I..Am..Speechless

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Visiteur

Just because we like certain buildings doesn't mean the general public does.

A. The public is ignorant. I don't trust them to run the economy, build a space progam, or do surgery...why should I trust the general public's opinion about what is and is not good architecture.

B. His pics failed the roomate test. His choices don't even make sense to average people.

[mhays]

Space travel and surgery require science. Aesthetics is art, and purely subjective.

Most forms of art are great opportunities for the artists to go nuts and do their own thing, because you can either look/hear/buy them or not, your choice. And naturally some people like avante garde art, but most don't pay much attention or actively dislike some or all of it. They certainly remain choosy about what's on their walls.

Architecture is the environment everyone has to live in, or walk past. We can't opt in or out, except for buildings we personally pay for. So architecture should be subject to the opinions of the public.

Would you tell a hair stylist to use their expertise and do what they want? Of course not. You'd tell them how you want it, despite your total lack of schooling on the subject. Despite being just some rube that has to live with the hair they create.

You can argue that you're paying for the hair while most people aren't paying for the buildings they walk past. But then you'd be giving in to uncontrolled capitalism, the dollar is king, and so on. Architectural theory doesn't tend to jibe with that concept.

Arguing with architects is generally pointless. But we're progressing. Many architects are finally beyond their myopia about what the public likes, and have now fallen back and retrenched at "the public is wrong".

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by mhays

Aesthetics is art, and purely subjective.

No. Because art requires an understanding of technique and theory that the general public doesn't have.

Architecture's main goal isn't go give people good feelings. Why even have architecture if every 5-year-old or noob with a blog can say "I like this one"?

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Alliance

B. His pics failed the roomate test. His choices don't even make sense to average people.

are you talking about me or the dude who made the list?

do you really think the general public likes them

1st. the 'general public' think phillip johnson was a great architect.

2nd. anyone who dismisses mies has NO place having an opinion of architecture. period. dislikes the aethetics of a mies building for educated reasons and is able to back up why... okay, i'd accept that... but to ignorantly and arrogantly call it crap?... find a new hobby.

apparently appeal to a lot of architects

uhhh, well i could be wrong about this but, IIT is an archiecture and engineering school...

most of us will take a high quality faux historic building over Mies anyday.

which is why we rarely see great archiecture in the US. and the great architecture that does come around here and again is severely dumbed down to america's general public 'taste'

Aesthetics is art, and purely subjective.

architecture is so much more advanced than just art. there is so much more to architecture than just making buildings look 'good'

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by Alliance

No. Because art requires an understanding of technique and theory that the general public doesn't have.

coming from the guy who thinks Frank Lloyd Wright is "overrated".

[malec]

Agree 100% with mhays.

Sorry but if you create a piece of pretentious shit in art it's fine because the people seeing it may like it but have the option to never see it again if they don't. When you create a piece of pretentious shit of a building it's not the same thing.
It's like mhays said, you go into the hairdressers and ask for a certain haircut but refuse to do it because they think it looks shit, or looks out of style, or goes against their philosophies on what makes a haircut good.

[Via Chicago]

I can understand not liking Mies' modernism..its not for everyone. But that dosent mean it isnt deserving of appreciation or greater understanding. To just in one swoop dismiss what you see on face value is really weak and short sighted.

And come on, naming this one of the most "beautiful" campuses?



Its like a Disneyland version of what a campus should look like. I guess some people just crave gaudiness.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

are you talking about me or the dude who made the list?

Neither, I showed my roomates all the pics of his "beautiful" and "ugly" campuses and their responses didn't correlate to his. They don't know much about architecture save me babbling about it all the time.

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

coming from the guy who thinks Frank Lloyd Wright is "overrated".

Well, I have my personal tastes and I'm aware where I disagree with the community. However, I garuntee the average person can't tell you WHY Wright's buildings are good. If they can, they'll probably say something like "they blend with nature." I have issues with that. Then again, I can't really tell you great things about his buildings either

Least my track record on modernist architecture is strong. I even agree with Adrian sometimes

Originally Posted by malec

When you create a piece of pretentious shit of a building it's not the same thing.

Except its not shit. Besides, if you can't say what makes it good or bad beside "its pretty" your opinion is pretty dman invalid.

[Steely Dan]

guys, we're chicagoans, we get modern architecture. we shouldn't be surprised when the inexperienced rubes from the "Bland and Safe States of America" are challenged by the modern masterworks of our city.

besides, regardless of what some dingleberry with a blog on the interent says, IIT is our acropolis, architects from around the world make pilgrimages to our city to pray at the altar of chicago's parthenon, crown hall. people that know architecture know and respect IIT. architectural tourism in chicago is a skyrocketing business growing year after year after year, so obviously there are some people out there in this so-called "general public" that are opening up to, and curious to learn more about, modern architecture, which can only be a good thing.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

guys, we're chicagoans, we get modern architecture. we shouldn't be surprised when the inexperienced rubes from the "Bland and Safe States of America" are challenged by the modern masterworks of our city.

Well, I think that outlook is kind of elitist and snobbish. There are just as many home grown Chicagoans who dont appreciate or understand what we have as anywhere else in the country. and just as many people around the country who do understand. The sampling on this board does not by a long shot represent the general populace.

[Steely Dan]

i think appreciation and celebration of modern architecture is higher in chicago amongst the "general populace" than it is in other places around the nation, but that's just my opinion, i have no empirical data to back that up, so if you disagree, that's cool. i just think that chicagoans are a little bit better than people from other places, and even if they're not actually better, i like them better, so that's what counts for me.

