|
|
Post by karl on Sept 15, 2019 2:04:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 15, 2019 6:13:21 GMT
I agree. My theory is that they're trying to fashionize everything possible. But fashion can only go so far in my opinion. And to buildings it must have it's limits. Or are crazy people hired lately?  |
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Sept 15, 2019 7:04:14 GMT
Most private housing has always been ugly enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Sept 15, 2019 10:29:09 GMT
It's really quite simple. Modern culture is evil and loves what is bad and hates what is good. So it loves ugliness and hates beauty. Economics has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 15, 2019 14:59:12 GMT
All the slums that most people lived in prior to ww2
no longer exist. All the elitist and best examples
have survived through the ages. Not everyone in
medieval times lived in palaces and castles.
'Modern' always looks ugly no matter which time
you live in because of this architectural Darwinism.
But that's not the entire story either, because what
modern buildings do we have that deserve to survive?
Not many, really, because they are mostly functional.
Whereas in times past, the prestige of the elite
was served by hoards of slaves and virtual slaves
who themselves did not live in the Taj Mahal and
the pyramids in Egypt; instead they lived in squalor
for the sake of the decorative ornamental idols of
their owners and lords.
Elitist society is part of the reason ww2 was so
devastating, as well as the fairly low standards
of living which was the norm in society in older times.
But again, there is a deeper analysis, which shows
that servitude is only possible because people
live beyond their means, and overpopulation
is an attempt to try and bring wealth that very
often just causes an ever-decreasing availability
of resources. It is fairly easy to enslave a man
who is shackled by the need to feed an ever-growing
family.
Our post-war materialist society is the net result
of all of these dynamics. Quite honestly, I'd rather
be making music than decorating a house.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 15, 2019 18:40:15 GMT
It's really quite simple. Modern culture is evil and loves what is bad and hates what is good. So it loves ugliness and hates beauty. Economics has nothing to do with it.
Economics would provide the rationalisation for it. Whatever one's agenda is, one needs a way to sell it to the public.
In the 1990's, after the fall of the ideologies and before the Internet became the new platform for public discourse, journalists had more power than they have had more or since. And this had them bascially shove people with actual insight out in the cold, and put themselves front and center. The rationalisation for this was "anti-elitism". The intellectuals were accused of raising above everyone else in their ivory towers, and somehow the journalists were the true representatives of ordinary people. It was just a rationalisation of their disdain for those who were more reflective than themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 15, 2019 19:21:14 GMT
All the slums that most people lived in prior to ww2 no longer exist. All the elitist and best examples have survived through the ages. Not everyone in medieval times lived in palaces and castles. 'Modern' always looks ugly no matter which time you live in because of this architectural Darwinism. But that's not the entire story either, because what modern buildings do we have that deserve to survive? Not many, really, because they are mostly functional. Whereas in times past, the prestige of the elite was served by hoards of slaves and virtual slaves who themselves did not live in the Taj Mahal and the pyramids in Egypt; instead they lived in squalor for the sake of the decorative ornamental idols of their owners and lords. Elitist society is part of the reason ww2 was so devastating, as well as the fairly low standards of living which was the norm in society in older times. But again, there is a deeper analysis, which shows that servitude is only possible because people live beyond their means, and overpopulation is an attempt to try and bring wealth that very often just causes an ever-decreasing availability of resources. It is fairly easy to enslave a man who is shackled by the need to feed an ever-growing family. Our post-war materialist society is the net result of all of these dynamics. Quite honestly, I'd rather be making music than decorating a house.
That one would prioritise functionalism over decoration in a world devastated by war, and where the main priority was to provide housing for everyone, is perfectly understandable. But as the economy improved, it became less an economical question. Listening to modern architects explaining the brilliance of their creations, is like reading an article explaining postmodern mathematics. They don't argue that they're sacrificing aesthetics for the sake of affordability.
