"a. if you limit the list you think represents public opinion to buildings built after 1933, the majority are in a modern style"
Of course they are . The vast majority of notable public buildings built since 1933 have been modernist buildings, so the outcome if you limit it arbitrarily to that time period is not a surprise. It says nothing about people's overall preferences. That's like saying, "what type of tree do you prefer?" And then limiting your list to trees growing in a pine forest.
Curt, that's why I'm frustrated with it. I wish I could do more masterpieces too. But it's a tough sell to clients-hey, how about your building costs twice as much because I want it to be a masterpiece.
"it was specifically stated that school should be changed to teach this vague idea of traditionalism, which so far has only been explained by suri as buildings built more than 80 years ago."
One can show over and over how you side step and rephrase things to suit your biased perspective with out the least acknowledgement that you've been caught. The Spanish have a phrase for that, it's "sin verguenza" . I and others have clearly explained the "idea of traditionalism" to use your wording, yet you refuse to listen. 'LALALALA". jla-x acknowledges what I and others have been trying to say,Do what you like and what resonates with people and fuck the ideological bullshit, but you're no fool, you know this is a plot to create a clone army of neo-classicists. Even jla-x is uncomfortable with everyone doing what they like, at least if they want to be on American Idol. When the masses like the Beatles, great! When they like Kelly Clarkson, O.M.G.! !
Curt, that's why I'm frustrated with it. I wish I could do more masterpieces too. But it's a tough sell to clients-hey, how about your building costs twice as much because I want it to be a masterpiece,
History is littered with examples of masterpieces that came about through the interaction with client, budget, site etc. Look into it. It's called studying history without ideological blinders. The importance of tabula rasa to Modernists is telling in that they tend to see compromose with a client or budget as a recipe for failure. Architecture as a collaborative process, unless that process involves the person hiring you.
gruen (History|Contact)
Nov 16, 13 8:21 pm
Curt, that's why I'm frustrated with it. I wish I could do more masterpieces too. But it's a tough sell to clients-hey, how about your building costs twice as much because I want it to be a masterpiece.
Instead, I do my best with what I'm given.
Have you checked out the price tag of a project by Gehry or Foster or Calatrava or Nouvel or Zaha or whatever Starchitect is given a black check lately?
thayer, i really think you're a moron, but i'm not sure.
i've said over and over that i respect eke's practice. i am not asking him to switch to modernism. i am not trying to indoctrinate him, even though i do disagree with some of the premises he works off and i have said that. i am not involved in any mass media conspiracy to attack you. instead of telling me that you explained your idea of traditionalism, why not try explaining it? the common thread from the OP is that "traditionalism" is a building built 80 years ago. you're idea and eke's idea and trip's idea could be different from that. if you have ever taken even a single class on architecture history, it probably should be different than that.
if you want to design whatever you think 'traditional' architecture is, then great. knock yourself out. i'm not trying to stop you, and i'm not asking you to stop.
i'm pretty sure eke already said he takes modern and 'of the time' factors into considerations. he can consider classical detailing as outlined by vitruvius in 50 bc or whatever, but he also uses modern tools like CAD drafting, engineers with degrees, steel and AISC manuals, HVAC systems, etc. he uses modern materials and methods to create his traditional architecture. so, on some levels, it's not traditional, is it? unless you want to keep moving your definition of traditional. that might explain why you say you've already defined it instead of defining it.
Do what you like and what resonates with people and fuck the ideological bullshit,
this is not what suri said. this is very different than what suri said. suri said architects should be designing the environment he wants, and his friends agree with him. this thread is about suri's opinion that architects should be doing what he wants instead of what they want. if you agree with your statement "do what you like," then you agree with me and you disagree with suri. but you seem to feel the need to defend suri?
Curkram, is correct. Design what you want and what resonates with people and fuck the ideological bs, does not mean that one should just design willy nilly based on whims of shallow likes and dislikes. I just meant that we should not limit our pallet to any style or ism. Thayer is completely confusing what I said. Architecture can only be achieved with rigor and deep understanding of materials, tectonics, art, building science, history, etc. The public is not capable of dictating the direction of architecture. That statement was meant for architects, artists and designers. As far as resonating with people, I'm not talking about the biased mainstream public, I am talking about the open minded people that don't assume that anything built after 1900 sucks. Back to the music analogy, great musicians make music they like to play and music that their fans respond to. Great musicians do not make music for mainstream teeny boppers, that's beibers job. Great musicians also do not play oldies on demand that's what wedding bands do.
"thayer, i really think you're a moron, but i'm not sure."
Adding the disclaimer 'i'n not sure' isn't much of a fig leaf to hide the fact that when you can't answer substance, you resort to childish insults. You say only suri has been able to explain traditional architecture becasue he's the only person you want to debate. I have my own thoughts about people who debate like you.
"instead of telling me that you explained your idea of traditionalism, why not try explaining it?"
I've posted it twice, (Nov 7, 13 4:43 pm page 15) the second time directly asking for your opinion after you said the following to someone else...
"what does traditional incorporate? everything designed before 1950? does it only include architecture with one 5 identifiable types of columns?...for someone with an actual education in architectural history, isn't the way you're grouping things kind of stupid?
Insulting someone you disagree with? Wow, that's so unlike you! I hope your clients don't feel the love. But I digress...you where asking to be informed about alternate views on traditional work vs. modernist, so I presented mine, to which you said...
"i think those definitions are unique to you, and therefore difficult to use in conversation with other people."
So someone's opinions are difficult to entertain becasue they are "unique' opinions?
"He (EKE) uses modern materials and methods to create his traditional architecture. so, on some levels, it's not traditional, is it? unless you want to keep moving your definition of traditional. that might explain why you say you've already defined it instead of defining it."
I'm just fascinated with how your mind works at this point. The intransigence of academia towards allowing other views or 'unique definitions' as you might say is ironic indeed becasue they are always telling you to think outside the box. Infact, isn't that the title of a reaccuring piece on this site? Think outside the box indeed.
Do what you like and what resonates with people and fuck the ideological bullshit,
...this is not what suri said. this is very different than what suri said. suri said architects should be designing the environment he wants, and his friends agree with him. this thread is about suri's opinion that architects should be doing what he wants instead of what they want. if you agree with your statement "do what you like," then you agree with me and you disagree with suri. but you seem to feel the need to defend suri?
