----------
>From: Gregory Wharton <jgw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Once you have their attention, any deeper aesthetic power is going to
>be yielded directly from the communication of importance.
>Similarly, the only way to design environments which will take on this
>aesthetic aspect is to spend a little time considering the perception of the
>end product from others' perspectives.
Yes, not a solipsistic game we play. We need the insight gained from
considering other's perspectives as it relates to the products of our
imagination. As I've said before in rather more unpolished language,
imagination without insight is onanism.
We are still left with grabbing attention and selecting elements mutually
agreed upon as "Important" in a society growing inured to even the
spectacle, the grotesque, the unique, and whatever other surface superlative
you can imagine.
(Anything deeper than surface need not even apply) Even if you do succeed
in finding a mutually agreed upon element of importance it may be dismissed
as inherently boring because as a static structure your design just doesn't
move fast enough to satisfy ever higher levels of attention deficit.
Planned obsolescence aside, this is probably the driving mechanism behind
consumerism of static objects.
It may be why the more conventionally successful among us are actually
engaged in a form of entertainment, some containing more elements of
(Delirious) PR than others. It may also explain why architecture in
particular seems to be drowning in an ocean of words seeking ever greater
exchanges of perceptions and perspectives but never finding repose.
Still, in the innate wisdom of the human soul and imagination, there may be
wisdom in such things as telecommunication. It may take longer than our
lifetime to resolve questions of Importance but we at least may have the
mechanism to do so.
//Van
>From: Gregory Wharton <jgw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Once you have their attention, any deeper aesthetic power is going to
>be yielded directly from the communication of importance.
>Similarly, the only way to design environments which will take on this
>aesthetic aspect is to spend a little time considering the perception of the
>end product from others' perspectives.
Yes, not a solipsistic game we play. We need the insight gained from
considering other's perspectives as it relates to the products of our
imagination. As I've said before in rather more unpolished language,
imagination without insight is onanism.
We are still left with grabbing attention and selecting elements mutually
agreed upon as "Important" in a society growing inured to even the
spectacle, the grotesque, the unique, and whatever other surface superlative
you can imagine.
(Anything deeper than surface need not even apply) Even if you do succeed
in finding a mutually agreed upon element of importance it may be dismissed
as inherently boring because as a static structure your design just doesn't
move fast enough to satisfy ever higher levels of attention deficit.
Planned obsolescence aside, this is probably the driving mechanism behind
consumerism of static objects.
It may be why the more conventionally successful among us are actually
engaged in a form of entertainment, some containing more elements of
(Delirious) PR than others. It may also explain why architecture in
particular seems to be drowning in an ocean of words seeking ever greater
exchanges of perceptions and perspectives but never finding repose.
Still, in the innate wisdom of the human soul and imagination, there may be
wisdom in such things as telecommunication. It may take longer than our
lifetime to resolve questions of Importance but we at least may have the
mechanism to do so.
//Van