I don't disagree on that, prior to the technological development of the modern era, the masses had to live in abject poverty for the few to enjoy a lavish lifestyle. But the technological development has allowed us more choices. When you regard the most ugly examples of functionalism, it's not difficult to imagine how they could have been made to look a little bit less like they're representing a bottomless, existential void. It urges the individual, subconsciously, to sacrifice its individuality for the sake of the public good. -Which is why this architecture was even more popular in Communist Eastern Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Sept 15, 2019 20:13:39 GMT
Whereas in times past, the prestige of the elite was served by hoards of slaves and virtual slaves who themselves did not live in the Taj Mahal and the pyramids in Egypt; instead they lived in squalor for the sake of the decorative ornamental idols of their owners and lords. But again, there is a deeper analysis, which shows that servitude is only possible because people live beyond their means, and overpopulation is an attempt to try and bring wealth that very often just causes an ever-decreasing availability of resources. It is fairly easy to enslave a man who is shackled by the need to feed an ever-growing family. my reply:
I really can't accept all these sites having different formats. This one often gives me no space to reply except to squeeze it in with the post I'm replying to. I'll try again, which brings up another defect. How can I delete this post?
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Sept 15, 2019 20:32:14 GMT
Whereas in times past, the prestige of the elite was served by hoards of slaves and virtual slaves who themselves did not live in the Taj Mahal and the pyramids in Egypt; instead they lived in squalor for the sake of the decorative ornamental idols of their owners and lords. But again, there is a deeper analysis By design, we have never been told the real reason for the tyranny of power: unearned position and property achieved through inheritance. That puts inferior people in superior positions; therefore, the HeirHeads cannot maintain their power without crushing the truly superior and demoralizing every other subordinate whom they are no better than. All other explanations serve the continuation of this, which is why the more things change outside of eliminating birth privileges, the more they remain the same. Notice that the liars who tell us to be fatalistic are bootlicker of the Plutes Who Wear Daddy's Boots. These are the carefully hidden enemies of human progress. Imagine if pro athletes had the right to pass on their positions to their sons. Sports would become unwatchable and the leagues would have to be disbanded. The same goes for any society that allows this cancer. Cut the richkids off at age 18: no inheritance, no trust funds, no living off an allowance in college. If we have to do it on our own, so must these spoiled mediocrities. If you don't believe so, you're not a man; you're a manservant. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 15, 2019 21:39:34 GMT
Absence of "quality" due to an inherent absence of ppersonal sacrifice into the work. We live in a time where every thing is processed: we become aware of something or someone until we become bored due to the inability to imagine anyting better and then we divert or minds elsewhere leaving a trail of garbage in our wake. The buildings are simply a symptom of faulty reasoning due to disturbed minds and intuition. When people are raised, through a continual repitition of dogmas, to look outside the self for answers therthey become rootless and a regressive cycle of destruction and exploitation occurs. Dertruction due to and abrence of value placement, exploitation due to people reinforcing that underlying internal silence is a vice to be cured by a new device or dstraction created by someone else. We live in a time where people make there livings by creating idols. This attention economy fragments the mind to such a deep degree that it reflects tirough the primal reasoning of how one approaches life, thus is embodied in our basic creations. Everything is a box within a box within a box as a subconscious reflection of our need to analyze and categorize everything through a deeply ingrained ego driven fear. People hate modern buildings because they are symbolic of a deep stagnation within our constitutions represented by our need tn keep cutting up reality through the appliction of "lines"...it is a way of life based around the finite: lines in the box nf buildings, lines in the box of social media devices, lines for roads in the middle of roads, lines connecting boxes (reprenting categories of people as "compartments") 4n power point slides...lines and more fucking lines with the increase in buearecratic functions putting more lines on what a person can and cannot do. Even qrogress is a line we cannot escape...it's message? "Your futile" This futility, grounded in a nihilism sustained by a religion of cateororization and analysis, is embodied within a box worship.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 15, 2019 22:03:34 GMT
