3 ms·
In that line of argument, we should destroy historic monuments and art museums, because they hold back art, and any building older than 30 years, because they h
by DocTomoe 6y ago
In that line of argument, we should destroy historic monuments and art museums, because they hold back art, and any building older than 30 years, because they hold back modern architecture.
Preserving something good does not mean not accepting new developments. And sometimes, especially with architecture, "something good" can be an ensemble of stuff - e.g. you don't put a modernist glass/steel building on the town square of a picturesque medieval town.
- jan_Inkepa 6y agoThat's a fair point, though I think you're intensifying and extrapolating my feelings too far :P For some cultural/creative practices that are dear to me, I'd be ok with seeing them die out than become bureaucratised/preserved/reified. On the other hand, I love classical music, which could scarcely be less institutionalised and sclerotic, and I value historical, ethnographical and scholarly work about culture. I have all these slightly-conflicting feelings at once.
- the_af 6y agoI'd rather they were preserved. I was never part of the demo scene (wrong continent, wrong age) but I feel amazed by it. I'm also interested in early home computers and early computers in general, and so I wish them to be available in some form I can touch, for example museums. It's tragic how much stuff related to computers, their history and their software we've lost already.