not to mention that many Romans were of levantine/ african/ anatolian extraction and that there is a strong belief in a middle eastern origin to the Etruscan people/culture. Not forgetting that the Mughals owe a lot, culturally and ethnically to persio-turkic people (i.e. so called ayrans).  

do you people think that the russians grew out of moscovite plant pots? people move around a lot. 

not just architecture religiosity but also ethnic religiosity.another joke played on us "gentiles". 

Interesting that Quondam mentions Aldo van Eyck when he visited Penn.  I was there and during question and answer time at one of the lectures I asked him why he didn't use color in his buildings (there was a lot of exposed concrete and glass).  He did not have a good answer, other than that wasn't what he wanted to do.  But to me, even though his designs were interesting, they lacked life and personality, and color.

And I was a fan of Venturi.

And still am.

Jaffe,

When I referenced your pointing out that the early modernists had beaux-arts training, I wasn't speaking to a point you made but rather your buddy curtkram, so don't get all huffy and read my post correctly.  You can still think my point inane, but get it right. 

I would have corrected you sooner but I went to a crit at the University of Maryland's School of Architecture for a friend and then went to a lecture at the Building Museum in DC to hear Witold Rybczynski speak about his latest book ‘How Architecture Works: A Humanist’s Toolkit,’.  The sequence of those two events couldn't be more illustrative of the debate we are having here. 

On the one hand, the crit was for a class that had taken 4-5 unbuilt parti's of modernist architects like Aalto, Mies, etc, to fully flesh out and develope.  Besides the fact that they where exclusivly modernists (what else would they be?) I thought great!  This is at least the work of architecture where by you have to develope an idea through design development with analytical drawings, techtonics, materials etc.  In other words the students where going to learn the craft of architecture primarily with out all the bull shit philosophising about thier chicken scratch concept (since that was presumably done).  Well, in come the boys dressed in black...Very nice fellows and surely well spoken taking about 'notions' and the like.  You've never seen more blank stares in your life (assuming you haven't sat through a crit).  And as we are approaching the end of the year, some professors where telling the students to start on thier large scale models, only to then tear them up to "get at something new".  Que in a lot of eye bulging and snickering because that might have been feesable and even useful towards the beginning of the course, but with seven weeks left, asking them to tear up their own 20 hour models was nuts, and the kids knew it.  So what did they get from the crit?  I hope something useful, but they also got that archtiecture is about words and the whimsey of each professor.  You could see the cynicism building before your eyes.  Sure there where some true believers that would run up a hill full of machine guns, (an additude in evidence here) but even those guys you could tell understood the game being played.

Then I went to the lecture by Witold Rybczynski on his new book "by ‘How Architecture Works: A Humanist’s Toolkit,".  You couldn't ask for a stronger contrast from the crit.  This person spoke as if we all shared a common humanity, as if the way people actually experience architecture mattered.  And he was stylisticlally agnostic, which I know for some of you true believers is heresy.  But he talkled about the pleasure and joy of architecture, something you could see had long ago vanished from some students who've been forced to subsume all thier instincts and speak with a language they didn't actually believe.  Sure, once you know the game and the catch phrases you can play along, but you know it's just a game. 

So I raised my hand to ask Mr. Witold Rybczynski what he thought about the dual nature of how many architects are taught and how he was describing the experience of architecture in his new book, just to see if he had any insights.  He basically said that architecture school was bad for architects.  Not to prattle on too much, but he admitted that there was nothing to do about it becasue of the beaurocratic nature of academia, and that young architects would eventually learn in practice how to design for humans, rather than thier own academic world of ideologically inscribed thinking.  

So out of 12 students, I'd guess 2-3 will man/woman the modernist ramparts like many of you here, fighting ghosts that where never your's to begin with, but that years of indoctrination made as real as a brick.  The others will go on to hopefully land their first jobs if the cynicism and lack of passion hasn't chased them into another related field, but woe be on to them if they dare criticise the profession once they've left.  And I'd guess one or two will finally comeback to what they loved about architecture after years of wondering what it was all about and begin to learn the craft many of us still love, regardless of what style or styles they choose to practice in.

Just another day in the life of your average American architecture student.  Good luck.

so that's the moment where it all went wrong for you thayer, and you decided it would be best to stop trying to learn and understand what other people were saying and build a bubble of 'tradtional' ideology around yourself so you couldn't get hurt anymore?

i wouldn't be surprised if they tore up models at the ecole back in the day.  if your claim is that you have a greater understanding of how to design a building for a human that the rest of us, that may not be grounded in real life.  