Your right, this isn't what suri said. But as is common in many civil conversations with other people, unique definitions will be proffered from time to time. The main reason I defend suri is because he's been attacked for stating something that is verifiable through testing. That (most) people prefer traditional architecture. Period. I've stated over and over again that this doesn't discount the modernist point of view or anyother, something which you continue to deny or simply not acknowledge. But it does bring to question the how and why this empirical evidence isn't taken into account by institiutions of higher learning. The default position seems to be insult the public, denigrate the masses, decry the client, all of whom seem to be at fault for not buying into one's world view. At some point, aren't you curious to explore the issue beyone just hurling insults?
eke
The classical language of architecture represents an attempt to accumulate wisdom about some of these natural geometries. Is it perfect in all of its nuances? No, of course not. Is it the only way that these resonances can be achieved? No, of course not. But it has proven to be a very efficient engine for creating beautiful things.
It is precisely this view that many architects have, characterized by a belief that the public is ignorant, that I believe to be so sadly misguided, and has led to what I believe is a profound estrangement between the architecture profession and the public-at-large. This thread is exactly that phenomenon, in microcosm.
It really is a hoot hearing that the public who prefers the Plaza Hotel in New York or the Jefferson Memorial in DC is "ignorant". All the while the architects wax estatically over Gehry's MIT defication.
Sorry, did I miss something? After coffee and the paper I went out to my traditional garden turning compost just the way they did 100 years ago. I'm a sucker for nostalgia.
i went back to your post thayer, so i could see if you actually had a definition for 'traditional,' or if you're still just trolling and flame baiting.
so you think 'traditional' is just an aesthetic.
you said and open plan doesn't belong to modernism, so i'm guessing that means an open plan can belong to either modern or traditional design.
it is observed with senses. of course, most things are observed with senses.
you don't need to read something to understand it, which i assume would exclude the eisenhower memorial that had athena on it, since you would have to read something to know athena was the goddess of wisdom. the sculptured friezes in classical architecture depicting various tales or stained glass windows in churches with saints and such would also be a modern aesthetic because you would need to read the story to know what they're depicting.
and then you said traditional architecture incorporates firmness, commodity, and delight, whereas modern architecture has no delight. that's either an insult to modern architecture, or it's an overly-broad definition that allows you to incorporate all architecture you like into 'traditional' and all architecture you don't like into 'modern.' a shitty housing tenement from ancient greece is 'modern,' while any bauhaus design you might happen to think includes 'delight' is 'traditional.'
now, let's discuss how this fits into the topic, because i assume this was not an off-topic rant. suri wants his environment to be 'traditional,' and he came here to tell us we should be designing that way. suri thinks that means he should be surrounded by buildings that are 80 years old. what suri does not want is the seattle public library. people like the seattle public library. there have been surveys to verify that, which your previous post said is an important part of deciding what the public likes. it's on the list of 'favorite buildings.' it either has, or does not have, an open plan. which i think is a criteria of yours for traditional design. it is observed with the senses. you can see it, and seeing is one of the sense. i suppose you could lick the building to see how it tastes, since that's a sense, but i wouldn't advise that. you don't need to read rem's manifesto to understand it any more than you need to read vitruvius to understand classical architecture. you can just go in and check out a book.
the way you defined 'traditional' would suggest that suri's environment could include the seattle public library, while his doesn't. are you defending suri's request that we all build his environment by his definition of traditional, or yours? that is really where your definition of 'traditional' becomes somewhat pointless to the discussion. when you make the statement that suri is right, the public wants traditional architecture, then offer a very different definition of what traditional is, it confuses what you're defending. does the public want 80 year old buildings, or does the public want 'traditional' defined such that it could include any building thayer thinks includes 'delight'?
i'll say again that in my life, people are not telling me to design in a revival style of any sort. you're reading what you want to into those surveys and cherry picking sources like a baptist church's newsletters to support your preconceived notion that other people should agree with you. when fox news has a call-in survey, it is populations sample of right wing nut jobs that watch fox news. it is not an accurate view of what the public wants. what they're doing is creating a survey that tells nut jobs they're opinion is supported by popular opinion, when their opinions are only supported by other right wing nut jobs. not saying your a right wing nut job, but i am saying some surveys are biased, and you're trying to find the biased ones, or phrase real surveys in a light that supports a false claim.
as the wikipedia list shows, people do not want buildings designed after 1930 to be designed in a revival style. they like buildings from the 19th century to be buildings from the 19th century, and they want buildings designed today to be designed the way we design today. your ignoring your own surveys. sometimes people like old buildings. i like old buildings. that doesn't mean people want new buildings to be old buildings, and it doesn't mean people want new buildings to include decorations that imitate old buildings.
i acknowledge that you said you don't discount modern design. this is about suri, because that's what this thread is about. this thread was not started by thayer saying 'i want you all to design buildings based on my notion of what 'traditional' is.' this thread was started by suri saying that. if you're trying to hijack the thread, so it's about what you want instead of what suri wants, please be more clear on that.
Have you checked out the price tag of a project by Gehry or Foster or Calatrava or Nouvel or Zaha or whatever Starchitect is given a black check lately?
You know, I am curious to ask everyone on this thread: does anyone listen to classical music?
I grew up in a classical music family. I myself, listen to electronic music (among many other genres), but I do appreciate opera as a genre. As I started to think about the relationship between music and architecture, I am at a predicament as to whether you can make the same argument about music as the OP does about traditional architecture. There is something to be said about the fact that as you dumb down music, or make it simpler and less elaborate, it doesn't sound as sophisticated, whereas simple architecture can be very complex. I am not sure if I am articulating myself correctly or fully, but I am hoping that someone can comment on this...
Less elaborate... music these days consists of a few chords repeated over and over... if not its not as elaborate as classical music in terms of harmony or polyphony. I guess, its not as layered...
I listen to all types of music, including classical. Today's music has the influences of rhythm. Just an observation, not putting meaning to this good or bad, but you can't tap your foot to classical music.
BulgarBlogger, you mean simplistic then not simple. there is also a modern minimalist school of music that attains its own complexity, so you need not resort to two-chord or three chord pop songs to find a counter-part to architectural 'simplicity'. opposing simplicity in architecture to that in music doesn't make sense.
also, there are different complexities and simplicities.
