I love Shaker architecture. They were weird about sex, but awesome at pretty much everything else.
Maybe we need to start with definitions: google gives us two choices to define decadent: 1. In a state of moral or cultural decline. - I worry that this definition is reactionary, judging culture and society through a nostalgic lens; "the good ol' days, when men were men." Definition #2 is the one that I would be inclined to use -luxuriously self-indulgent.
We've become a completely economically oriented society (where value's only definition is monetary worth) and architecture isn't structure or shelter, but rather "curated experience" or some such nonsense - design serving the interests of capital. Unless the basic paradigm is radically changed, unfortunately, I don't see a whole lot of hope that our role won't become more and more maginalized: shed decorators.
It seems that architecture needs to stop concerning itself with formalism and tectonic fetishes and start getting to the roots as was attempted by the mid century modernists with the case study houses... I don't really think that there ever was a "good ole days" with regards to this topic. Architecture always seems like it was a product of Decadence. The Shakers is a great example, but it was not an architectural manifesto that drove it, but rather a cultural/religious one. Still great example though.
Did the primitive hut contain flourishes not necessary for survival in the strictest sense? Have we always adorned our belongings, selves, and living quarters for one reason or the other?
Quodam - concise writing is a virtue, as is making sense. Your posts aren't "too sophisticated," they're inane. Why are you pasting your lunatic drivel into what might have been an interesting thread?
anonitect, for the same reason he regurgitates posts he made here years ago under different identities - apparently it's some form of chronic public masturbation. Talk about decadent.
dribble...this dude starts threads full of garbage all the time. Nobody ever reads or even responds to this bullshit: horrible graphics, shitty writing, a bunch of copy paste text, shitty photos. very sophisticated indeed you sir are a true scholar. dildo.
Just because I gloss over your walls of text when I see them doesn't mean I am unaware you are making them.
I'm not afraid of JLA's question. It's just that there isn't really a productive answer to it.
Our culture is degenerate and decadent, and getting moreso with every passing year. Architecture is the physical reification of culture in environment. So that's why architecture has been, for the most part, also degenerate and decadent. The latter mostly follows the former.
No matter how much architects might wish to arrogate themselves to the conceit of being culture leaders, we're not, never have been, and never will be.
You can fight the dominant culture and create work which reifies a non-degenerate cultural value set (like Chris Alexander or Leon Krier do, for instance), but your audience and demand for your work are going to be extremely narrow. And the rest of the architectural and dominant culture will hate you for it. Wide appreciation for it will only ever come if the culture shifts that direction some time in the future. That will very likely happen long after you and everybody you know are dead.
what qualifies as decadent quandam? It is subjective. My 1800 ft2 house is probably considered decedent to the average Somalian...So...the question is more about operating outside the realm of decadence relative to the cultural context.
The point of the thread is not to find projects that reach the extremes of austerity, but to find works that reach/lean towards that direction...relative to their/our context. To resist the current of materialism.
Sep 9, 15 6:15 pm ·
·
jla-x,
I agree. There is so many social-economic based cultural contexts out there that we need to be comparing in comparable cultural context.
Its like my house with ~3300 or so sq.ft. of interior floor space floor space (~22 x 50 x 3 floors) would be massive compared to a common apartment or some condos in New York City. Sure, there are units bigger but your more typical units affordable to those living on a household income in the $25K to $35K range compared to say a $100K range.
What's decadent in a small town in Astoria, Oregon is different than say New York City brooklyn or bronx neighborhood. We have different social-economic cultural context. Different places. Different cultures.
I'm not sure I understand what quondam.com's point or position is. He's confusing at best.... I'll reserve criticism at this time.
Quondam- I'm sorry if I confused you. I wanted to steer the conversation away from using the first definition because I associate it, especially alongside the word degenerate, with Nazism.
And, I think that "luxuriously self-indulgent" works just fine as a definition.
Sep 9, 15 9:39 pm ·
·
It is only a noun if definition is a person. However, the definition of decadent can be defined as in adjective as "possessing a characteristic of luxuriously and excessive indulgence".