I know Witold pretty well personally.  I would definitely call him style agnostic. He's a values guy, a humanist all the way. He's generally in favor of architecture and urbanism that nurtures people and makes their lives better.   He has come out in favor of lots of modernist public architecture, notably recently the Gehry proposal for the Eisenhower Memorial in DC.  Even super smart people can be misguided occasionally :)

I love it.  The cynicism abounds!  You're either with us or your against us, and since Witold dosen't blindly accept the modernist dogma, he is suspect.   Much like anyone who dares criticise the profession that's not in the profession.  He spoke very appreciativley about Kahn, Piano, and even Gehry.  His only fault was that he told it like it is.  He recounted an interview with Gehry where the archtiect recounted his process.  'I draw some stuff up, make a model, and if I don't like it, I try again.'  Maybe Gehry was one of those students that cherished destroying his model before a crit, but at least he's refreshingly honest about the absolute sculptural quality of his work, rather than decorating it with so many pretty words.  Oh, how I do love pretty words!

Here's another telling anecdote of what we are talking about, as if logic counted.

When the National Gallery building opened in 1941, many in the highest ­perches of the architectural establishment cringed. Though the building was dedicated to art in the nation’s capital, the architect had spurned the daring of Modernist design and instead liberally quoted the ancients: a pediment, columns and the Ionic order. The resulting structure seemed as familiar to many as a small-town bank.

“Surely the time cannot be far distant when we shall understand how inadequate is the death-mask of an ancient culture to express the heroic soul of America,” sniffed Joseph Hudnut, dean of Harvard’s design school.

In characteristic contrast, critic Witold Rybczynski declares the building “magnificent” in his latest book, “How Architecture Works.”

The question of modern vs. traditional has driven architectural debate for decades, and the sides, to oversimplify broadly, often break down into architects and everyone else. (Seen a subdivision of Modernist homes lately?)

You can read the whole thing yourself here if your curious.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/review-how-architecture-works-a-humanists-toolkit-by-witold-rybczynski/2013/10/31/7af56120-3cbf-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html

Hi EKE,

Tell him congratulations for a wonderful lecture if you would.  You can tell him that I was the first (of two) people who asked him a question, being..."how does one reconcile the way in which most architectural schools speak about buildings with the way the public percieves them?"  ...he asked daring to speak for the masses...  His answer was as illuminating as it was depressing.  The room was filled with architects who said not a peep about his thoughts whether they agreed or not, simply because he is so patently humble and good natured in his opinions, or maybe becasue they where secret sympathizers living in....shhh, traditional buildings!!!

  To write him off as an ideological hack is simply amazing. 

So Witold is praised for being "stylistically agnostic" but Rem is attacked because he lives in a 19th century rowhouse?

This thread is very funny.  I admit I've not read a whole lot of the longer posts after about page 5 or so. I wonder if it will turn into the next Hi all you fancy graphics lovers? But it had almost 1,500 comments. Keep at it, ya'll.

"modernist public architecture, notably recently the Gehry proposal for the Eisenhower Memorial in DC."

Modernist? Methinks not.

So Witold is praised for being "stylistically agnostic" but Rem is attacked because he lives in a 19th century rowhouse?

What, Rem lives in a 19th cenruty rowhouse!    Noooooooo!!!

I bleieved in that guy, I trusted that guy.  How will I ever be able to love again?

The Eisenhower Memorial is not about Ike, it is about Gehry. You would think after his MIT buildings jumped the shark and became a symbol of utter absurdity of much of modern architecture the architectual commissions would look elsewhere. Their ability of self-flagellation is truly remarkable. Better to rename Dulles the Eisenhower International Airport and be done with it.

sneaky, we've already established that thayer's definition of 'traditional' includes all architecture he would like to include under the category 'traditional,' and 'modern' includes all architecture he would like to be categorized as 'modern.'  perhaps he could start a website that definitively categorizes all buildings as to which they fall under, but of course it would have to be editable so can switch the category when convenient.

tl;dr thayer lacks the intellectual rigor required to form a consistent and cohesive opinion on such difficult questions.

I never slammed Rem for living in a vintage house.  I'm happy for him.  Richard Rodgers lives in one too.