Bach's music, fugal/canonic, is extremely complex and really needs a disciplined ear. However, it is a harmonically developmental music. Conceptually, the foundation of the music is simple although the procedural and the outcome are highly elaborate, complex and rich.
Mozart's melodies on the other hand are identifiable in being graceful, so beautifully easy to listen to. Yet, conceptually, he relies on the classical dialectic mode of introducing melodies extraneously against each other and resolving them. From that viewpoint, its a complex music as the bridges between parts are far less overt than in baroque music.
I would argue that simplicity is not itself a sufficiently comprehensible term. Similarly ith complexity. There is complexity that builds on the lack of simplicity and there is complexity that builds on the sequencing and overlaying of simplicities.
Thinking....maybe I should submit this for my Thesis Project. I need to get releases from everyone who has contributed. Will you please, Identify yourself and provide permission to use your contribution to this Topic so I don't get sued in a court of law at a later time.
i went back to your post thayer, so i could see if you actually had a definition for 'traditional,' or if you're still just trolling and flame baiting.
so you think 'traditional' is just an aesthetic.
So it turns out that you where wrong, I did have a defiinition that you tried to dismiss with one of the most idiotic rationals I've ever heard. Your credibility is shattered yet you want to pass judgement on wether I am a troll? Sin verguenca, mal educado. Here's some of what I said...
The traditional aesthetic is something that's understood primarily through the senses...The modernist aesthetic is cereblal in that it usually requires some understanding of the architect's intentions to fully appreciate...It's the delight part that seems to elude a lot of modernist work I see.
Like the word modern, you also seem to have a hard time with the meanings of primarily, usually, and seems. My guess is you'd have difficulty with the wordnuance. Maybe a rudamentary class in english is in order. Then again, we might get bogged down with simple definitions because " those definitions are unique to (me), and therefore difficult to use in conversation with other people." Yet being caught lying for the umteenth time, you have no problem debating my definition of traditional vs. modern, even if you've twisted them into a caricature. I hate to tell you this but you really don't have what it takes.
i acknowledge that you said you don't discount modern design. this is about suri, because that's what this thread is about. this thread was not started by thayer saying 'i want you all to design buildings based on my notion of what 'traditional' is.' this thread was started by suri saying that. if you're trying to hijack the thread, so it's about what you want instead of what suri wants, please be more clear on that.
Donna was right about you in one way curtkram, your stamina IS amazing.
There is something to be said about the fact that as you dumb down music, or make it simpler and less elaborate, it doesn't sound as sophisticated, whereas simple architecture can be very complex. I am not sure if I am articulating myself correctly or fully, but I am hoping that someone can comment on this...
I understand what you are saying and there are some similarities with architecture, but as with both, there are great exceptions to the rules, for those who can appreciate muance. The layered complexities and mathematical permutations of certain rythems in classical music lead one to rapture at times. The same can be said of a well executed building plan, facade, and even public space. While the simplicity of some music can be banal while a typical glass box can lead one to dispare for visual interest. Yet there are certain comtemplative spaces who's sparse material pallet and incredibly fine tuned proportions brings it's own ectacy when the suddenly one is brought into sync with the simpicity of life and it's quiet magic. Conversly, one can hear Lou Reed's intro to Take a walk on the wild side, or the intro to Pachabell's Cannon, and know one is in for a very beautiful ride, It's all over the map as are our emotions, something that I think still bedevils many architects who simply don't trust emotions. Like their hang ups with traditional architecture, many simply don't trust how those old and outdated styles make one feel. Nostalgia, beauty, style, all verboten concepts to the brave new world architects.
i'm still dismissing your definition. i tried to explain why.
i know that i don't have any credibility to you, since i'm not recognizing how smart and articulate you are, but then your statements don't have any credibility to me since they're just vague opinions with pretty much nothing intelligent to support them. my credibility does not actually get shattered when you throw a tantrum.
so, you have qualifiers to say that modernism is sometimes cerebral, and sometimes not. then your rule is 'modern architecture is cerebral and requires the user to understand the intentions of the architect to fully appreciate, unless thayer wants to deviate from this rule." when a scientist creates a category, for example mammals produce milk for their young, then all members of that group follow that rule. they don't say 'mammals produce milk, unless thayer wants to consider something else a mammal."
i am not debating your definition of modern v. traditional. that definition is yours and yours alone. when it comes to what thayer's definition of traditional is, you're always right. i am asking you to clarify your definition, since it seems to be very vague and not useful in the context of this thread, which is why i am still dismissing it.
as shown above, you said your definition of modern, which includes all architecture that is not traditional as far as i can tell, is not definitive. so far, your definition can be summed up as 'any building thayer wants to be traditional is traditional, and any building thayer wants to be modern is modern.' feel free to point out something in your definition that does not support that.
in the context of this thread, suri said he wants architects to design his environment in a traditional manner, which to him means buildings that were built at least 80 years ago. you support this claim, because a survey from a baptist church and a wikipedia page are conclusive in saying this is what the public wants.
so you've claimed most of the public prefer buildings that are traditional, due to the fact a survey says people like buildings that are more than 80 years old. then you've defined 'traditional' as any building thayer likes. so are you saying the public wants architects to design buildings thayer likes? i'm just trying to point out how ridiculous that is.
what are we supposed to be building? are new buildings we built supposed to have already been standing for 80 years at the groundbreaking? are we supposed to get rid of power tools, so we can build new buildings the same way they were built 80 years ago? are we supposed to check with thayer to see if he thinks our design is worthy of the public? are we only supposed to design in historic revival styles? if so, which styles? can we dump a bunch of different revival styles into a single building, like a lot of the mcmansions we all tend to hate?
curtram, I really don't give a shit what your dismissing at this point. Your an idiot who dosen't know how to debate or even accept that sometimes one just agrees to disagree. Your last paragraph expresses your exasperation to a tee. Seven questions in a row. That's usually a good sign you've gone off the rails. Good luck.
