Oguard, first, have you ever thought of this (or any) thread as a tool, not just a platform?
For you to have all this sense about ‘proverbs’ and ‘life analogies’ you seem to be lacking the basic logics to figure out much simpler concepts- what makes you think you know what anyone is talking about, especially a bunch of, to you, nameless faceless people on the Internet, without even asking?!?
You know nothing about the insight or perspectives of others. Read the thread between the lines, maybe as to how you can see how misunderstandings can be solved instead of being a big know-nothing with a small opinion.
“I can't get it therefore I don't want it.” I frankly feel sorry for this person you refer to, especially if they have not given the achievement a practical try, however,
Jump brings up a good point. The reason for so many disagreements (here or anywhere) is because before discussing a concept, people usually don’t define it first.
It seems as if most people here are all talking about fame, but in different aspects. Each person seems to also weight fame differently, which causes more mix-up.
The kind of fame that can be GIVEN to person based on mere admirers mean nothing to me. (It would feel good, but what would it be wroth?)
The kind of fame Liberty Bell and Jump wrote about are the kind of fame I would be proud to EARN and feel worthy of.
I even would like some of the fame Willisimon talked about, in part, the fame that comes from pure hard work and strong marketing; the kind that people know your name from due to your work ethic, achievements.
For example
Fame can definitely be an accomplishment, but if a bunch of fishermen, doctors, and mathematicians thought I was a good architect, is that an accomplishment?
If an un-famed architect, a Starchitect, and an architecture student thought I was good; this is something I would be more proud of.
(Still I agree with Willis, I am not yet so [whatever it is (nobility?) that makes you that way] as to be unable to live with being overrated :D)
And further still, in the most restrictive terms of the subject, I agree with Simples)
Anyhow, my whole point is that fame is not my sole or most important objective (because it IS a measurement of what others think, whether they be right or wrong) but my own defined success is.
Would I take of piece of fame? Sure! (I think my 03/04/08 13:06 post clearly implied that)
Will I work towards it? A name and reputation, yes. Fame? No.
First of all, this is a discussion forum. I can't go around asking people what they mean exactly before I respond to their comments. I can only look at what they write and respond to that.
In the case of funkitecture, he states (and I quote)
"the older i get (i'm only 31) the more i realize how many people there are out there battling for the top. it's just not worth it. you need a lot of things to line up to be famous."
If I read between the line, as you urge, here the guy is saying.
FAME IS A STRUGGLE, IT IS NOT WORTH THE EFFORT
or
IT IS TOO HARD
he goes on to say:
"who wants fame anyway? architect fame would be better than being stopped on the street or people screaming "i wanna have your baby" while you are on stage. i think it is kinda nice down here under the radar
a lot less pressure and a lot fewer tail-riding scavengers picking at your pockets"
In other words:
I DO NOT WANT FAME
There is not too much mystery between the lines here. I think what he is saying is outright clear and straightforward.
FAME IS TOO HARD, I DO NOT WANT IT.
No rocket science here. I don't think I need to call this guy up and ask him for his resume to understand what he means.
In fact, I respect this guy. At least he is honest with himself. He seems to have an appreciation for the difficulty that it entails and for him it is just not worth it. Nothing wrong with that. Why fight to get on stage if you have nothing to say. So "the fox calling the grape sour statement probably doesn't apply to him".
The point of my previous post is that a lot of people are really delusional and defeatist when it comes to fame and recognition in their career.
Take you for example.
By your own admission you state:
"Would I take of piece of fame? Sure! (I think my 03/04/08 13:06 post clearly implied that)Will I work towards it? A name and reputation, yes"
meaning: I WOULD LIKE TO BE FAMOUS
Then before that you state:
"My objective is not to be famous, but successful. Because fame is a measurement of what other people think, it should really be irrelevant."
meaning: I DO NOT WANT TO BE FAMOUS BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT
I can conclude at least two things from this.
A. you are schizophrenic (which I am assuming you are not) or
B. you have an inner conflict where on one hand you want to be famous and on the other it is too difficult or something(I don't know what) so you rationalize that it is irrelevant.
You say this about fame:
"Will I work towards it? A name and reputation, yes. Fame? No.
isn't widespread reputation and Fame the same thing. check out the definition here
I can only guess you mean:
I WANT FAME BUT IT WILL SOUND SHALLOW IF I SAY IT, SO I WILL SAY I WANT NAME AND REPUTATION, THAT MAKES ME SOUND MUCH MORE INTERESTING AND SOPHISTICATED.