Re: Eisenhower.  In my opinion it is clearly modernist philosophically.  It's almost without any symbolic content whatsoever, instead showing Eisenhower's life like a drive-in movie or a diorama display at a contemporary history museum.  It's a memorial for a generation who are used to gazing into the television.

Thayer-D

That architecture school is bad for architects is no secret, at least to those in the profession, or who have graduated into a world for which they are wholly unprepared.

Some basic common courtesy is appreciated, should you be capable of it. It's either Mr. Jaffe, Miles Jaffe, or even Miles if you want to be friendly. Also, you need to work on your writing skills, as what you write is apparently not what you mean, and this is an entirely literal context. I am not curtkram, and if you wish to address him you should do it directly rather than falsely citing me in quotes with statements I never made.

Finally, if you do indeed have a point, is it something that you can spell out clearly in a sentence or two? I'm sure many here would appreciate it.

Can I call you El Jafferino? I'm not into the whole brevity thing...

EKE, you're describing a post-modern exploration / experience.

I'm fine if you want to call it post modern. 

it just looks like statuary to me, which as far as i'm concerned falls into a profession other than architecture.

it's interesting that ghery wanted to make a tribute to eisenhower as a humble person, who came from a humble working class family, and worked hard to achieve his dreams and accomplished all sorts of great things.  his daughter decided to get involved and say he should be presented as a superhero.

El Jafferino abides, man.

The Eisenhower Memorial sums up pretty much everything that is wrong with architecture from sycophants (Gehry) to entitlement (Eisenhower family) and  politics (congress), among other things. And that doesn't even address the atrocious design or the absurd cost: $140 million for a couple of bad statues and 4 acres of basic sitework. What do they think DC is - the Hamptons?

Oh - wait a minute - it's also an e-memorial. WTF - I wonder how much of the budget is set aside for that?

Lot's of controversy over the original competition. Here are some links to other deisgns:

Rogers Marvel

Krueck+Sexton

and the results of the Eisenhower Memorial Counterproposal Competition (sponsored by the Institute for Classical Architecture & Art).

that krueck proposal might have been workable, but i think gehry's still might be better.

the institute for classical architecture is amusing.  they get to choose whether to put France's Arc de Triomphe or the colonnade designed by bernini for rome in washington DC, which happens to be the seat of the US government (by the way, the US is neither France nor Rome).  i'm sure everyone can choose their own meaning, but i can't help but think the message is that they want europeans running our country instead of americans.

Miles,

I in no way meant to misquote you or insult you, I was simply running my fingers around the giant holes in curtkram's logic.  This whole discussion is nonsensical at this point because everyone has made their points over and over again.  In two sentences, I'll tell you my whole point again.  Architecture is about solving problems with whatever philosophical, technical, or artistic way one likes or is dictated or both.  While I certainly have preferences, I don't think there is a right way to practice.

As such, I think all this obsession with what's the right style is detrimental to the development of good architecture because it takes time away from actually solving the problems at hand.

I lay the blame at this man's feet. His exuberance for the future was just too much to take. Designing the everyday detritus of our lives to look cool, exciting and futuristic! (Jokingly shakes fist in the air!) Of course I'm trying to bring a little levity to the tabula rasa. 

Anyway....Miles / EKE. The new Ike memorial design by Gehry is pretty bad and yet the neo-classical counter-proposals out of the ICAA competition are decidedly lack-luster as well, if not just as pompous. In looking over the finalists of the official and unofficial competitions I can't say that any jump out at me as timeless or representative of Ike. And like good art...I'll know it when I see it. I'm not sure what a "biographical" memorial achieves in this instance, whereas the FDR memorial works for me, and the ICAA options remind me of bad knockoffs of Imperial Rome or European monuments but without much thought to what classical symbolism means in relationship to Ike. The bruhaha reminds me of the aesthetic discourse over the WW2 memorial. Which I find to be a let down on several levels but that's for another day.

Codifying the 'life and times' of Ike in marble or bronze doesn't tell me what the nation thought of him or thinks of him. He was a man of many contradictions for many people. A staunch opponent of Communism abroad, and yet he was considered a communist stooge by critics on the Right because he opposed McCarthyism and didn't oppose the New Deal. He expanded military spending and gave us the highway system and warned us against the military-industrial complex. He was a humble person but was self-assured enough to lead the Allied forces. Maybe just a statue of Ike rendered as Janus in a field of wheat would be more fitting.