I think your assumption that you know why I find that gleeful is very telling, Thayer, because I can virtually guarantee that you're incorrect. We humans are so silly when we get fired up, that's why it makes me laugh. Including laughing at myself when I do it - I could tell you a long story about my wonderful mother to illustrate how I learned a lesson on humility around this very mistake but I won't. Just trust me - you misinterpreted my glee.
I just dug out an old, ahem, I mean, I just dug out a traditional fax machine. No more of this email and ftp uploading nonsense, too modern. These shop drawings and quote reviews will be done the right way.
tint, we're talking about how the public wants architects to design traditional buildings instead of modern buildings, which brings up a couple questions.
1. what is this traditional architecture that the public wants us to design?
2. what makes us think that's what the public wants?
of course, the thread is more fun when it goes off topic.
i know a guy who just opened his own law firm (working form home, just passed the bar, so kind of green so to speak), and as part of that he got a land line so he could operate a fax machine....
I would like to chime in again and offer another thought...
Is it possible that classical architectural examples have created a sense place, and not just sense of space and that so much contemporary architecture is concerned about creating the best aesthetic solution to a functional problem, rather than solving a long-term issue of positively contributing to the urban design?
Donna, It sounds like I could use that story about how you learned a lesson in humility, but if it's too long, I understand. I went out on a limb, much like thinking those surveys about what the public prefers where valid. Who knows what they where really asked? But I do trust you, you must believe that.
Like your reaction to Kanye West speaking to Harvard's Graduate School of Design.
That's actually lovely. I'm not a fan but his words are wonderful.
No one should presume to know what you meant becasue afterall, he has so many wonderful words. And speaking of humility...you should hear his words when he gets fired up. He can be sooo silly!
One of my favorite Kanye quotes at the GSD when speaking to students about the stage he would perform latter on at that night's show.
"It's an expression of emotion, so give me a pass on that"
Isn't that what this whole post is about? The public's preference for traditional archtiecture by and large, or vor that matter the ones that do like modernist buildings. Once the water is kept out and the kitchen's enlarged and the rotten rafters sistered. Isn't it just an expression of emotion? So what's with all the rules and proclemations that say one's expression is more justified than the next one? We certainly won't agree on taste, but why do we insist on invalidating eachother's persp[ectives. I guess it is really about humility. Thanks Donna.
"of the top 50, 22 were build before 1900. maybe 80 years isn't the right line to draw. maybe you should draw that line at the turn of the century. the split should be at 1904 instead of 1933, where half the people like old stuff and half the people like new stuff.
the buildings listed in the top 50 cover a period of architecture of 232 years. the last 80 years only cover 34% of that. the 14 buildings built in the last 80 years are underrepresented at 28%. is that really significant enough to say schools should stop teaching studios the way they are and start doing what you tell them to do?
of the 14 favorite buildings built in the last 80 years, 5 are built in a revival style (beaux-arts, italianate, or neoclassical) and 9 are built in a more modern tradition (including art deco and what wikipedia calls structural expressionism). that's only 36% of people who think buildings built in the last 80 years should mimic a style from previous generations."
wow curt, your complete misunderstanding of statistical significance is astounding. Did that b.s. actually sound legitimate to you as you were typing it? Hilarious.
There is no there there,
Actually this building might be salvagable without tearing it down. Al least, as it stands, you could knock on the front door without danger of having a load of snow dumped on you or killed by a falling chunk of ice. Or your car being melted by the sun's focused rays.
"Less elaborate... music these days consists of a few chords repeated over and over... if not its not as elaborate as classical music in terms of harmony or polyphony. I guess, its not as layered..." well, popular music has always been simple, i.e. polka.
Unlike architecture, the traditions of music are still alive and valued and composers still create classical music that would impress a listener of 100 years ago.
Nov 18, 13 12:30 pm ·
·
Pop music may be simple but it's changed from being of simple people to being an incessant infomercial of elitist symbolism...one eye, skulls, butterflys, etc.
Clearly today's simpletons are dumber & less independently minded that those of the past. Probably because of all the fluoride in the water.
OMG. There is *no* similarity whatsoever between that South Philly monstrosity (I know it's not South Philly because the density is wrong but the aesthetic is right) and anything by Gehry. None.
But I'm not going to explain why, nor respond to your comments re: Kanye, Thayer, because I don't feel like it.
After WWII it was a brave new world for builders, and there was a great need for additional housing, and with the break of the Great Depression and then WWII, and the need for mass production of housing (think Levittown and the suburbanization of America) the old ways were left behind, including the old traditions of design.
But the clients, even in Levittown and many subsequent developments, still wanted something that spoke of comfort and tradition, thus the desire still for an iconic house with pitched roof and traditional details, but the knowledge of how to design for this desire on the part of the client had been lost.
So, I would say that it was not the client's fault for TINT's example, but the designer's, whether that designer was an uneducated builder, or an architect who was unsure how to produce what the client wanted beyond throwing traditional elements together and hoping it would work. And therefore if it was an architect who designed this house I would trace further blame to the schools that taught them, not preparing them for such a request from a client.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
"a. if you limit the list you think represents public opinion to buildings built after 1933, the majority are in a modern style"
Of course they are . The vast majority of notable public buildings built since 1933 have been modernist buildings, so the outcome if you limit it arbitrarily to that time period is not a surprise. It says nothing about people's overall preferences. That's like saying, "what type of tree do you prefer?" And then limiting your list to trees growing in a pine forest.
Instead, I do my best with what I'm given.
Curtkram,
"it was specifically stated that school should be changed to teach this vague idea of traditionalism, which so far has only been explained by suri as buildings built more than 80 years ago."
One can show over and over how you side step and rephrase things to suit your biased perspective with out the least acknowledgement that you've been caught. The Spanish have a phrase for that, it's "sin verguenza" . I and others have clearly explained the "idea of traditionalism" to use your wording, yet you refuse to listen. 'LALALALA". jla-x acknowledges what I and others have been trying to say, Do what you like and what resonates with people and fuck the ideological bullshit, but you're no fool, you know this is a plot to create a clone army of neo-classicists. Even jla-x is uncomfortable with everyone doing what they like, at least if they want to be on American Idol. When the masses like the Beatles, great! When they like Kelly Clarkson, O.M.G.! !
