Re. morality (& mercy) in architecture

[David Morris]

>From: JL
>
>
>malignd:
> > [...]  Lacking clients, architects can
> >build little wooden models and the like, but not buildings.
>
>The Little Wooden Model is a good analogue to the Novel, I'd say.
>You're better off comparing real building to works of non-fiction.

This does cut out all the extraneous, for purposes of argument.  If we're 
deciding the validity or chronology of an "Ism" using a cross-arts 
prespective, it is a limited frame, especially when examining architecture, 
which has had a long history of purely theoretical (read: paper & model) 
existence.  When examining an architects oevre via books, those designated 
as "projects" indicate they were never built, died before birth.  The world 
is the poorer for never seeing many "projects" become reality.

>As to Style Wars, it's only natural rhetoric for proponents of one
>school to pick on poor examples of the other.  Trouble is, there
>are at least as many mediocre architects as mediocre authors >Pastiche 
>ain't the problem, piss-poor plagiarism often is.
[snip]

Totally agreed, but:  The general competence of the practicioners is a valid 
criticism of the school.  Some styles are more prone to devolution than 
others.  Schools all have their rules, some more explicit (easy to follow) 
than others.  Before the advent of academic schools, there was tradition, 
which indicated a common acceptance of rules, concensus.  "School" was 
non-existent for most builders (no architects) then.  The "Art" of building 
then was much more prescribed.  (Proposed) Axioms for Architects, 2: 
"Artistic-[see next "blank"]" fosters more horrid bastards in direct 
proportion with its degree of "[blank]-Liscence."  Maybe masterpieces also.

>JL, still planting vines.

To cover up the buildings, no doubt..

David Morris


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com