4 ms·

Is this real? Are architects actually trained to think like this? As a layperson this seems so far out in left-field.

theoh 8y ago
I'm sincere, if that's what you are asking. I have a postgrad in architectural history and theory, spent 5 years in architecture school, so I guess the answer to your question is probably "yes". The idea that functional items can be designed in a way that avoids ephemeral styling or fashions (think of the annual model changes in the US car industry of the 50s) is a key modernist principle. Whether it's actually possible to draw that distinction and maintain it in practice is a totally different question.
sp332 8y ago
Some, yes, but it's very capital-M Modernist and not exactly universal.
eecc 8y ago
Left field? I can read plenty of Protestant, conservative reactionarianism in the parent’s description of Architecture. How is that left-field, I don’t s understand. Can you elaborate?
- theoh 8y ago
  If you look at what happened here, I posted a very short comment asserting that honesty/"truth to materials" was a long-standing architectural value. Somebody followed up, attempting to refute every sentence in my comment. I felt like calling them out on their completely unwarranted, hostile contradiction of my comment. So I wrote a long reply which supports my initial argument that "architects think like this". Not saying whether I agree with them. That reply has received multiple abrupt aggressive responses: "architects are liars", "if an architect focuses on theory and fails to please the audience, he is incompetent", and now that my description is "conservative" and worse. It's like the legend of the hydra, honestly. My comment was intended as a historical overview. If you know of a significant school of thought in architecture that is profoundly radical, progressive, hedonistic in ways that are in conflict with the moralistic principles that I was attributing to architectural aesthetics, I'd love to hear about it.
  - eecc 8y ago
    Oh I didn't intend it as that, sorry. I just didn't understand the baseball reference of the parent post and thought it attributing the description in your post to a leftist political view. Far from being an attack, it paints the picture of a fairly calvinist, very moralistic enterprise (IMHO) not exactly a social revolution... but perhaps that's what Architecture is, at least in the western english-speaking societies? Don't really know... peace
- megaman22 8y ago
  Out of left field is a baseball term, not political https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_left_field https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_left_field

I'm sincere, if that's what you are asking. I have a postgrad in architectural history and theory, spent 5 years in architecture school, so I guess the answer to your question is probably "yes". The idea that functional items can be designed in a way that avoids ephemeral styling or fashions (think of the annual model changes in the US car industry of the 50s) is a key modernist principle. Whether it's actually possible to draw that distinction and maintain it in practice is a totally different question.

sp332 8y ago

Some, yes, but it's very capital-M Modernist and not exactly universal.

eecc 8y ago

Left field? I can read plenty of Protestant, conservative reactionarianism in the parent’s description of Architecture. How is that left-field, I don’t s understand. Can you elaborate?

theoh 8y ago
If you look at what happened here, I posted a very short comment asserting that honesty/"truth to materials" was a long-standing architectural value. Somebody followed up, attempting to refute every sentence in my comment. I felt like calling them out on their completely unwarranted, hostile contradiction of my comment. So I wrote a long reply which supports my initial argument that "architects think like this". Not saying whether I agree with them. That reply has received multiple abrupt aggressive responses: "architects are liars", "if an architect focuses on theory and fails to please the audience, he is incompetent", and now that my description is "conservative" and worse. It's like the legend of the hydra, honestly. My comment was intended as a historical overview. If you know of a significant school of thought in architecture that is profoundly radical, progressive, hedonistic in ways that are in conflict with the moralistic principles that I was attributing to architectural aesthetics, I'd love to hear about it.
- eecc 8y ago
  Oh I didn't intend it as that, sorry. I just didn't understand the baseball reference of the parent post and thought it attributing the description in your post to a leftist political view. Far from being an attack, it paints the picture of a fairly calvinist, very moralistic enterprise (IMHO) not exactly a social revolution... but perhaps that's what Architecture is, at least in the western english-speaking societies? Don't really know... peace
megaman22 8y ago
Out of left field is a baseball term, not political https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_left_field https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_left_field