Curt, that's why I'm frustrated with it. I wish I could do more masterpieces too. But it's a tough sell to clients-hey, how about your building costs twice as much because I want it to be a masterpiece,
History is littered with examples of masterpieces that came about through the interaction with client, budget, site etc. Look into it. It's called studying history without ideological blinders. The importance of tabula rasa to Modernists is telling in that they tend to see compromose with a client or budget as a recipe for failure. Architecture as a collaborative process, unless that process involves the person hiring you.
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey
Well, it's been said before, the world is a stage
A different performance with every age
So open up the history book to any old page
Bring on the lions and open the cage
Give the people what they want
You give the people what they want
The more they get, the more they need
And every time they get harder and harder to please
Well the Roman promoters really did things right
They needed a show that would clearly excite.
The attendance was sparse so they put on a fight
And threw the Christians to the lions, sold out every night
Give the people what they want
Give the people what they want
Blow out your brains and do it right
Make sure it's prime time and on a Saturday night
Give 'em lots of sex, perversion and rape
Give 'em lots of violence and plenty to hate
Give the people what they want
Give the people what they want
When Oswald shot Kennedy, he was insane
But still we watch the re-runs again and again
We all sit glued while the killer takes aim
Hey Mom, there goes a piece of the President's brain
Give the people what they want
You gotta give the people what they want
Blow out your brains and do it right
Make sure it's prime time and on a Saturday night
Gotta give the people what they want
Give the people what they want
Give the people what they want
What they want
What they want
What do you want?
gruen (History|Contact)
Nov 16, 13 8:21 pm
Curt, that's why I'm frustrated with it. I wish I could do more masterpieces too. But it's a tough sell to clients-hey, how about your building costs twice as much because I want it to be a masterpiece.
Instead, I do my best with what I'm given.
Have you checked out the price tag of a project by Gehry or Foster or Calatrava or Nouvel or Zaha or whatever Starchitect is given a black check lately?
thayer, i really think you're a moron, but i'm not sure.
i've said over and over that i respect eke's practice. i am not asking him to switch to modernism. i am not trying to indoctrinate him, even though i do disagree with some of the premises he works off and i have said that. i am not involved in any mass media conspiracy to attack you. instead of telling me that you explained your idea of traditionalism, why not try explaining it? the common thread from the OP is that "traditionalism" is a building built 80 years ago. you're idea and eke's idea and trip's idea could be different from that. if you have ever taken even a single class on architecture history, it probably should be different than that.
if you want to design whatever you think 'traditional' architecture is, then great. knock yourself out. i'm not trying to stop you, and i'm not asking you to stop.
i'm pretty sure eke already said he takes modern and 'of the time' factors into considerations. he can consider classical detailing as outlined by vitruvius in 50 bc or whatever, but he also uses modern tools like CAD drafting, engineers with degrees, steel and AISC manuals, HVAC systems, etc. he uses modern materials and methods to create his traditional architecture. so, on some levels, it's not traditional, is it? unless you want to keep moving your definition of traditional. that might explain why you say you've already defined it instead of defining it.
Do what you like and what resonates with people and fuck the ideological bullshit,
this is not what suri said. this is very different than what suri said. suri said architects should be designing the environment he wants, and his friends agree with him. this thread is about suri's opinion that architects should be doing what he wants instead of what they want. if you agree with your statement "do what you like," then you agree with me and you disagree with suri. but you seem to feel the need to defend suri?
Curkram, is correct. Design what you want and what resonates with people and fuck the ideological bs, does not mean that one should just design willy nilly based on whims of shallow likes and dislikes. I just meant that we should not limit our pallet to any style or ism. Thayer is completely confusing what I said. Architecture can only be achieved with rigor and deep understanding of materials, tectonics, art, building science, history, etc. The public is not capable of dictating the direction of architecture. That statement was meant for architects, artists and designers. As far as resonating with people, I'm not talking about the biased mainstream public, I am talking about the open minded people that don't assume that anything built after 1900 sucks. Back to the music analogy, great musicians make music they like to play and music that their fans respond to. Great musicians do not make music for mainstream teeny boppers, that's beibers job. Great musicians also do not play oldies on demand that's what wedding bands do.
money don't grow in trees... every corner you make in a design costs a few thousand dollars more.
"thayer, i really think you're a moron, but i'm not sure."
Adding the disclaimer 'i'n not sure' isn't much of a fig leaf to hide the fact that when you can't answer substance, you resort to childish insults. You say only suri has been able to explain traditional architecture becasue he's the only person you want to debate. I have my own thoughts about people who debate like you.
"instead of telling me that you explained your idea of traditionalism, why not try explaining it?"
I've posted it twice, (Nov 7, 13 4:43 pm page 15) the second time directly asking for your opinion after you said the following to someone else...
"what does traditional incorporate? everything designed before 1950? does it only include architecture with one 5 identifiable types of columns?...for someone with an actual education in architectural history, isn't the way you're grouping things kind of stupid?
Insulting someone you disagree with? Wow, that's so unlike you! I hope your clients don't feel the love. But I digress...you where asking to be informed about alternate views on traditional work vs. modernist, so I presented mine, to which you said...
"i think those definitions are unique to you, and therefore difficult to use in conversation with other people."
So someone's opinions are difficult to entertain becasue they are "unique' opinions?
"He (EKE) uses modern materials and methods to create his traditional architecture. so, on some levels, it's not traditional, is it? unless you want to keep moving your definition of traditional. that might explain why you say you've already defined it instead of defining it."
I'm just fascinated with how your mind works at this point. The intransigence of academia towards allowing other views or 'unique definitions' as you might say is ironic indeed becasue they are always telling you to think outside the box. Infact, isn't that the title of a reaccuring piece on this site? Think outside the box indeed.
Do what you like and what resonates with people and fuck the ideological bullshit,
...this is not what suri said. this is very different than what suri said. suri said architects should be designing the environment he wants, and his friends agree with him. this thread is about suri's opinion that architects should be doing what he wants instead of what they want. if you agree with your statement "do what you like," then you agree with me and you disagree with suri. but you seem to feel the need to defend suri?
