3 ms·

Nah, personally I think MahaNakhon in Bangkok looks pretty cool.

by f00zz 5y ago

trgn 5y ago
That's exactly my point. Buildings should not look "cool", they should look timeless. A good building needs to last centuries. What looks cool now, will look stupid 5 years from now. It's fine if a building looks off its time, it's not fine if a building looks like a joke. When the only assessment we can make about a creative work, e.g. a building (but fine arts just as well), is that it looks "cool", or "interesting", or "contemporary", or "futuristic", what that really means is that we are hesitant to say it looks "beautiful", "attractive", "timeless". Strong assessments like the latter are axiomatic and require a confidence in your aesthetic sensibilities. That these sensibilities are globally shared, that you are empathetic enough to step outside of your own head and look at it as an older person, as a child, as somebody who won't be born until a century from now. Modern spectacle architecture (like that Bangkok tower) today does not inspire that confidence. It defies being called beautiful, because innately we experience it as not that. It might look "cool", or futuristic, but that's about it. A building like that is infantile branding, it looks like a tetris-game because the kind of people who design and finance this are childish, confusing technological prowess with worth and beauty.
- jdmichal 5y ago
  Once upon a time, even having a skyscraper at was "cool" and stood out. Now I'm sure you laud those early buildings as "timeless". Once upon a time, that all-glass skyscraper was "cool" and stood out, even among the other skyscrapers. Now, we don't blink twice at such towers being stood up. My point being that architecture as a field and as an art form both progress forward in society. Right now buildings like the MahaNakhon stand out. In the future, they may just be the first instances of the next "timeless" trend. Also, there's plenty of beauty to find in the MahaNakhon, especially at night... And I'll talk for myself in saying that I find beauty in the execution of technological prowess. The same way I see beauty in well-laid masonry or tile design. They're just using different material.
- kansface 5y ago
  Why can’t we make some timeless and some cool buildings, and some austere, and some playful, etc?

Nah, personally I think MahaNakhon in Bangkok looks pretty cool.

by f00zz 5y ago

Nah, personally I think MahaNakhon in Bangkok looks pretty cool.

trgn 5y ago

That's exactly my point. Buildings should not look "cool", they should look timeless. A good building needs to last centuries. What looks cool now, will look stupid 5 years from now. It's fine if a building looks off its time, it's not fine if a building looks like a joke. When the only assessment we can make about a creative work, e.g. a building (but fine arts just as well), is that it looks "cool", or "interesting", or "contemporary", or "futuristic", what that really means is that we are hesitant to say it looks "beautiful", "attractive", "timeless". Strong assessments like the latter are axiomatic and require a confidence in your aesthetic sensibilities. That these sensibilities are globally shared, that you are empathetic enough to step outside of your own head and look at it as an older person, as a child, as somebody who won't be born until a century from now. Modern spectacle architecture (like that Bangkok tower) today does not inspire that confidence. It defies being called beautiful, because innately we experience it as not that. It might look "cool", or futuristic, but that's about it. A building like that is infantile branding, it looks like a tetris-game because the kind of people who design and finance this are childish, confusing technological prowess with worth and beauty.

jdmichal 5y ago
Once upon a time, even having a skyscraper at was "cool" and stood out. Now I'm sure you laud those early buildings as "timeless". Once upon a time, that all-glass skyscraper was "cool" and stood out, even among the other skyscrapers. Now, we don't blink twice at such towers being stood up. My point being that architecture as a field and as an art form both progress forward in society. Right now buildings like the MahaNakhon stand out. In the future, they may just be the first instances of the next "timeless" trend. Also, there's plenty of beauty to find in the MahaNakhon, especially at night... And I'll talk for myself in saying that I find beauty in the execution of technological prowess. The same way I see beauty in well-laid masonry or tile design. They're just using different material.
kansface 5y ago
Why can’t we make some timeless and some cool buildings, and some austere, and some playful, etc?