[Urban Shocker]

Though I have sympathy for his point of view, I don't entirely agree with Mystery White Boy when he says that one doesn't "need to understand the fundamentals and history behind an architect or style to appreciate or hate" a structure, and that visual appraisal alone - "seeing with my own eyes" is the sole determinant of whether any building has merit.

We all bring varying degrees of visual literacy in interpreting - at the emotional level - the messages that buildings embody, and manipulating objects in space to create those messages is part of what architectural design is about. Perhaps Mystery Boy's level of literacy is at the heart of his problem? He looks but he doesn't see. Just as some people are good at math and some aren't, perhaps some people are missing the beauty-appreciating gene?

But buildings also exist as creations of a culture which is constantly evolving. For instance, Mystery White Boy believes that "4 towers of the same design just shows a lack of creativity." and that's clearly a cultural imposition. And understanding the fundamentals and history behind an architect or style - being connected to the cultural implications of buildings - certainly contributes to design literacy because it aids in interpreting the messages that the eyes receive. It helps us to see not just to look.

 

[freshcutgrass]

he says that one doesn't "need to understand the fundamentals and history behind an architect or style to appreciate or hate" a structure, and that visual appraisal alone - "seeing with my own eyes" is the sole determinant of whether any building has merit.

The problem with that philosophy, is that it's a slippery slope... we easily judge people the same way. There's a reason we pick those who must judge, to have knowledge in the area they are judging.

Since there's little danger in him actually having any ability to demolish the buildings, it's just a harmless opinion. His loss really, seeing as he fancies himself someone with interest in the urban design/architectual realm.

You'd think under the circumstances though, he would be interested in making more of an effort to be more educated on why so many people who appreciate architecture manage to almost unanimously regard Miess' work as highly important.

 

[TKTKTK]

I think there's a fundamental difference between liking a building and liking a building because of its merits. I think the more dangerous slippery slope is in creating an aesthetic language that is unintelligible by all but a small coterie of elites. If we're building things that require an understanding of underlying theory we should ensure those theories are at least accessible.

Expecting people to become minor architecture buffs to successfully interact with our built environment is simply unreasonable :S

 

[adma]

You'd think under the circumstances though, he would be interested in making more of an effort to be more educated on why so many people who appreciate architecture manage to almost unanimously regard Miess' work as highly important.

However, I'd argue that such knowledge can actually fuel the case for blowing up the TD Centre--at least in a certain frame of mind

 

[adma]

I think there's a fundamental difference between liking a building and liking a building because of its merits. I think the more dangerous slippery slope is in creating an aesthetic language that is unintelligible by all but a small coterie of elites. If we're building things that require an understanding of underlying theory we should ensure those theories are at least accessible.

Expecting people to become minor architecture buffs to successfully interact with our built environment is simply unreasonable :S

Yet there's also a gap-bridging "third way", i.e. that of time healing in unexpected ways--classic case being how a lot of the "Spacing generation" sensuously interacts with the built environment. Like, *why not* be a minor architecture buff? (Sure, it may still be something of a "small coterie of elites"--but at least the outlook's more genuinely egalitarian and less locked into a cage of arcane theorizing.)

Otherwise, you get situations like re Boston City Hall, where at least on the surface no such third-way bridge exists--now, *there's* a city which needs a well-developed Spacing-type grassroots in our time...

 

[LowPolygon]

On paper I could design something much more exciting than TD.

on paper? man if you are such a genius why stop there? fire up the old computer and make a model! build it man, build it! when you've got the power, you owe it to the world to let it shine!!

also, when you're done your "exciting drawing", please forward it to me, as i am most keen to show people how exciting it is.

 

[adma]

 

[Archivist]

Another option available to MWB is to exercise some humility, and temper his harsh and final judgements with an acknowledgement that he might not be the final arbiter of all things architectural, and show some awareness that his own opinions might grow and change over time. Something like, "To be honest, I find the TD Centre buildings repetitive and haven't been able to come to like them in their sameness. I would be OK if there were just one, maybe two, but the four of them together feels oppressive and too much of a sameness to me.".

Who could disagree with such a statement, larded as it is with acknowledgement of the personal and an openness to change and to the opinions of others? I have no problem with someone not liking the TD Centre Towers, it's when you get inane and elitist comments like "4 towers of the same design just shows a lack of creativity. Even one tower of that design is boring as hell" that your hackles go up.

On a personal note, I don't come to UT for that kind of comment, if I wanted that level of discussion I'd read the Toronto Sun.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I think there's a fundamental difference between liking a building and liking a building because of its merits.