Your right, this isn't what suri said. But as is common in many civil conversations with other people, unique definitions will be proffered from time to time. The main reason I defend suri is because he's been attacked for stating something that is verifiable through testing. That (most) people prefer traditional architecture. Period. I've stated over and over again that this doesn't discount the modernist point of view or anyother, something which you continue to deny or simply not acknowledge. But it does bring to question the how and why this empirical evidence isn't taken into account by institiutions of higher learning. The default position seems to be insult the public, denigrate the masses, decry the client, all of whom seem to be at fault for not buying into one's world view. At some point, aren't you curious to explore the issue beyone just hurling insults?
eke
The classical language of architecture represents an attempt to accumulate wisdom about some of these natural geometries. Is it perfect in all of its nuances? No, of course not. Is it the only way that these resonances can be achieved? No, of course not. But it has proven to be a very efficient engine for creating beautiful things.
It is precisely this view that many architects have, characterized by a belief that the public is ignorant, that I believe to be so sadly misguided, and has led to what I believe is a profound estrangement between the architecture profession and the public-at-large. This thread is exactly that phenomenon, in microcosm.
Shall we simply agree to disagree?
It really is a hoot hearing that the public who prefers the Plaza Hotel in New York or the Jefferson Memorial in DC is "ignorant". All the while the architects wax estatically over Gehry's MIT defication.
Sorry, did I miss something? After coffee and the paper I went out to my traditional garden turning compost just the way they did 100 years ago. I'm a sucker for nostalgia.
i went back to your post thayer, so i could see if you actually had a definition for 'traditional,' or if you're still just trolling and flame baiting.
so you think 'traditional' is just an aesthetic.
you said and open plan doesn't belong to modernism, so i'm guessing that means an open plan can belong to either modern or traditional design.
it is observed with senses. of course, most things are observed with senses.
you don't need to read something to understand it, which i assume would exclude the eisenhower memorial that had athena on it, since you would have to read something to know athena was the goddess of wisdom. the sculptured friezes in classical architecture depicting various tales or stained glass windows in churches with saints and such would also be a modern aesthetic because you would need to read the story to know what they're depicting.
and then you said traditional architecture incorporates firmness, commodity, and delight, whereas modern architecture has no delight. that's either an insult to modern architecture, or it's an overly-broad definition that allows you to incorporate all architecture you like into 'traditional' and all architecture you don't like into 'modern.' a shitty housing tenement from ancient greece is 'modern,' while any bauhaus design you might happen to think includes 'delight' is 'traditional.'
now, let's discuss how this fits into the topic, because i assume this was not an off-topic rant. suri wants his environment to be 'traditional,' and he came here to tell us we should be designing that way. suri thinks that means he should be surrounded by buildings that are 80 years old. what suri does not want is the seattle public library. people like the seattle public library. there have been surveys to verify that, which your previous post said is an important part of deciding what the public likes. it's on the list of 'favorite buildings.' it either has, or does not have, an open plan. which i think is a criteria of yours for traditional design. it is observed with the senses. you can see it, and seeing is one of the sense. i suppose you could lick the building to see how it tastes, since that's a sense, but i wouldn't advise that. you don't need to read rem's manifesto to understand it any more than you need to read vitruvius to understand classical architecture. you can just go in and check out a book.
the way you defined 'traditional' would suggest that suri's environment could include the seattle public library, while his doesn't. are you defending suri's request that we all build his environment by his definition of traditional, or yours? that is really where your definition of 'traditional' becomes somewhat pointless to the discussion. when you make the statement that suri is right, the public wants traditional architecture, then offer a very different definition of what traditional is, it confuses what you're defending. does the public want 80 year old buildings, or does the public want 'traditional' defined such that it could include any building thayer thinks includes 'delight'?
i'll say again that in my life, people are not telling me to design in a revival style of any sort. you're reading what you want to into those surveys and cherry picking sources like a baptist church's newsletters to support your preconceived notion that other people should agree with you. when fox news has a call-in survey, it is populations sample of right wing nut jobs that watch fox news. it is not an accurate view of what the public wants. what they're doing is creating a survey that tells nut jobs they're opinion is supported by popular opinion, when their opinions are only supported by other right wing nut jobs. not saying your a right wing nut job, but i am saying some surveys are biased, and you're trying to find the biased ones, or phrase real surveys in a light that supports a false claim.
as the wikipedia list shows, people do not want buildings designed after 1930 to be designed in a revival style. they like buildings from the 19th century to be buildings from the 19th century, and they want buildings designed today to be designed the way we design today. your ignoring your own surveys. sometimes people like old buildings. i like old buildings. that doesn't mean people want new buildings to be old buildings, and it doesn't mean people want new buildings to include decorations that imitate old buildings.
i acknowledge that you said you don't discount modern design. this is about suri, because that's what this thread is about. this thread was not started by thayer saying 'i want you all to design buildings based on my notion of what 'traditional' is.' this thread was started by suri saying that. if you're trying to hijack the thread, so it's about what you want instead of what suri wants, please be more clear on that.
Yeah, but I don't think that's what the OP is com
What I meant to say is that I don't think that's what the OP is complaining about, really. Our landscape isn't littered w zaha. But rather EIFS crap.
Actually the OP does not like Zaha either.
You know, I am curious to ask everyone on this thread: does anyone listen to classical music?
I grew up in a classical music family. I myself, listen to electronic music (among many other genres), but I do appreciate opera as a genre. As I started to think about the relationship between music and architecture, I am at a predicament as to whether you can make the same argument about music as the OP does about traditional architecture. There is something to be said about the fact that as you dumb down music, or make it simpler and less elaborate, it doesn't sound as sophisticated, whereas simple architecture can be very complex. I am not sure if I am articulating myself correctly or fully, but I am hoping that someone can comment on this...
BulgarBlogger, define simpler.
BulgarBlogger, define simple(r).
Less elaborate... music these days consists of a few chords repeated over and over... if not its not as elaborate as classical music in terms of harmony or polyphony. I guess, its not as layered...
I listen to all types of music, including classical. Today's music has the influences of rhythm. Just an observation, not putting meaning to this good or bad, but you can't tap your foot to classical music.
BulgarBlogger, you mean simplistic then not simple. there is also a modern minimalist school of music that attains its own complexity, so you need not resort to two-chord or three chord pop songs to find a counter-part to architectural 'simplicity'. opposing simplicity in architecture to that in music doesn't make sense.
DISCIPLINE
INDISCIPLINE
also, there are different complexities and simplicities.
