Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well it depends on the project. Some buildings suit 'being ugly' (military buildings for instance) also ugly is subjective - I have no time for those that think all modern architecture is ugly. A lot of it's banal I will agree, but ugly?
I can scarcely believe this conversation. Dishonest? Really? To describe architecture? Is it even possible to be any more pretentious? You choir boys need a reality check, there is no such thing as too beautiful of a building, sack cloth and ashes don't win you any points, they're buildings not holy temples, there is no moral code of construction.
This isn't about being pretentious or holier than though, it's more a matter of 'stop building stupid cartoonish fake crap.' Seriously, I for one do not want to spend my career building fakes.
I think that there's a few interpretations of the phrase "architectural honesty".
To me, it doesn't as much mean "don't use non-structural elements" or "don't mimic styles that appeal to you", it means something like "use real bricks as a facade rather than some pre-fab concrete block molded and painted to look like brickwork".
On the other hand, I think that should be distinguished from just the pretense of taste in architecture, as in "gray vinyl siding is ugly and depressing", which I agree with, but I don't think that's a statement of architectural honesty.
I think that architectural honesty is important in a lot of respects. It's unfair to a homeowner to sell them a house with what's been marketed as brickwork but isn't. But bad taste is totally at the discretion of the architect (and is totally subjective), in that if they want to build a gray vinyl-sided house and sell it, people can see exactly what they're buying and there's not any element of dishonesty present.
Well it depends on the project. Some buildings suit 'being ugly' (military buildings for instance) also ugly is subjective - I have no time for those that think all modern architecture is ugly. A lot of it's banal I will agree, but ugly?
but why? why should a military building for instance be "ugly". why can't it be beautiful? there is so much ugly in the world. why not make beautiful things? i too like modern architecture, so its not the style that I mean here.
when decorating shows first came out on TV i used to think, oh please, its a room. just live in it!! but then i started seeing people crying over them. decor of every kind evokes such emotion. i didnt realize it before, but now I know. people's surroundings have an actual psychological effect on them. why not make things that are pleasing to the eye, that put people in a good mood, or that relax or that make them upbeat --depending on the place. i think we have lost that a little bit. when i see buildings that are older than 75 yrs old, i know that it wasn't always true. i wish people would start designing things in a better more beautiful way again.
i remember working in a place that painted the walls blue to "repress" or sooth. that made no sense in my mind, since you would want employees to be energetic.
That may be your personal mantra, but architecture is a combination of form, function and aesthetics. No matter what the structure. This is a different discussion altogether than "architectural honesty", which to me is simply material use.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.