Whereas in times past, the prestige of the elite was served by hoards of slaves and virtual slaves who themselves did not live in the Taj Mahal and the pyramids in Egypt; instead they lived in squalor for the sake of the decorative ornamental idols of their owners and lords. But again, there is a deeper analysis By design, we have never been told the real reason for the tyranny of power: unearned position and property achieved through inheritance. That puts inferior people in superior positions; therefore, the HeirHeads cannot maintain their power without crushing the truly superior and demoralizing every other subordinate whom they are no better than. All other explanations serve the continuation of this, which is why the more things change outside of eliminating birth privileges, the more they remain the same. Notice that the liars who tell us to be fatalistic are bootlicker of the Plutes Who Wear Daddy's Boots. These are the carefully hidden enemies of human progress. Imagine if pro athletes had the right to pass on their positions to their sons. Sports would become unwatchable and the leagues would have to be disbanded. The same goes for any society that allows this cancer. Cut the richkids off at age 18: no inheritance, no trust funds, no living off an allowance in college. If we have to do it on our own, so must these spoiled mediocrities. If you don't believe so, you're not a man; you're a manservant. I agree with how you identify the problem of hereditary power as being little different from nepotism. And if we had a super-computer that could properly identify merit, then it would be fine to change things for the better. But simply removing inheritance and hoping things will balance naturally through 'market forces' or some other vague idea will actually just make the problem worse. As it is there is plenty of illegal nepotism which no amount of law seems capable of changing. As sport becomes increasingly professional - it really is becoming more nepotistic and corrupt. I could mention plenty of details but I watch mostly cricket, so it is probably a fruitless discussion here. I cannot watch soccer anymore even after having played for a dozen seasons because the refereeing is just so blatantly crooked. How would you decide who gets funding in academia when the exam system is just so completely crooked rotten anyhow? Communism's great failing was to be based on atheism, yet it was the only way forward in post-war China and Russia, because unfairly treating skilled work as equal to bad work was just better than allowing unskilled corruption to demolish skilled work. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 15, 2019 22:31:54 GMT
Absence of triangles, the triangle representing the novement of the soul towards divinity. Why is it the these squared off buildings are described as soul sucking? Pay attention to the triangles...space is intuitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Sept 16, 2019 15:14:30 GMT
In the 19th-20th century, the art of classical poetry came to an end. The canons of classicism were rejected. At first, Romanticism (in-formality etc.) held sway, but then there were movements of anti-beauty in all traditional arts. In music, Schoenberg systematized Distonality (politely called "atonalism") while others proposed "the music of noises" and the like. The rejection of the architecture of classical poetry gave way to the rejection of classical forms, and a German school promoted "Form follows from Function". So, factories and prisons became exemplars of Functionalism and its consequential beauty.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Sept 16, 2019 16:33:57 GMT
In the 19th-20th century, the art of classical poetry came to an end. The canons of classicism were rejected. At first, Romanticism (in-formality etc.) held sway, but then there were movements of anti-beauty in all traditional arts. In music, Schoenberg systematized Distonality (politely called "atonalism") while others proposed "the music of noises" and the like. The rejection of the architecture of classical poetry gave way to the rejection of classical forms, and a German school promoted "Form follows from Function". So, factories and prisons became exemplars of Functionalism and its consequential beauty. The root of decadence is the expansion of hereditary power. Start with a free market in talent, then gradually close it, eventually making it impenetrable, by giving the highest positions achieved rationally to the sons of those who had achieved them. So, in sports, all the league's All Stars would have their positions on their individual clubs closed to competition. Success will eventually be restricted to mean your Daddy buys you the best job he can afford. This demoralization of the talented will extend throughout the culture. |
|
Amergin
New Member
Posts: 13
Likes: 6
|
Post by Amergin on Jan 3, 2020 18:22:28 GMT
My thinking is that it's a combination of the fetishisation of individualism(indicative of a time of cultural disintegration) and that we have all these new materials that we've yet to learn how to build with tastefully- maybe there's actually very little tasteful that could be made with them. This and the afore mentioned economic factors.
|
|