Bach's music, fugal/canonic, is extremely complex and really needs a disciplined ear. However, it is a harmonically developmental music. Conceptually, the foundation of the music is simple although the procedural and the outcome are highly elaborate, complex and rich.
Mozart's melodies on the other hand are identifiable in being graceful, so beautifully easy to listen to. Yet, conceptually, he relies on the classical dialectic mode of introducing melodies extraneously against each other and resolving them. From that viewpoint, its a complex music as the bridges between parts are far less overt than in baroque music.
I would argue that simplicity is not itself a sufficiently comprehensible term. Similarly ith complexity. There is complexity that builds on the lack of simplicity and there is complexity that builds on the sequencing and overlaying of simplicities.
Thinking....maybe I should submit this for my Thesis Project. I need to get releases from everyone who has contributed. Will you please, Identify yourself and provide permission to use your contribution to this Topic so I don't get sued in a court of law at a later time.
" The Snooker Doodle Dandy"
complexity and simplicity and the mundane, and of course a flock of 600 frozen turkeys
i went back to your post thayer, so i could see if you actually had a definition for 'traditional,' or if you're still just trolling and flame baiting.
so you think 'traditional' is just an aesthetic.
So it turns out that you where wrong, I did have a defiinition that you tried to dismiss with one of the most idiotic rationals I've ever heard. Your credibility is shattered yet you want to pass judgement on wether I am a troll? Sin verguenca, mal educado. Here's some of what I said...
The traditional aesthetic is something that's understood primarily through the senses...The modernist aesthetic is cereblal in that it usually requires some understanding of the architect's intentions to fully appreciate...It's the delight part that seems to elude a lot of modernist work I see.
Like the word modern, you also seem to have a hard time with the meanings of primarily, usually, and seems. My guess is you'd have difficulty with the word nuance. Maybe a rudamentary class in english is in order. Then again, we might get bogged down with simple definitions because " those definitions are unique to (me), and therefore difficult to use in conversation with other people." Yet being caught lying for the umteenth time, you have no problem debating my definition of traditional vs. modern, even if you've twisted them into a caricature. I hate to tell you this but you really don't have what it takes.
i acknowledge that you said you don't discount modern design. this is about suri, because that's what this thread is about. this thread was not started by thayer saying 'i want you all to design buildings based on my notion of what 'traditional' is.' this thread was started by suri saying that. if you're trying to hijack the thread, so it's about what you want instead of what suri wants, please be more clear on that.
Donna was right about you in one way curtkram, your stamina IS amazing.
There is something to be said about the fact that as you dumb down music, or make it simpler and less elaborate, it doesn't sound as sophisticated, whereas simple architecture can be very complex. I am not sure if I am articulating myself correctly or fully, but I am hoping that someone can comment on this...
I understand what you are saying and there are some similarities with architecture, but as with both, there are great exceptions to the rules, for those who can appreciate muance. The layered complexities and mathematical permutations of certain rythems in classical music lead one to rapture at times. The same can be said of a well executed building plan, facade, and even public space. While the simplicity of some music can be banal while a typical glass box can lead one to dispare for visual interest. Yet there are certain comtemplative spaces who's sparse material pallet and incredibly fine tuned proportions brings it's own ectacy when the suddenly one is brought into sync with the simpicity of life and it's quiet magic. Conversly, one can hear Lou Reed's intro to Take a walk on the wild side, or the intro to Pachabell's Cannon, and know one is in for a very beautiful ride, It's all over the map as are our emotions, something that I think still bedevils many architects who simply don't trust emotions. Like their hang ups with traditional architecture, many simply don't trust how those old and outdated styles make one feel. Nostalgia, beauty, style, all verboten concepts to the brave new world architects.
thayer,
i'm still dismissing your definition. i tried to explain why.
i know that i don't have any credibility to you, since i'm not recognizing how smart and articulate you are, but then your statements don't have any credibility to me since they're just vague opinions with pretty much nothing intelligent to support them. my credibility does not actually get shattered when you throw a tantrum.
so, you have qualifiers to say that modernism is sometimes cerebral, and sometimes not. then your rule is 'modern architecture is cerebral and requires the user to understand the intentions of the architect to fully appreciate, unless thayer wants to deviate from this rule." when a scientist creates a category, for example mammals produce milk for their young, then all members of that group follow that rule. they don't say 'mammals produce milk, unless thayer wants to consider something else a mammal."
i am not debating your definition of modern v. traditional. that definition is yours and yours alone. when it comes to what thayer's definition of traditional is, you're always right. i am asking you to clarify your definition, since it seems to be very vague and not useful in the context of this thread, which is why i am still dismissing it.
as shown above, you said your definition of modern, which includes all architecture that is not traditional as far as i can tell, is not definitive. so far, your definition can be summed up as 'any building thayer wants to be traditional is traditional, and any building thayer wants to be modern is modern.' feel free to point out something in your definition that does not support that.
in the context of this thread, suri said he wants architects to design his environment in a traditional manner, which to him means buildings that were built at least 80 years ago. you support this claim, because a survey from a baptist church and a wikipedia page are conclusive in saying this is what the public wants.
so you've claimed most of the public prefer buildings that are traditional, due to the fact a survey says people like buildings that are more than 80 years old. then you've defined 'traditional' as any building thayer likes. so are you saying the public wants architects to design buildings thayer likes? i'm just trying to point out how ridiculous that is.
what are we supposed to be building? are new buildings we built supposed to have already been standing for 80 years at the groundbreaking? are we supposed to get rid of power tools, so we can build new buildings the same way they were built 80 years ago? are we supposed to check with thayer to see if he thinks our design is worthy of the public? are we only supposed to design in historic revival styles? if so, which styles? can we dump a bunch of different revival styles into a single building, like a lot of the mcmansions we all tend to hate?
curtram, I really don't give a shit what your dismissing at this point. Your an idiot who dosen't know how to debate or even accept that sometimes one just agrees to disagree. Your last paragraph expresses your exasperation to a tee. Seven questions in a row. That's usually a good sign you've gone off the rails. Good luck.
pictures, please? What are you guys talking about?
Your an idiot...
I love when this happens. It fills me with glee.
I love when this happens. It fills me with glee.
that's very telling.
