"Traditional architecture...evolved by trial and error, teaching best practices to builders and architects generation by generation... But in the mid-20th century, new ideas took over, and the public has ever since been subjected to endless experimentation and vanity projects."
Trial and error is GREAT...or it's BAD...IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT I LIKE!
The article was paid for by the Driehaus Foundation. That shows its bias towards traditional architecture.
(Not saying anything bad about Driehaus, just pointing that out. After all, projects I've worked on have gotten two awards with his name on it in the past six months)
The silent majority are all the poor CAD monkeys chained to their desk.
And when are they going to get up?
It's kinda coincidental that most of the students in architecture come from upper income families. In a way it is like indoctrinating your child into slavery. How sweet.
Dont do architecture kids now, architecture is bad now....umm kay!
Most of the comments complain about modernism attributing a lack of individualism or ignoring that people are unique, but if everyone lives in the same bad euro-rip-off McMansion on the same size lot, isn't that really taking away any individualism too? Just because it's "classical" doesn't make it any less dehumanizing or repetitive if the design is poor and scale is wrong.
One of the definitions of modernity is that things change every generation. They kinda have to. Doing things the way they have always been done cannot be mandated, interesting piece though.
If I understand this correctly, I agree that architecture should not be partisan. I tend to disagree with most of his statements, yet (i think) somehow agree with his conclusion, at least in regards to more livable communities.
I'm not sure how "modernism" is contrary to his goal, unless he believe modernism is only "towers in a park." Hasn't been that way in 40 some years.
Will a silent majority rise against architecture’s elite?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/occupy-le-corbusier/
thought this was interesting; although i don't necessarily agree with the author
"Traditional architecture...evolved by trial and error, teaching best practices to builders and architects generation by generation... But in the mid-20th century, new ideas took over, and the public has ever since been subjected to endless experimentation and vanity projects."
Trial and error is GREAT...or it's BAD...IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT I LIKE!
Also, can we PLEASE put a fucking bullet in the head of this fucking horse?
Clients pay for architecture. Bitch at them for hiring the "wrong" architects. Otherwise please bloviate elsewhere.
I can feel my silent majority rising.
are you on tindr l3wis?
(Not saying anything bad about Driehaus, just pointing that out. After all, projects I've worked on have gotten two awards with his name on it in the past six months)
No
this shit isnt worth a thread nor a dialogue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQm8qpexnjo
draped in malta? fuck if i know
The silent majority are all the poor CAD monkeys chained to their desk.
And when are they going to get up?
It's kinda coincidental that most of the students in architecture come from upper income families. In a way it is like indoctrinating your child into slavery. How sweet.
Dont do architecture kids now, architecture is bad now....
umm kay!
Most of the comments complain about modernism attributing a lack of individualism or ignoring that people are unique, but if everyone lives in the same bad euro-rip-off McMansion on the same size lot, isn't that really taking away any individualism too? Just because it's "classical" doesn't make it any less dehumanizing or repetitive if the design is poor and scale is wrong.
One of the definitions of modernity is that things change every generation. They kinda have to. Doing things the way they have always been done cannot be mandated, interesting piece though.
Architecture, like politics, is downstream from culture. If the culture changes, then architecture will change as a result. If not, then no.
If I understand this correctly, I agree that architecture should not be partisan. I tend to disagree with most of his statements, yet (i think) somehow agree with his conclusion, at least in regards to more livable communities.
I'm not sure how "modernism" is contrary to his goal, unless he believe modernism is only "towers in a park." Hasn't been that way in 40 some years.
If Archinect.com is any indication, the majority is rarely silent.
With these "panama papers" coming to light, it's highly likely a majority will rise against the elite, no need for arch adjectives.
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.