The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Dak]

Well there's going to be some murkiness in discussing aesthetic issues, and for such a short length (and I cringed a bit when QM was invoked), but there's a dual point between the "geometric properties" and "complementarity." It's not that globally everything should conform, as there's plenty of room for variation as pre-20th century global architecture....much more variation than what has turned into steel/concrete/glass everything everywhere (although now the shift is into the "AirSpace" aesthetic, at least for interiors). It's just that within a given area things "go together," rhyming how nature tends not to have sharp shifts in the environment at the human level.

I pulled up some photos of Copley square and it has a certain "museum" quality, which while interesting, is too "jarring" to be what these authors would likely consider a healthy livable space, and I'm inclined to agree. You mentioned function and brutalism, for obvious reasons, and I think that the problem is that this conceptualization of "function" is not based on human function. Brutalism was probably left off as it's long been a whipping boy for more traditional architectural aestheticists.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well there's going to be some murkiness in discussing aesthetic issues, and for such a short length (and I cringed a bit when QM was invoked), but there's a dual point between the "geometric properties" and "complementarity." It's not that globally everything should conform, as there's plenty of room for variation as pre-20th century global architecture....much more variation than what has turned into steel/concrete/glass everything everywhere (although now the shift is into the "AirSpace" aesthetic, at least for interiors). It's just that within a given area things "go together," rhyming how nature tends not to have sharp shifts in the environment at the human level.

I'm wondering whether the variation we see prior to the twentieth century is actually evidence of variation in contemporaneous architectural practice, or merely a reflection of architectural change over time. The steel, concrete, and glass that we see today is a historically limited trend, and there's no reason to assume it won't play itself out, as older traditions have. I'm not sure if the authors think we should return to the tenets of Corinthian architecture, or if architects should incorporate such tenets into modern buildings.

I pulled up some photos of Copley square and it has a certain "museum" quality, which while interesting, is too "jarring" to be what these authors would likely consider a healthy livable space, and I'm inclined to agree. You mentioned function and brutalism, for obvious reasons, and I think that the problem is that this conceptualization of "function" is not based on human function. Brutalism was probably left off as it's long been a whipping boy for more traditional architectural aestheticists.

Copley Square isn't a residential area. I'm inclined to say that the kind of heterogeneity, if not randomness, that these authors are targeting isn't common in most residential areas; or if it is, it's not because of modernism's visual credo or avant-garde aesthetics. They seem to be either a) explaining a real problem by appealing to an unlikely source, or b) imagining a problem that doesn't exist, architecturally speaking. Again, the modern building they contrast with the Piazza di Spagna isn't exemplary of architectural modernism. It's just a bland, functional building (which they don't bother to identify, but treat as exemplary).

I think they're right about the science behind aesthetic appreciation, but I'm not sure they make a compelling case for visual modernism as a driving factor behind the poor psychological/emotional well-being of people living in urban residential areas.

 

[Dak]

I'm wondering whether the variation we see prior to the twentieth century is actually evidence of variation in contemporaneous architectural practice, or merely a reflection of architectural change over time. The steel, concrete, and glass that we see today is a historically limited trend, and there's no reason to assume it won't play itself out, as older traditions have. I'm not sure if the authors think we should return to the tenets of Corinthian architecture, or if architects should incorporate such tenets into modern buildings.

By variation I meant a larger geographical distance. Buildings built with materials mirroring often the local natural environment (where they came from), or at least general natural products when imported, with artistic flair matching the people and times. E.G., a primarily wooden structure in 1500 in Japan does not look like one in China or especially in Germany. I doubt they have any preference for a specific architecture (e.g., Corinthian).

I think they're right about the science behind aesthetic appreciation, but I'm not sure they make a compelling case for visual modernism as a driving factor behind the poor psychological/emotional well-being of people living in urban residential areas.

I agree, as the lack of greenery is likely the greater issue. But nothing is all/nothing; it would be interesting to see what percentage jarring contemporary architecture contribute to unwellness. Probably directly <2%, indirectly the sky is the limit (of what little may be seen).

 

[Einherjar86]

By variation I meant a larger geographical distance. Buildings built with materials mirroring often the local natural environment (where they came from), or at least general natural products when imported, with artistic flair matching the people and times. E.G., a primarily wooden structure in 1500 in Japan does not look like one in China or especially in Germany. I doubt they have any preference for a specific architecture (e.g., Corinthian).

I see.

I agree, as the lack of greenery is likely the greater issue. But nothing is all/nothing; it would be interesting to see what percentage jarring contemporary architecture contribute to unwellness. Probably directly <2%, indirectly the sky is the limit (of what little may be seen).

Greenery, noise pollution, air pollution, congestion, etc. There are plenty of reasons to love the city, but I can understand how a lot of people wouldn't enjoy it.

But I still question whether we can connect "jarring contemporary architecture" to what the authors call the "almost century-old theory of visual modernity." Again, they seem to be identifying an avant-garde and largely non-functional visual theory as the concept that underlies most contemporary architecture. A contemporary apartment complex is the last thing in the world that screams "look at me, I'm a modern art object." They seem to want to demonize both modernist aesthetics and the majority of contemporary architecture, but do so by conflating them (or arguing that the former informs the latter). The problem is, they're entirely different things.

I agree with the authors that the visual appearance of many contemporary works of architecture are quite depressing; but they're not the product of modernist visual aesthetics.

 

[Dak]

I see.
A contemporary apartment complex is the last thing in the world that screams "look at me, I'm a modern art object." They seem to want to demonize both modernist aesthetics and the majority of contemporary architecture, but do so by conflating them (or arguing that the former informs the latter). The problem is, they're entirely different things.

