow, but since it's already brought up... I would say that Sarah Palin is to political science as neo-traditional architecture is to architecture (intellectually vacant, but very popular among the public). And I would further say that Sarah Palin is to Ben Franklin as neo-traditional architecture is to traditional architecture (related on the surface, but actually completely unrelated and intellectually opposed).
|
And I would have to disagree, again. "Neo-traditional" architecture as you call it does not exist. And to call it "intellectually vacant" shows a lack of understanding. As it is widely acknowledged, there are poor examples of all forms of architecture.
I really do not know why we are having this argument. In the end, really, it is personal choice and preference. I like attention to detail. You can look at some "traditional" buildings and see details located high off the ground for nobody to see but the architect still took the time. I like to look at a building and be able to trace its design elements back thousands of years. To see the history of a civilization in a structure is something that appeals to me. I like materials with warmth, steel should be out sight and glass used primarily for small windows. I like context, to place a "modernist" structure among "traditional" structures shows a lack of thought and awareness of surroundings.