I agree with you when you say that: "the reason for so many disagreements (here or anywhere) is because before discussing a concept, people usually don’t define it first."
But you seem guilty of it here as well (myself included).
So for the record I define a Famous architect is an architect with widespread reputation within the profession. I took it for granted that it was very well obvious that fame in architecture was mainly limited to fame within the profession (as you say other architects & architecture students). Fame is always relative. I am sure Paris Hilton is an unknown in many parts of the world. I can't seriously imagine anyone wanting to be a famous architect so that screaming fans would run up to them when they walk down the street.
I was so glad that vado retro in his infinite wisdom pointed this out to us
newsflash: architects are not famous. even the famous ones.
ifYouCanSeeme, I can certainly read between the lines of this:
"Fame can definitely be an accomplishment, but if a bunch of fishermen, doctors, and mathematicians thought I was a good architect, is that an accomplishment?"
If you are talking about superficial, media based admiration by non-architects, then maybe it's not worth much, but there are very intelligent and observant fishermen, doctors, mathematicians and other sorts of people, and they often say the most insightful and telling things about a building or design, since they don't come at them with our professional biases. And when a non-architect says something that just gets to the core of something I designed or worked on, that just thrills me to death. So, yes, that is an accomplishment, the best kind of accomplishement, 'cause you've moved the people who actually use the architecture.
(Completely agreed Emilio, except I was trying to use a super-restricted example to stress the point (which I fuigured might have been to general for some to understand/accept); maybe it didn't work...)
Oguard...
If you don't have time for simple expansion, fine.
But you cannot assume you know what everyone is thinking or from where a person's thoughts stem, thus, a sometimes needed clarification.
Nor can you assume everyone is the SAME, which is, what in essence you are doing when you say everyone wants fame.
(or that everyone here who claimed it was not a personal objective is being dishonest or too timid to try)
From some people's post it can be INFERED, not KNOWN, that some people are the “I can't get it therefore I don't want it.” guy or girl, but do you think fame is on EVERYONE's list?!?
I was beginning to think of this as at least a pseudo-serious conversation.
I guess not.
You seem to have a knack of throwing empty charges and rhetoric without any arguments or support for them.
You charge that I think that "fame is on EVERYONE's list?" or I think that "everyone here who claimed it was not a personal objective is being dishonest or too timid to try"
Clearly thats not true if you read my last post. I declared respect for funkitecture for being honest with himself. He does not want fame. I said "Nothing wrong with that. Why fight to get on stage if you have nothing to say." Fame is not for everyone.
You seem to have jumped to "reading in between the line" before you have read the actual line.
I only take issue with arguments like yours that both desire and decry fame at he same time.
I will also state this again. I do not assume to know what other people are thinking but I do know what they are arguing based on what they write here. I can only respond to that. I do not attack people here, I attack arguments. You should understand that difference.
You charge that I am "a big know-nothing with a small opinion" and that I lack "basic logic"
Well I will be the first to concede that I am a big know-nothing but I believe I have demonstrated in my previous posts where my logic is coming from while you have not. As for opinion, I believe that everyones opinion are valuable. We come to the table with different life experiences. So I don't consider mine small, neither a lawyer's, nor a fishermen, nor yours for that matter.
You claim the need for clarification as a means for proper discourse and avoiding misunderstandings, yet you have yet to define what fame means to you.
You claim that I don't have the time for a simple expansion. Yet I have taken the time to responded with arguments to all of your empty,unexplained or unsupported claims. Meanwhile you respond with rhetoric and insults.
First be clear that anything with a "?" is not a charge but an actual question, no matter how 'charging' it reads
And ‘attack’ statements you should, at your initial perception upon reading but if someone tells you "Oguard, that's not how I meant it..." why would you argue it is, especially when there is logical room belief?
“but I do know what they are arguing based on what they write here.” It seems as if you are coming across as the end all to be all, as if you don’t need clarification and other’s need to clarify aren’t accepted on your part.
Your approach and comments like these seem to be overridden by the merit-able things you say.
(Or maybe the problem is the language of your thoughts that cause you to ‘attack’ period, your approach was to ‘charge’ and maybe concepts shouldn’t have an attacking approach, only an attacking response when you are sure there is due cause (or maybe you were sure?))
But when you charge at me with what you assume I meant… especially an assumption that attempts to void my integrity, yes, that has made me conclude you are a couple of names.
