3 ms·
This is an intriguing proposition, but for the architecture we can trivially prove it false. Just go outside and look at the new developments going up, then go
by yanmaani 5y ago
This is an intriguing proposition, but for the architecture we can trivially prove it false. Just go outside and look at the new developments going up, then go to the library and look at pictures of literal tenements from a hundred years ago.
Even their industrial buildings looked good!
- lajy 5y agoI'd say architecture fits in a bit differently here, due to the extremely high barriers to entry (you have to secure property AND fund the design AND fund the construction) compared to almost any other form of artistic expression. American society (and much of the rest of the world) has become more profit-focused over time, and buildings are a huge cost. Therefore, they've been increasingly designed to be purpose-built. Aesthetics cost money, and rarely serve the purpose of whoever is paying for the building. If you funded the most talented architects alive to create works of beauty, I bet you'd get it.
- SuoDuanDao 5y agoYou're not wrong, but I think that's more a function of how one becomes a respected architect than the potentials of the students. I suspect it's an out growth of what Taleb called the 'expert problem' in that the best architects are anointed as such by other architects, rather than the public.