Let's see ... it has been explained to suri ad nauseam that 1) s/he does not speak for the masses 2) that architects design to suit their clients, who are paying for the service 3) that culture and lifestyles have changed since antiquity 4) that materials and technology are integral to design and production [see 3] 5) that function is at least as important as style 6) that economics drive the profession [see 2,3,4] and a few other things that I can't be bothered to repeat yet again.
Despite this, suri - who has at last count 89 posts in this single thread - continues to insist - as the self-appointed voice of the populace - that we as architects are failing to provide what they - actually suri - wants ("historical style").
I'd define that as either extreme trolling, conceivably by some disgruntled archinecter, or a serious mental imbalance that includes no small measure of OCD and possibly narcissistic personality disorder.
Thayer, maybe you have a comprehension disorder, too. Not a whole lot of people on this thread agree with suri. And if you want to play with the big boys, maybe you should post a real name, and let's see some of your real work. Anonymous snipes are meaningless.
Not a whole lot of people on this thread agree with suri.
First of all, there are several people who have agreed with suri, but then again, your ability to read (like my spelling) leaves something to be desired. But even if no one agreed with him, your effort to justify insulting him becasue of his "minority" status is what's despicable. Maybe you should stick to rubic cube sculptures if that's your level of discourse.
Reality is not established by general consensus. Just because you and your neighbour agree on something does not mean that it translate to the rest of the population. Just look at religion or politics for a great example.
Also, I have a huge moral issue with fake wood plastic laminates. I strongly (no joking) believe that all fake wood plastic laminate desks, walls, cabinets, etc should be hot pink with wood grain printed pattern. That would make me smile rather than cringe. But... I also understand this to not be a universal feeling and thus, would never assume my feelings to be "common-sense".
I'm not that fond of Franky's solution either if that matters on that Eisenhower monument thing but that proposed alternative is god-awful. If the hook holding my license would fail and I would submit the resulting pile of broken glass and frame as another alternative, it would be a much better suited project. At the very least, they could have gotten a grade 10 student at minimal wage to make better renderings.
lots of thayers showed up when i googled him to see if thayer is a real name. i could go ahead and make some assumptions and pretend they're real, since we've learned from other forum posters that is a good and effectual thing to do.
samuel thayer practiced in boston a while back. i think his architecture was 'traditional' in nature. he shot himself in a fit of despndency though, so that can't be the thayer posting.
there is a daniel thayer dawson. that has a 'd' in it. i'm just going to be blunt and say i don't like his website, so i don't want to assume thayer is that guy.
there are some thayers in california. kyle and john. maybe that's thayer? i could go with that.
Non-sequitor, I actually appreciate the Sketchup basic renderings. The problem with some of these dazzling renderings everyone uses these days (which I've been able to produce myself in the past) is that they can be very deceiving; add enough visual interest at the periphery- pretty young people, flocks of birds in the sky, diffused lighting, striking sunsets- and it can help prop up even the least successful designs out there.
Hey: no outing people. Personally I think people should all post here under their real identity, but obviously not everyone else is as comfortable with that as I am. So no outing people.
sorry donna. that first guy died in 1893. i would say odds are, i did not get his identity right, but i suppose there is always the possibility. for what it's worth, i only googled 'thayer architect' and did not do any deeper internet stalking. i don't know who thayer is, and to be honest i don't really care. i was just making stuff up.
there is no there asked "iamus, would those heavy tomes and works of non-fiction you want to read be "traditional" or "modern"? Just wondering."
Traditional meaning historical or classical narrative structure? Modern as in written recently or in the post-modern literary sense? I will read almost anything. I do draw the line at romance, western and bad genre fiction. But in general - fiction, history, bios, philosophy (not of late though), graphic novels, natural sciences, even pompous architectural treatises, woodworking. Poetry though is something I have regrettably neglected since my undergrad days.
But I read everything like Chekov, Miller (Henry), Cervantes, Mann, Herodotus, Foster-Wallace, Chabon, Churchill, P.K. Dick, Asimov, Murakami, Highsmith, Thompson, Nabakov, H.R.R Martin, O'Brien, Mosley, W.S. Burroughs, Saunders, Krakauer, Qaummen, Wolfe, Ambrose, Doig, DeVoto, Herbert, Prescott.
I just enjoy reading. I've read plenty of forgettable books and thankfully the memorable ones outnumber the bad. I read for pleasure, knowledge and out of general curiosity.
"First of all, there are several people who have agreed with suri, but then again, your ability to read (like my spelling) leaves something to be desired."
Maybe it wasn't clear that that was in the context of 'speaking for the masses'. Or maybe your reading comprehension skills are not as developed as you think. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
But if you want to dis my work as a way to denigrate me, you're far worse than you describe me, especially since you don't have the balls to do it under your real name, or by comparison to your nonexistent but obviously superior work output.
you're far worse than you describe me, especially since you don't have the balls to do it under your real name, or by comparison to your nonexistent but obviously superior work output.
Keep you shirt on Miles, I just don't care for bullies. I did like your sculpture, especially your Japanese inspired wood work, very much. Ironically, by the standards of some commentary here, it would be considered artificial, revivalist, historicist, you get the drift. I personally would defend it simply on the grounds that it's what you like and clearly have a passion for. As for suri, it's easy to deconstruct any argument about what "people" like by pointing out an exception, but clearly he was referencing a general trend that dosen't in anyway invalidate differing tastes, at least in my opinion. And several people pointed to some very interesting surveys to back that up, but again, that in no way implies superiority or inferiority. Where the issue seemed to take traction is how this informatin is understood by academia and the training of future architects.
wow, iamus, that's an impressive list. Love Asimov too. I read a lot too, including plenty of mediocre things, but no romance or westerns here either. Although I'm not against trying a "western".
By the way, I'm not sure what I meant by "traditional" or "modern" either. But I was thinking that when a piece of literature becomes classic it is because it is vetted over and over again (which is what I think suri wants in his architecture and is what he means by "traditional" and classic) and it is funny that romance and westerns are both examples of terrible "modern" literature.
Donna, there's no contradiction in choosing to remain (relatively) anonymous and refrain from trolling. In fact, i would argue that that status shows your true colours more than does the revelation of your persona whereby your choices are tethered by the possibilities of repercussions. Also, its easier on the ego to be personably effaced and accept that you really have little in common with others here than to be personably represented and to have to accept that nothing has been added..and owing to that, something had been subtracted. i'm even starting to use this name in real-time/space now. :o)
I'll stick up for Suri. What are you guys suggesting, that because you think you have refuted his argument, that he should just STFU and go away? How open minded and inclusive.
My take on this is pretty simple. Despite some logical missteps and some lack of design sophistication, I think Suri has a really good point. There is a huge segment of the populace that prefer traditional and classical buildings to modernist buildings. Yet the elite architectural press, the elite architectural educators, and most of the rank-and-file pretend that this isn't important for their profession to address. Instead of coming to terms with these preferences, trying to understand what it is about traditional buildings that people prefer, and shaping the response of the profession to address what the public clearly wants, they either A) argue that the preference in fact doesn't exist, or B) acknowledge the preference, but maintain that the public is foolish, or unsophisticated, or misguided, and must be "reeducated" to appreciate what is so self-evidently superior. If they can't be reeducated, then they must be ridiculed into silence. Thus the hegmony is maintained.
The hostility that Suri has received in this thread is perfectly consistent with B) above. That this thread is nearly 700 posts long shows me that this is a big issue for the profession. Interesting that it didn't make it into the Editor's Picks.
i honestly think neither side are giving the topic (and neoclassicism) its due. Thayer and co render it into a sedentary obscure cliché built on their definitely non-omnipresent belief of what is better and oina fatalistic liason between style and content. In other words, they kill the subject before giving it life. The other side (for instance Miles' summation) fall back on dogmatic clichés based on other mythical religiously modernist liasons.
these are dangerous liasons if we accept that there is a topical equivalent here to arendt's notion of the "banality of evil". perhaps the banality of belief?
The grammar police comment has to do with the fact that I could have made corrections to almost 1/3 of the posts in this thread but chose to stay on topic.
eke, i think suri made a couple mistakes in his presentation.
first, he doesn't want 'neoclassical,' or any other specific sort of design style. he wants 'traditional,' and he doesn't appear to know what that means to him. so there are 2 styles of architecture, 'traditional' and 'not traditional.' just to ensure that this is thread is filled with trolls and other useless comments, we'll refer to 'not traditional' as 'modern.' then it's kind of a religious war among architects, and it's black/white, with us or against us issue.
in real life, of course, there are more that 2 styles of architecture. we could explain that to suri. we could ask suri if he was referring to neoclassical or specifically to any building that's been standing for at least 80 years, or to otherwise clarify what he seems to want by defining what 'traditional' means to him.
those of us that went through the long and arduous eduction pretty much all architects received know that 'traditional' is not a style in an of itself. we could help suri to understand that. we could talk about how we don't think a survey from a baptist pamphlet is really representative of the public at as a whole. but that's not what suri is here for. which is the other mistake i think you should address before defending suri too much.
suri didn't come here to learn from people who have invested more time and effort into learning about architecture. suri came here to tell us what to do. he has an opinion and is only interested in having people agree with him. if you want to sit down and have a talk about why you like images of pallas on architectural surfaces, i would be glad to have that discussion with you. i'm sure we both have fairly strong backgrounds in the subject, and intelligent opinions, even if they are different opinions. i'm willing to listen to how you developed your opinion, and i expect you would listen to what led me to my opinion. suri has not acknowledged that it is acceptable to arrive at an opinion different from his.
as miles said, ignorance can be fixed. if suri wanted to engage us in a real discussion with the willingness to listen and try to understand, that would be one thing. but he's not. he has his dogma and he'll refuse to learn anything new that conflicts with that dogma.
what could i learn eke? he said the public prefers traditional architecture and supported that with surveys from dubious sources. i've learned that suri likes what he likes. has he said anything more insightful than that?
Curtkram has learned a few things from this thread, one being that nazi architecture was a branch of modernism, and another that michelangelo was more than a painter :) Outside of those basic historical facts, i don't think much else was able to stick.
I liked both the Lever house and the Chrysler buildings before I cruelly transferred myself to the School of Architectural Reprogramming and Indoctrination. But I also enjoyed abstract and expressionist art and the fantasy paintings of the Hudson river school as well.
Of course I was a lost soul before the SARI phase of my life. I wandered the halls of the engineering school and simultaneously took creative writing and philosophy classes before I realized I enjoyed rational and abstract thought and the creativity embodied by Romanticism. What was a poor boy to do? I could admit I had contradictions and enjoy them or pretend I was either noble or ignoble and never the 'tween shall meet.
There are plenty of reputable surveys on architectural preferences which support Suri's contention. I've posted two, including a nationwide survey by the AIA. There is also much anecdotal evidence. Why do you think most production housing is built in traditional styles? Because the developers know their marketplace, and they know they prefer it. We can debate the reasons, but its pretty clear.
I just ran across another reminder of it today. In my firm, we have two internal design studios, one led by my partner, who is a modernist designer, and the other studio is mine, where we do classical and traditional vernacular work. We have started to work with a book editor and consultant about doing twin monographs, one for each studio. The editor told us that it was a great idea to do both books, but we need to be aware that it is well established in the arch publishing realm that monographs on traditional architects outsell the modernist monographs 3 to 1.
I would think that architect would be aching to try to identify the reasons why this is so. Arent you the least bit curious? You ask what more you could learn. I would think that by taking a guy like Suri's preferences seriously, trying to probe into It in a way where you might find something out that would help make your work better, you could potentially learn a lot. Instead y'all shoot the messenger.
Suri, I don't think one can say Nazi architecture was modernist although I'd be curious how you think so. It was modern in it's time but I'm not sure one can say modernist. It's crap Schinkel revival if you want, it's totalitarian crap for sure, but it definatly looks traditional. Actually, it kind-a looks like Duany's memorial, only not as bizzare. I love Duany for his brilliant mind and for how far he has pushed America away from the auto-oriented world it had been. I love him for helping to reintroduce traditional architecture as a viable way for architects to build, but as an actual architect...meh.
As for the Lever House vs. the Chrysler building, that's not even a competition. Like those studies where they get a monkey to splater paint and ask NY conisours what famous artist did it, the lever house would be torn down in a New York minute if it was done 10 years later. Although as boring glass boxes go, it's not bad, especially at street level.