There's a slight flaw in that reasoning though, as what determines our opinions of what we see, is our cumulative knowledge of the subject. It isn't innate....a baby doesn't think a flower is any prettier than a pile of dog poo. It's only after gathering enough information about both (and a little corruption from society) that he can make the distinction. And in Damian Hirst's case, he seemed to prefer the poo.

I think the more dangerous slippery slope is in creating an aesthetic language that is unintelligible by all but a small coterie of elites.

But that would interfere with my elitist tendencies.

Seriously though, beyond my belief that the unwashed masses DO INDEED need to be told what is good and what isn't, the flip-side of your arguement is one of argumentum ad populum, which if we are doomed to be stuck with one fallacy or another, is far more dangerous than the appeal to authority.

If we're building things that require an understanding of underlying theory we should ensure those theories are at least accessible.

We aren't talking quantum theory here...I'd hardly call the modernist movement inaccessible. It's not difficult to understand, and is part of everyday life. Like anything, it requires an effort be made...ignorance is a poor excuse here. People don't eat take-out from fast food joints every day because cooking is too esoteric for the average man...they simply have not made an effort.

Expecting people to become minor architecture buffs to successfully interact with our built environment is simply unreasonable

It's not like I stopped a stranger randomly in the street and demanded an opinion. He's a member of a forum where architecture is a prime function, and has offered up pretty strong opinions on it. I think he's already made the choice to become an architecture buff. Suggesting he enlighten himself a little more about a subject he has chosen to engage in is not "unreasonable" IMO.

And in this era where the "starchitect" appears to be the zeitgeist, isn't everybody somewhat of a "minor architecture buff" these days?

 

[TKTKTK]

There's a slight flaw in that reasoning though, as what determines our opinions of what we see, is our cumulative knowledge of the subject. It isn't innate....a baby doesn't think a flower is any prettier than a pile of dog poo. It's only after gathering enough information about both (and a little corruption from society) that he can make the distinction. And in Damian Hirst's case, he seemed to prefer the poo.

I don't believe that. There is more to aesthetic appreciation than merely learned rules. Beauty might be somewhat intangible, but it isn't arbitrary. Hirst proves the point about liking something because of its merits, rather than because of beauty. It isn't a suggestion that one is better, or more honest, than the other - just the statement that they are in fact two separate things.

But that would interfere with my elitist tendencies.

Seriously though, beyond my belief that the unwashed masses DO INDEED need to be told what is good and what isn't, the flip-side of your arguement is one of argumentum ad populum, which if we are doomed to be stuck with one fallacy or another, is far more dangerous than the appeal to authority.

Being suspect of something because its popular is learned, elitist, behaviour. If the authority only exists as a sort of anti-populism, then it's reactive not creative.

We aren't talking quantum theory here...I'd hardly call the modernist movement inaccessible. It's not difficult to understand, and is part of everyday life. Like anything, it requires an effort be made...ignorance is a poor excuse here. People don't eat take-out from fast food joints every day because cooking is too esoteric for the average man...they simply have not made an effort.

Not being an architectural elite, or being versed on current architectural aesthetic discourse, is not ignorance. Through almost our entire built history the average public has been able to engage with the architecture without having to understand 100 years worth of development. As base as it sounds, it was enough to like a building because it was considered beautiful to you - you didn't have to take in to account the architect's intention to create a space that revels in modern society's anxiety. It's the difference between the Mona Lisa and Barnett Newman's Voice of Fire. I appreciate both, but I'd never suggest Voice of Fire is better because of it's esoterism.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I don't believe that. There is more to aesthetic appreciation than merely learned rules.

How? I appeal to your logic...if it isn't innate, then it must be learned...yea? You can't get a little pregnant on this one.

And who said anything about "rules" ? We no longer live in a society where elitism is dictated by those lucky enough to be born to the right family. Those who form the collective elite opinions (if there is just one, cause usually there is a nice seltion of varying elitist views to suit your taste), get to that position based on there merits derived from their perceived expertise on the subject....which more times than not, are dserved.

Hirst proves the point about liking something because of its merits, rather than because of beauty.

Hirst is a bad example, as he represents neither.

Being suspect of something because its popular is learned, elitist, behaviour.

To borrow a phrase..."elitist behavior might be somewhat intangible, but it isn't arbitrary".

Seriously though, who said elitism is motivated by the desire to simply always differ from the masses? Give people a little more credit. Can't better sometimes just be better...because it is?

