For decades, authoritarian regimes have waged war on modern architecture and the philosophy it embodies. A new ad proves it’s still a target. — CO.DESIGN
In an alarmingly threatening and dangerous ad, NRA attacks intellectualism (in its core sense) via modern architecture. This savage ad might not only target your profession and/or your education but also puts the average citizen in front of the barrel of a gun.
18 Comments
In other news: Self aggrandizing much?
Sometimes, despite what your parents told you, it's not about you.
Holy shit.
America, you're crazy.
Seriously - ads like this don't exist anywhere else in the world.
Hey now. Most Americans also think this is crazy.
Totally fucked up crazy. I mean yes America *is* crazy, and stupid, but most normal Americans are appalled by this ad.
scottwood can you expand on your comment? what do you mean? whose parents, etc.? how does your comment relate to NRA ad?
Amanda Kolson Hurley also wrote an excellent article about this: Why Is The Alt-Right So Angry About Architecture?
IMO, people who are generally anxiety-ridden about change are also anxiety-ridden about new forms in buildings. But somehow iPhones look fine to them. I don't get it, at all.
I just read that article and the comments on it... Don't go through the comments if you want to keep your sanity. But among the depressing alt-right spam there were some fair points criticizing modern design for its "coldness" of materials (steel, glass, concrete) and "inhumanity" of scale (sky-high towers and huge open parks as opposed to single-family homes with individual gardens/yards). The latter point got me thinking, could another issue be that of public vs private, shared vs individually owned, in that the individualist tendencies of those leaning right are at odds with the principles of publicly shared spaces/resources in modern urban design?
moaaaaar guns. M'rica!
You can't blame the NRA for following the lead of the New York Times in declaring modern architecture and architects as elitist and out of touch--trying to score easy populism points.
Meanwhile the left media never hesitates to amplify the messages of the alt-right. Good job!
"But somehow iPhones look fine to them. I don't get it, at all."
iPhones are very different than architecture. IPhones are semi-disposable technological devices that we carry in our pockets. Buildings should be viewed as permanent contributions to the public realm.
Buildings are also temporary and embedded with all sorts of technologies and systems that will become obsolete. We should be honest about this and design accordingly.
davvid- Clearly any work of mankind is in an ultimate sense "temporary". But shouldn't some things we do be planned to last longer than other things? And isn't it reasonable that we might design things that we intend to be long-lasting in a way that's different from things of which we intend to quickly dispose?
Question: If architects are designing buildings with the goal of being honest about the fact that buildings are embedded with tech that will become obsolete, how should that affect the aesthetics of the buildings?
That is a much more accurate outlook. Yes, something designed to be used for 5 years should be designed differently than something designed to be used for 45 years.
But the original point remains valid. Phone design has moved beyond the antiquated reference and aesthetic conservatives are fine with it. Why aren't they fine with a building moving beyond referencing antiquity?
"buildings are embedded with tech that will become obsolete, how should that affect the aesthetics of the buildings?"
Many non-starchitecture/everyday commercial buildings already deal with this by exposing it on the ceiling so that it can be easily accessed and serviced as needed.
davvid said: "Yes, something designed to be used for 5 years should be designed differently than something designed to be used for 45 years."
How should long-lasting things be designed differently from disposable things?
Its better to ask how long-lasting things have be designed differently from disposable things. Lets look at a precedent instead of dealing in hypotheticals. The Dover Street Market in NYC is a multi-level retail space inside an historic building. The exterior is stone. The interior walls and ceilings are primarily white painted gypsum board or plaster. Most of the lighting is recessed. The different spaces are defined by expressive installations made from relatively inexpensive materials. These are intended to reflect the various identities of brands and designers that sell products in the space. These installations are sometimes fixed to the walls or floors, but more often they are just situated on the floor. These can be changed up fairly easily if a brand decides to change their aesthetic or needs to accommodate a different line of products. The various degrees of obsolescence are manifest in the cost of the materials, their aesthetic, and how easily they can be changed.
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.