Thayer, but you can't possibly believe that the problems being solved in the Classicist counter-proposals to the Eisenhower memorial have anything to do with Eisenhower, or this age in which some people decided to erect for him an important structure. Most of them appear pre-occupied with solving the problem of how to graft an ultra-idealized vision of the world onto the given site. Hell, half of those entries don't even try to show me the urban context, let alone address it. Forget about cultural context (which, imho, is more important), these are arrogant designs that don't account for the physical surroundings.

Great drawings and watercolors, though. No idea how the shitty sketch-up renders snuck into the same slideshow.

Glad you're amused, Curt.

thank you eke.  it's good to be amused on occasion.

thayer, do you know what logic is, and can you reiterate what i've been saying in a logical context, so i can understand where the hole in my logic is?

As such, I think all this obsession with what's the right style is detrimental to the development of good architecture because it takes time away from actually solving the problems at hand.

Right on, Thayer. I agree.

I didn't realize Krueck & Sexton had done a proposal.  Eisenhower's daughters would have had a conniption if it had won!

judging by those counterproposals, it seems to me that there is little american talent for neoclassicism anyway. it was not a pleasant experience for me; was it for you? 

to be honest, i didn't care for the gehry design either. it is pedantically literal and conceptually boring.

personally, if there is a sculpture involved, get a practicing sculptor to come up with the actual design of the sculpture. we all know there is very interesting contemporary figuratuve and quasi-figurative art happening.

I'd have had a conniption had it won.

Thomas Jefferson encouraged the state buildings of the new country to be built in the classical style. His own Rotunda at the University of Virginia is derived on the Roman Pantheon which itself it is heavily influenced by Greek elements. Jefferson did this as a tribute to democracy first occuring in Greece and intended the buildings, not to represent the deadening power of the state, but the freedom of man. To look for the deadening power of the state look no furhter than the NSA building and the quite insane people running the show there. To say that our state buildings should not be influenced by European civilization is just baffling to me.

i figured the krueck would be more towards susan's liking.  it also seems to me she's the driving force behind the family's anger with the current direction.

from this blog post:

http://susaneisenhower.com/2012/03/20/my-testimony-to-congress-on-the-proposed-dwight-d-eisenhower-memorial/

"Proponents of the young Eisenhower believe that children will be inspired by seeing themselves in the design-element’s young Eisenhower. I wonder about this premise. Children are not impressed by children. They want to be superheroes. Perhaps that is why a visit to the Lincoln Memorial in one’s youth remains a memory.  The Lincoln Memorial is awe-inspiring."

maybe she's trying to say they need doric columns like the lincoln memorial.  but i think this statement suggests the argument is seeing eisenhower as a regular kid versus seeing eisenhower as a superhero.  the lincoln memorial is big and attracts attention.  i think the krueck proposal reflects that aspect better than gehry's.  i don't think you need classical detailing to be a superhero.

i think if you want good design, you leave susan eisenhower out of it.  she seems to be screwing things up more than david (who was actually given a seat on the commission, which he resigned.  i'm not saying he was presured out by susan, but i am implying it), or anne, or mary, or john.

also, i don't think susan should be entitled to represent 'public opinion' any more than suri.  she may have very compelling statistics to back up her statements, but it's pretty plainly obvious she developed her conclusion first and sought the data to support that conclusion, rather they trying to genuinely gauge what public opinion is.

first of all how come this thread is still going....?

anyways, @suri re: that super statistical survey by Dr. Douglas Smith of Palo Alto, perhaps you conveniently left off below sentence from your quote?

"My question style probably does not conform to ideal survey standards in terms of sober phrases and emotional words as I’m a writer who is passionate about the subject"..

Thayer, but you can't possibly believe that the problems being solved in the Classicist counter-proposals to the Eisenhower memorial have anything to do with Eisenhower,

It's amazing how people chose not to listen.  I don't care what style the memorial is.  I like both the Vietnam and WWII memorial, so I'm mis-trusted or disliked or whatever by both camps.  I simply don't care what style it is anymore than I'd pre-judge music based on what style it is.  Sure, I'm not fond of country music, but some brings tears to my eyes.  

