Since I am not the original sender, then reply to the list --- and to the
original sender, not me. Thanks. Howard
- - The original note follows - -
From: lemw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (LEM WILLIAM YEE LIAM)
Subject: Re: Doesn't anyone believe in theory anymore?
Sender: news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (News Administrator)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 14:29:41 GMT
>Here's my opinion: The architects of today seem to be caught up in all
>the wrong concerns regarding the built form. The liability issue seems to
>have taken over the design issues.
Have you ever been sued over your work? If you were and had
your license almost revoked would you care more about design or
liability?
>The production goals seem to outweigh
>the theoretical goals. That my friends is bullsh*t.
People who pay you want the production/pratical goals to come first.
It might be meaningful in an architectual sense but who cares if
they have to scrap the building?
>Does anyone think about the notion of architecture as serving the culture
>and context to which we live?
Serving "the culture"? But what "notion"? Why should I believe
you/architects that if I just double the cost of the project that "the
culture" would be improved? Why should I care about the culture, I just
want a place to live/work/impress my rich friends.
>What makes us different is our ability to synthesize
>not only our personal goals into a project, but also the experiences and
>values of the community in which we live.
So do Computer Scientists. Our goals are to make money and get hired
again. Our experiences are our previous work and education. The value
of the community is that we try as hard as we can to feed ourselves and
families.
>What I mean is that styles must evolve from the past and present into the
>future.
Ah,..where else would they evolve from? Some alternate universe
where past and present have no meaning?
Kenneth "Using my brother's account" Lem
original sender, not me. Thanks. Howard
- - The original note follows - -
From: lemw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (LEM WILLIAM YEE LIAM)
Subject: Re: Doesn't anyone believe in theory anymore?
Sender: news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (News Administrator)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 14:29:41 GMT
>Here's my opinion: The architects of today seem to be caught up in all
>the wrong concerns regarding the built form. The liability issue seems to
>have taken over the design issues.
Have you ever been sued over your work? If you were and had
your license almost revoked would you care more about design or
liability?
>The production goals seem to outweigh
>the theoretical goals. That my friends is bullsh*t.
People who pay you want the production/pratical goals to come first.
It might be meaningful in an architectual sense but who cares if
they have to scrap the building?
>Does anyone think about the notion of architecture as serving the culture
>and context to which we live?
Serving "the culture"? But what "notion"? Why should I believe
you/architects that if I just double the cost of the project that "the
culture" would be improved? Why should I care about the culture, I just
want a place to live/work/impress my rich friends.
>What makes us different is our ability to synthesize
>not only our personal goals into a project, but also the experiences and
>values of the community in which we live.
So do Computer Scientists. Our goals are to make money and get hired
again. Our experiences are our previous work and education. The value
of the community is that we try as hard as we can to feed ourselves and
families.
>What I mean is that styles must evolve from the past and present into the
>future.
Ah,..where else would they evolve from? Some alternate universe
where past and present have no meaning?
Kenneth "Using my brother's account" Lem