"In 1987 a young psychologist conducted an experiment into how repeated exposure to an image changed perceptions of it. A group of volunteer students were shown photographs of unfamiliar people and buildings and asked to rate them in terms of attractiveness. Some of the volunteers were architects; some were not. As the experiment progressed, a fascinating finding became clear: while everyone had similar views on which people were attractive, the architecture and non-architecture students had diametrically opposed views on what was or was not an attractive building. The architecture students’ favourite building was everyone else’s least favourite and vice versa. The disconnect also got worse with experience. The longer architecture students had been studying, the more they disagreed with the general public over what was an attractive building."
Both points of view are flawed. Visual "attractiveness" (aka style) is a not a measure of housing quality or performance. Extraordinarily shallow is the only way to describe this "experiment".
Beyond that it is no surprise that "the public" tends to prefer houses that look like houses or that architecture students have been trained to reject that in favor of new and improved!
British brutalism has never seemed to have a hint of Le Corbusier's painterly eye, his sense of proportion, nor really his sculptural sensitivity. Its like half the architectural message got lost in transmission.
from the image selection I see in the article, I have to agree with the public. mass market housing is a poor genre for architectural innovation. i have no problem ceding that work to the people who want to do it.
your first comment, or quote - "In 1987 a young psychologist conducted an experiment into how repeated exposure to an image changed perceptions of it."
reminded me of this link, and amazingly that is a GIF file that plays seamlessly...
A profession that is fundamentally out of touch with the needs and wants of those it ought to be serving? Who, or what is responsible? And is this by accident or design?
The lack of compensation financially speaking as well as lack of respect professionally speaking would be the most obvious outcome if this were to be true.
Which, by some ssttrraannggee coincidence, most architects are struggling with these days.
As Henry Ford observed 'If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses"
For real though, people trained in the arts/architecture tend to have a higher tolerance and acceptance for abstraction and concept driven forms of creation.
"attraction" is a cultural construct. Ever see one of those sports illustrated photos of gisele bundchen standing next to an African bushman? those dudes couldn't give two shits about some skinny scantily clad European white broads. I'm sure this has changed given the proximity to western media and globalization.
In terms of ugly buildings, I don't know how you could pick a winner. 99% of our built environment is total shit, developer garbage, stucco mini-malls. The general public picks what they are used to because they understand it...They are simpletons.
Kunstler says "....by Eric Owen Moss for Culver City, California, To this observer, it’s more train wreck than prehistoric flying reptile. It’s also yet another demonstration of how buildings can be torqued and tweaked with computer-aided design (CAD) in order to produce maximum maintenance problems and the inevitable impossibility of adaptive re-use. The building is mostly parking with the office as a kind of minor add-on. What appears to be just plain old visual incoherence is actually a vivid portrait of cultural collapse. ".......as if Robert AM Sterns projects didn't say the same thing, minus the CAD comment
Part of the problem is that the public is responding to implicit folk perceptions of beauty and generally has uneducated taste, while the architectural profession has more or less abandoned the idea of beauty entirely and cultivated education in anti-taste.
Educated, well-traveled members of the public do appreciate modern architecture when it is done right; the wide approval of Dulles airport main terminal and the Sydney Opera House come to mind. When the same public is repulsed by total shit like the Gehry MIT buildings or the Boston City Hall brutalist building, why, there must be something wrong with the public!
JB, that's a couple miles from my house, it was built by an artist. There is a field full of sheep in front of it and it beats the living crap out of pretty much everything else that is being built here - predominantly 6,000 sq.ft. and up Franken-colonial spec houses on postage stamp lots.
'The worst building in the world awards'
From the Architects Journal (UK):
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/culture/the-worst-building-in-the-world-awards/8684797.article
"In 1987 a young psychologist conducted an experiment into how repeated exposure to an image changed perceptions of it. A group of volunteer students were shown photographs of unfamiliar people and buildings and asked to rate them in terms of attractiveness. Some of the volunteers were architects; some were not. As the experiment progressed, a fascinating finding became clear: while everyone had similar views on which people were attractive, the architecture and non-architecture students had diametrically opposed views on what was or was not an attractive building. The architecture students’ favourite building was everyone else’s least favourite and vice versa. The disconnect also got worse with experience. The longer architecture students had been studying, the more they disagreed with the general public over what was an attractive building."
Discuss.
will take a serous look at this tomorrow, but i'm done working for tonight....
Both points of view are flawed. Visual "attractiveness" (aka style) is a not a measure of housing quality or performance. Extraordinarily shallow is the only way to describe this "experiment".
Beyond that it is no surprise that "the public" tends to prefer houses that look like houses or that architecture students have been trained to reject that in favor of new and improved!
