[adma]

And besides, over the past half century, a lot of Venturi/Scott-Brown readers have become, uh, educated in hotdog appreciation in their own right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_o'_the_Pup

 

[Ayan]

There are universal principals at play: unity, balance, hierarchy, scale, emphasis, contrast. There's also history, context, appropriateness, usefulness, functionality.

These words/concepts themselves are subjective. Their interpretations and the relative weights one places on them will vary from person to person (even two people with identical education, training and experience won't always agree assuming they are humans, not robots), across places, and over time. Even if they were agreed on universally, that would not necessarily mean that they were sound. Remember the time when it was universally believed that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth?

 

[Ayan]

Edited to add- This doesn't mean you can't have an opinion that differs (or taste), only that to be taken seriously and respected you better have a better line of reasoning than 'most of the unwashed masses side with me so i must be right and you must be an out-of-touch snob'.

Likewise, you better have a better line of reasoning than “my opinion trumps all other opinions simply because I am more knowledgeable and experienced.â€

 

[interchange42]

These words/concepts themselves are subjective. Their interpretations and the relative weights one places on them will vary from person to person (even two people with identical education, training and experience won't always agree assuming they are humans, not robots), across places, and over time. Even if they were agreed on universally, that would not necessarily mean that they were sound.

I don't think anyone here could disagree with that. What was being put forward here though was whether 1) there is any value to an education in art/aesthetics/etc., or 2) whether there even is any such thing as an education in them, as if that was a preposterous notion in the first place.

Odd, the things you run into on this site from time to time.

42

 

[Tewder]

Likewise, you better have a better line of reasoning than “my opinion trumps all other opinions simply because I am more knowledgeable and experienced.â€

All things being equal, not really.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

These words/concepts themselves are subjective. Their interpretations and the relative weights one places on them will vary from person to person (even two people with identical education, training and experience won't always agree assuming they are humans, not robots), across places, and over time. Even if they were agreed on universally, that would not necessarily mean that they were sound.

I think this is a case study of Post-Modern critique - everything is subjective and personal, and none can be elevated above others. Sorry, I don't prescribe to that line of thought. And interesting you should bring up the flat earth (or even Geocentrism) in defense of your stance - try subscribing to those beliefs now (for the sake of it being "different" from prevailing views) and see how accurate it is.

AoD

 

[Northern Magus]

I'm saying that someone who claims to be educated in such things is mistaken. It's like claiming to be educated in hotdog appreciation. It's nonsense.

 

[ksun]

And interesting you should bring up the flat earth (or even Geocentrism) in defense of your stance - try subscribing to those beliefs now (for the sake of it being "different" from prevailing views) and see how accurate it is.

AoD

that's science where people can prove their theory right or wrong.

Not the same with judging aesthetics of buildings. I am not saying it is 100% subjective but how can one prove or convince others one opinion is better than the other? "Universal standards" such as balance and symmetry are not even applied all the time. Is ROM symmetrical or is OCAD balanced-looking? No, they violate all those but we still love them. As to details, that's too vague. Rococo style has a lot of details but what's the right amount of detail? No one can say.

Judging buildings is more like book/movie critique. It is apparently not completely subjective which books/movies are better, but how often do we really read a book/watch a movie just because critics say it is good? I myself have to like it. It has to be my cup of tea. The experts can have their intellectual games all the want - that's the job that pays them - but in the end, it is hard to convince people about such things even with their elaborated theories, and what is considered crucial to experts or "trained eyes" might not matter to other people at all and should we say "hey, you don't like it because you are not good enough"? That sounds a bit difficult for me.

So what should happen to people who dislike the Sheraton Hotel?
1) since experts love it, they should learn to love it, since not loving it shows their lack of knowledge and sophistication.
2) pretend to love it too to avoid mockery.

And I am sure there are reputable architects who don't like the Sheraton Hotel at all - is there something wrong with them?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

that's science where people can prove their theory right or wrong.

Then one shouldn't have used a scientific example to illustrate the point in the first place then.

So what should happen to people who dislike the Sheraton Hotel?
1) since experts love it, they should learn to love it, since not loving it shows their lack of knowledge and sophistication.
2) pretend to love it too to avoid mockery.

And I am sure there are reputable architects who don't like the Sheraton Hotel at all - is there something wrong with them?

Personally, I don't pretend to prefer the aesthetics of Sheraton - but I would certainly acknowledge its' salient role in the history of architecture in the city - and said love-hate (to varying degrees of intensity) relationships can be extended to other structures (e.g. Robarts, the Colonnade, Boston City Hall, etc.) To consider such structures worthless (which is oftentimes the proxy of the aesthetics argument) and call for them to be redeveloped or otherwise destroyed without consideration of said merit (which does require learning, and so what, I am sure fine wine, cognac and tobacco are also acquired tastes) is doing urban heritage a disservice.

Speaking of the ROM - fast forward 30 years - angular deconstructivist architecture could very well be completely out of style - how valid would the aesthetic argument be then, without knowledge of the symbolism, the challenges it represented as an exemplar of architecture of the current era?

AoD

 

[Ayan]

What was being put forward here though was whether 1) there is any value to an education in art/aesthetics/etc., or 2) whether there even is any such thing as an education in them, as if that was a preposterous notion in the first place.
42

One can develop a better appreciation of various forms of arts through education. However, education is not the only way to accomplish that. More importantly, the opinions of people without education should not be dismissed by default.

Beauty is a subjective concept and anyone can assess/interpret in their own ways whether or not a building is beautiful. Let’s say I have no prior education/training/experience in architecture. I look at Sheraton Centre and I say it’s ugly. I may not be able to use architectural terms to explain why I think the building is ugly but that does not mean an architect cannot take my rationale and translate it into architectural lingo (the architect can understand layman perspectives as a fellow human being and also possesses specialized knowledge). It is absurd to demand that all Torontonians have education/training in architecture if they want to have their opinions related to architectural beauty taken seriously. The onus is on the architects to ensure that buildings enhance human experience and interaction and a good architect knows how to incorporate and reflect non-architect inputs into a building/structure.

 

[Ayan]

I think this is a case study of Post-Modern critique - everything is subjective and personal, and none can be elevated above others. Sorry, I don't prescribe to that line of thought. And interesting you should bring up the flat earth (or even Geocentrism) in defense of your stance - try subscribing to those beliefs now (for the sake of it being "different" from prevailing views) and see how accurate it is.

AoD

I simply provided two examples to illustrate the point that universal acceptance does not always equal to being right.

Since you believe that some opinions can be elevated above others (presumably because they are backed by knowledge and experience), what do you think about euthanasia? Same-sex marriage? Refusing live-saving blood transfusion on religious grounds? Eating dogs? Each of these is legal is some jurisdictions while prohibited in other jurisdictions. How do you differentiate between prevailing and differing opinions? Would your view be the same if you were born in a different jurisdiction?

 

[interchange42]

In this context, who cares?

This is a forum for discussing various aspects of development in Toronto. You will not be able to convince every participant that all opinions are of equal value here. Those who put forth better arguments for their position in any particular case will tend to be taken more seriously. That's the nature of debate.

42

 

[Ayan]

In this context, who cares?

Well the first step is to acknowledge that not everything is in black and white (move away from the “you either have education/experience or no education/experience†mindset). Things like architectural beauty can be subjective. In that context, a little empathy, humility and openness can go a long way.

Those who put forth better arguments for their position in any particular case will tend to be taken more seriously. That's the nature of debate.

I agree but I don't consider “I am right just because I am more experienced and knowledgeable†as a better argument. An opinion should be judged based on its merit/the supporting details only regardless of the person stating it.

 

[condovo]

I agree but I don't consider “I am right just because I am more experienced and knowledgeable” as a better argument. An opinion should be judged based on its merit/the supporting details only regardless of the person stating it.

That said, someone with more experience will be more knowledgeable and, therefore, will put forth better arguments with more merit and supporting details. As such, he or she will have more credibility and, thus, will be taken more seriously.

It's crystal clear in this thread, with those in-the-know defending the Sheriton Centre eloquently, with all kinds of compelling points based on a wealth of knowledge, and those not-in-the-know lashing out and making muddled and nonsensical arguments against it, betraying their utter ignorance.

By the way, there are many paths to becoming "experienced." You don't even have to become an architect. More listening / reading on UT and less talking / posting is a great start! It's an amazing resource, even with all the ignoramuses.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

For those of you not educated in hot dog appreciation, there are some universal principles to grasp: length, temperature, mustard. Sure there is a subjective element to it, but those with more education and experience will understand hot dogs in a way that the more ignorant among us simply can't grasp. Some people will just never understand.