What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

That's not what it's saying though

Edit: Also while the best buildings in Britain were all Catholic until they were stolen, the Protestants have some good design moments too

Oh I agree just that the Brits were hardly more into making stuff beautiful than the people they colonized.

[garbon]

Stop being dense, V.

[Valmy]

Stop being dense, V.

Well talk to Sheilbh, he posted the article that had dense points for me to agree with and support.

Ok here is the paragraph I was referring to:

There is a widespread conception, reinforced by conservative classicists, that "beauty" is just a euphemism for European imperialist art. [Now-disgraced] leftist writer Sam Kriss, who has ludicrously and incorrectly argued that London's Brutalist Alexandra Road is more beautiful than St. Paul's Cathedral, writes that "sentimental traditionalists talk a lot about beauty, but if beauty means proportion, regularity and harmony then modernism does it very well. But, of course, that's not what they mean by beauty; they mean some ineffable organic connection to the life and striving of the nation." But beauty doesn't need to just mean "proportion" and it doesn't mean "the life and striving of the nation." It can't simply mean simplicity and proportion, for many things are simple and proportionate that are not beautiful. And it can't be nationalistic, because ancient mosques and temples are among the most beautiful of structures. When we talk about architectural beauty, we're talking about a quality held in common across civilizations, one that unifies Indians and Mayans and Spaniards.

I was blown away that this is a "widespread conception":

There is a widespread conception, reinforced by conservative classicists, that "beauty" is just a euphemism for European imperialist art.

with regard to ornamentation and so agreed with the article that that is not the case. I am completely confused by how you and Sheilbh reacted to that point. Would you mind explaining yourselves because insults and emojis don't really get the point across.

[viper37]

Johnny McEntee, director of presidential personnel, has begun combing through agencies with a mandate from the president to force out political appointees who are not seen as sufficiently loyal.

Stay tuned, detention&rehabilitation centers are coming!

[Sheilbh]

Well talk to Sheilbh, he posted the article that had dense points for me to agree with and support.

Ok here is the paragraph I was referring to:

There is a widespread conception, reinforced by conservative classicists, that "beauty" is just a euphemism for European imperialist art. [Now-disgraced] leftist writer Sam Kriss, who has ludicrously and incorrectly argued that London's Brutalist Alexandra Road is more beautiful than St. Paul's Cathedral, writes that "sentimental traditionalists talk a lot about beauty, but if beauty means proportion, regularity and harmony then modernism does it very well. But, of course, that's not what they mean by beauty; they mean some ineffable organic connection to the life and striving of the nation." But beauty doesn't need to just mean "proportion" and it doesn't mean "the life and striving of the nation." It can't simply mean simplicity and proportion, for many things are simple and proportionate that are not beautiful. And it can't be nationalistic, because ancient mosques and temples are among the most beautiful of structures. When we talk about architectural beauty, we're talking about a quality held in common across civilizations, one that unifies Indians and Mayans and Spaniards.

I was blown away that this is a "widespread conception":

There is a widespread conception, reinforced by conservative classicists, that "beauty" is just a euphemism for European imperialist art.

with regard to ornamentation and so agreed with the article that that is not the case. I am completely confused by how you and Sheilbh reacted to that point. Would you mind explaining yourselves because insults and emojis don't really get the point across.

I don't know about garbon.

For me it's probably the circles of people I read, as much as anything. Who talks about beauty (not necessarily ornamentation) in architecture today? The people that come to mind for me are ultra-conservative Catholics, Prince Charles and the late Roger Scruton.

So especially in American conservative Catholic circles (who are different altogether) there's an obsession with beauty - the beauty of the latin mass, the beauty of very expensive garments, the beauty of traditional European churches against the "ugliness" of post-Vatican II/modernity and they spend their time raising money to build Romanesque and Baroque mini-basilicas in Virginia or Kentucky. In fairness the integralists who aren't strictly entirely right-wing are also fans of "beauty". Prince Charles has built his quasi-feudal toy-town of "traditional" English architecture and rails against modern architecture: "monstrous carbuncles". And Roger Scruton, who I don't know well enough to slander

Of those three the only one who I'm aware of showing any interest in architecture/concepts of beauty that isn't Western is Prince Charles.

In addition there's a weird venn overlap of certain "traditional" architecture accounts on Instagram and Twitter and the online far-right.

So I agreee with the article on that point. My perception of the discourse around "beauty" in architecture is that it's an insular, conservative, Euro-centric thing which I think needs to be reclaimed especially because (as the article points out) beauty and quality used to be things the left believed should be for everyone, but also because it's arguably a universal human instinct. We just need a few more ridiculous folks like Morris and Ruskin

Edit: And similarly as indicated by the Sam Kriss quote I think there's also been a tendency on the left (which I've fallen for) around slightly fetishising modernism and brutalism. So there's a slight culture war thing going on.

[Admiral Yi]

I stopped paying attention to Shelf's opinion on architecture after he expressed support for Brutalism.

