Re: Exasperation: "Honesty in materials"

If we, as I have come to believe, come around to a more subtle view
of
honesty in materials, does that mean the concept is useless? I
don't
think so...but I don't have any clear ideas about what might replace
it
yet...so that's for another post.

That architects, of all practitioners of the arts, have lately found
it necessary to reduce "honest" architectural expression to materials alone
is self-defeatist. If an entire generation of writers suddenly abandoned
all use of embellishment, metaphor, inflection, satire, folly, etc. in favor
of this stripped-down brand of truth-or-nothing "honesty," all of literature
would be reduced to mediocre journalism.

It seems to me that the public face of a building has weightier
responsibilities than merely reporting the materials that constitute it.

In architecture, as in literature, there are more ways than one of
heralding compositional realities, and more truths to be heralded than mere
materiality. For example, in the case of type, it may be more relevant for
a building to proclaim "I am a bank" than to reveal "I am held up by steel."
In the case of context, it may be more moving for an edifice to assert "I
anchor the corner of this block" than to confess "my brick is just a
veneer." And so on.
Partial thread listing: