AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
So, we went from extolling the virtue of Post-Modern thought to labelling something as "ugly" and those who argue otherwise as "cognitively biased". Congrats, the world never ceases to amaze.
AoD
AoD
|
|
|
- Thread starter androiduk
- Start date
Ayan
Active Member
Well if you imply that the building is beautiful when taken/looked in the context of built urbanity, I can certainty argue that it is ugly because of the information contained in the paragraph preceding McClelland's suggestions to improve the building. You can't have it both ways!
McClelland's (or similar) suggestions can make the building appear less ugly (or more tolerable) to those who don't like it.
The article notes that the design of the building was influenced by the consideration to protect views from NPS to the newly rising towers at King and Bay. I would argue that if the area west of King and Bay was built back then like it is today, Sheraton Centre might not have been built the same way in order to avoid blocking the view further westward. So those who suggested tearing down the building has some merit in their opinion. I am not saying that they are right and we should tear down the building tomorrow. But the responses (from “more knowledgeable and experienced†posters) to their opinions certainly could have been more respectful.
Tewder
Senior Member
That's like saying the Venus de Milo is 'ugly' because it is missing some arms. That the Sheraton Centre may have lost some of its intended cohesion with NPS does not imply that the building is any way fundamentally irremediable, and quite the opposite as McClelland suggests.
adma
Superstar
I still don't see what you're getting at. And if we may get a bit Bentsen vs Quayle about it: (in all likelihood) unlike you, I know Michael McClelland.
But again: you're still using this "beautiful vs ugly" argument. So, to repeat what I said earlier...
You're digging yourself into your Sunday Painter Urbanist hole, kiddo.
And to use one of my familiar tropes: it's like a 15 year old boy using Victoria's Secret models as a benchmark for "beautiful" femininity, and anything else is fatally "defective". (And, being 15, he'd be as untutored and naive as the Sunday Painter Urbanist is re qualities of urbanity.)
Ayan
Active Member
That is not a fair comparison because the surroundings/context matter a lot more when considering architectural beauty. You can move Venus de Milo from Louvre to another museum and it will still look like Venus de Milo. Now visualize Sheraton Centre where Manulife Centre is - do you see a difference?
By the way, “not fundamentally irremediable” is not the same as beautiful.
Last edited:
Ayan
Active Member
I did not liken myself to McClelland in anyway. I am afraid unnecessary name-dropping won't magically make your arguments sound.
What “Victoria's Secret models†equivalent architectural benchmark have I used?
adma
Superstar
As per my point about Sunday Painter Urbanists, the word "Beautiful".
"Beautiful Beautiful Beautiful", a la Rob Ford's "Subways Subways Subways". And if we want to use yesterday's Board of Trade debate as a benchmark, you = Rob Ford, me = John Tory...
Waterloo_Guy
Active Member
I share your opposition to post-modern thought, but I don't think that's what we're dealing with here. Subjectivity has become a bad word in recent years, but the truth is that some things are naturally in the realm of subjective experience, and that's not a bad thing.
I'm a classical musician and I have an appreciation for Bach. I didn't always. I used to prefer popular music as a kid. What changed is that I spent a lot of time listening to both, and my appreciation for Bach changed. It made me feel things that pop never did. There is so much more too it. BUT, that is the process we go through in experiencing out subjectivity. It isn't science, its personal experience. I can't tell someone who likes techno that he's wrong, only that there's more out there to listen to.
Subjective is good.
Tewder
Senior Member
The Sheraton does remain in its context though, and as you say context is irrelevant with the Venus de Milo, so i'm not sure i see how your point relates? Judging the Sheraton as 'ugly' (or the Venus as ugly for example) for being in a condition that is less than what was originally intended is what i'm taking issue with, which seems to be what you were implying:
Ayan
Active Member
I don't see how "beautiful" can be the benchmark in your analogy but I will take it as a compliment.
Everyone has the right to walk from one end of the city to the other in secure and beautiful spaces - Richard Rogers
Ayan
Active Member
That’s because architectural beauty is more multidimensional relative to the beauty of a sculpture. It's not just how a building looks in absolute terms but also in relation to it surroundings and in terms of the ways it interacts with its surroundings. So the beauty of a building can change (for better or worse) if you move it (as the context changes) or if it is in a condition that is less than what was originally intended (from “mountain†to a “fortressâ€).
adma
Superstar
So, to come full circle, you're the 15 year old boy boasting that your thing for Victoria's Secret models proves that you're a true connoisseur of beautiful things--never mind that you (quasi-understandably, at that age) have little or no real experience with women, and would in fact creep them out with your kind of connoisseurship. Sort of like Elliott Rodger sans violence...
Ayan
Active Member
The problem with your analogy/argument is that you have not been able to state who are my “Victoria's Secret modelsâ€!
A hundred times have I thought New York is a catastrophe and fifty times: It is a beautiful catastrophe - Le Corbusier
Time to take your discussion private. This veering off topic. Enough.
42
42