[Oexmelin]

For those who would like to see brutalism rehabilitated with video game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n7ylXPueYE

[Oexmelin]

So I agree with the article on that point. My perception of the discourse around "beauty" in architecture is that it's an insular, conservative, Euro-centric thing which I think needs to be reclaimed especially because (as the article points out) beauty and quality used to be things the left believed should be for everyone, but also because it's arguably a universal human instinct.

FWIW, I share that vague impression. The left has sought to get rid of euro-centrism in aesthetic, but it has done so by being almost incapable of dealing with the concept, probably because it is explicitly normative.

We just need a few more ridiculous folks like Morris and Ruskin

Have you seen Joshua Mcguire's portrayal of Ruskin in Mr. Turner? I got into an argument with friends that complained he was unfairly ridiculed. I thought it was perfect.

[Sheilbh]

I like that video.

Yeah - agreed on Ruskin in Mr Turner. I mean mainly because I found it quite funny, but also I just think he was brilliant, insightful, radical and also a very pompous and impractical Victorian

Unrelated to the thread but I have no idea how Mike Leigh works - that he does the typical films he does, which I love, and then also every now and then a terrific period piece. Though I've not seen Peterloo yet.

[Monoriu]

Beauty in architecture:

[The Minsky Moment]

In one set of photos in the sheilbh article it compares the St. Pau hospital in Barcelona to a generic contemporary hospital and asks where one would rather convalesce.  The answer is clearly the generic contemporary hospital because St. Pau was turned into a museum, with most of the facilities moved to new buildings with contemporary (and more practical) design.  It would not be a very good experience to convalesce in St. Pau given there would be no doctors or nurses, lots of interruption from tour groups and getting kicked out at 18:00 every day.

Sure one can take form follows function to an extreme but going to the opposite extreme is not the solution.  Considerations like cost and fitness for purpose actually do matter.

[Malthus]

In one set of photos in the sheilbh article it compares the St. Pau hospital in Barcelona to a generic contemporary hospital and asks where one would rather convalesce.  The answer is clearly the generic contemporary hospital because St. Pau was turned into a museum, with most of the facilities moved to new buildings with contemporary (and more practical) design.  It would not be a very good experience to convalesce in St. Pau given there would be no doctors or nurses, lots of interruption from tour groups and getting kicked out at 18:00 every day.

Sure one can take form follows function to an extreme but going to the opposite extreme is not the solution.  Considerations like cost and fitness for purpose actually do matter.

One problem with much of modern architecture is just that - it is costly and fitness for purpose apparently is a secondary consideration.

Take for example the Scottish Parliament building - a building that won scads of awards; yet it cost ten times what was projected, and is rapidly falling apart.

Or a couple of prime examples from Toronto - Robarts Library, apparently a masterpiece of modern design, in which a building designed to be a library had a triangular floorplan. Never mind that it was so ugly students called it, without affection, "fort book", a major part of the function of a library is quickly and easily finding books stored there, something made infinitely more difficult on a triangular floorplan - which no doubt made some sort of witty innovative point about architecture when it was built, but has pissed off generations of students ever since.

Or the is the "Crystal" addition  to the Royal Ontario Museum building - again, arguably a clever design (I think it is hideous, but what do I know), but one that leaks - badly - and contains tons of wasted space, making it difficult to display museum objects inside of - arguably the point of a museum building.

No doubt every era has its dud buildings, but the point is this: although the slogan "form follows function" gets used a lot, in much of award-winning modern design, the 'innovative' features that make the design award-winning are, in fact, just as useless - indeed, more so - to the "function" than a bunch of ornaments. Ornaments may be useless but at least they aren't usually directly inimical to use.

I get that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Functionality is, however, objective, and so it is annoying to see so much treasure spent on public buildings that cater to one group's tastes while being actively less functional than a bare-bones building that would cost a fraction of the price - all while being, to another group (and I would guess the vast majority) aggressively ugly.
 

[The Brain]

Not all modern buildings are thought of as ugly. Some are considered hideous eyesores instead.

[celedhring]

In one set of photos in the sheilbh article it compares the St. Pau hospital in Barcelona to a generic contemporary hospital and asks where one would rather convalesce.  The answer is clearly the generic contemporary hospital because St. Pau was turned into a museum, with most of the facilities moved to new buildings with contemporary (and more practical) design.  It would not be a very good experience to convalesce in St. Pau given there would be no doctors or nurses, lots of interruption from tour groups and getting kicked out at 18:00 every day.

Sure one can take form follows function to an extreme but going to the opposite extreme is not the solution.  Considerations like cost and fitness for purpose actually do matter.

Oh, but people over here hate the new hospital and they'd much rather still go to the old one. Heck, I know of people that back in the time they'd go to Sant Pau's ER room instead of a closer one because of how beautiful the building was. Since unless you're dying going to an ER room usually means waiting for a long time until you're taken care of, I can see why. So even if the new building is of course more functional (and the old hospital itself was built to replace a medieval hospital that was no longer fit for purpose), people still prefer the old one.

Anyhow, the WHO has its Barcelona HQ in the old building, so I guess that place is going to see some increased business in the following weeks/months...

[dps]

I know of people that back in the time they'd go to Sant Pau's ER room instead of a closer one because of how beautiful the building was.

Explains a lot about how Spain lost its dominate position in world affairs, doesn't it?