29 ms·
That's still not scientific, or pseudo-scientific. I'm starting to wonder if you know what "scientific" even means. What you quoted is a design principle, and j
by eridius 10y ago
That's still not scientific, or pseudo-scientific. I'm starting to wonder if you know what "scientific" even means. What you quoted is a design principle, and just because you may not understand the reason for the principle (which is probably just "houses that violate this are ugly") doesn't make it invalid.
- PhasmaFelis 10y agoIt reads like an appeal to authority. "This house has too many windows" is clearly an opinion. "This mass of this house has too many voids" sounds weighty and important, like a technical critique, a proven rule, a fact.
- omginternets 10y agoBut architectural aesthetics aren't a quantitative field of study, so it's obvious from the get-go that we're not dealing with the same kinds of facts as in the natural sciences. From there, it's fairly obvious that these terms describe principles, not authoritative laws of nature. It's quite strange to get hung up on this issue. Yes, those principles are subject to interpretation/taste/subjectivit/etc, but that's hardly the point. I mean no disrespect to anyone in this comment thread, but this line of criticism is pedantic.
- PhasmaFelis 10y agoHe leads off by essentially saying "If you don't share my tastes, don't worry, you're not stupid, just uneducated." It all comes off as quite certain that his taste in architecture is objectively, factually correct, not merely a matter of opinion. That's why people are getting rubbed the wrong way over it.
- omginternets 10y agoI read it as "if you can't verbalize why you don't like McMansions, it's because you're unaware of the architectural principles they violate.