As for what's traditional vs. modernist, (becasue modern is what the dictionary says, regardless of how anyone wants to misappropriate the word) it's a matter of aesthetics for me.  The open plan and whatever else modernists want to claim as their invention has always existed.  Sure, a certain material might be new, but it will still be a panel or whatever application it's being used in.  The traditional aesthetic is something that's understood primarily through the senses, meaning it dosen't require any reading or understanding of concepts to "get".   The modernist aesthetic is cereblal in that it usually requires some understanding of the architect's intentions to fully appreciate.  Now of course there are very sensual modernist buildings and also didactic traditional buildings, but there's a reason all those surveys show the public's preference for traditional work, despite the use of such leading terms as "style".   Another way of looking at the aesthetic differences between modernist and traditional is in Vitruvious's Firmness, Commodity and Delight.  Both views have to accomplish the first two, or else the work tends to dry up, and most of us get that.  It's the delight part that seems to elude a lot of modernist work I see, assuming you aren't delighted by manifestos.  So while traditional is commonly understood to look like historical or vernacular buildings and modernist buildings tend to be abstract and/or minimalist, there's an incredible overlap, which tends to be where I like to live both archietcurally and in my personal life.  But being a hedonist, I heavily favor anything that gives me delight, cause life will kick your ass, and we all need a little solace.  For those too macho to admit that, I wish you the best.

My favorite of all the Eisenhower proposals was this one from Milton Grenfell:

http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Milton-Grenfell-Eisenhower-memorial-e1342799955703.png

I think it's just right, because:

- It's simple, elegant and humble.  A fountain, pedestal and statuary in a landscape.  Not a theme park.  Ike would probably have liked it very much.

- It's classical, in keeping with the tradition of classical monuments in D.C.

- It respects the L'Enfant plan for D.C., and the long axis terminating at the Capitol.

- It is dense with symbolic content. 

- I like the statue of Eisenhower the general in his field uniform.  I believe that Ike should be honored with this memorial primarily for being the commander of the Allied forces that liberated Europe from tyranny, so I think Ike the General is the right way for him to be remembered.

^ Is that Marshall, Bradley and Patton at the base?

Thayer, you keep stepping on your own landmines.

The open plan and whatever else modernists want to claim as their invention has always existed.  Sure, a certain material might be new, but it will still be a panel or whatever application it's being used in.

You couldn't build the Eiffel Tower without iron or the Empire State Building without steel. Mid and high-rises (elevators!), long-span bridges, open plan commercial and industrial buildings are all the result of advances in material technology.

Wright is responsible for the residential open plan, unless of course you consider a yurt or wigwam as the prototype. These were indigenous buildings that evolved over millennia, not structures designed by architects.  Design is both influenced by and reflective of technology, culture and economics among other things.

iamus, interesting point about Lowey. Not sure I agree but food for thought. Carefully packaged with bright colors and strong graphics. 

"Is that Marshall, Bradley and Patton at the base?"

No it's not...It's three different statues of Athena, in poses exemplifying Eisenhower the General, The President and The Citizen.  Here's a quick guide to some of the symbolism of the design:

"Athena is underneath in three porticoes representing Citizen, General, and President. There are stalactites in the porticoes to represent chaos. The styling and meaning of the Eisenhower sculpture and Athena sculptures is phenomenal. Under Citizen, Athena is holding a farm implement and it lists various titles under Citizen including University President, Farmer, etc.  Under General, Athena is holding a spear and a laurel wreath, and various accomplishments are listed.  Under President, Athena is holding the Constitution and a few accomplishments are listed. Water flows out from underneath Athena to the fountain. In addition, there is a lion paw on each of the divisions under Eisenhower (representing strength) and above the lion paws are acanthus leaves, symbolizing Western Civilization. The General portico faces northeast (to Europe), the President portico faces northwest (to the White House), and the Citizen portico faces south. Eisenhower is styled in his long flowing trenchcoat, which provides movement and texture to the statue so that it can be admired from any angle. The wind moving the coat is supposed to represent the winds of time."

"first of all how come this thread is still going....?

anyways, @suri re: that super statistical survey by Dr. Douglas Smith of Palo Alto, perhaps you conveniently left off below sentence from your quote?

"My question style probably does not conform to ideal survey standards in terms of sober phrases and emotional words as I’m a writer who is passionate about the subject".."

