"The establishment of a standard followed by its denial is the age old swing of our architectural pendulum. Although it's hard to see any clear standard being formed anymore. It seems we're agreeing to a fractured standard. Who will be brave enough to deny it?"
Although I am not seeking to establishing a standard, I am quite happy to pronounce, as I have, what i find aesthetically appealing - knowing that my sense of aesthetics impacts upon the way I live my life and therefore what matters, matters. I have noticed what I liked, and I think I know why. And I think it could be applied to other things. But it is not terribly prescriptive...
Is this work of art by Bosch appealing due to its form or content?
That is assuming the art by Bosch (suggested above) is always appealing. I find the image intersting, but not necessarily appealing.
The fractured standard is just that, fractured. There is no universal, and indeed there never really was. Just look at what was going on (somewhat globally) in the early 1730s. There is no real universal standard, rather standards were then (and still are?) relative to place.
I mean I agree actually, but its not exactly informative of a methodology is it? I mean any definition of 'place' is going to be arbitrary so why not just say 'aesthetic decisions are impossible to justify so just do whatever the hell you want.'
and I find myself pretty skeptical of the neurocogition route. Doesnt it just wreak of phrenology? Ive had long talks with a friend of mine whos a neuroscience doctorate student at harvard and her opinion is they really dont understand the brain at all and the cognition people are making it up as they go along.
I established a process many years ago and use it on every project. My projects all look very much the same, but hell, with my proven process, the building designs itself. I don't care what it looks like, just as long as it meets code/LEED and the client pays me and on time.
Gotta run, goin' to one of my vacation properties and drink a few cases of servaysas, Baby.
Jul 18, 07 9:23 am ·
·
I'm not exactly sure how "any definition of place is going to be arbitrary."
There is a somewhat unquestioned methodology to architectural history, which categorizes types of architectures by period (time) and and location (place). And this is mostly a Western European standard. Yet architectural history is rarely written where it demonstrates how types of architectures actually overlap when architecture is culled from all over the globe at any given time.
If you're not arbitary about place and simply say the globe, and then look to see what types of architecture were being done (on the globe)at any given time, you'll see just how diverse architecture always was. Interestingly, this is how we judge the present (and conclude that standards are fractured), but it's not how the past is/has been judged.
I agree that architecture for the most part is arbitrary in the sense that most architecture reflects a set of specific decisions (arbitration), but only a small percentage of architecture is outright whimsical. Personally, it's refreshing to see just how diverse architecture has always been.
The real modus operandi of aesthetics is "what is the cash value?"
1. the branch of philosophy dealing with such notions as the beautiful, the ugly, the sublime, the comic, etc., as applicable to the fine arts, with a view to establishing the meaning and validity of critical judgments concerning works of art, and the principles underlying or justifying such judgments.
2. the study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty.
I'm not really sure how much science is involved. Like eo mentioned above, "the cognition people are making it up as they go along."
well, that's what alexander baumgarten, the philosopher who is credited with giving aesthetics its name, set out to do. create a science of perception that is.
Jul 18, 07 10:47 am ·
·
And did Baumgarten create such a science, or did he create a system of judgment whereby "value" is applied to objects?
--It was baumgartner's view that to make beauty intelligible a "science of the things we perceive" to accompany and supplement the science of the things we know. We need, that is, a sceince of percepton-aesthetics, he called it -as well as a science of logic. --paraphrased from "Perspectives In Aesthetics" edited by Peyton E. Richter
Jul 18, 07 12:41 pm ·
·
Yes, I understand what Baumgarten's intentions were, but did he really "create" a science, or did he really "just make it up as he went along?"
Is aesthetics ever really an objective science?
In practical terms, the aesthetics of an object is largely measures by what its last auction price was.
When it comes to architecture, I'm mush more interested in visual literacy. I haven't read it in something like 25 years, but Arnheim's The Dynamics of Architectural Form might be a better base here than Baumgarten.