I think your assumption that you know why I find that gleeful is very telling, Thayer, because I can virtually guarantee that you're incorrect. We humans are so silly when we get fired up, that's why it makes me laugh. Including laughing at myself when I do it - I could tell you a long story about my wonderful mother to illustrate how I learned a lesson on humility around this very mistake but I won't. Just trust me - you misinterpreted my glee.
I just dug out an old, ahem, I mean, I just dug out a traditional fax machine. No more of this email and ftp uploading nonsense, too modern. These shop drawings and quote reviews will be done the right way.
tint, we're talking about how the public wants architects to design traditional buildings instead of modern buildings, which brings up a couple questions.
1. what is this traditional architecture that the public wants us to design?
2. what makes us think that's what the public wants?
of course, the thread is more fun when it goes off topic.
i know a guy who just opened his own law firm (working form home, just passed the bar, so kind of green so to speak), and as part of that he got a land line so he could operate a fax machine....
I would like to chime in again and offer another thought...
Is it possible that classical architectural examples have created a sense place, and not just sense of space and that so much contemporary architecture is concerned about creating the best aesthetic solution to a functional problem, rather than solving a long-term issue of positively contributing to the urban design?
Donna, It sounds like I could use that story about how you learned a lesson in humility, but if it's too long, I understand. I went out on a limb, much like thinking those surveys about what the public prefers where valid. Who knows what they where really asked? But I do trust you, you must believe that.
Like your reaction to Kanye West speaking to Harvard's Graduate School of Design.
That's actually lovely. I'm not a fan but his words are wonderful.
No one should presume to know what you meant becasue afterall, he has so many wonderful words. And speaking of humility...you should hear his words when he gets fired up. He can be sooo silly!
I just want to know who's fault this:
Kanye should be teaching at the GSD. He clearly understands elite symbolism better than most architects these days (images via vigilantcitizens.com's analyis).
One of my favorite Kanye quotes at the GSD when speaking to students about the stage he would perform latter on at that night's show.
"It's an expression of emotion, so give me a pass on that"
Isn't that what this whole post is about? The public's preference for traditional archtiecture by and large, or vor that matter the ones that do like modernist buildings. Once the water is kept out and the kitchen's enlarged and the rotten rafters sistered. Isn't it just an expression of emotion? So what's with all the rules and proclemations that say one's expression is more justified than the next one? We certainly won't agree on taste, but why do we insist on invalidating eachother's persp[ectives. I guess it is really about humility. Thanks Donna.
"of the top 50, 22 were build before 1900. maybe 80 years isn't the right line to draw. maybe you should draw that line at the turn of the century. the split should be at 1904 instead of 1933, where half the people like old stuff and half the people like new stuff.
the buildings listed in the top 50 cover a period of architecture of 232 years. the last 80 years only cover 34% of that. the 14 buildings built in the last 80 years are underrepresented at 28%. is that really significant enough to say schools should stop teaching studios the way they are and start doing what you tell them to do?
of the 14 favorite buildings built in the last 80 years, 5 are built in a revival style (beaux-arts, italianate, or neoclassical) and 9 are built in a more modern tradition (including art deco and what wikipedia calls structural expressionism). that's only 36% of people who think buildings built in the last 80 years should mimic a style from previous generations."
wow curt, your complete misunderstanding of statistical significance is astounding. Did that b.s. actually sound legitimate to you as you were typing it? Hilarious.
There is no there there. It's atrocious. But so are Gehry's MIT buildings. $hit is $hit. You condemn one but not the other?
No, not a gehry fan. I see the similarities too.
There is no there there, Actually this building might be salvagable without tearing it down. Al least, as it stands, you could knock on the front door without danger of having a load of snow dumped on you or killed by a falling chunk of ice. Or your car being melted by the sun's focused rays.
"Less elaborate... music these days consists of a few chords repeated over and over... if not its not as elaborate as classical music in terms of harmony or polyphony. I guess, its not as layered..." well, popular music has always been simple, i.e. polka.
Unlike architecture, the traditions of music are still alive and valued and composers still create classical music that would impress a listener of 100 years ago.
Pop music may be simple but it's changed from being of simple people to being an incessant infomercial of elitist symbolism...one eye, skulls, butterflys, etc.
Clearly today's simpletons are dumber & less independently minded that those of the past. Probably because of all the fluoride in the water.
OMG. There is *no* similarity whatsoever between that South Philly monstrosity (I know it's not South Philly because the density is wrong but the aesthetic is right) and anything by Gehry. None.
But I'm not going to explain why, nor respond to your comments re: Kanye, Thayer, because I don't feel like it.
Nuts, Donna took her toys and went home.
No, just don't feel like typing a long explanation. Still reading.
I think the answer to TINT's question of who is at fault depends on who did the design, a builder or a legitimate architect. This could have been built in some jurisdiction that does not require an architect's seal for residential permit drawings, in which case the builder may have designed it. And I would say the reason builders no longer understand design principles in the way they did 100 years ago is due to losing those traditions that were standard practise in the past, reinforced by builders manuals (e.g., those of Asher Benjamin and the like: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0486222365/ref=cm_cr_dpvoterdr?ie=UTF8&keywords=asher%20benjamin&qid=1384799156&sr=8-3#R3QAUR6QN57JI8.2115.Helpful.Reviews) and later design books (such as Palliser's Cottage Homes: http://www.amazon.com/Pallisers-New-Cottage-Homes-1887/dp/0486428168/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1384799060&sr=8-2&keywords=pallisers+cottage+homes)
After WWII it was a brave new world for builders, and there was a great need for additional housing, and with the break of the Great Depression and then WWII, and the need for mass production of housing (think Levittown and the suburbanization of America) the old ways were left behind, including the old traditions of design.
But the clients, even in Levittown and many subsequent developments, still wanted something that spoke of comfort and tradition, thus the desire still for an iconic house with pitched roof and traditional details, but the knowledge of how to design for this desire on the part of the client had been lost.
So, I would say that it was not the client's fault for TINT's example, but the designer's, whether that designer was an uneducated builder, or an architect who was unsure how to produce what the client wanted beyond throwing traditional elements together and hoping it would work. And therefore if it was an architect who designed this house I would trace further blame to the schools that taught them, not preparing them for such a request from a client.
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.