4 ms·

This conversation has gone in a very interesting direction. It's true that on one level the perspective of this blog author corresponds to a sort of class-based

by bjterry 10y ago

This conversation has gone in a very interesting direction. It's true that on one level the perspective of this blog author corresponds to a sort of class-based tutting of the nouveau riche, but on another level I can't shake the feeling that he is pointing to something that's real. I have much more experience doing web design (some) than I do evaluating architecture (none). The principles he is describing apply in a similar manner to web design, and they are similarly hard to articulate. When you see a block of text without enough space between paragraphs, you know it doesn't have enough space, even though you would be hard-pressed to provide an objective reason why a paragraph needs 20 px vs. 5 px vs. 100px vs. 500px. Only one of those distances feels right, and it has almost nothing to do with how much vertical space is available on your screen or the relative ease of reading paragraphs with that precise distance between them. Similarly, you can feel a wrongness when a similar visual element is repeated, but without consistency, like a second text box that has a grey that is just slightly bluer than the last text box, even though they contain text of the same type at the same level of semantic importance. That is the equivalent of including windows with wooden shutters, and a set of windows with blinds, and a set of bay windows on the same facade. (For a visual-design example of his masses and voids principle, see the BeOS UI window, but I think this is the weakest of his principles) It is easy to be a contrarian and say "this guy is wrong, all of this is subjective," but I think that contrariness is more wrong than right. The best functional (not purely artistic) designs, whether they are web designs or architectural designs, hold to a set of quasi-universal aesthetic standards, including balance (symmetry or balanced asymmetry), repetition (consistency in web development terms, repeated elements in musical terms), and appropriate blank space. I suspect that these core principles reflect aspects of human cognition that are not subject to pure subjectivity. I think if you were designing from first aesthetic principles, you would probably retain balance and thematic cohesiveness (repetition). What you would lose is the trappings of particular eras, like roman columns or those shutter windows. Even if your house was based on a geodesic dome you'd want it to have a certain proportionality and space between visual elements. The problem with McMansions is that they take ONLY those trappings, and discard the principles, and that's what this article should really be about. The reason for this is obvious: the uneducated consumer sees only the trappings, because they are concrete and obvious, thus easy to evaluate. They are associated in the minds of buyers with high class, and so they seem high class in this particular instance.

guardiangod 10y ago
I read from start of the thread till the end when I hit your post. Thank you for lowering my blood pressure. This is not 'snobbish higher class looking down on middle class.' When you see tens of thousands of anything, you start to pick up on best-practices. For example, in Vancouver, where the house prices _start_ at $1.7 million, there are tons of $5+ million McMansion here. Due to my line of work, I see and enter them every day. Their owners are likely 1000x wealthier than me, but I can tell you confidently that I think their houses are ugly. Would I get the house if I can afford it? Sure. I need a house to live in, and a McMansion is a good functional house. To make a somewhat inappropriate analogy- An Indian outsourcing company' programmers have written some terrible , but functional code. Other people took a look at the source files and point out that, yes, they are indeed terrible (maybe too many goto? Or global variables.) It is not ethnic discrimination to point out the code is terrible. Along a similar vein, 'you spend most of your time indoor anyway. Why do you care what the house look like externally?' Just because something is functional, doesn't mean it shouldn't (or can't) look good to most people. You might not care, and I wish I don't care how your house look either. But general art principles exist because most people _do_ care, at least subconsciously. As an aside- If you dare to build it, then be prepared to have others critique it. Another argument, 'the author should concentrate on the general poor build quality of McMansion.' In Vancouver, I've seen $5+ million McMansion built with the best material and craftsmanship anyone could find. They are McMansion due to their design, not their quality. Finally, 'I like the McMansion in the article better!' Well, good for you. This is like different computer languages- some people like all the features a language provide them (eg. C++0x), while others like language that adheres to what it does best (Heskell, Lisp etc.) Most people prefer orderly items.
- bjterry 10y ago
  Thank you for the kind comment. It's interesting that you say that the build quality is very high on some of these homes. I was debating the issue with someone before writing this comment and that was a question I had. I was thinking about how craftsmanship and art exist on somewhat different dimensions for creative endeavors. For example, someone who is poor at the craft of music won't be able to create a song that's listenable, but someone who is excellent at the craft but poor at the art will create something that is technically excellently but unmoving emotionally. Or in web design, this would be a site which very carefully recreates any of a million expensive corporate landing pages but doesn't have any character of its own. There are also examples the other way, of imperfectly executed creative works that nonetheless are effective on an emotional level[1]. I don't know enough about architecture to say, but it seems possible that the people who build these homes may be lacking in this second, artistic aspect. 1: I recently watched Hachi: A Dog's Tale. It is notable in that the craftsmanship of the film is merely adequate, by traditional film metrics, but it's so incredibly emotional that it has won a place on the IMDB Top 250 films. I would also point to Stephen King, who is one of the most impactful people alive when it comes to TV and film, not to mention his prolific writings, but his stories don't show the craftsmanship of one of the literary greats.