Historically, the word decadence is correctly reference to decay, deceased or otherwise a decline. But this doesn't mean necessarily literal biological life and death or declining heath of a person dependent on the context. In which case, it's a statement about a declination of vitality of ______________ (the defining context... be it moral value or otherwise). in given context this isn't necessarily objective and certainly can be seen as a subjective perspective based on the contextual lens in which we are analyzing. From what interpretive lens are we talking, quandam.com ???? or whoever?
I wouldn't say luxuriously self-indulgent is necessarily decadent. That depends on the values that defines interpretive lens of the viewer.
This is a convoluted slippery slope rabbit hole that I am not sure I even want to venture. It ends up being too subjective and inconclusive if we were to critically analyze such.
quandom, didnt say that it IS morally superior...re-read...Imo material gluttony is a problem unless you have a perpetual motion machine in your basement that you are holding out on...
Very simple, surprised you are having such a difficult time understanding. I wrote "in a pursuit of..." meaning that the creators were pursuing something more ideal in their mind. I did not say that hermatic auserity is indeed more ideal.
Sep 10, 15 11:12 am ·
·
quondam.com
EVERY piece of architecture is decadent and non-decadent. It entirely depends on the eye of he beholder. The one making that judgement and that is each and every single one of us on earth. Always has ! Always will until the last human being breathed their last breath and die.
Did you miss that. Narrow the context to a single culture and value/belief system and we can have something more sensible to speak on this topic. Otherwise, it is your belief vs my belief vs. jla-x's belief vs. miles vs gwharton.... the list goes on and on and on.
quandam, I dont have the answers...was just looking to start a debate around the subject of decadence vs non-decadence...was hoping for a thread where people would share opinions and examples of projects relating to the topic...for the purpose of learning.
the "realm of decadence" imo means that all cultures seem to have an overwhelming desire or tendancy towards materialism. I probably shpuld have used the term materialism instead. As I and others stated, this varies from culture to culture. In the US, I would say that a hippy commune may be an example of an architecture that exists outside the realm of decadence because it intentionally rejects certain material compforts in an effort to seek something else...In essence, it attempts to resist the surrounding materialistic context. everything in Architectural Digest is within this realm...it is a product of a society that values materialism...
Glen had never done any drugs. His ideas have more to do with green architecture, survival and sustainability. Why do you emphasize If they are the concerns of the last century's drug culture? Regarding Glen Small's work, though not offensive, your likening with above illustration is off.
i think most of the planets in star wars represent a middle class sort of vibe. tatooine would have been largely middle class, with a rural population that is more or less agricultural. endor and kashyyk don't have a lot of class division. the cloud city of bespin seemed to do ok. there were a lot of people who just kind of worked for a living, and made a decent life for themselves.
on the other hand, some of the planets in the movies had structural economic problems.
alderaan is of course a resort planet for nobles. despite being leia's adopted home, i don't think anybody felt too bad when the second moon showed up.
corellia has the senate, so it's population is largely based on politicians and politics. if you build your economy on lobbyists, you shouldn't expect too much.
i'm not sure about naboo. there seems to be some racism between humans and gungans. there is an obvious noble class among the humans, but other than that it seems quite similar to any feudal government.
i think the problem in perception is that the movies focused on the story of either elite soldiers or politicians, so of course there is some imbalance. if they told the story of the people working at the bars in tatooine, it would probably have seemed a bit more middle-class
Architecture of Decadence
Just looking to start a conversation. Can anyone think of any examples of non-decadent architecture? I'm looking for examples from past or present.
Also, can a 21st century architect/designer operate outside the realm of decadence, or is architecture by its nature a luxury?
I love Shaker architecture. They were weird about sex, but awesome at pretty much everything else.
Maybe we need to start with definitions: google gives us two choices to define decadent: 1. In a state of moral or cultural decline. - I worry that this definition is reactionary, judging culture and society through a nostalgic lens; "the good ol' days, when men were men." Definition #2 is the one that I would be inclined to use -luxuriously self-indulgent.
We've become a completely economically oriented society (where value's only definition is monetary worth) and architecture isn't structure or shelter, but rather "curated experience" or some such nonsense - design serving the interests of capital. Unless the basic paradigm is radically changed, unfortunately, I don't see a whole lot of hope that our role won't become more and more maginalized: shed decorators.
^ Good one!
