Originally Posted by urbanlife
In reference to music, first teaching one how to play and write music, you need to teach them the meaning of each note and the sound they make before teaching them any style of music...
I don't quite follow the analogy. There are many different methods for learning music, of course, as nothing is so black and white. For me, learning to play, write, and listen came first. Thus familiarity with a style or styles expanded upon emulation
. The theory was secondary and came as a supplement to understanding
what I had become familiar with already and also acts as a window into learning other styles. But the similarities between music and architecture are slim. Architecture isn't commonly taught from ages as low as 4 (though I guess you could argue the foundations are there in math and science, but then music must also follow the foundations of motor and aural skills which come even earlier...) I began learning music at age 8, and most of my peers even have me beat in that regard. Anyway, I'm mostly just thinking out loud here...
Back to the original topic:
Originally Posted by trueviking
historic buildings were built that way for a reason....mostly because they didnt have steel.....it is dishonest to recreate an historic building as an aesthetic choice.....you are then turning your back on what is important about architecture and saying that only style is important.
you will never be able to construct a building today by laying stone on stone and then decorating with gold leaf and hand carved statues...the very things that make these buildings special.....all these neo-classical buildings use modern construction techniques, like steel frames with 4" wide stone hung from it and pre-cast concrete ornament.....they are a fraud, a deception, a forgery of a building style that is past and can not return....
celebrate old buildings by joining heritage protection groups....write letters to your newspaper about needless demolition of our built history, but do not hope to recreate it...it isnt possible and it is not responsible....
examine what it is that you like about these buildings and apply it to modern design....human scale, detailed articulation, strength, permanence...these are all valid architectural aspirations...but they dont have to happen in a literal translation of an historic style.
the only way to move forward is to embrace the future with new ideas, while learning from the good ideas of the past.
This is EXACTLY my thinking! I originally had interests very similar to Hed Kandi's, probably when I was his/her age, and that is why I chose to study historic preservation as an undergrad instead of architecture with plans to possibly get a MArch later on. My views shifted the more I learned and came to realize these points I underlined in your quote.
I have long had an interest in design that was more open to modern theory than Hed Kandi appears to be, and definitely at odds with most preservationists, so I was as equally unsatisfied by the world of historic preservation. I think there is a happy medium between an admiration for and study of architectural history and existing structures from times and cultures past AND an interest in designing for the present and prevailing culture honestly
, as you perfectly worded it.
For Hed Kandi, I think you need to study one and then the other, because you won't be 100% satisfied with either history/historic preservation nor design alone, not because of a lack of interest in one or the other, but the necessity you feel in learning BOTH. That said, I think (or at least hope) that in time you'll understand how infeasible it is to do exactly what you currently want to, and that is to completely mimic past ways of designing and building.
This is one area where you really can't have your cake and eat it too, because while you can perfectly recreate a Greek temple, you can't recreate the need for one, the culture that demanded one, the people who used one, the craftsmen and builders who constructed one, and the resources and material costs that allowed one without completely effing pulling your hair out in trying to do so. So... why do it? You really are better off to fall more toward either preserving the ones that do exist or.... designing what doesn't.