Even in a subjective area, a little empirically based evidence exists.

If the authority only exists as a sort of anti-populism, then it's reactive not creative.

Other than a few Warholesque, self-serving types, or pure anarchists, I don't believe this is ever a motive.

Not being an architectural elite, or being versed on current architectural aesthetic discourse, is not ignorance.

Again, I appeal to your logic....ignorance describes a lack of knowledge...we are all ignorant to some degree. If someone expresses an interest in something, and has strong opinions on that, yet has very little knowledge of it, I think it's fair to say that person is ignorant on the subject. How strong the opinion is really doesn't affect that (although I must say, people with strong opinions on subjets they are ignorant of somehow feels worse than those with little or no opinions).

Through almost our entire built history the average public has been able to engage with the architecture without having to understand 100 years worth of development. As base as it sounds, it was enough to like a building because it was considered beautiful to you

I disagree....before modernism, we had a lot more than 100 years to engage in our language of architecture....one passed down in one form or another from the Egyptians and Greeks...we understood it quite well. Ironically enough, it was the language of elitism. Buildings conveyed your place in society, as well as the contents of the building. Modernism freed us of this.

It's buildings like Old City Hall or the Legislature (which the majority loves) that dictates elitism...not TD Centre (which so many people hate).

It's the difference between the Mona Lisa and Barnett Newman's Voice of Fire. I appreciate both, but I'd never suggest Voice of Fire is better because of it's esoterism.

Neither would I. But if remember correctly, the public outcry towards the purchase of VOF was based on the general feeling that they spent a lot of money on something an 8 year-old could have painted. And that my friend, was a case of pure ignorance on the part of the general public.

Call me an elitist if you like, but what kind of art would we be exibiting in our galleries if those who bought for the galleries only purchased commercial art dictated by the general public taste? If nobody challenged conventional thinking/taste, where would we be? We'd still be drawing antelope on the walls of our caves.

Com'on...do we really want our art and architecture (or god forbid our politics) to be dictated by Sun readers?

Voice Of Fire was an astute purchase by thr national gallery...both from on artistic merit, and as a good investment (it's worth a hell of lot more now).

If they were smart, they should have really pissed everybody off and snapped up some Rothkos at the same time.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Hey! Don't knock antelopes painted on cave walls - that so-called "primitive" art is powerful, has immediate appeal, and revived western art at the beginning of the Modern era.

Regardless of the age that creates them, objects of beauty are only unintelligible to those who look without seeing. Their beauty hasn't gone away, it just hasn't been apprehended. "Learned rules" aren't required for this immediate emotional response to form. Visual literacy - an appreciation of form, texture, line, colour and how they're combined - contributes to understanding what may appear at first to some to be unintelligible and ugly form, and it can be learned. Some may never get it, as freshcutgrass says, and that's their loss.

Beyond the immediate emotional connection that a person makes to a work of art or to a beautiful building, the more knowledge they bring to something the more easily they'll "get" it. Any form of knowledge helps in determining what has merit and what doesn't. You can't draw more out of a work of creativity than was put into it - and that immediate emotional response to it, as well as the knowledge that comes from cultural immersion, helps in reading what has merit and what doesn't. The two go hand in hand, one reinforces the other. The claim that someone needs to understand 100 years worth of development before they understand something is a false premise, since if someone is connected to the contemporary world to any degree that will be a part of what they bring to understanding anything that is new.

 

[TKTKTK]

How? I appeal to your logic...if it isn't innate, then it must be learned...yea? You can't get a little pregnant on this one.

It's part innate, and it's part experience. You don't learn to find things beautiful, but you do learn how to find and appreciate the beauty in things.

And who said anything about "rules" ? We no longer live in a society where elitism is dictated by those lucky enough to be born to the right family. Those who form the collective elite opinions (if there is just one, cause usually there is a nice seltion of varying elitist views to suit your taste), get to that position based on there merits derived from their perceived expertise on the subject....which more times than not, are dserved.

It doesn't matter that the form of elitism we have now is egalitarian in social structure (even though it's not), it's still a form of elitism The public realm is not the purview of the elites - it belongs to us all - so we shouldn't expect elites to program and codify exclusively for other elites (regardless of whether their merit deserves it or not)

To borrow a phrase..."elitist behavior might be somewhat intangible, but it isn't arbitrary".

Seriously though, who said elitism is motivated by the desire to simply always differ from the masses? Give people a little more credit. Can't better sometimes just be better...because it is?

