What happened to architecture and why did it go downhill?
What happened to architecture and why did it go downhill?
Brandon Collins
Other urls found in this thread:
Thomas Ross
Because
>been there
>done that
Buildings are seen as mostly utilitarian these days.
Kevin Ramirez
Art itself went downhill. Until Duchamp in 1917 with his urinal piece, the purpose of art was the pursuit of beauty; beauty being an otherworldly thing, a glimpse of a platonic reality beyond our own.
It is all connected to the death of God tbqh.
Roger Scruton made a fantastic documentary about it: m.youtube.com
Matthew Allen
Because now we have stronger materials so architects can do whatever they want, which means no rein which means shit
Julian Allen
Not to mention CG is 100 times more capable of achieving that goal nowadays than traditional mediums. It's not like we've given up on that pursuit, it's just that artfags don't take CG seriously.
Colton Roberts
Do you have that doc in HD user?
Oliver Cruz
I don't think so. The Urinal piece was not even the first piece of art that did not revolve around beauty. All those Renaissance paintings that have religious themes etc, where usually made because the church or some local nobleman had requested. And btw, many of them did not have beauty as a subject. Take for example numerous sculptures and paintings representing hell or even some death scene from ancient/biblical literature. Where is the Platonic ideal in that? I understand that many pieces of contemporary art are ugly and meaningless, but one thing that did not exist in Renaissance art for example, was the idea of a statement being made. Guernica for example is a statement against war violence. It's purpose is not to be beautiful or have any religious themes in it.
Jace Miller
this looks gaudy.
Angel Rivera
Because architects are brainlets now and Europe is 95% black at the moment
What would be the point on building nice things if apes are going to ruin it anyway?
also women go to university now, so everybody can tell how fucked education is
Evan Walker
Internet and porn made people brainlet
Xavier Carter
nothing, and it didn't. you've fallen for propaganda intended to make you idealize a nonexistent past. your life would not have been better in the 1600s. you would not have been a better person, nor would those around you have been better. you have been fooled. you were lied to.
Matthew Reyes
you literally don't know anything about art history or philosophy. please stop watching so many youtube videos and start reading. thank you.
Isaiah King
lied to by who?
Brayden Kelly
Art is useless shit.
The urinal thing was Duchamp making a statement that while millions of men were dying in WW1, there were still pretentious art snobs holding their little art exhibitions and jerking each other off over how great their art is.
Ryan Johnson
whoever told you there was some past we could return to which would make everything better. afraid i can't really name names, as we're not that familiar with one another.
Caleb Bennett
so you were just assuming someone lied to OP?
Mason Hughes
i'm not sure how/why this is a question. what's confusing you?
Owen Nelson
>CG
Wym with CG user?
Lucas Torres
Why are you saying someone lied to OP and then when asked who you say you don't know who.
Asher Johnson
>you literally don't know anything about art history or philosophy. please stop watching so many youtube videos and start reading. thank you.
I know a fair amount about philosophy and have read a fair portion of the Western canon. Your criticism is all and hominem and no actual argument. The programme is based on a short book Scruton wrote on beauty which I have read. If you think that Scruton is wrong just say why you think he is wrong.
Landon Baker
>nothing, and it didn't. you've fallen for propaganda intended to make you idealize a nonexistent past.
Alexander Johnson
because i don't know, particularly, who. it's clear that someone did, but not being intimately familiar with you/OP, i couldn't say who. given the number of gadflies you can find doing this (your stefan molyneux, jordan peterson types), it could be any number of them. it could also be some more obscure personality i haven't heard of. it's difficult to keep up, as this stuff is produced en masse all the time.
reading the book that a reactionary documentary you like is based on is not quite what i meant, but props for the effort. also, just saying you've "read a fair portion of the western canon" isn't actually particularly useful. the canon according to whom? what portion of it? how does that help you make any of the claims you want to make, or support the claims that you like from others? you also misunderstand me: i'm not criticizing you, the person, and therefore saying what you've claimed is wrong. i'm criticizing what you've said, and claiming you the person are misinformed. again, really, reading more books and watching fewer videos would help.
Luis Parker
Modern art is horrible and not worth respecting
Connor Taylor
yes, we understand, you like old architecture. this isn't a complicated point to just explain, using your big boy words. i'm inclined to think similarly, and would much more likely support preservation rather than remodeling. but we have to actually explain these things, otherwise it seems as though we just want to build things exactly how we did in days gone by and i don't think that's quite the truth.
Jason Hall
it's best to understand the different between modern and contemporary art (and for that matter, between contemporary and conceptual art) before attempting to give ones opinion. otherwise, it might make one look fairly uninformed on the subject.