"Care to define what you mean by curtain wall?" look it up.
In case the obscure site crashes or maybe closes down, here are the illuminating first lines:
"A curtain wall system is an outer covering of a building in which the outer walls are non-structural, but merely keep the weather out and the occupants in."
I wasn't asking for the definition of curtain wall, ass. You respond to a question "what do YOU mean by" with a link to a website and a snide comment and expect the person you're speaking with to be interested in the rest of the textual diarrhea you spew? Keep patronizing, ignoring, assuming, and dismissing and you'll never figure out why people have taken so much umbrage at Suri's load of shit.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
Unless you disagree with him. Then you're an ignorant fuck who needs to shut up.
thank you.
Let's see ... it has been explained to suri ad nauseam that 1) s/he does not speak for the masses 2) that architects design to suit their clients, who are paying for the service 3) that culture and lifestyles have changed since antiquity 4) that materials and technology are integral to design and production [see 3] 5) that function is at least as important as style 6) that economics drive the profession [see 2,3,4] and a few other things that I can't be bothered to repeat yet again.
Despite this, suri - who has at last count 89 posts in this single thread - continues to insist - as the self-appointed voice of the populace - that we as architects are failing to provide what they - actually suri - wants ("historical style").
I'd define that as either extreme trolling, conceivably by some disgruntled archinecter, or a serious mental imbalance that includes no small measure of OCD and possibly narcissistic personality disorder.
Thayer, maybe you have a comprehension disorder, too. Not a whole lot of people on this thread agree with suri. And if you want to play with the big boys, maybe you should post a real name, and let's see some of your real work. Anonymous snipes are meaningless.
as miles said, ignorant can be fixed. it's the stupid that needs to stfu ffs.
Not a whole lot of people on this thread agree with suri.
First of all, there are several people who have agreed with suri, but then again, your ability to read (like my spelling) leaves something to be desired. But even if no one agreed with him, your effort to justify insulting him becasue of his "minority" status is what's despicable. Maybe you should stick to rubic cube sculptures if that's your level of discourse.
Miles, Kos Scarpa Kps's are tongue in cheek, of course, but her thread about the orders actually does include several images from Duany's new treatise and some discussion of it: http://archinect.com/forum/thread/33916381/orders-of-rchitecture
Reality is not established by general consensus. Just because you and your neighbour agree on something does not mean that it translate to the rest of the population. Just look at religion or politics for a great example.
Also, I have a huge moral issue with fake wood plastic laminates. I strongly (no joking) believe that all fake wood plastic laminate desks, walls, cabinets, etc should be hot pink with wood grain printed pattern. That would make me smile rather than cringe. But... I also understand this to not be a universal feeling and thus, would never assume my feelings to be "common-sense".
I'm not that fond of Franky's solution either if that matters on that Eisenhower monument thing but that proposed alternative is god-awful. If the hook holding my license would fail and I would submit the resulting pile of broken glass and frame as another alternative, it would be a much better suited project. At the very least, they could have gotten a grade 10 student at minimal wage to make better renderings.
lots of thayers showed up when i googled him to see if thayer is a real name. i could go ahead and make some assumptions and pretend they're real, since we've learned from other forum posters that is a good and effectual thing to do.
samuel thayer practiced in boston a while back. i think his architecture was 'traditional' in nature. he shot himself in a fit of despndency though, so that can't be the thayer posting.
there is a daniel thayer dawson. that has a 'd' in it. i'm just going to be blunt and say i don't like his website, so i don't want to assume thayer is that guy.
there are some thayers in california. kyle and john. maybe that's thayer? i could go with that.
Non-sequitor, I actually appreciate the Sketchup basic renderings. The problem with some of these dazzling renderings everyone uses these days (which I've been able to produce myself in the past) is that they can be very deceiving; add enough visual interest at the periphery- pretty young people, flocks of birds in the sky, diffused lighting, striking sunsets- and it can help prop up even the least successful designs out there.
