3 ms·

There is one counter example to your position that immediately comes to mind: architects! If you create something, the primary driver should be its users, and

by lynx23 3y ago

There is one counter example to your position that immediately comes to mind: architects! If you create something, the primary driver should be its users, and not your ego. I believe there should be a law which mandates that architects need to stay at least 5 years in every building they "design" so that they actually see and feel the consequences of their work. Art might be a different issue, but just because someone is creative does not free them from the responsibility to build something useful! If the user experience is no fun, the user has every right to complain.

nextlevelwizard 3y ago
>If you create something, the primary driver should be its users, and not your ego. Again, it depends on why you are designing something. If your goal is to just stroke your ego then you probably aren't going to care about the end user.
- lynx23 3y ago
  Which is fine as long as your end users are not implicitly forced to use your creation. So an artist creating a controversial sculpture is totally fine, nobody forces the recipient to consume their art. But buildings are different, they should be user-centric, not vanity-projects to boost your career.
  - mejutoco 3y ago
    They should, but they do not. Whenever I see "should" in a sentence I think: why is this not how things are? What are the incentives? In this case: who is the person deciding what gets built? What are the consequences for being over budget? (Calatrava I am looking at you).
algorias 3y ago
The special thing about architecture is that it imposes on others. You can't not see a building. So I agree with the conclusion but not the reasoning. It's not users vs creators, it's the public who are not the users that get harmed by ugly buildings, even if those buildings are private and desired by those who pay for them. (The government commissioning ugly public buildings is a problem with the government, not the architects) Meanwhile, anything on the internet you're reading/watching/listening to is by your choice.
- jzb 3y ago
  You’re not “harmed” by an ugly building. Annoyed, maybe, but you’re not harmed. Ugly is subjective. Even if the majority agree that it is ugly, there’s likely a group that enjoys it. Should they be denied the ability to have architecture that pleases them?
atoav 3y ago
Of course. I have been talking about building small projects mostly for yourself. If you build your own house in a weird way, knock yourself out (especially if there is no family). This is about expectations. Good architecture serves many users. Good films serve many viewers. Good software ... You get the point. And it is always better if you can serve two target audiences at once instead of one – IF you can do it without compromising. But some software doesn't want or even need to serve all users. Take vim for example. For most people it would be a horrible experience to use it and they could criticise it for a ton of things. But what value is there in this cricism as they don't understand how vim is intended to be used? Their cirticism comes from a true place, but it still isn't worth a lot, because if you followed it to the end you would end up with something like notepad.exe or MS Word and loosing everything that makes vim special and interesting. So if anything, what I say here is: good criticism is critcicism by people who see the same thing in your thing as you do, as their vision likely aligns with yours. If you are painting impressionist pictures for example, the criticism "it could look more photorealistic" by some guy is utterly useless, while the criticism "I think you should rely less on simple complementary color combinations" by someone who understands impressionism might be really helpful. The photorealism guy just tells you that there are people looking for this out there, but as you already know and/or actively decided against it, there is no use in this.

by lynx23 3y ago

nextlevelwizard 3y ago

>If you create something, the primary driver should be its users, and not your ego. Again, it depends on why you are designing something. If your goal is to just stroke your ego then you probably aren't going to care about the end user.

lynx23 3y ago
Which is fine as long as your end users are not implicitly forced to use your creation. So an artist creating a controversial sculpture is totally fine, nobody forces the recipient to consume their art. But buildings are different, they should be user-centric, not vanity-projects to boost your career.
- mejutoco 3y ago
  They should, but they do not. Whenever I see "should" in a sentence I think: why is this not how things are? What are the incentives? In this case: who is the person deciding what gets built? What are the consequences for being over budget? (Calatrava I am looking at you).

algorias 3y ago

The special thing about architecture is that it imposes on others. You can't not see a building. So I agree with the conclusion but not the reasoning. It's not users vs creators, it's the public who are not the users that get harmed by ugly buildings, even if those buildings are private and desired by those who pay for them. (The government commissioning ugly public buildings is a problem with the government, not the architects) Meanwhile, anything on the internet you're reading/watching/listening to is by your choice.

jzb 3y ago
You’re not “harmed” by an ugly building. Annoyed, maybe, but you’re not harmed. Ugly is subjective. Even if the majority agree that it is ugly, there’s likely a group that enjoys it. Should they be denied the ability to have architecture that pleases them?

atoav 3y ago

Of course. I have been talking about building small projects mostly for yourself. If you build your own house in a weird way, knock yourself out (especially if there is no family). This is about expectations. Good architecture serves many users. Good films serve many viewers. Good software ... You get the point. And it is always better if you can serve two target audiences at once instead of one – IF you can do it without compromising. But some software doesn't want or even need to serve all users. Take vim for example. For most people it would be a horrible experience to use it and they could criticise it for a ton of things. But what value is there in this cricism as they don't understand how vim is intended to be used? Their cirticism comes from a true place, but it still isn't worth a lot, because if you followed it to the end you would end up with something like notepad.exe or MS Word and loosing everything that makes vim special and interesting. So if anything, what I say here is: good criticism is critcicism by people who see the same thing in your thing as you do, as their vision likely aligns with yours. If you are painting impressionist pictures for example, the criticism "it could look more photorealistic" by some guy is utterly useless, while the criticism "I think you should rely less on simple complementary color combinations" by someone who understands impressionism might be really helpful. The photorealism guy just tells you that there are people looking for this out there, but as you already know and/or actively decided against it, there is no use in this.