My problem with you is that it seems you are shoving a ‘truth’ down post-er’s throats… my insults only came after yours; I find it insulting to be labeled the “I can't get it therefore I don't want it.” person. I don’t want it because (here’s my definition (in short, for the purpose of this forum) AGAIN): it’s a measurement, of what others think, often others that have not even an adjacent knowledge (‘education (not in the formal context)’/information; perspective) or understanding (same or similar role or position in life) and this can be worthless (if it is weighted un-accordingly, is what I maybe should have added).”
I can accept that maybe the way I worded my initial posts were ‘misleading’ as words, especially when not face to face, are misleading; language is figurative, which why you did receive “considerable” answers.
L
astly, “Live by your own standards” was not ‘declared’ to you, it was more of a conclusion about my insight on fame or any objective; set and live by your own standards means simply that…
Anyhow,
As you have pointed out this has really gone from a “pseudo-serious conversation” to an offensive/defensive summarization of perspectives…
Unless,
If “fame is not for everyone”, what’s wrong with (whoops, maybe “wrong” is accusatory; what’s your point, maybe I should ask) some people saying they don’t want it, or are fine without it, or wouldn’t mind/reject it but it is not a personal goal?
I’ve reread your 03/06/08 1:00 post and it still reads as a charge. I get your 50cent approach and, as I have said, there is nothing wrong with wanting it (as my first post was to respond to there is nothing wrong with not wanting it, not there was anything wrong with it), but what was your point?!?
“I can't get it therefore I don't want it. If the fox can’t get the grape he calls it sour. […] just odes to defeatism […] It is too difficult, hard, almost impossible, far reaching to become a famous architect therefore […] bla, bla, bla.”
What was I supposed to understand that to mean?
From where I’m sitting, it reads as a condescending psychosis that I “both desire and decry fame at the same time.”
I'm gonna live forever. I'm gonna learn how to fly. High. I feel it coming together. People will see me and cry. I'm gonna make it to heaven. Light up the sky like a flame. I'm gonna live forever. Baby remember my name.
I don't want to become a famous architect...
Oguard, first, have you ever thought of this (or any) thread as a tool, not just a platform?
For you to have all this sense about ‘proverbs’ and ‘life analogies’ you seem to be lacking the basic logics to figure out much simpler concepts- what makes you think you know what anyone is talking about, especially a bunch of, to you, nameless faceless people on the Internet, without even asking?!?
You know nothing about the insight or perspectives of others. Read the thread between the lines, maybe as to how you can see how misunderstandings can be solved instead of being a big know-nothing with a small opinion.
“I can't get it therefore I don't want it.” I frankly feel sorry for this person you refer to, especially if they have not given the achievement a practical try, however,
Jump brings up a good point. The reason for so many disagreements (here or anywhere) is because before discussing a concept, people usually don’t define it first.
It seems as if most people here are all talking about fame, but in different aspects. Each person seems to also weight fame differently, which causes more mix-up.
The kind of fame that can be GIVEN to person based on mere admirers mean nothing to me. (It would feel good, but what would it be wroth?)
The kind of fame Liberty Bell and Jump wrote about are the kind of fame I would be proud to EARN and feel worthy of.
I even would like some of the fame Willisimon talked about, in part, the fame that comes from pure hard work and strong marketing; the kind that people know your name from due to your work ethic, achievements.
For example
Fame can definitely be an accomplishment, but if a bunch of fishermen, doctors, and mathematicians thought I was a good architect, is that an accomplishment?
If an un-famed architect, a Starchitect, and an architecture student thought I was good; this is something I would be more proud of.
(Still I agree with Willis, I am not yet so [whatever it is (nobility?) that makes you that way] as to be unable to live with being overrated :D)
And further still, in the most restrictive terms of the subject, I agree with Simples)
Anyhow, my whole point is that fame is not my sole or most important objective (because it IS a measurement of what others think, whether they be right or wrong) but my own defined success is.
Would I take of piece of fame? Sure! (I think my 03/04/08 13:06 post clearly implied that)
Will I work towards it? A name and reputation, yes. Fame? No.
…Live by your own standards.
i really tried but ended up wonderin who bothers to read so much stuff u guys write
i never read anything i write.
ifYouCanSeeme
First of all, this is a discussion forum. I can't go around asking people what they mean exactly before I respond to their comments. I can only look at what they write and respond to that.
In the case of funkitecture, he states (and I quote)
"the older i get (i'm only 31) the more i realize how many people there are out there battling for the top. it's just not worth it. you need a lot of things to line up to be famous."
If I read between the line, as you urge, here the guy is saying.
