3 ms·

Atlantic/CityLab followed an earlier article by 99pi: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/hard-to-love-a-brute/ http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/hard-to

• astrange 10y ago
  > As with any art form—whether opera or painting or literature—the more you know about it the more you appreciate it. This is especially true of concrete buildings. I think this is called the Courtier's Reply? Just because you spent your life studying literature or sticking people in giant unpainted fascist architecture doesn't make it a good thing.
  • theoh 10y ago
    Art does come from humans, who generally make it in good faith (like religion...) You've got to spend the time to see where they are coming from if you want to understand what they have produced. Even then, de gustibus non est disputandum. The term "Courtier's Reply" was apparently invented by a high-profile and argumentative atheist, PZ Myers, and it's specific to that debate. (Personally I can't think of a more pointless and unprovable hypothesis than the atheism one, though I'm not religious.)
    • icebraining 10y ago
      Atheism makes no hypothesis, though some atheists go the extra length and begin to mirror theists.
  • ubernostrum 10y ago
    The Courtier's Reply "fallacy" is... well, it's tricky. The issue is that it's subject to incredibly heavy cherry-picking -- when a talking head on TV goes on about how climate change is a hoax, or vaccines cause autism, nobody thinks twice about questioning the knowledge possessed by the talking head and whether it makes them qualified to issue comments on those topics. And yet those talking heads should, if we're being charitable, be permitted to yell "Courtier's Reply!" the instant someone asks about their qualifications. Which means that when you dig down and parse it out enough, you discover that the "Courtier's Reply" is really "the fallacy of criticizing Dawkins". Which is probably not what an allegedly-rational community wants to be promoting as fallacious.
  • wahern 10y ago
    Indeed. I can appreciate the artistic vision and merit in something and still dislike it. For example, on many occasions I've eaten dishes at restaurants that were clearly put together with incredible vision and experience. And yet it would not be something I'd ever order again. Which isn't to say I'm picky. I've repeatedly eaten dishes knowing that, with time, you can learn to enjoy something. I used to hate sushi in particular, and the characteristic flavors of Japanese cooking in general. It took me years of persistence to enjoy various Japanese dishes, but I've come a long way. But that doesn't always pan out. I've eaten balut many times, but at this point I think I'm just gonna throw in the towel. It's too livery, and while I enjoy foie gras and other heavily herbed liver pates, I don't think I'll ever enjoy balut. (The balut broth is amazing, though.) I like to think that I _get_ brutalist architecture. It's generally meant to be imposing in general. But also a style that, because of the unique characteristics of concrete, permit the architect to experiment with different shapes, configurations, and patterns (or, conversely, utilize fewer patterns). But it's too challenging. That's not the kind of environment you want to be forced to deal with. By being imposing, it can't be ignored. It's like being surrounded by bears in the forest--it's not the kind of imposition you normally appreciate, certainly not on a regular basis. The designs might be flexible in terms of construction, but it's entirely inflexible in the way it evolves with the surrounding environment. That's one thing architects don't pay enough service to, IMO--continuity with the past _and_ future, both wrt to form and function.
    • steanne 10y ago
      http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3545 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3545