by bjterry 10y ago

guardiangod 10y ago

I read from start of the thread till the end when I hit your post. Thank you for lowering my blood pressure. This is not 'snobbish higher class looking down on middle class.' When you see tens of thousands of anything, you start to pick up on best-practices. For example, in Vancouver, where the house prices _start_ at $1.7 million, there are tons of $5+ million McMansion here. Due to my line of work, I see and enter them every day. Their owners are likely 1000x wealthier than me, but I can tell you confidently that I think their houses are ugly. Would I get the house if I can afford it? Sure. I need a house to live in, and a McMansion is a good functional house. To make a somewhat inappropriate analogy- An Indian outsourcing company' programmers have written some terrible , but functional code. Other people took a look at the source files and point out that, yes, they are indeed terrible (maybe too many goto? Or global variables.) It is not ethnic discrimination to point out the code is terrible. Along a similar vein, 'you spend most of your time indoor anyway. Why do you care what the house look like externally?' Just because something is functional, doesn't mean it shouldn't (or can't) look good to most people. You might not care, and I wish I don't care how your house look either. But general art principles exist because most people _do_ care, at least subconsciously. As an aside- If you dare to build it, then be prepared to have others critique it. Another argument, 'the author should concentrate on the general poor build quality of McMansion.' In Vancouver, I've seen $5+ million McMansion built with the best material and craftsmanship anyone could find. They are McMansion due to their design, not their quality. Finally, 'I like the McMansion in the article better!' Well, good for you. This is like different computer languages- some people like all the features a language provide them (eg. C++0x), while others like language that adheres to what it does best (Heskell, Lisp etc.) Most people prefer orderly items.

bjterry 10y ago
Thank you for the kind comment. It's interesting that you say that the build quality is very high on some of these homes. I was debating the issue with someone before writing this comment and that was a question I had. I was thinking about how craftsmanship and art exist on somewhat different dimensions for creative endeavors. For example, someone who is poor at the craft of music won't be able to create a song that's listenable, but someone who is excellent at the craft but poor at the art will create something that is technically excellently but unmoving emotionally. Or in web design, this would be a site which very carefully recreates any of a million expensive corporate landing pages but doesn't have any character of its own. There are also examples the other way, of imperfectly executed creative works that nonetheless are effective on an emotional level[1]. I don't know enough about architecture to say, but it seems possible that the people who build these homes may be lacking in this second, artistic aspect. 1: I recently watched Hachi: A Dog's Tale. It is notable in that the craftsmanship of the film is merely adequate, by traditional film metrics, but it's so incredibly emotional that it has won a place on the IMDB Top 250 films. I would also point to Stephen King, who is one of the most impactful people alive when it comes to TV and film, not to mention his prolific writings, but his stories don't show the craftsmanship of one of the literary greats.