Kimberli Meyer asks via the Glass House Conversations:
A relentless torrent of discourse, high and low, has come to dominate contemporary life. Yet we willingly add more. Why does our chatter matter? Are we invested in the exchange of ideas, do we feel pressured to participate to keep from getting lost in the crowd, or is there something else going on? Where does substance and self-promotion stop and start?
Go ahead and chatter up about it here in Archinect...
I think we are having this conversation because we have something to say, opinionated, curious and forthcoming. We are having this conversation because we are constantly seeking clues, arguments (because we know better than so and so) , we have ideas and works to show to public. We are having this conversation because we are constantly seeking like minded alliances, opposing thinkers and we can have this conversation because of the internet.
We are spending more time on the internet to have these conversations because it is inexpensive, tv sucks, and we don't have to leave the house.
I have conversations on the internets because I'm kind of pissed off that my future is being flushed. I can read a lot of stuff, especially with current trends in globalization and inter-connectivity, and research and become very well informed. Unfortunately, it seems a pretty clear fact that noone gives a shit what I think, no matter how well educated or whatever I am. Which is fine. If someone like Glenn Beck were to tell me the sky is falling or Communists are good Capitalists, I don't give a shit about his opinion, so it's a 2-way street.
What I learned is that throughout history someone in my position is pretty much not going to change much, and people are generally not going to care much about one guy's opinion (I am not Ghandi and do not intend to become someone of his stature). However, with great enough numbers people in my position have, on several occasions, toppled the power structure that was, in their time and place, flushing their futures.
So, imho, to win the internets the goal of said conversation is to get people to think for themselves, and take the time to form researched and intelligent opinions rather than parroting 24 hour news cycle crap. If enough people act in their own interest, the current system that I believe is causing my future to be flushed will almost certainly be abolished.
because the town square is now a wal-mart. because we have no other place to vent. because we fear the consequences of having such conversations at work where we are made to feel that we must accept the opinions of upper management or else we are not team players. because we don't want to bore our friends and loved ones with our complaints. because the internet is the last resort. because we are too shy to debate in public. And yes, because "t.v sucks."
Orhan - listen to this podcast, specifically the part about Jerry Springer's background. He's a pretty decent guy. He has just happened to be crushed by humanity's dark side.
I think this is now an open public discussion at Glass House website. You can join the conversation there by registering to their site. It is a bit livelier there. Link is on top.
I preferred the forum interface on the last version of archinect as well, but I also think that the whole discourse of architecture has changed significantly in the last five years. There are few, if any, good threads on architectural theory here anymore. These seem to have been replaced by threads relating more to the economics of professional practice or the technical aspects of computer-aided design (some of which are quite interesting though I lack the experience to participate in). The conversation has become much more pragmatic. The economy has contributed to the change. When people do not have a job, it makes it a hell of a lot harder to discuss ideas.
Clearly the social element is also a major aspect of this site, but since I joined circa 2007 it doesn't seem that much different than it was then. Sure I can mouse over profile pics now, but in general because the forum seems weaker and less frequented I actually think the social element of the site has been somewhat dimished, at least from where I sit; however I realize I am getting old, and technology is beginning to pass me by.
Architecture is a practice and a business, so it's not surprising that there are so many discussions about that aspect of it, particularly during challenging economic times.
Having said that, I too long for substantive discussion of architectural theory. The problem with that is architectural theory is mostly moribund these days (has been since the PoMos and DeCons killed it, actually). Nobody really knows how to do theory right anymore. It's all about playing self-indulgent games with arbitrary elements, algorithms, ideological pablum, and other crap now: all syntax no semantics, just like the rest of modern culture.
“Think of it as “I share, therefore I am.” We use technology to define ourselves by sharing our thoughts and feelings as we’re having them. We used to think, “I have a feeling; I want to make a call.” Now our impulse is, “I want to have a feeling; I need to send a text.”
As a wide spread case, it is a huge shift of behavior whose ramifications, without making a value judgement, are extremely generative, open ended and triggered by technological means.
It's all about playing self-indulgent games with arbitrary elements, algorithms, ideological pablum, and other crap now: all syntax no semantics, just like the rest of modern culture.
Without going into exhaustive detail (I used to teach a class titled "meta-theory of design", or basically, How to Roll Your Own), the issue boils down to the fact that it's not really possible to do architectural theory without doing philosophy. I say that Postmodernism and Deconstruction killed architectural theory because they killed philosophy first: swamping it with nominalist bullshit and wrecking the entire field of epistemology. What's left over in the smoking wreckage of theory in the present day is essentially just cargo cult theorism. But, like the cargo cults, just because you paint a rock to look like a radio, doesn't mean it will play NPR. Most of what passes for architectural "theory" these days is rocks, not radios.
Apr 23, 12 1:35 pm ·
·
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.
Why are we having this conversation?
Kimberli Meyer asks via the Glass House Conversations:
A relentless torrent of discourse, high and low, has come to dominate contemporary life. Yet we willingly add more. Why does our chatter matter? Are we invested in the exchange of ideas, do we feel pressured to participate to keep from getting lost in the crowd, or is there something else going on? Where does substance and self-promotion stop and start?