If you needed that line to help dismiss the public's response, by all means, use it.

why not minerva instead of athena?

geez suri, it sounds like you're trying to make it obvious that you developed your conclusion before your facts.

Athena (Greek) = Minerva (Roman)

Athena was associated with wisdom and courage, and just and heroic warfare.  Pretty good choice.

I know eke.  i was just ribbing you on your symbolism.  i spent a fair bit of time studying greek and roman mythology, for a modernist.

we have a different god now for what it's worth ;)

Miles,

I agree with your statement that design is both influenced by and reflective of technology, culture and economics among other things.  I simply don't think human perception has drastically dchanged from when we evolved to modern humans thousands of years ago.  In other words, while the elevator certainly made for taller buildings, our sense of height doesn't change with it.  The open plans I had in mind weren't yurts but rather the mills of New England with timber framed interiors.  In other words, whether the columns are steel or wood, what difference does it make for the perception of that space, it's still open.  And if you want to discredit the work of "indigenous" New England builders, that's your prerogative, but like the "what style is it" question, I'm not sure identifying someone as an Architect makes appreciating the work any different.

 The common thread with all my hesitation for what seem like class systems is exactly that, they seem as meaningful as the caste order in India, designed for people to know their place regardless of personal merit.  Not that they aren't interesting and informative labels, I love styles and am very interested in the intersection of vernacular and professional work, I just don't think there's any correlation with skill.  Have you ever seen a modernist or Italianate, or whatever styled building by a now anonymous designer that knocked your socks off?  A bungalow that rivaled Greene and Greene?  Then did you ever imagine that by some chance encounter with fame or early death, or being of low social status or wrong gender/race or religion, that architect's name was lost to history?  

I guess  what I'm saying is that a non architect wouldn't be thinking about all these things when looking at a building.  They wouldn't be performing the level of forensic analysis I find myself doing just for fun.  So why would that person's experience be worth less than mine simply because they haven't studied?  I happen to think it wouldn't, because we both inhabit the built world.  And since I like to make people happy with my work, I think it's useful to understand how they think and why.   Have I run in to clients who don't know their head from their ass?  Who hasn't?  But it's still their money, and they still want what they want.   So if I can't convince them of what I think is in their best interest or simply what I think is best, well then fine, I've got no problem with that.  Would I want some chef telling me that a meal I hated was actually the height of culinary delight?  I guess they could, but it wouldn't make my taste buds feel any different.

"we have a different god now for what it's worth ;)"

I certainly do.  

But here's a little secret, between you and me... Athena is a symbol.  That means that we need not actually believe in the pagan gods of antiquity, but the statues are symbolic of the virtues they represent.  So if I design classical buildings with decorative features which reference the Greek gods, it doesn't mean that I worship them.  The virtues they represent, however, are timeless since they are a part of human nature.

I do agree with you Suri in a way that traditional architecture were built to last, beautiful, and had meanings. However, even traditional architecture went through many phases because people got tired of the one phase or it just couldn't meet the function of the society at that time anymore. So new thoughts and new strategies developed and it is exactly what happened here. For ex. Renaissance architecture was all about the human and individual whereas Gothic was all about spirituality. Baroque was about exaggeration and expressiveness and excessiveness. People got tired and felt up with the idea of each of those phases, thats why new thoughts and ideas were developed. While engineers were inventing steam engines in the 19th century, architects were still building "traditional architecture" and was falling behind in terms of technological advancement. Those inventions were invented to make life easier for everyone, and how can we keep designing architecture that will take 100 years to build while everything was moving at a lightning speed? So I think that in a way, modernism is an effort to celebrate and embrace the technological advancement and make life easier for everyone just like what the engineers were doing. So don't just think about what you "like" or what you think is beautiful; things were invented not because of beauty, they were built because of function. Yes, modernism has flaws and failures, but it is a response to the societal changes that occurred! It's not because architects felt lazy to design ornaments on buildings thats why modernism happened, its many things that contributed to the birth of modernism and don't say that doesn't have meaning behind it! because I swear that it has all the meanings behind it!

Oops, i was reading only the first page when i wrote this, didn't know there are 13 pages of responses. So disregard my comment if its irrelevant now. HAHA

A symbol? Like this modern symbol of a porch swing?

That's a freaking awesome porch swing.

Not sure what's happened in the last 200 comments but that is one helluva nice swing.

Maybe.  What does that piece of furniture symbolize for you?