FAME IS A STRUGGLE, IT IS NOT WORTH THE EFFORT
or
IT IS TOO HARD
he goes on to say:
"who wants fame anyway? architect fame would be better than being stopped on the street or people screaming "i wanna have your baby" while you are on stage. i think it is kinda nice down here under the radar
a lot less pressure and a lot fewer tail-riding scavengers picking at your pockets"
In other words:
I DO NOT WANT FAME
There is not too much mystery between the lines here. I think what he is saying is outright clear and straightforward.
FAME IS TOO HARD, I DO NOT WANT IT.
No rocket science here. I don't think I need to call this guy up and ask him for his resume to understand what he means.
In fact, I respect this guy. At least he is honest with himself. He seems to have an appreciation for the difficulty that it entails and for him it is just not worth it. Nothing wrong with that. Why fight to get on stage if you have nothing to say. So "the fox calling the grape sour statement probably doesn't apply to him".
The point of my previous post is that a lot of people are really delusional and defeatist when it comes to fame and recognition in their career.
Take you for example.
By your own admission you state:
"Would I take of piece of fame? Sure! (I think my 03/04/08 13:06 post clearly implied that)Will I work towards it? A name and reputation, yes"
meaning: I WOULD LIKE TO BE FAMOUS
Then before that you state:
"My objective is not to be famous, but successful. Because fame is a measurement of what other people think, it should really be irrelevant."
meaning: I DO NOT WANT TO BE FAMOUS BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT
I can conclude at least two things from this.
A. you are schizophrenic (which I am assuming you are not) or
B. you have an inner conflict where on one hand you want to be famous and on the other it is too difficult or something(I don't know what) so you rationalize that it is irrelevant.
You say this about fame:
"Will I work towards it? A name and reputation, yes. Fame? No.
isn't widespread reputation and Fame the same thing. check out the definition here
I can only guess you mean:
I WANT FAME BUT IT WILL SOUND SHALLOW IF I SAY IT, SO I WILL SAY I WANT NAME AND REPUTATION, THAT MAKES ME SOUND MUCH MORE INTERESTING AND SOPHISTICATED.
I agree with you when you say that: "the reason for so many disagreements (here or anywhere) is because before discussing a concept, people usually don’t define it first."
But you seem guilty of it here as well (myself included).
So for the record I define a Famous architect is an architect with widespread reputation within the profession. I took it for granted that it was very well obvious that fame in architecture was mainly limited to fame within the profession (as you say other architects & architecture students). Fame is always relative. I am sure Paris Hilton is an unknown in many parts of the world. I can't seriously imagine anyone wanting to be a famous architect so that screaming fans would run up to them when they walk down the street.
I was so glad that vado retro in his infinite wisdom pointed this out to us
newsflash: architects are not famous. even the famous ones.
ifYouCanSeeme, I can certainly read between the lines of this:
"Fame can definitely be an accomplishment, but if a bunch of fishermen, doctors, and mathematicians thought I was a good architect, is that an accomplishment?"
If you are talking about superficial, media based admiration by non-architects, then maybe it's not worth much, but there are very intelligent and observant fishermen, doctors, mathematicians and other sorts of people, and they often say the most insightful and telling things about a building or design, since they don't come at them with our professional biases. And when a non-architect says something that just gets to the core of something I designed or worked on, that just thrills me to death. So, yes, that is an accomplishment, the best kind of accomplishement, 'cause you've moved the people who actually use the architecture.
(Completely agreed Emilio, except I was trying to use a super-restricted example to stress the point (which I fuigured might have been to general for some to understand/accept); maybe it didn't work...)
Oguard...
If you don't have time for simple expansion, fine.
But you cannot assume you know what everyone is thinking or from where a person's thoughts stem, thus, a sometimes needed clarification.
Nor can you assume everyone is the SAME, which is, what in essence you are doing when you say everyone wants fame.
(or that everyone here who claimed it was not a personal objective is being dishonest or too timid to try)
From some people's post it can be INFERED, not KNOWN, that some people are the “I can't get it therefore I don't want it.” guy or girl, but do you think fame is on EVERYONE's list?!?
ifYouCanSeeme
Well, so much for a considered response.
I was beginning to think of this as at least a pseudo-serious conversation.
I guess not.
You seem to have a knack of throwing empty charges and rhetoric without any arguments or support for them.
You charge that I think that "fame is on EVERYONE's list?" or I think that "everyone here who claimed it was not a personal objective is being dishonest or too timid to try"
Clearly thats not true if you read my last post. I declared respect for funkitecture for being honest with himself. He does not want fame. I said "Nothing wrong with that. Why fight to get on stage if you have nothing to say." Fame is not for everyone.