British brutalism has never seemed to have a hint of Le Corbusier's painterly eye, his sense of proportion, nor really his sculptural sensitivity. Its like half the architectural message got lost in transmission.
from the news here: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright
with its linked precursor: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/bailiffs-death-knell-heygate-estate
what kind of ugliness are we talking about?
This guy seemed to like the Tricorn, demo'd in 2001.
The extreme reception is interesting to read.
from unfinished casbah to parking lot. Not sure who won?
blamed the wrong hooligans perhaps?
maybe this guy will get some of his promised photos up soon?
obviously something of scale happened, alexandra, barbican, perhaps we shouldn't rush to tear it all down and forget?
the rallying digital locals . . .
etc.
from the image selection I see in the article, I have to agree with the public. mass market housing is a poor genre for architectural innovation. i have no problem ceding that work to the people who want to do it.
all my free looks at article were used after on click....
I exhibit very refined brutalism here -
basing this on Miles comment...Style...whatever...the right stuff can be done in any 'style'.
Olaf-
What is that fractal video you posted above? I'd love to learn more about it.
your first comment, or quote - "In 1987 a young psychologist conducted an experiment into how repeated exposure to an image changed perceptions of it."
reminded me of this link, and amazingly that is a GIF file that plays seamlessly...
anything Schmiegel
EKE I know you like fractals and proportions, but after watching the first GIF many times would you begin to appreciate this Francois Roche project
R&SIE - http://www.new-territories.com/videos/roche_videos.htm
Click I've Heard about Movie
managed to read the article via my phone.
Basically if it receives an architectural award its the opposite of what the public likes.
The public likes what they are familiar with.
Dang that public!
those gifs are disgusting
those GIFs are diagrams of architecture. i bet you like them now.
A profession that is fundamentally out of touch with the needs and wants of those it ought to be serving? Who, or what is responsible? And is this by accident or design?
The lack of compensation financially speaking as well as lack of respect professionally speaking would be the most obvious outcome if this were to be true.
Which, by some ssttrraannggee coincidence, most architects are struggling with these days.
hmmm this is so very unexpected...LOLZ
I just can't imagine why there is no love for the contemporary profession.
I mean: what is their problem?
Surely they are all just ignorant troglodytes.
I might be working on the ugliest building ever right now
best comment at the end of that article:
As Henry Ford observed 'If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses"
For real though, people trained in the arts/architecture tend to have a higher tolerance and acceptance for abstraction and concept driven forms of creation.
"attraction" is a cultural construct. Ever see one of those sports illustrated photos of gisele bundchen standing next to an African bushman? those dudes couldn't give two shits about some skinny scantily clad European white broads. I'm sure this has changed given the proximity to western media and globalization.
In terms of ugly buildings, I don't know how you could pick a winner. 99% of our built environment is total shit, developer garbage, stucco mini-malls. The general public picks what they are used to because they understand it...They are simpletons.
no schuellmi, i recently stood in front of a zoning board with the ugliest building - designed by client.....sprucing it up tonight ;)
Kunstler has an Eyesore of the Month page, it seems appropriate here.
This month is the 'Pterodactyl'--an abstraction of an abstraction on top of a parking garage with a parking lot outside.
Kunstler says "....by Eric Owen Moss for Culver City, California, To this observer, it’s more train wreck than prehistoric flying reptile. It’s also yet another demonstration of how buildings can be torqued and tweaked with computer-aided design (CAD) in order to produce maximum maintenance problems and the inevitable impossibility of adaptive re-use. The building is mostly parking with the office as a kind of minor add-on. What appears to be just plain old visual incoherence is actually a vivid portrait of cultural collapse. ".......as if Robert AM Sterns projects didn't say the same thing, minus the CAD comment
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sreed99342/2909940191/
Part of the problem is that the public is responding to implicit folk perceptions of beauty and generally has uneducated taste, while the architectural profession has more or less abandoned the idea of beauty entirely and cultivated education in anti-taste.
cluster?
Excrescence!
starts at 14:00ish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZtUAq2SYUQ
Educated, well-traveled members of the public do appreciate modern architecture when it is done right; the wide approval of Dulles airport main terminal and the Sydney Opera House come to mind. When the same public is repulsed by total shit like the Gehry MIT buildings or the Boston City Hall brutalist building, why, there must be something wrong with the public!
JB, that's a couple miles from my house, it was built by an artist. There is a field full of sheep in front of it and it beats the living crap out of pretty much everything else that is being built here - predominantly 6,000 sq.ft. and up Franken-colonial spec houses on postage stamp lots.
^ That little house feels the same way I do.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.