- - The original note follows - -
From: malkor@xxxxxxxxxxx (Jason Bowles(Alistair dal nAraidhe MacGuines))
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Architecture!
Date: 6 Mar 1994 05:10:11 GMT
In article <1994Feb28.174459.1@clstac> cvacsgrg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>I truly think that Architecture is obsolete. The world, every day, becomes
>more and more mechanized and efficient. Engineering is what is in demand. No
>one wants these architectural artists around to draw up pretty pictures that
>only serve to masturbate the architects egos. Their designs are not understood
>by anyone but themselves. Engineers make the world go around. It's all about
>math and logical thinking and not stupid abstract concepts about how light
>hitting a dixie cup or some other stupid thing that generates ideas. Look at
>idiots like Le Corbusier. What the hell was he thinking. His designs are
>totally inapropriate. They cost too much too build and ended up failing.
>Looking nice is one thing, but FUNCTIONING is another. You architects better
>wake up and look at the world around you, The World of the Engineer.
>
>F. Grant
>Engineer extraordinaire
Just as FYI, I'd like to let anyone "listening" know that the above-stated
vies is _NOT_ indicative of other engineers\student-engineers as a group. I
can't speak for Mr. Grant (Even though he purports to speak for me and every
other engineer), but the engineers that I know have taken something other than
math or high energy physics at _sometime_ in their lives, and they understand
the value of the non-"professional" (sorry, best word I could come up with...)
fields such as humanities, philosophy, and YES! architecture.
I would be seriously worried about someone who didn't think that the
environment that one spends 40+ hours a week in (etc.) would make a difference
in their attitude, and even health (ever see someone who worked in an office
with no windows, just artificial lighting? Talk about your living dead!).
I would humbly suggest that Mr. Grant take at least a basic psychology course.
That would slight most of his argument by itself.
Sorry if this has turned into a flame, but this hits a bit to close for me.
We at Iowa State (until a week ago...) were one of only three Colleges who
owned our own network affiliate, where journalism students could get an
internship & credit.
In the interests of making the University more "efficient" our glorious State
Board of Regents sold the station to a company who, when they bought another
station, IMMEDIATELY fired almost a third of the emplyees with no warning.
They changed all the locks and left the employees' belongings out in the
street!
The Regents idealism of efficiency cost ISU not only a greatly needed
educational tool, but many millions of dollars of profit a year, which will
have to be made up by raising tuition by almost 10% the next two or three
years.
The regents used similar arguments as reason to sell the station. This scares
me, to see this argument from a fellow engineer.
Engineering is nothing without the philosophy and insight to enjoy it, and
these can only be developed by the humanities.
Architecture and art are nothing without the scientifically-devised means to
capture and expound on them.
Ones' resident deity (Money, Mr. Grant?) makes the world go 'round.
Engineering just sits there, waiting for an architect to put it to its proper
use.
BTW: This is the opinion of a computer engineer, Mr. Grant. Someone just as
interested in pure mathematics and efficiency as you are. I just know that
theres more to life than making it work.
Join the rest of us.
We wait with open doors...
From: malkor@xxxxxxxxxxx (Jason Bowles(Alistair dal nAraidhe MacGuines))
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Architecture!
Date: 6 Mar 1994 05:10:11 GMT
In article <1994Feb28.174459.1@clstac> cvacsgrg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>I truly think that Architecture is obsolete. The world, every day, becomes
>more and more mechanized and efficient. Engineering is what is in demand. No
>one wants these architectural artists around to draw up pretty pictures that
>only serve to masturbate the architects egos. Their designs are not understood
>by anyone but themselves. Engineers make the world go around. It's all about
>math and logical thinking and not stupid abstract concepts about how light
>hitting a dixie cup or some other stupid thing that generates ideas. Look at
>idiots like Le Corbusier. What the hell was he thinking. His designs are
>totally inapropriate. They cost too much too build and ended up failing.
>Looking nice is one thing, but FUNCTIONING is another. You architects better
>wake up and look at the world around you, The World of the Engineer.
>
>F. Grant
>Engineer extraordinaire
Just as FYI, I'd like to let anyone "listening" know that the above-stated
vies is _NOT_ indicative of other engineers\student-engineers as a group. I
can't speak for Mr. Grant (Even though he purports to speak for me and every
other engineer), but the engineers that I know have taken something other than
math or high energy physics at _sometime_ in their lives, and they understand
the value of the non-"professional" (sorry, best word I could come up with...)
fields such as humanities, philosophy, and YES! architecture.
I would be seriously worried about someone who didn't think that the
environment that one spends 40+ hours a week in (etc.) would make a difference
in their attitude, and even health (ever see someone who worked in an office
with no windows, just artificial lighting? Talk about your living dead!).
I would humbly suggest that Mr. Grant take at least a basic psychology course.
That would slight most of his argument by itself.
Sorry if this has turned into a flame, but this hits a bit to close for me.
We at Iowa State (until a week ago...) were one of only three Colleges who
owned our own network affiliate, where journalism students could get an
internship & credit.
In the interests of making the University more "efficient" our glorious State
Board of Regents sold the station to a company who, when they bought another
station, IMMEDIATELY fired almost a third of the emplyees with no warning.
They changed all the locks and left the employees' belongings out in the
street!
The Regents idealism of efficiency cost ISU not only a greatly needed
educational tool, but many millions of dollars of profit a year, which will
have to be made up by raising tuition by almost 10% the next two or three
years.
The regents used similar arguments as reason to sell the station. This scares
me, to see this argument from a fellow engineer.
Engineering is nothing without the philosophy and insight to enjoy it, and
these can only be developed by the humanities.
Architecture and art are nothing without the scientifically-devised means to
capture and expound on them.
Ones' resident deity (Money, Mr. Grant?) makes the world go 'round.
Engineering just sits there, waiting for an architect to put it to its proper
use.
BTW: This is the opinion of a computer engineer, Mr. Grant. Someone just as
interested in pure mathematics and efficiency as you are. I just know that
theres more to life than making it work.
Join the rest of us.
We wait with open doors...