Hey: no outing people. Personally I think people should all post here under their real identity, but obviously not everyone else is as comfortable with that as I am. So no outing people.
sorry donna. that first guy died in 1893. i would say odds are, i did not get his identity right, but i suppose there is always the possibility. for what it's worth, i only googled 'thayer architect' and did not do any deeper internet stalking. i don't know who thayer is, and to be honest i don't really care. i was just making stuff up.
there is no there asked "iamus, would those heavy tomes and works of non-fiction you want to read be "traditional" or "modern"? Just wondering."
Traditional meaning historical or classical narrative structure? Modern as in written recently or in the post-modern literary sense? I will read almost anything. I do draw the line at romance, western and bad genre fiction. But in general - fiction, history, bios, philosophy (not of late though), graphic novels, natural sciences, even pompous architectural treatises, woodworking. Poetry though is something I have regrettably neglected since my undergrad days.
But I read everything like Chekov, Miller (Henry), Cervantes, Mann, Herodotus, Foster-Wallace, Chabon, Churchill, P.K. Dick, Asimov, Murakami, Highsmith, Thompson, Nabakov, H.R.R Martin, O'Brien, Mosley, W.S. Burroughs, Saunders, Krakauer, Qaummen, Wolfe, Ambrose, Doig, DeVoto, Herbert, Prescott.
I just enjoy reading. I've read plenty of forgettable books and thankfully the memorable ones outnumber the bad. I read for pleasure, knowledge and out of general curiosity.
And if you want to play with the big boys, maybe you should post a real name
What if I was a girl and just wanted to play, would you let me?
Maybe it wasn't clear that that was in the context of 'speaking for the masses'. Or maybe your reading comprehension skills are not as developed as you think. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
But if you want to dis my work as a way to denigrate me, you're far worse than you describe me, especially since you don't have the balls to do it under your real name, or by comparison to your nonexistent but obviously superior work output.
you're far worse than you describe me, especially since you don't have the balls to do it under your real name, or by comparison to your nonexistent but obviously superior work output.
Keep you shirt on Miles, I just don't care for bullies. I did like your sculpture, especially your Japanese inspired wood work, very much. Ironically, by the standards of some commentary here, it would be considered artificial, revivalist, historicist, you get the drift. I personally would defend it simply on the grounds that it's what you like and clearly have a passion for. As for suri, it's easy to deconstruct any argument about what "people" like by pointing out an exception, but clearly he was referencing a general trend that dosen't in anyway invalidate differing tastes, at least in my opinion. And several people pointed to some very interesting surveys to back that up, but again, that in no way implies superiority or inferiority. Where the issue seemed to take traction is how this informatin is understood by academia and the training of future architects.
wow, iamus, that's an impressive list. Love Asimov too. I read a lot too, including plenty of mediocre things, but no romance or westerns here either. Although I'm not against trying a "western".
By the way, I'm not sure what I meant by "traditional" or "modern" either. But I was thinking that when a piece of literature becomes classic it is because it is vetted over and over again (which is what I think suri wants in his architecture and is what he means by "traditional" and classic) and it is funny that romance and westerns are both examples of terrible "modern" literature.
Donna, there's no contradiction in choosing to remain (relatively) anonymous and refrain from trolling. In fact, i would argue that that status shows your true colours more than does the revelation of your persona whereby your choices are tethered by the possibilities of repercussions. Also, its easier on the ego to be personably effaced and accept that you really have little in common with others here than to be personably represented and to have to accept that nothing has been added..and owing to that, something had been subtracted. i'm even starting to use this name in real-time/space now. :o)
I'll stick up for Suri. What are you guys suggesting, that because you think you have refuted his argument, that he should just STFU and go away? How open minded and inclusive.
My take on this is pretty simple. Despite some logical missteps and some lack of design sophistication, I think Suri has a really good point. There is a huge segment of the populace that prefer traditional and classical buildings to modernist buildings. Yet the elite architectural press, the elite architectural educators, and most of the rank-and-file pretend that this isn't important for their profession to address. Instead of coming to terms with these preferences, trying to understand what it is about traditional buildings that people prefer, and shaping the response of the profession to address what the public clearly wants, they either A) argue that the preference in fact doesn't exist, or B) acknowledge the preference, but maintain that the public is foolish, or unsophisticated, or misguided, and must be "reeducated" to appreciate what is so self-evidently superior. If they can't be reeducated, then they must be ridiculed into silence. Thus the hegmony is maintained.
