2 ms·

I would deride Frank Gehry. I've only been to one of his buildings, but it struck me as gratuitously zany: a very expensive and confusing way to do what could

by bkovitz 17y ago

I would deride Frank Gehry. I've only been to one of his buildings, but it struck me as gratuitously zany: a very expensive and confusing way to do what could have been done better with a good ol' roughly rectangular box. Many of those classic rectangularish buildings are beautiful. Their beauty is not the kind that stuns you for a week and then becomes annoying. It's the kind that is comfortable to be around, and you appreciate more and more as you spend years living with it.

abalashov 17y ago
A particular instance of Frank Gehry's work may not meet your approval, but would you go so far as to condemn the methodology of the sort of thing that is Frank Gehry's craft? The motives? The pursuit?
- bkovitz 17y ago
  With considerable uncertainty because I haven't spent much time with his buildings (maybe there is an "aha!" moment waiting for me), yes. The motive appears to be, "How pointlessly weird can I get?" Part of the method seems to be, "Let's make this EXPENSIVE."
  - trunnell 17y ago
    I would deride Frank Gehry... The motive appears to be, "How pointlessly weird can I get?" I'm sorry you don't like Frank Gehry. But surely you're not saying, categorically, that software architecture is pointless? I'm making that point that there may be good design or bad design, but we should not characterize design itself as harmful-- which is what is implied by pitting "duct tapers" against "architecture astronauts."
    - bkovitz 17y ago
      But surely you're not saying, categorically, that software architecture is pointless? Not at all, only that Frank Gehry might be a poor analogy to enlighten people about the value of software architecture and design. "Duct tapers good" vs. "architecture astronauts bad" is surely a false dichotomy and a horrible analysis of the situation. Here's an example that might shed better light on the real situation: Microsoft is crawling with duct tapers, and Apple takes design seriously. Microsoft is much wealthier, but I prefer to use Apple products, and I wouldn't want to work at Microsoft.

by bkovitz 17y ago

abalashov 17y ago

A particular instance of Frank Gehry's work may not meet your approval, but would you go so far as to condemn the methodology of the sort of thing that is Frank Gehry's craft? The motives? The pursuit?

bkovitz 17y ago
With considerable uncertainty because I haven't spent much time with his buildings (maybe there is an "aha!" moment waiting for me), yes. The motive appears to be, "How pointlessly weird can I get?" Part of the method seems to be, "Let's make this EXPENSIVE."
- trunnell 17y ago
  I would deride Frank Gehry... The motive appears to be, "How pointlessly weird can I get?" I'm sorry you don't like Frank Gehry. But surely you're not saying, categorically, that software architecture is pointless? I'm making that point that there may be good design or bad design, but we should not characterize design itself as harmful-- which is what is implied by pitting "duct tapers" against "architecture astronauts."
  - bkovitz 17y ago
    But surely you're not saying, categorically, that software architecture is pointless? Not at all, only that Frank Gehry might be a poor analogy to enlighten people about the value of software architecture and design. "Duct tapers good" vs. "architecture astronauts bad" is surely a false dichotomy and a horrible analysis of the situation. Here's an example that might shed better light on the real situation: Microsoft is crawling with duct tapers, and Apple takes design seriously. Microsoft is much wealthier, but I prefer to use Apple products, and I wouldn't want to work at Microsoft.