You seem to have jumped to "reading in between the line" before you have read the actual line.
I only take issue with arguments like yours that both desire and decry fame at he same time.
I will also state this again. I do not assume to know what other people are thinking but I do know what they are arguing based on what they write here. I can only respond to that. I do not attack people here, I attack arguments. You should understand that difference.
You charge that I am "a big know-nothing with a small opinion" and that I lack "basic logic"
Well I will be the first to concede that I am a big know-nothing but I believe I have demonstrated in my previous posts where my logic is coming from while you have not. As for opinion, I believe that everyones opinion are valuable. We come to the table with different life experiences. So I don't consider mine small, neither a lawyer's, nor a fishermen, nor yours for that matter.
You claim the need for clarification as a means for proper discourse and avoiding misunderstandings, yet you have yet to define what fame means to you.
You claim that I don't have the time for a simple expansion. Yet I have taken the time to responded with arguments to all of your empty,unexplained or unsupported claims. Meanwhile you respond with rhetoric and insults.
You declared to me "…Live by your own standards."
You should give it a try
Oguard,
First be clear that anything with a "?" is not a charge but an actual question, no matter how 'charging' it reads
And ‘attack’ statements you should, at your initial perception upon reading but if someone tells you "Oguard, that's not how I meant it..." why would you argue it is, especially when there is logical room belief?
“but I do know what they are arguing based on what they write here.” It seems as if you are coming across as the end all to be all, as if you don’t need clarification and other’s need to clarify aren’t accepted on your part.
Your approach and comments like these seem to be overridden by the merit-able things you say.
(Or maybe the problem is the language of your thoughts that cause you to ‘attack’ period, your approach was to ‘charge’ and maybe concepts shouldn’t have an attacking approach, only an attacking response when you are sure there is due cause (or maybe you were sure?))
But when you charge at me with what you assume I meant… especially an assumption that attempts to void my integrity, yes, that has made me conclude you are a couple of names.
My problem with you is that it seems you are shoving a ‘truth’ down post-er’s throats… my insults only came after yours; I find it insulting to be labeled the “I can't get it therefore I don't want it.” person. I don’t want it because (here’s my definition (in short, for the purpose of this forum) AGAIN): it’s a measurement, of what others think, often others that have not even an adjacent knowledge (‘education (not in the formal context)’/information; perspective) or understanding (same or similar role or position in life) and this can be worthless (if it is weighted un-accordingly, is what I maybe should have added).”
I can accept that maybe the way I worded my initial posts were ‘misleading’ as words, especially when not face to face, are misleading; language is figurative, which why you did receive “considerable” answers.
L
astly, “Live by your own standards” was not ‘declared’ to you, it was more of a conclusion about my insight on fame or any objective; set and live by your own standards means simply that…
Anyhow,
As you have pointed out this has really gone from a “pseudo-serious conversation” to an offensive/defensive summarization of perspectives…
Unless,
If “fame is not for everyone”, what’s wrong with (whoops, maybe “wrong” is accusatory; what’s your point, maybe I should ask) some people saying they don’t want it, or are fine without it, or wouldn’t mind/reject it but it is not a personal goal?
I’ve reread your 03/06/08 1:00 post and it still reads as a charge. I get your 50cent approach and, as I have said, there is nothing wrong with wanting it (as my first post was to respond to there is nothing wrong with not wanting it, not there was anything wrong with it), but what was your point?!?
“I can't get it therefore I don't want it. If the fox can’t get the grape he calls it sour. […] just odes to defeatism […] It is too difficult, hard, almost impossible, far reaching to become a famous architect therefore […] bla, bla, bla.”
What was I supposed to understand that to mean?
From where I’m sitting, it reads as a condescending psychosis that I “both desire and decry fame at the same time.”
I'm gonna live forever. I'm gonna learn how to fly. High. I feel it coming together. People will see me and cry. I'm gonna make it to heaven. Light up the sky like a flame. I'm gonna live forever. Baby remember my name.
good call, bb. i like:
fame
makes a man take things over
lets him loose, hard to swallow
puts you there where things are hollow
its not your brain, its just the flame
that burns your change to keep you insane (sane)
what you like is in the limo
what you get is no tomorrow
what you need you have to borrow
nien! its mine! is just his line
to bind your time, it drives you to, crime
could it be the best, could it be?
really be, really, babe?
could it be, my babe, could it, babe?
could it, babe? , could it, babe?
is it any wonder i reject you first?
Is it any wonder you are too cool to fool
bully for you, chilly for me
got to get a rain check on pain
whats your name?
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.