Go ahead and chatter up about it here in Archinect...
http://glasshouseconversations.org/why-are-we-having-this-conversation/
I'm tired of the sound of my own voice.
I think we are having this conversation because we have something to say, opinionated, curious and forthcoming. We are having this conversation because we are constantly seeking clues, arguments (because we know better than so and so) , we have ideas and works to show to public. We are having this conversation because we are constantly seeking like minded alliances, opposing thinkers and we can have this conversation because of the internet.
We are spending more time on the internet to have these conversations because it is inexpensive, tv sucks, and we don't have to leave the house.
Lauf, S. in your experience, what are the factors of getting good at participating in online discourse?
Sadly because we have nothing better to do. :(
I have conversations on the internets because I'm kind of pissed off that my future is being flushed. I can read a lot of stuff, especially with current trends in globalization and inter-connectivity, and research and become very well informed. Unfortunately, it seems a pretty clear fact that noone gives a shit what I think, no matter how well educated or whatever I am. Which is fine. If someone like Glenn Beck were to tell me the sky is falling or Communists are good Capitalists, I don't give a shit about his opinion, so it's a 2-way street.
What I learned is that throughout history someone in my position is pretty much not going to change much, and people are generally not going to care much about one guy's opinion (I am not Ghandi and do not intend to become someone of his stature). However, with great enough numbers people in my position have, on several occasions, toppled the power structure that was, in their time and place, flushing their futures.
So, imho, to win the internets the goal of said conversation is to get people to think for themselves, and take the time to form researched and intelligent opinions rather than parroting 24 hour news cycle crap. If enough people act in their own interest, the current system that I believe is causing my future to be flushed will almost certainly be abolished.
because the town square is now a wal-mart. because we have no other place to vent. because we fear the consequences of having such conversations at work where we are made to feel that we must accept the opinions of upper management or else we are not team players. because we don't want to bore our friends and loved ones with our complaints. because the internet is the last resort. because we are too shy to debate in public. And yes, because "t.v sucks."
Lauf, I'm more often than not watching House Hunters International while I'm posting on archinect.
I am a friend of Jerry Springer Show in facebook ("liked" friend) and today I found out Jerry shared this website with his fans.
http://www.greenisuniversal.com/
Also,
He has gone green
You never know who does what..
Orhan - listen to this podcast, specifically the part about Jerry Springer's background. He's a pretty decent guy. He has just happened to be crushed by humanity's dark side.
This American Life - Leaving the Fold
I think this is now an open public discussion at Glass House website. You can join the conversation there by registering to their site. It is a bit livelier there. Link is on top.
I preferred the forum interface on the last version of archinect as well, but I also think that the whole discourse of architecture has changed significantly in the last five years. There are few, if any, good threads on architectural theory here anymore. These seem to have been replaced by threads relating more to the economics of professional practice or the technical aspects of computer-aided design (some of which are quite interesting though I lack the experience to participate in). The conversation has become much more pragmatic. The economy has contributed to the change. When people do not have a job, it makes it a hell of a lot harder to discuss ideas.
Clearly the social element is also a major aspect of this site, but since I joined circa 2007 it doesn't seem that much different than it was then. Sure I can mouse over profile pics now, but in general because the forum seems weaker and less frequented I actually think the social element of the site has been somewhat dimished, at least from where I sit; however I realize I am getting old, and technology is beginning to pass me by.
Architecture is a practice and a business, so it's not surprising that there are so many discussions about that aspect of it, particularly during challenging economic times.
Having said that, I too long for substantive discussion of architectural theory. The problem with that is architectural theory is mostly moribund these days (has been since the PoMos and DeCons killed it, actually). Nobody really knows how to do theory right anymore. It's all about playing self-indulgent games with arbitrary elements, algorithms, ideological pablum, and other crap now: all syntax no semantics, just like the rest of modern culture.
gwharton could you elaborate a bit more on that? as a young designer, i'm intrigued by your lamentations.
Relatedly the NYT had this to say about The Flight From Conversation, and differentiating between conversation and connection.
FACE-TO-FACE conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience. When we communicate on our digital devices, we learn different habits.
“Think of it as “I share, therefore I am.” We use technology to define ourselves by sharing our thoughts and feelings as we’re having them. We used to think, “I have a feeling; I want to make a call.” Now our impulse is, “I want to have a feeling; I need to send a text.”
As a wide spread case, it is a huge shift of behavior whose ramifications, without making a value judgement, are extremely generative, open ended and triggered by technological means.
The five types of political friends on Facebook Check out the comments. A must...
It's all about playing self-indulgent games with arbitrary elements, algorithms, ideological pablum, and other crap now: all syntax no semantics, just like the rest of modern culture.
well said!
jk3hl,
Without going into exhaustive detail (I used to teach a class titled "meta-theory of design", or basically, How to Roll Your Own), the issue boils down to the fact that it's not really possible to do architectural theory without doing philosophy. I say that Postmodernism and Deconstruction killed architectural theory because they killed philosophy first: swamping it with nominalist bullshit and wrecking the entire field of epistemology. What's left over in the smoking wreckage of theory in the present day is essentially just cargo cult theorism. But, like the cargo cults, just because you paint a rock to look like a radio, doesn't mean it will play NPR. Most of what passes for architectural "theory" these days is rocks, not radios.
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.