|
Posted by GrandTradition on February 25, 2007, 11:25 am
You'll find (if you look) that Joe Public doesn't "get" avant-
gardism. Peolpe know what a church is supposed to look like to read
as a church; the same goes for courthouses and libraries, houses,
office buildings- the typology list is quite long.
If there's no responsibilty to the Public, especially with regard to
public buildings, who's willing to leave a legacy of screwing up the
civic domain because someone paid you to? Think- if I gave you a
million dollars, would you screw up your favorite place with a design
I dominated (as a client)?
No one has spoken to the cultural traditions of a place and how they
are abandoned by non-traditional architecture. See? No one really
seems to give a sh*t!
GFS
On Feb 25, 12:54 am, nom...@tampabay.rr.com wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that there's a disconnect between architecture that
> > architects prefer and architecture that non-architects prefer,
> > GENERALLY. For instance, large corporations tend to hire big-name
> > architects to design new headquarters done up in the avant-garde mode
> > of design, then the big wigs at that corporation notoriously go home
> > to Colonial Revival homes. Has anyone heard a good reason for this?
>
> Economics.
>
>
>
> > Is there a good reason why architects expect avant-garde designs to
> > resonate with the rest of the public?
>
> Because it does.
>
>
>
> > Is there a reason that the architectural industry, as a whole, has
> > turned its back on traditional design, which is widely recognized,
> > accepted, and more culturally rooted in our society that avant-garde
> > alternatives?
>
> Electric Power.
>
>
>
> > I don't mean to be on a soap box here (or maybe I do), but I haven't
> > gotten more than "We're smart, they're stupid" and "It's reactionary"
> > from even my smartest colleagues and ex-professors.
>
> Then your colleagues are not very smart...as for professors, what did
> you expect.
>
>
>
> > Don't architects have a responsibility to the public to create a
> > recognizable, understandable (familiar), and beautiful built public
> > envirinment through which to navigate and safely live their lives?
>
> No.
>
>
>
> > FYI, I have no qualms with avant-garde architecture for personal use
> > when it's removed from public context.
>
> I have no problem with traditional architecture, when it's old.
>
>
>
> > I hope to learn a thing or two from this large group of practitioners,
> > teachers, and afficianados.
>
> Given your post, I doubt you will.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Best regards,
>
> > GFS
> > GrandTradition.net webmaster- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap