3 ms·

I disagree. I think within a given context like “architecture in the neighborhood I live in”, there’s an objective component to beauty/ugliness. There are unive

by yunwal 4y ago

I disagree. I think within a given context like “architecture in the neighborhood I live in”, there’s an objective component to beauty/ugliness. There are universal human needs and desires that are being deprived by bad modern architecture (being in touch with nature, feeling comfortable, human communication and expression).

pixl97 4y ago
Again, 'modern architecture' is the failure point of your argument, as in "This has changed and is only a modern problem" being the primary failing. In the past most architecture sucked, it has since been bulldozed and replaced by architecture that sucked. Why? Because architecture that sucks is generally cheap. I would say the past I would say architecture sucked even worse most of the time. I'm sure 40 years from now someone will say "Do you remember when we built everything like the Apple campus", and the answer to that should be "No, not at all, it was an extraordinary building at the time, but it was rare", and that is the same comparison to today.
- yunwal 4y ago
  It’s an attractive theory that only the prettiest buildings survive, but doesn’t seem to be supported by the evidence. Photographs from the turn of the century reveal that there are simply fewer unattractive buildings. https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/against-the-survival-of-the-prettiest/ https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/against-the-survival-of... There’s an interesting theory at the end that suggests maybe every generation sees it’s own architecture as ugly, because it’s more common, etc. This seems possible, but there’s little evidence of it in the past, and it’s strange that it doesn’t happen as much with other aesthetic preferences (music, art, film). There are certainly some “born in the wrong generation” types, but it doesn’t seem as common or to span generations like the aversion to modern architecture.

by yunwal 4y ago

pixl97 4y ago

Again, 'modern architecture' is the failure point of your argument, as in "This has changed and is only a modern problem" being the primary failing. In the past most architecture sucked, it has since been bulldozed and replaced by architecture that sucked. Why? Because architecture that sucks is generally cheap. I would say the past I would say architecture sucked even worse most of the time. I'm sure 40 years from now someone will say "Do you remember when we built everything like the Apple campus", and the answer to that should be "No, not at all, it was an extraordinary building at the time, but it was rare", and that is the same comparison to today.

yunwal 4y ago
It’s an attractive theory that only the prettiest buildings survive, but doesn’t seem to be supported by the evidence. Photographs from the turn of the century reveal that there are simply fewer unattractive buildings. https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/against-the-survival-of-the-prettiest/ https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/against-the-survival-of... There’s an interesting theory at the end that suggests maybe every generation sees it’s own architecture as ugly, because it’s more common, etc. This seems possible, but there’s little evidence of it in the past, and it’s strange that it doesn’t happen as much with other aesthetic preferences (music, art, film). There are certainly some “born in the wrong generation” types, but it doesn’t seem as common or to span generations like the aversion to modern architecture.