Jean Cocteau once said that fashion is that which begins life beautiful but grows ugly over time; art is that which begins life ugly but grows beautiful over time.
In Elaine Scarry's book "On Beauty and Being Just," she essentially makes the argument that beauty is an ever-shifting notion, even within a single individual. Tastes change, and are sometimes linked to content, sometimes to form.
For instance, I used to think Frank Gehry's buildings were beautiful. Now I don't. But I do like "content-driven" architecture, such as buildings with dynamic skins.
something a bit unrelated that i have always wondered about is our fascination with repetition. look around your office or room right now and look at all the repetitive patterns, shapes, lines, etc. do we do it because it's easier? because we're lazy? because it has structure? because it's pleasing to our sense?
I like buildings that are designed primarily to meet code with no thought about context, fashion, or the latest trends, similar to buildings you might find on a military base or a government complex. The building should serve the purpose it for which it was originally designed.
I do not like buildings that have taken on a new function with miultiple additions over the years by many different designers with their own aesthetic agendas. This is chaos and should not be allowed by city codes, AIA standards, or LEED aesthetic sustainability.
in our world view, no aesthetics probably cannot be an objective science. as far as aesthetics being market driven, that's debatable. as far as baumgarten is concerned, i was just citing him as the person who has been credited with defining aesthetics. the fact that the real definition of aesthetics has been value engineered over the years, isn't his fault.
"I like buildings that are designed primarily to meet code with no thought about context, fashion, or the latest trends, similar to buildings you might find on a military base or a government complex. The building should serve the purpose it for which it was originally designed."
'Whew, I'm glad we settled that issue! Thanks everybody for your opposing viewpoints, I found them to be really valid and interesting! Now that this discussion's settled, let's move on to the next thing!'
on aesthetics
"The establishment of a standard followed by its denial is the age old swing of our architectural pendulum. Although it's hard to see any clear standard being formed anymore. It seems we're agreeing to a fractured standard. Who will be brave enough to deny it?"
Although I am not seeking to establishing a standard, I am quite happy to pronounce, as I have, what i find aesthetically appealing - knowing that my sense of aesthetics impacts upon the way I live my life and therefore what matters, matters. I have noticed what I liked, and I think I know why. And I think it could be applied to other things. But it is not terribly prescriptive...
Is this work of art by Bosch appealing due to its form or content?
And which is which?
That is assuming the art by Bosch (suggested above) is always appealing. I find the image intersting, but not necessarily appealing.
The fractured standard is just that, fractured. There is no universal, and indeed there never really was. Just look at what was going on (somewhat globally) in the early 1730s. There is no real universal standard, rather standards were then (and still are?) relative to place.
Which means what exactly?
I mean I agree actually, but its not exactly informative of a methodology is it? I mean any definition of 'place' is going to be arbitrary so why not just say 'aesthetic decisions are impossible to justify so just do whatever the hell you want.'
and I find myself pretty skeptical of the neurocogition route. Doesnt it just wreak of phrenology? Ive had long talks with a friend of mine whos a neuroscience doctorate student at harvard and her opinion is they really dont understand the brain at all and the cognition people are making it up as they go along.
I established a process many years ago and use it on every project. My projects all look very much the same, but hell, with my proven process, the building designs itself. I don't care what it looks like, just as long as it meets code/LEED and the client pays me and on time.
Gotta run, goin' to one of my vacation properties and drink a few cases of servaysas, Baby.
I'm not exactly sure how "any definition of place is going to be arbitrary."
There is a somewhat unquestioned methodology to architectural history, which categorizes types of architectures by period (time) and and location (place). And this is mostly a Western European standard. Yet architectural history is rarely written where it demonstrates how types of architectures actually overlap when architecture is culled from all over the globe at any given time.
If you're not arbitary about place and simply say the globe, and then look to see what types of architecture were being done (on the globe)at any given time, you'll see just how diverse architecture always was. Interestingly, this is how we judge the present (and conclude that standards are fractured), but it's not how the past is/has been judged.