It seems that architecture needs to stop concerning itself with formalism and tectonic fetishes and start getting to the roots as was attempted by the mid century modernists with the case study houses... I don't really think that there ever was a "good ole days" with regards to this topic. Architecture always seems like it was a product of Decadence. The Shakers is a great example, but it was not an architectural manifesto that drove it, but rather a cultural/religious one. Still great example though.
quaker swag
didnt know they were such dope formalists
Did the primitive hut contain flourishes not necessary for survival in the strictest sense? Have we always adorned our belongings, selves, and living quarters for one reason or the other?
glenn murcutt pre rich people projects...
most australian architects are fairly austere, good region of the world to start looking, highly driven by sustainable concepts and forms.
The Block of Archibabble hits you for 999 damage.
You die.
Game Over.
quondam stop with the garbage bro - i was interested in this thread till you took 2 massive shits in it...
obviously.
*snicker*
Quodam - concise writing is a virtue, as is making sense. Your posts aren't "too sophisticated," they're inane. Why are you pasting your lunatic drivel into what might have been an interesting thread?
anonitect, for the same reason he regurgitates posts he made here years ago under different identities - apparently it's some form of chronic public masturbation. Talk about decadent.
'being anal' is its own type of decadence, isn't it?
Only if you feel free to redefine words as you see fit, a trait shared by
pseudo-intellectuals and psychotics.
I'm sure in person he's a real Lauf riot...
I'm the rubber. You're the glue.
I know you are but what am I?
dribble...this dude starts threads full of garbage all the time. Nobody ever reads or even responds to this bullshit: horrible graphics, shitty writing, a bunch of copy paste text, shitty photos. very sophisticated indeed you sir are a true scholar. dildo.
But you can buy a bound edition! A print copy!
Quondam has been doing this for as long as I've known him. Which is running near 20 years now. It's best to just ignore it and not engage.
Back on topic - Eishin Campus:
Just because I gloss over your walls of text when I see them doesn't mean I am unaware you are making them.
I'm not afraid of JLA's question. It's just that there isn't really a productive answer to it.
Our culture is degenerate and decadent, and getting moreso with every passing year. Architecture is the physical reification of culture in environment. So that's why architecture has been, for the most part, also degenerate and decadent. The latter mostly follows the former.
No matter how much architects might wish to arrogate themselves to the conceit of being culture leaders, we're not, never have been, and never will be.
You can fight the dominant culture and create work which reifies a non-degenerate cultural value set (like Chris Alexander or Leon Krier do, for instance), but your audience and demand for your work are going to be extremely narrow. And the rest of the architectural and dominant culture will hate you for it. Wide appreciation for it will only ever come if the culture shifts that direction some time in the future. That will very likely happen long after you and everybody you know are dead.
RE: mediocre vs. degenerate/decadent
In today's culture it's almost impossible to tell the difference between these things.
what qualifies as decadent quandam? It is subjective. My 1800 ft2 house is probably considered decedent to the average Somalian...So...the question is more about operating outside the realm of decadence relative to the cultural context.
Or maybe my question about creating architecture that is reduced to the most basic fundamental needs...a complete abandonment of materialism...
The point of the thread is not to find projects that reach the extremes of austerity, but to find works that reach/lean towards that direction...relative to their/our context. To resist the current of materialism.
jla-x,
I agree. There is so many social-economic based cultural contexts out there that we need to be comparing in comparable cultural context.
Its like my house with ~3300 or so sq.ft. of interior floor space floor space (~22 x 50 x 3 floors) would be massive compared to a common apartment or some condos in New York City. Sure, there are units bigger but your more typical units affordable to those living on a household income in the $25K to $35K range compared to say a $100K range.
What's decadent in a small town in Astoria, Oregon is different than say New York City brooklyn or bronx neighborhood. We have different social-economic cultural context. Different places. Different cultures.
I'm not sure I understand what quondam.com's point or position is. He's confusing at best.... I'll reserve criticism at this time.
Chin up, quondam. Maybe one day, with lots of dedication and hard work, you can rise to mediocre.
ok, so lets talk about projects that reach or lean towards hermitic austerity...
specifically ones that exist within cultures of extreme materialism...and not as some novelty, but as part of a pursuit of some more meaningful ideal.
Quondam- I'm sorry if I confused you. I wanted to steer the conversation away from using the first definition because I associate it, especially alongside the word degenerate, with Nazism.
And, I think that "luxuriously self-indulgent" works just fine as a definition.
It is only a noun if definition is a person. However, the definition of decadent can be defined as in adjective as "possessing a characteristic of luxuriously and excessive indulgence".
Historically, the word decadence is correctly reference to decay, deceased or otherwise a decline. But this doesn't mean necessarily literal biological life and death or declining heath of a person dependent on the context. In which case, it's a statement about a declination of vitality of ______________ (the defining context... be it moral value or otherwise). in given context this isn't necessarily objective and certainly can be seen as a subjective perspective based on the contextual lens in which we are analyzing. From what interpretive lens are we talking, quandam.com ???? or whoever?
I wouldn't say luxuriously self-indulgent is necessarily decadent. That depends on the values that defines interpretive lens of the viewer.
This is a convoluted slippery slope rabbit hole that I am not sure I even want to venture. It ends up being too subjective and inconclusive if we were to critically analyze such.
quandom, didnt say that it IS morally superior...re-read...Imo material gluttony is a problem unless you have a perpetual motion machine in your basement that you are holding out on...
Very simple, surprised you are having such a difficult time understanding. I wrote "in a pursuit of..." meaning that the creators were pursuing something more ideal in their mind. I did not say that hermatic auserity is indeed more ideal.
quondam.com
EVERY piece of architecture is decadent and non-decadent. It entirely depends on the eye of he beholder. The one making that judgement and that is each and every single one of us on earth. Always has ! Always will until the last human being breathed their last breath and die.
Did you miss that. Narrow the context to a single culture and value/belief system and we can have something more sensible to speak on this topic. Otherwise, it is your belief vs my belief vs. jla-x's belief vs. miles vs gwharton.... the list goes on and on and on.
It would be madness.
quandam, I dont have the answers...was just looking to start a debate around the subject of decadence vs non-decadence...was hoping for a thread where people would share opinions and examples of projects relating to the topic...for the purpose of learning.
the "realm of decadence" imo means that all cultures seem to have an overwhelming desire or tendancy towards materialism. I probably shpuld have used the term materialism instead. As I and others stated, this varies from culture to culture. In the US, I would say that a hippy commune may be an example of an architecture that exists outside the realm of decadence because it intentionally rejects certain material compforts in an effort to seek something else...In essence, it attempts to resist the surrounding materialistic context. everything in Architectural Digest is within this realm...it is a product of a society that values materialism...
.
superstudio fits into this debate somewhere...
Glen Small, Biomorphic Biosphere
in film they like to create a dichotomy...
the capital in the hunger games vs the districts....
elysium vs earth...
also, note that the wise master yoda lives in a tree...non-decadent living
yoda was in hiding after order 66. before that he lived pretty lavishly off wealth that probably came mostly from corruption in the senate.
Glen had never done any drugs. His ideas have more to do with green architecture, survival and sustainability. Why do you emphasize If they are the concerns of the last century's drug culture? Regarding Glen Small's work, though not offensive, your likening with above illustration is off.
i think most of the planets in star wars represent a middle class sort of vibe. tatooine would have been largely middle class, with a rural population that is more or less agricultural. endor and kashyyk don't have a lot of class division. the cloud city of bespin seemed to do ok. there were a lot of people who just kind of worked for a living, and made a decent life for themselves.
on the other hand, some of the planets in the movies had structural economic problems.
alderaan is of course a resort planet for nobles. despite being leia's adopted home, i don't think anybody felt too bad when the second moon showed up.
corellia has the senate, so it's population is largely based on politicians and politics. if you build your economy on lobbyists, you shouldn't expect too much.
i'm not sure about naboo. there seems to be some racism between humans and gungans. there is an obvious noble class among the humans, but other than that it seems quite similar to any feudal government.
i think the problem in perception is that the movies focused on the story of either elite soldiers or politicians, so of course there is some imbalance. if they told the story of the people working at the bars in tatooine, it would probably have seemed a bit more middle-class
curt, your nerd is showing.
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.