If this is of interest, I highly recommend reading Christopher Alexander’s two books: Notes on the Synthesis of Form and The Phenomenon of Life
The former (I believe was his dissertation) goes into the sociological forces within domains of expertise that produce the absolute fucking inhumane insanity of modern architecture (and design more broadly). It’s a fascinating thesis: as a discipline becomes professionalized, your objective is to impress other people within your profession. For architects, that comes at the expense of designing livable spaces. For the most part, these need to have their drawers in the right places more than to leave their viewers gasping for breath at the brilliance of the designer.
The second book attempts to lay out a quasi-scientific model of why people find the more ornamental and intricate designs shown in this article more compelling (he calls them “more full of life,” which I think is actually a good descriptor).
>For about 2,000 years, everything human beings built was beautiful
That's just selection bias. We only decided to preserve and remember the pretty buildings. There have been plenty of undecorated stone forts built throughout history.
> Take the Tour Montparnasse, a black, slickly glass-panelled skyscraper, looming over the beautiful Paris cityscape like a giant domino waiting to fall. Parisians hated it so much that the city was subsequently forced to enact an ordinance forbidding any further skyscrapers higher than 36 meters.
lol wikipedia says:
> It is said that the tower's observation deck enjoys the most beautiful view in all of Paris because it is the only place from which the tower cannot be seen.
I'm really not sure how I feel about it, and I'd love to hear others' ideas.
On one hand, Paris' commitment to preserving its character is charming, and comes off as a good thing to most people. On the other hand, Le Corbusier proposed Plan Voisin as a solution to the wealthy/poor split in the city. I think the anti-NIMBY crowd around here could get behind that?
(The article focuses more on ornamentation and brutalism, which muddies the waters a bit).
The author conflates contemporary architecture which is actively meant to be repulsive (the minority) with that which is merely efficient and utilitarian. IMO efficiency and utilitarianism is good and democratic because it provides shelter for everyone, rather than fancy, ornate shelter for the elites.
11 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 31.9 ms ] threadThe former (I believe was his dissertation) goes into the sociological forces within domains of expertise that produce the absolute fucking inhumane insanity of modern architecture (and design more broadly). It’s a fascinating thesis: as a discipline becomes professionalized, your objective is to impress other people within your profession. For architects, that comes at the expense of designing livable spaces. For the most part, these need to have their drawers in the right places more than to leave their viewers gasping for breath at the brilliance of the designer.
The second book attempts to lay out a quasi-scientific model of why people find the more ornamental and intricate designs shown in this article more compelling (he calls them “more full of life,” which I think is actually a good descriptor).
That's just selection bias. We only decided to preserve and remember the pretty buildings. There have been plenty of undecorated stone forts built throughout history.
https://www.youtube.com/@the_aesthetic_city
lol wikipedia says:
> It is said that the tower's observation deck enjoys the most beautiful view in all of Paris because it is the only place from which the tower cannot be seen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_Montparnasse#Criticism
After viewing the other photos, I am surprised there is no concrete IBM building with a slanted top corner and window pattern matching a punch card.
I'm really not sure how I feel about it, and I'd love to hear others' ideas.
On one hand, Paris' commitment to preserving its character is charming, and comes off as a good thing to most people. On the other hand, Le Corbusier proposed Plan Voisin as a solution to the wealthy/poor split in the city. I think the anti-NIMBY crowd around here could get behind that?
(The article focuses more on ornamentation and brutalism, which muddies the waters a bit).
Try to look from certain low angles, frame tightly with long lens, and there you go: abstract composition :D