The hostility that Suri has received in this thread is perfectly consistent with B) above. That this thread is nearly 700 posts long shows me that this is a big issue for the profession. Interesting that it didn't make it into the Editor's Picks.
(hegemony. The second e is what makes the "j" sound.)
i honestly think neither side are giving the topic (and neoclassicism) its due. Thayer and co render it into a sedentary obscure cliché built on their definitely non-omnipresent belief of what is better and oina fatalistic liason between style and content. In other words, they kill the subject before giving it life. The other side (for instance Miles' summation) fall back on dogmatic clichés based on other mythical religiously modernist liasons.
these are dangerous liasons if we accept that there is a topical equivalent here to arendt's notion of the "banality of evil". perhaps the banality of belief?
Here are two more interesting articles that won't ever see the light of pixels on this site.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/94e6c310-3c8f-11e3-a8c4-00144feab7de.html#axzz2jz1s8h00
http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/kaid-benfield/20743/architecture-public-responsibility-and-art-listening
sedentary obscure cliché built on their definitely non-omnipresent belief of what is better and oina fatalistic liason between style and content
tammuz, what are you saying???
NOOOOOOOO!!! Make it go away!
Thanks so much for correcting my spelling. Really appreciate it, including the pronunciation guide. Most helpful, really.
When the grammar police comes out then you know that the counter-arguments are paper thin.
Can I see a show of hands of who actually preferred Lever House over the Chrysler Building...
...that is, before ever attending architecture school?
No doubt which one America prefers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Favorite_Architecture
I like the Chrysler building best both before and after architecture school.
(WTF with the grammar police comments?)
(guilty pleasure: I prefer Chrysler, but I like Lever House a lot... much better than Seagram across the street, actually)
Lever house is looking really good since the restoration. What makes it work for me is the permeable streetscape.
I also enjoy Lever House and Seagram. I can't say I would have given them a second glance pre-architecture indoctri....err, education ;).
The grammar police comment has to do with the fact that I could have made corrections to almost 1/3 of the posts in this thread but chose to stay on topic.
It was not directed at you in any case.
eke, i think suri made a couple mistakes in his presentation.
first, he doesn't want 'neoclassical,' or any other specific sort of design style. he wants 'traditional,' and he doesn't appear to know what that means to him. so there are 2 styles of architecture, 'traditional' and 'not traditional.' just to ensure that this is thread is filled with trolls and other useless comments, we'll refer to 'not traditional' as 'modern.' then it's kind of a religious war among architects, and it's black/white, with us or against us issue.
in real life, of course, there are more that 2 styles of architecture. we could explain that to suri. we could ask suri if he was referring to neoclassical or specifically to any building that's been standing for at least 80 years, or to otherwise clarify what he seems to want by defining what 'traditional' means to him.
those of us that went through the long and arduous eduction pretty much all architects received know that 'traditional' is not a style in an of itself. we could help suri to understand that. we could talk about how we don't think a survey from a baptist pamphlet is really representative of the public at as a whole. but that's not what suri is here for. which is the other mistake i think you should address before defending suri too much.
suri didn't come here to learn from people who have invested more time and effort into learning about architecture. suri came here to tell us what to do. he has an opinion and is only interested in having people agree with him. if you want to sit down and have a talk about why you like images of pallas on architectural surfaces, i would be glad to have that discussion with you. i'm sure we both have fairly strong backgrounds in the subject, and intelligent opinions, even if they are different opinions. i'm willing to listen to how you developed your opinion, and i expect you would listen to what led me to my opinion. suri has not acknowledged that it is acceptable to arrive at an opinion different from his.
as miles said, ignorance can be fixed. if suri wanted to engage us in a real discussion with the willingness to listen and try to understand, that would be one thing. but he's not. he has his dogma and he'll refuse to learn anything new that conflicts with that dogma.
I think that you aren't really interested in learning anything from him that conflicts with your dogma, either.
what could i learn eke? he said the public prefers traditional architecture and supported that with surveys from dubious sources. i've learned that suri likes what he likes. has he said anything more insightful than that?
Curtkram has learned a few things from this thread, one being that nazi architecture was a branch of modernism, and another that michelangelo was more than a painter :) Outside of those basic historical facts, i don't think much else was able to stick.
your assertion that nazi architecture was a branch of modernism was refuted.