Angel Robinson
>reading the book that a reactionary documentary you like is based on is not quite what i meant, but props for the effort.
You still have not actually said why you think Scruton is wrong about art. You have just continued to shift the discussion back to why you think I know nothing. This is nothing but ad hominem. My intellect is of no importance; we are discussing Scrutons ideas about art. Again, why is he wrong about what he says about art?
Grayson Peterson
What is wrong with reactionary politics or philosophy? You sound like a massive pretentious cuck.
Charles Collins
>yes, we understand, you like old architecture. this isn't a complicated point to just explain, using your big boy words
Angel Nguyen
it isn't about your intellect, though, it was about your information. i haven't said anything about whether you're intelligent or not, and i don't plan to, because it's irrelevant.
scruton is wrong for the same reason most of these people are wrong. he distorts art history: "his gesture was satirical, designed to mock the world of art". this isn't true. duchamp MAY have wanted to this, but that's not all he was considering. he wanted to challenge a specific group on their claims of accepting any piece of work to be shown in their exhibitions. he wanted to try and make intellectual interpretation of art necessary, as opposed to having it be possible to critique or exalt art based on ones aesthetic taste alone. he also makes claims he simply can't prove, i.e., the claim that contemporary art has "turned its back on beauty" is just laughably indefensible. how's that?
Christian Evans
>scruton is wrong for the same reason most of these people are wrong. he distorts art history: "his gesture was satirical, designed to mock the world of art". this isn't true. duchamp MAY have wanted to this, but that's not all he was considering.
Thank you for actually making an argument this time. I had to tease it out of you but we got there.
> he also makes claims he simply can't prove, i.e., the claim that contemporary art has "turned its back on beauty" is just laughably indefensible. how's that?
Just take a look at a modern art gallery.
Justin Taylor
in theory, without any status quo specifically to return to? i guess nothing. there are probably circumstances under which it would be reasonable. in practice? it creates a group of people who misidentify the source of their suffering, and puts them in a position of being completely ineffectual at dealing with it. it teaches people to be utterly useless to themselves and others in the present, in favor of wishing desperately to return to a time which doesn't exist.
Kayden Torres
>it creates a group of people who misidentify the source of their suffering, and puts them in a position of being completely ineffectual at dealing with it.
What are they suffering from? What/who is actually causing their suffering? (Please do not say the fucking ruling class)
James Bell
you're welcome. it'd be worth addressing it with one of your own, if you like.
>just take a look at a modern art gallery
i dunno. i like van gogh. i like a lot of impressionists generally. and there's plenty of abstract expressionist artists i think are worthwhile, and who produce(d) beautiful things (franz kline, willem de kooning, even rothko sometimes). i just don't buy the idea that art suddenly just "stopped being beautiful. it seems more likely that someone making that argument doesn't see beauty in it, which isn't always the fault of the art.
Gabriel Campbell
>please do not say the ruling class
okay.
the priorities of those who make and continue to make the most effectual decisions, regardless of the potential impact upon people at large. put another way, it's the fact that we decided to prioritize things like automobiles over walkability and public transit. that we decided to prioritize productivity over the ability of people to spend their time more freely. we focused our work on increasingly subjecting ourselves to the demands of an economy in which our happiness and fulfillment is irrelevant. reactionary ideology does not solve this problem. it wishes only to return to a period of time it has idealized as "in some way better than now" thereby ignoring the fact that the roots of our issues live in the ACTUAL past, which is not some imagined wonderland, and that returning to it would solve nothing.
Leo Rodriguez
>the priorities of those who make and continue to make the most effectual decisions, regardless of the potential impact upon people at large
So basically the ruling class.
>that we decided to prioritize productivity over the ability of people to spend their time more freely.
Yep. You are a Marxist. Knew it from the get go.
What the fuck are you doing here anyway? This website is for far-right reactionary misogynists and anime fans such as myself. You do not belong here.
John King
>This website is for far-right reactionary misogynists and anime fans such as myself.
Are you a libertarian user or just far-right on social issues and center or left on economic issues?
David Myers
>Are you a libertarian user or just far-right on social issues and center or left on economic issues?
Neither. I am an anime fan.
Parker Nguyen
Looks like a sacrificial shrine to a demonic God, not even being a Fedora tipper
Camden Williams
Anyone have an HD link to this?
Jose Butler
this is... how you say... too ornate? too ostentatious
Charles Cooper
There are people who spent the entirety of their lives building shit like this, that means no facebook breaks, that's the difference.
Isaiah Scott
>this is... how you say... too ornate? too ostentatious
It's beautiful and awe inspiring. People would be mad as shit of someone tore it down whereas no one cares if you tear down modern buildings