[Atomic Glee]

I've come to accept that this forum is populated mostly by modernists. That's fine. I'm no modernist, but hey - different strokes, and all that. However, some of the attitudes on display on the site here with regards to discussions of modernism vs. other styles of architecture are more than a little elitist and off-putting, frankly.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

And come on, naming this one of the most "beautiful" campuses?



Its like a Disneyland version of what a campus should look like. I guess some people just crave gaudiness.

It may not be your definition of beauty, but Mickey Mouse it certainly isn't. But from your ivory tower looking down on everyone else, I guess that's the same thing.

http://www.flagler.edu/page2.aspx?id=260

The college is named after Henry Morrison Flagler, a Gilded Age industrialist, railroad pioneer and oil magnate. In 1888, he built the luxury resort Hotel Ponce de Leon, which now serves as a residence hall and centerpiece for the college. A masterpiece of Spanish Renaissance architecture, Ponce de Leon Hall is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The grand hotel launched the careers of famous architects John Carrere and Thomas Hastings. Thomas Edison personally helped make Ponce the first building in Florida wired with electricity, and Louis Comfort Tiffany decorated the building’s interior with stained glass, mosaics and several commissioned murals.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by brickell

It may not be your definition of beauty, but Mickey Mouse it certainly isn't.

Well, you did mention it used to be a resort

Hey, what do I know, I went to NIU. This is our idea of architecture

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Well, I think that outlook is kind of elitist and snobbish. There are just as many home grown Chicagoans who dont appreciate or understand what we have as anywhere else in the country. and just as many people around the country who do understand. The sampling on this board does not by a long shot represent the general populace.

Seems a little hypersynsitive.....

We just got done reading

"However, I garuntee the average person can't tell you WHY Wright's buildings are good. If they can, they'll probably say something like "they blend with nature." I have issues with that."

If people don't know something about a particular type of art does that mean it isn't art? If it isn't their favorite type of art.....does that mean it isn't art?

I love Mies for what it is...and hate the rip offs that proliferated from his works. That being said....Mies is by far not a favorite of mine. If I had the ability to draw or build a building it would reflect very little if nothing of what Mies did.

But isn't it possible to not like something personally...no matter what your reason (stating personal opinion is cool too), but to also be able to recognize a type of architecture from its context? That is what I love about art...not agreeing with it but facing it and seeing what the artist was attempting to share with us.

I would hate to start seeing all our muesums, libraries, theater and music start cow towing to what the average person sees as good.

[Chicago2020]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

guys, we're chicagoans, we get modern architecture. we shouldn't be surprised when the inexperienced rubes from the "Bland and Safe States of America" are challenged by the modern masterworks of our city.

besides, regardless of what some dingleberry with a blog on the interent says, IIT is our acropolis, architects from around the world make pilgrimages to our city to pray at the altar of chicago's parthenon, crown hall. people that know architecture know and respect IIT. architectural tourism in chicago is a skyrocketing business growing year after year after year, so obviously there are some people out there in this so-called "general public" that are opening up to, and curious to learn more about, modern architecture, which can only be a good thing.

Really??? Is it that popular???

[vid]

Originally Posted by Chicago2020

Really??? Is it that popular???

I would love to go to Chicago just to look at the buildings. It's probably a pretty cheap trip. Just walk around looking up. How much would that cost?

I saw this the other day and was going to post it here but didn't have the time. The best campuses he listed were all old buildings. He has absolutely no respect for modern architecture at all, and the inclusion of a Mies is just appalling. I was a fan of Mies' work before I knew who Mies was! It's that good!

[headcase]

Originally Posted by Chicago2020

Really??? Is it that popular???

I know that the CAF had well over 1/4 million people do tours last year, and they are expecting an increase on that this year. In addition there are at least two other companies that do river/lake tours, and couple of bus companies. Yes it is that popular.

[Dr. Taco]

Originally Posted by vid

I would love to go to Chicago just to look at the buildings. It's probably a pretty cheap trip. Just walk around looking up. How much would that cost?

hmmmm, probably your life

[Dr. Taco]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

UIC's problem for me has always been that the pieces don't hang together all that well. there are some absolutely fantastic works of brutalism like university hall or the science and engineering offices, but then there are those atrociously ugly walter netsch "snow flake" buildings like the art and architecture building that are just bad, bad, bad.

the art and architecture building is a catastrophe that needs to be knocked down, but the other "snow flake" buildings aren't quite as bad. But they are terribly terribly confusing, thats for sure

But UIC gets a lot of crap, and i really don't think it deserves all of the crap it gets. I mean, compared to NIU, UIC is... i dunno, much better. I work in the science and engineering offices building, and I've taken many flattering pictures of it.

The thing is (and here's the part of the post thats probably most relevant to this thread), when i first started at UIC a few semesters ago, there wasn't a building on campus that I liked. But I really don't think I have the architectural appreciation that I do now (in fact, the only names of buildings I knew downtown were sears, jhc, aon, and wrigley). Having been both, architecturally appreciative and architecturally inappreciative people are just two different animals. if you don't appreciate architecture, then a building either looks good at first glance, or it doesn't. I've never been to IIT's campus, but UIC makes me very happy. but you bet your ass UIC would have been on that 20 worst list had the author ever heard of UIC ("oh, you go to USC? awesome! what are you doing here?" .... assholes)