This is probably the most accurate critique and I certainly don't have any way of answering this for them without doing more reading on these authors works. We know that in the case of apartment complexes, local building codes, the economics of materials, and fashionable trends (eg AirSpace) have more sway than any "Starchitect" dreams of the next Guggenheim.

I would be interested in how they could respond to the two issues separately.

 

[rusty water]

These people in this thread write longer paragraphs than I`ve ever read. There must be like way over 500 words in one.

 

[Dak]

Probably because we're mostly graduate students. This is lighter work for a break from academic forced-work.

 

[rusty water]

Probably because we're mostly graduate students. This is lighter work for a break from academic forced-work.

It is to your credit dude.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Probably because we're mostly graduate students. This is lighter work for a break from academic forced-work.

I honestly never made that connection... the two of you make 90% more sense now lol

 

[rms]

they just never learned to write concisely!

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Okay. Democratic primary. LET'S DO THIS.

I finally started following the race this week, having refused to waste time on this bullshit until the election was near. Based on my reading of polls, I narrowed my research to three viable frontrunners:

• Sanders
• Biden
• Bloomberg

Why I prefer Biden at the moment:

While there's nothing I especially like about this generic-ass cookie-cutter Democrat, he strikes me as the "least-bad" of the three. Sanders is obviously a respectable champion of social justice, peace, and checks on executive power, but his economic views are unforgivably stupid. Now, I'd love to see a brilliant analytical mind like Bloomberg as President, and I find his policy ideas refreshingly agreeable overall, but I know that his billionaire status alone could further tear the country apart by stoking the flames of anti-elite anger, not to mention the whole stop-and-frisk fiasco.

Happy to hear thoughts on this comparison from a non-"lol fuck Dems" perspective.

Edit: And yes, I just realized you guys have been discussing this forever in the news thread, and can probably talk circles around me. Throw me a bone.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

Foreign perspective so take it with a grain of salt but out of the candidates with any realistic chance of securing the nomination, I regard them all as completely unacceptable except Sanders. In terms of domestic policy, he and arguably Warren represent the only alternatives to third-way democracy. In terms of foreign policy, he and arguably Gabbard are the only truly anti-imperialist candidates. A Biden nomination would be bad and his presidential campaign a repeat of 2016, and a Bloomberg nomination would be a travesty and essentially expose the US as a one-party state.

 

[CiG]

RE Biden; I could never in good faith vote for someone who strongly argued to allow Bush to invade Iraq. He was the chair of the senate's foreign relations committee and he solely picked the 18 witnesses in the senate hearings, majority of which were pro-war and pro-regime change. He's a neocon piece of shit through and through and his mind is so garbled that he actually forgot he championed that invasion. I have no faith he could withstand pressures to apply neocon foreign policy if he took the office.

If I lived over there I'd be for Tulsi (she has no chance obv) and failing that, I'm for Bernie next. Honestly almost solely because of his anti-neocon positions.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It fundamentally doesn't matter who wins because 75% of federal spending goes to boomerbux anyways, and the proportion only increases with time. Any candidate that refuses to call for roaming death squads to suppress the boomer menace is neglecting their duties to the nation's future. The entire sum of the Bush/Obama/Trump Middle East adventures pales to just end-of-life medical care for useless greying fleshsacks. Only through mass extermination of retirees may we reinvigorate our nation's youth and future.

 

[Einherjar86]

Okay. Democratic primary. LET'S DO THIS.

I finally started following the race this week, having refused to waste time on this bullshit until the election was near. Based on my reading of polls, I narrowed my research to three viable frontrunners:

• Sanders
• Biden
• Bloomberg

Why I prefer Biden at the moment:

While there's nothing I especially like about this generic-ass cookie-cutter Democrat, he strikes me as the "least-bad" of the three. Sanders is obviously a respectable champion of social justice, peace, and checks on executive power, but his economic views are unforgivably stupid. Now, I'd love to see a brilliant analytical mind like Bloomberg as President, and I find his policy ideas refreshingly agreeable overall, but I know that his billionaire status alone could further tear the country apart by stoking the flames of anti-elite anger, not to mention the whole stop-and-frisk fiasco.

Happy to hear thoughts on this comparison from a non-"lol fuck Dems" perspective.

Edit: And yes, I just realized you guys have been discussing this forever in the news thread, and can probably talk circles around me. Throw me a bone.

For me, it's between Sanders and Warren, and I'm leaning toward Warren. I agree that Sanders's economic policies border are impractical, and risk alienating a lot of potential moderates. On the other hand, the anti-billionaire thing could woo others.

I see Warren as the most analytical mind onstage. She's wicked smart, resilient, and her economic plan (while still extreme) carries more water. As far as fiascoes go, the "Pocahontas" thing is way less malicious than stop-and-frisk; and her faux pas accusation against Sanders doesn't discolor her as a candidate, for me.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If Warren wanted to present herself as the reasonable candidate economically, she wouldn't promote a wealth tax at the exclusion of an increased income tax on her website. She just copies everyone's plans and then backtracks when convenient. See how right now she even flip-flopped on her no-PACs policy.

 

[CiG]

#WalkbackWarren

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

give a name
who do you actually think is going to get the democratic nomination??

but
separate question
who do you really want to get the dem nomination??

 

[mutantllama]

Fucking Monoxide Child all methed out playing Jeopardy.

 

[rms]

you guys see the Bloomberg women commercial yet?

I guess Warren, but I wonder if her appeal to minority voters is going to upset the whitey's who may ignore/go Trump. Not sure why Warren is advocating so hard for non-whites but maybe it'll work for her.