No idea who said it, certainly wasn't me. Of course better can just be better. Just like a building can be beautiful without subscribing to an architectural doctrine, or a building ugly despite a beautiful doctrine.

Other than a few Warholesque, self-serving types, or pure anarchists, I don't believe this is ever a motive.

That's very generous, but I'd say there is a distinct anti-populism streak in much of modernism. Whether you think that is a good quality or a bad quality is personal. I tend to think it creates mixed results.

Again, I appeal to your logic....ignorance describes a lack of knowledge...we are all ignorant to some degree. If someone expresses an interest in something, and has strong opinions on that, yet has very little knowledge of it, I think it's fair to say that person is ignorant on the subject. How strong the opinion is really doesn't affect that (although I must say, people with strong opinions on subjets they are ignorant of somehow feels worse than those with little or no opinions).

From a strict dictionary definition you're correct, but when we call someone (or groups of someones) ignorant we're talking about a little bit more than just a simple lack of knowledge. There's also a value connotation. I think in this context we should be referring to the unwashed masses as 'uninformed'. And it raises the question: just how much specialized knowledge should the average person have to know to appreciate their public sphere? What is the benefit of using art and architecture to alienate the uninformed?

I disagree....before modernism, we had a lot more than 100 years to engage in our language of architecture....one passed down in one form or another from the Egyptians and Greeks...we understood it quite well. Ironically enough, it was the language of elitism. Buildings conveyed your place in society, as well as the contents of the building. Modernism freed us of this.

Not the same thing at all. The buildings might have housed, or represented, elites, but they were still intelligible by the public. The buildings sought to cow, impose, and impress upon the public - but necessary in that was that they spoke a language that could be understood by that same public. They weren't seeking to create a secret and codified language that could only be fully appreciated if you were in on the joke

Modernism didn't free us from anything but decoration and historicism, and if anything, distilled elitism into it's purist form: buildings that don't even really exist unless you understand what they're rejecting or embracing. It's why the TD Centre was such a big deal when it was built, and why it probably wouldn't be one now.

What happens to buildings that only engage on the level of theoretic challenge when their challenge is accepted as mundane? Do they become neither beautiful in form, nor beautiful in thought?

It's buildings like Old City Hall or the Legislature (which the majority loves) that dictates elitism...not TD Centre (which so many people hate).

You think of them as elite structures only because of what they contain. That's periphery to this discussion, isn't it?

Neither would I. But if remember correctly, the public outcry towards the purchase of VOF was based on the general feeling that they spent a lot of money on something an 8 year-old could have painted. And that my friend, was a case of pure ignorance on the part of the general public.

Call me an elitist if you like, but what kind of art would we be exibiting in our galleries if those who bought for the galleries only purchased commercial art dictated by the general public taste? If nobody challenged conventional thinking/taste, where would we be? We'd still be drawing antelope on the walls of our caves.

Popular work is not necessarily commercial work. That's a value assumption you're making based on your skepticism of populism. It isn't only elites, or elitist attitudes, that push society forward.

Com'on...do we really want our art and architecture (or god forbid our politics) to be dictated by Sun readers?

Why not? Should Art and Architecture appreciation only be the purview of the learned and established?

Sorry if this is a little scattered, I'm trying to reply in between looking busy at work :S

 

[TKTKTK]

Regardless of the age that creates them, objects of beauty are only unintelligible to those who look without seeing. Their beauty hasn't gone away, it just hasn't been apprehended. "Learned rules" aren't required for this immediate emotional response to form. Visual literacy - an appreciation of form, texture, line, colour and how they're combined - contributes to understanding what may appear at first to some to be unintelligible and ugly form, and it can be learned. Some may never get it, as freshcutgrass says, and that's their loss.

I think you're talking about the difference between tangible beauty (say, a rose) and theoretic/conceptual beauty (say, the Sharp Centre at OCAD). I think one is an emotional response, while the other is an intellectual response that triggers an emotional response.

I don't think that everything needs to operate on that first level, but I'm strongly against defending the idea that it's ok if everything operates on the second.


ohhh, a better example of tangible beauty and theoretic/conceptual (and gives a sense of where I actually am on the subject, as opposed to what I'll argue) is the difference between Calder and Koons. I, personally, find Calder banal, and find Koons' banality to be beautiful :S Or an architectural example might be contrasting Googie with the International style.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Oh no, lots of people turn the corner of Queen onto McCaul and get an immediate emotional connection to the OCAD tabletop, day and night. The building speaks to them directly. They don't need to be carefully prepared for it by taking a night course on the history of contemporary design.