4 ms·

People tear down beautiful things and replace them with crap, because what's wrong with the beautiful thing is that it wasn't made by them. They want to leave t

by exe34 3y ago

People tear down beautiful things and replace them with crap, because what's wrong with the beautiful thing is that it wasn't made by them. They want to leave their mark, like a dog pissing on a lamp post. We see it all the time in software UI, so it doesn't surprise me that it also happens in architecture.

dukeyukey 3y ago
Try living in a dodgy Victorian conversion first. I'll take almost any new build over them.
- exe34 3y ago
  Do you believe that all beautiful things are dodgy Victorian conversions?
  - dukeyukey 3y ago
    I think the UK overprotects "historical" stuff to the point of degrading the life of it's people, and not in a small way.
    - exe34 3y ago
      This wouldn't be a problem if we built houses in proportion to population growth (whether through birth rate or immigration) - but we have so many landlords in parliament, that we can't really do anything that would threaten to reduce the growth of house prices.
mrtksn 3y ago
That's one opinion to hold if you are cynical enough or young enough not to remember stuff changing over time. For example, if you are old enough to witness the transition you can remember how much a fresh breath of air was moving away from the clutter and pertinaciousness of post modernist interior design into the functional and comfortable minimalism then only to go the the next phase seeking some more cozy spaces once the minimalism begin feeling impersonal and cold and then the designers remember how cool and inspiring some stuff from the 60s and 70s were.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Aren't you sort of saying the same thing? The pursit of change for its own sake, rather than striving towards a (relatively) objective improvement does look a bit fruitless.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    No, not at all. The styles don't change of its own sake, they change as people come up with ideas on how to address the problems of the last one. Each iteration solves something only to create its own problems that will be solved by the next iteration. Also, people revisit old ideas all the time. Problem solving chain is only one force, there's also the desire force. As time change, people desire different things. At one point people may desire order if the world is too chaotic only to desire freedom later on when the world becomes too strict and rigid when trying to get things into order and all that reflects into the design of everything. Another force would be economy and technology, old ideas that didn't work because the tech wasn't there yet are revisited or designs can be optimised for cost when times are tough. Tiny demons carved by hand on the facade are nice but when the demand for just getting into the plane at the cheapest cost is strong you can't make you airports to look like 1800s train stations.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > The styles don't change of its own sake, they change as people come up with ideas on how to address the problems of the last one. I don't think this bit is true, or at least I don't believe these are "problems" being solved, when it comes to art. There are no problems, only changes. That's why being derivative is bad. It's a drive for change for its own sake.
      - mrtksn 3y ago
        Well, design is not something that exists on its own sake. Just like with UI design in computers, product or architectural/interior design solves problems. Aesthetics is a component of it but, function and communication is too. People want big windows, designers figure it out. People want cheap places that can be reconfigured for function, designers figure it out, people want cheap sunglasses and designers figure it out, people want watches that makes them look serious and designers figure it out, - you get the idea. They do all that within the framework of technology and materials and as the tech and materials availability change they find new solutions. BTW, this idea of "designers just make eye candy" is something I keep seeing in the AI Hype train folks. They enter a prompt and the AI generates an image of, let's say a chair that looks cool at first glance and they think that AI is ready to take away the design jobs. They are deeply mistaken because they have no idea what the designers actually do and what it takes to design a product and no, it's not about coming up with something to sit on and looks of a particular type, out of the blue.

by exe34 3y ago

dukeyukey 3y ago

Try living in a dodgy Victorian conversion first. I'll take almost any new build over them.

exe34 3y ago
Do you believe that all beautiful things are dodgy Victorian conversions?
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  I think the UK overprotects "historical" stuff to the point of degrading the life of it's people, and not in a small way.
  - exe34 3y ago
    This wouldn't be a problem if we built houses in proportion to population growth (whether through birth rate or immigration) - but we have so many landlords in parliament, that we can't really do anything that would threaten to reduce the growth of house prices.

mrtksn 3y ago

That's one opinion to hold if you are cynical enough or young enough not to remember stuff changing over time. For example, if you are old enough to witness the transition you can remember how much a fresh breath of air was moving away from the clutter and pertinaciousness of post modernist interior design into the functional and comfortable minimalism then only to go the the next phase seeking some more cozy spaces once the minimalism begin feeling impersonal and cold and then the designers remember how cool and inspiring some stuff from the 60s and 70s were.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Aren't you sort of saying the same thing? The pursit of change for its own sake, rather than striving towards a (relatively) objective improvement does look a bit fruitless.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  No, not at all. The styles don't change of its own sake, they change as people come up with ideas on how to address the problems of the last one. Each iteration solves something only to create its own problems that will be solved by the next iteration. Also, people revisit old ideas all the time. Problem solving chain is only one force, there's also the desire force. As time change, people desire different things. At one point people may desire order if the world is too chaotic only to desire freedom later on when the world becomes too strict and rigid when trying to get things into order and all that reflects into the design of everything. Another force would be economy and technology, old ideas that didn't work because the tech wasn't there yet are revisited or designs can be optimised for cost when times are tough. Tiny demons carved by hand on the facade are nice but when the demand for just getting into the plane at the cheapest cost is strong you can't make you airports to look like 1800s train stations.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > The styles don't change of its own sake, they change as people come up with ideas on how to address the problems of the last one. I don't think this bit is true, or at least I don't believe these are "problems" being solved, when it comes to art. There are no problems, only changes. That's why being derivative is bad. It's a drive for change for its own sake.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      Well, design is not something that exists on its own sake. Just like with UI design in computers, product or architectural/interior design solves problems. Aesthetics is a component of it but, function and communication is too. People want big windows, designers figure it out. People want cheap places that can be reconfigured for function, designers figure it out, people want cheap sunglasses and designers figure it out, people want watches that makes them look serious and designers figure it out, - you get the idea. They do all that within the framework of technology and materials and as the tech and materials availability change they find new solutions. BTW, this idea of "designers just make eye candy" is something I keep seeing in the AI Hype train folks. They enter a prompt and the AI generates an image of, let's say a chair that looks cool at first glance and they think that AI is ready to take away the design jobs. They are deeply mistaken because they have no idea what the designers actually do and what it takes to design a product and no, it's not about coming up with something to sit on and looks of a particular type, out of the blue.