(09-19-2023, 12:26 PM)ac3r Wrote:(09-19-2023, 12:34 AM)dtkvictim Wrote: Continue your parallel though, and you suggest that architects ought to be focused producing for the elite and wealthy rather than for the masses.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. I'm not equating good design with elitism, wealth, class or anything like that. That stuff usually has no bearing on whether architecture is good or not (and architecture should strive to appeal to the masses anyway). I was saying that there is a degree of abstract intellectualism involved in architecture that unfortunately (but understandably) gets lost on many people. Not that those of us who design buildings or write/teach architectural theory/history/philosophy/whatever have more valid points of view or anything, but we just see things differently than others.
Fair enough then, I don't want to twist your words.
The portion I've bolded is how I interpreted what you were saying, and what led me to my conclusion. What you are describing is something that, I think, happens to professionals in any field that deals with "abstract intellectualism" as you've put it. Getting lost in our theory is an important part of what we all do, but it's equally important to not directly apply that out of context, which from my point of view architects seem happy to do from at least an artistic angle. A saying I've seen applied in game development (and I'm going to butcher the phrasing), but I'm sure can apply to basically all fields of design: Users are rarely incorrect in determining that something is wrong, but they are rarely correct in determining what is wrong. The latter half is where we apply our expertise, not the former.
I know many will disagree with me, but I personally find the most grotesque and offensive art (including architecture) is produced when the artists are creating for themselves, or for wealthy individuals who give them freedom. Given the choice of decorating my home with the art collection of your average museum vs the art collection of the average billionaire, I would definitely take the museum. I don't need art hanging in my home that makes me feel cold and psychologically attacked, that makes me feel like it's trying to develop a mental illness inside of me, much like I don't need buildings like the ROM, Antwerp Port Authority Building, or Graz Art Museum doing the same.
I agree with Bravado
(09-17-2023, 06:40 PM)bravado Wrote: I think "ground breaking" architecture is exactly the wrong kind heh... give me normal, common designs that fit the history and nature of the place they are in any day!
Give me comforting, local, something that says "you're culturally home". For you, who is in a different headspace and community, that might be what others find provocative and groundbreaking.
Feel free to read this post knowing my bias is near complete contempt for modern architecture, and maybe I'm just looking to argue (and ramble) with someone in the field for no good reason.
Edit: I should add since I don't think it was clear, the "elite" in my original comment in part refers to architects as experts in their fields detached from the public. It's not the right word to use, but whatever.