Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop
^^^ ^^ ^
Decent write-up by Kamin (his point about LaGrange confusing popularity with quality had particular resonance), but still he’s too deferential to those that confuse commerce with art, by insisting that traditional design does indeed earn a place in the contemporary architecture dialogue. Rather, it does not. Just become there’s economic demand for a ‘traditionalish’ new building in no way justifies its quality or for that matter even existence from its other function – art. And, art in the public domain – on our cityscape. I don’t understand this attitude of almost ‘some people will always demand this ‘throw-back’ (throw-up?, throw-away?) nonsense, therefore there’s no point in even discussing its design merit……it’s just supply-and-demand, etc, style has nothing to do with this’. Huh? Hardly compelling rationale, and to be frank, more than a little anti-intellectual at that.
Also, I’m in no way convinced that the Ritz is a better design than the Peninsula. Clearly, neither are good – and the Farwell (the Farwell’s façade that is) is the lone bright spot in the mix…
|
^
An architect cannot have the luxury of being solely an artist.
You have to satisfy your client.
I don't know why I have to keep repeating this point.
A town or city is not just some giant art gallery. Unlike paintings in a museum, buildings MUST serve a function for their society. They must provide the functions of living. In addition, they must appeal to the individuals who have invested in them, not necessarily the critics that pass through town.