I understood your need to save face, but you learned it none the less.
I liked both the Lever house and the Chrysler buildings before I cruelly transferred myself to the School of Architectural Reprogramming and Indoctrination. But I also enjoyed abstract and expressionist art and the fantasy paintings of the Hudson river school as well.
Of course I was a lost soul before the SARI phase of my life. I wandered the halls of the engineering school and simultaneously took creative writing and philosophy classes before I realized I enjoyed rational and abstract thought and the creativity embodied by Romanticism. What was a poor boy to do? I could admit I had contradictions and enjoy them or pretend I was either noble or ignoble and never the 'tween shall meet.
Of course we do realize that even in the 1800s they were arguing about the virtues of classical vs the "new" style of the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grecian-Gothic_neoclassical-romantic_style-contrast_1816-Repton.jpg
There are plenty of reputable surveys on architectural preferences which support Suri's contention. I've posted two, including a nationwide survey by the AIA. There is also much anecdotal evidence. Why do you think most production housing is built in traditional styles? Because the developers know their marketplace, and they know they prefer it. We can debate the reasons, but its pretty clear.
I just ran across another reminder of it today. In my firm, we have two internal design studios, one led by my partner, who is a modernist designer, and the other studio is mine, where we do classical and traditional vernacular work. We have started to work with a book editor and consultant about doing twin monographs, one for each studio. The editor told us that it was a great idea to do both books, but we need to be aware that it is well established in the arch publishing realm that monographs on traditional architects outsell the modernist monographs 3 to 1.
I would think that architect would be aching to try to identify the reasons why this is so. Arent you the least bit curious? You ask what more you could learn. I would think that by taking a guy like Suri's preferences seriously, trying to probe into It in a way where you might find something out that would help make your work better, you could potentially learn a lot. Instead y'all shoot the messenger.
I assume you felt equally delighted when comparing PSFS and Flatiron? Pre-SARI, of course ;).
Both show use of a curtain wall. Incredibly different effects, no?
Care to define what you mean by curtain wall?
Suri, I don't think one can say Nazi architecture was modernist although I'd be curious how you think so. It was modern in it's time but I'm not sure one can say modernist. It's crap Schinkel revival if you want, it's totalitarian crap for sure, but it definatly looks traditional. Actually, it kind-a looks like Duany's memorial, only not as bizzare. I love Duany for his brilliant mind and for how far he has pushed America away from the auto-oriented world it had been. I love him for helping to reintroduce traditional architecture as a viable way for architects to build, but as an actual architect...meh.
As for the Lever House vs. the Chrysler building, that's not even a competition. Like those studies where they get a monkey to splater paint and ask NY conisours what famous artist did it, the lever house would be torn down in a New York minute if it was done 10 years later. Although as boring glass boxes go, it's not bad, especially at street level.
"Care to define what you mean by curtain wall?" look it up.
Hey, we broke 700!!!
The messenger shot himself.
After a long and arduous search, I was able to find this obscure article on curtain wall, just to help remove any doubt on what we're talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtain_wall
In case the obscure site crashes or maybe closes down, here are the illuminating first lines:
"A curtain wall system is an outer covering of a building in which the outer walls are non-structural, but merely keep the weather out and the occupants in."
Pretty ambiguous, no?
I wasn't asking for the definition of curtain wall, ass. You respond to a question "what do YOU mean by" with a link to a website and a snide comment and expect the person you're speaking with to be interested in the rest of the textual diarrhea you spew? Keep patronizing, ignoring, assuming, and dismissing and you'll never figure out why people have taken so much umbrage at Suri's load of shit.
Curtain wall means what it means. Does it mean something else to you? What does brick mean to you? Or groin vault?
No need to get upset. That was not the purpose of my comment.
I count 3-4 people that have taken umbrage/offense by what Suri is reporting. Not exactly "people" in general we're speaking about here.
Quick, somebody send out 4 dozen carvers... I'm in need of crown moulding everywhere for this half-million square foot building.
While where still beating on the dust of this long-decomposed dead horse, anyone know how to detail moulding on glass spandrel panel?
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.