I agree that architecture for the most part is arbitrary in the sense that most architecture reflects a set of specific decisions (arbitration), but only a small percentage of architecture is outright whimsical. Personally, it's refreshing to see just how diverse architecture has always been.
The real modus operandi of aesthetics is "what is the cash value?"
Aesthetics is the science of perception.
1. the branch of philosophy dealing with such notions as the beautiful, the ugly, the sublime, the comic, etc., as applicable to the fine arts, with a view to establishing the meaning and validity of critical judgments concerning works of art, and the principles underlying or justifying such judgments.
2. the study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty.
I'm not really sure how much science is involved. Like eo mentioned above, "the cognition people are making it up as they go along."
well, that's what alexander baumgarten, the philosopher who is credited with giving aesthetics its name, set out to do. create a science of perception that is.
And did Baumgarten create such a science, or did he create a system of judgment whereby "value" is applied to objects?
--It was baumgartner's view that to make beauty intelligible a "science of the things we perceive" to accompany and supplement the science of the things we know. We need, that is, a sceince of percepton-aesthetics, he called it -as well as a science of logic. --paraphrased from "Perspectives In Aesthetics" edited by Peyton E. Richter
Yes, I understand what Baumgarten's intentions were, but did he really "create" a science, or did he really "just make it up as he went along?"
Is aesthetics ever really an objective science?
In practical terms, the aesthetics of an object is largely measures by what its last auction price was.
When it comes to architecture, I'm mush more interested in visual literacy. I haven't read it in something like 25 years, but Arnheim's The Dynamics of Architectural Form might be a better base here than Baumgarten.
LEED needs to establish some standards for Aesthetic Sustainability. For crying out loud people, paint your buildings Green.
Talking about the subjectivity of beauty:
Jean Cocteau once said that fashion is that which begins life beautiful but grows ugly over time; art is that which begins life ugly but grows beautiful over time.
In Elaine Scarry's book "On Beauty and Being Just," she essentially makes the argument that beauty is an ever-shifting notion, even within a single individual. Tastes change, and are sometimes linked to content, sometimes to form.
For instance, I used to think Frank Gehry's buildings were beautiful. Now I don't. But I do like "content-driven" architecture, such as buildings with dynamic skins.
something a bit unrelated that i have always wondered about is our fascination with repetition. look around your office or room right now and look at all the repetitive patterns, shapes, lines, etc. do we do it because it's easier? because we're lazy? because it has structure? because it's pleasing to our sense?
I like buildings that are designed primarily to meet code with no thought about context, fashion, or the latest trends, similar to buildings you might find on a military base or a government complex. The building should serve the purpose it for which it was originally designed.
I do not like buildings that have taken on a new function with miultiple additions over the years by many different designers with their own aesthetic agendas. This is chaos and should not be allowed by city codes, AIA standards, or LEED aesthetic sustainability.
in our world view, no aesthetics probably cannot be an objective science. as far as aesthetics being market driven, that's debatable. as far as baumgarten is concerned, i was just citing him as the person who has been credited with defining aesthetics. the fact that the real definition of aesthetics has been value engineered over the years, isn't his fault.
cf, that comment you just wrote made me really depressed for some reason.
Cowboy up, bo!
Codes have a great deal of gray area and leave room for interpretation. Codes have to do with human behaviour and material. That's it.
Start a code thread. I'd be glad to contribut there. hint hint
vado retro: the lawyer.
you must be a plan checker...
Not yet, as soon as I get out of ITT.
'Whew, I'm glad we settled that issue! Thanks everybody for your opposing viewpoints, I found them to be really valid and interesting! Now that this discussion's settled, let's move on to the next thing!'
What's the best graduate school?
Yale ?
in honor of Archinect's anniversary:
a speeding photon is more beautiful than the Winged Victory of Samothrace
hmmm marinetti? either that or boccioni.
re: Roger Fry does anyone read Clive Bell on "significant form" (1913) anymore or is he (and G.E. Moore on "states of mind") universally discredited?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.