so then, Howard, the face of an impoverished child, say
in a war ravaged country, with deathly illness who 'looks'
very ill, unkempt, and often goes unseen in architecture
as a face to be represented in 'the chosen' public, for the
representation of ideals (not reals, it should be clear by
now)-- is actually a way of communicating the need/want
of architecture, shelter, and support to human beings-- is
this really what is being taught in the schools today? no.
you continue to speak of 'only those who pose problems',
or questions, as you say, and the need for there to be
'others' (than the architect, I assume you to mean here)
'to solve/answer those problems', or questions as you say.
that is, it is not in the realm of the architect to address this
social, human, cultural dimension in the art of architecture
as it is currently taught, as it is currently believed to be, yet
which lauds itself on such lofty goals as seeing-is-believing
that what is of pure beauty is also of pure goodness. i see
beauty in the crying, pained eyes of that child moreso and
a strength and will to survive far greater than any building
designed by any individual architect, it offers more hope
in terms of values, in terms of truth, in terms of the reality
of what today is about, rather than a catalog of goods to
be picked out out, sold, and placed about as decoration--
for those who can afford such a banal luxury, and to also
assume this is in any way near equivalent is questionable.
not for architects, it is assumed though-- these buildings,
these houses of humanity, these designs are not built by
architects (individuals)-- they are individuals who are not
good buildings-- an architecture of eugenics at the least.
then you go on to write the moral goals of what an architect,
like yourself, as you are an officially sanctioned one, and a
teacher, and the 'owner of this design list' it should not be
forgotten, -- you speak of how it should be the 'desire' (the
inner, felt obligation or need or striving or compulsion) of
'the architect' (individual) to lift up the suffering person ---
even in a non-monetary context! even if they cannot pay.
well, that's good to know, very good indeed as, indeed,
many cannot pay for such luxurious buildings for small
minded clients today, who want their own little piece of
the world walled off from everything that is not them, that
they do not want to see, nor believe in. even if it is the art
of architectures that displease owners of such domains.
will others let it happen? you ask. good question/problem,
maybe there are others, than architects, that can solve, or
answer those questions, that are non-architectural as you
have presented them. will 'architects' (individuals) _let this
happen? 'architecture' can surely let this happen, yes, yet
'architects' seem to be a limiting factor in _allowing it to, as
it threatens the utopian belief system of modernist ideology,
which has thoroughly been dissected on list over a period
of years and which surely does not need reminding of how
basic an observation this is in the context of today's world.
i mean-- is it necessary to debate the World Trade Center
in such an art of architecture context, disregarding the fire,
the planes, the catastrophic collapse, and the role of the
industry to fundamentally do nothing to question the role
of design in creating this monstrous human hazard, which
now is being rebuilt by the next generation of true believers
that skyscrapers can do no harm to the base needs of the
people it is meant to serve, that the problems/questions,
as you wrote, are for others, not for architects, architecture?
that may be why nothing has changed. it is someone else
who need to deal with this. if only life were this easy, and
architecture, too, if only being an architect were having a
professional license to kill, by design, without moral qualm.
it would not be so bad, the absurdity, if the pious were not
so fervent in their absolute belief in the righteousness of
the system as it exists, and their despotic powers to dictate,
control, and own all the means of information by which the
ideas of architecture are to be conveyed. a real wonderland.
you're also right: will anyone in the process (of architecture)
teach (the architects) how to provide for themselves? -- each
individual has to decide where they stand, on what grounds.
i stand with architecture, far beyond the limitations of pigeon-
holing the ideas and possibilities within a sub-context of art,
to define without moral ambiguity yet ethical conscience, the
values and larger goals, architects are dime-a-dozen Howard.
it is a label, and means little unless one actually is an architect.
last i heard, there's no AIA to give you a medal for such things.
you earn it, not by money or family connections, but by merit.
merit is not rewarded in the architect schools today, as they
are not about architecture, they are about individuals, egos.
mindsets, belief systems, and secular religion without morals.
and free ideas, freedom of mind is a threat to such a model;
it bothers the institutions to no end, to see itself as such. it is
a diseased, sick, broken, ugly, fetid, wasteland of potentials.
it is lost to slum lords of the past, now despot monopolists of
the ideologies of architecture, teaching their extremism in the
schools about a fantasy world that no one else understands,
but them-- so pay them the money-- then architectural jihad!!!
to hell with this architectural taliban --- architecture lives on!
(students have something to teach too, you know, Howard).
On Tuesday, August 24, 2004, at 09:05 AM, Howard Ray Lawrence wrote:
<snip images>
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
in a war ravaged country, with deathly illness who 'looks'
very ill, unkempt, and often goes unseen in architecture
as a face to be represented in 'the chosen' public, for the
representation of ideals (not reals, it should be clear by
now)-- is actually a way of communicating the need/want
of architecture, shelter, and support to human beings-- is
this really what is being taught in the schools today? no.
you continue to speak of 'only those who pose problems',
or questions, as you say, and the need for there to be
'others' (than the architect, I assume you to mean here)
'to solve/answer those problems', or questions as you say.
that is, it is not in the realm of the architect to address this
social, human, cultural dimension in the art of architecture
as it is currently taught, as it is currently believed to be, yet
which lauds itself on such lofty goals as seeing-is-believing
that what is of pure beauty is also of pure goodness. i see
beauty in the crying, pained eyes of that child moreso and
a strength and will to survive far greater than any building
designed by any individual architect, it offers more hope
in terms of values, in terms of truth, in terms of the reality
of what today is about, rather than a catalog of goods to
be picked out out, sold, and placed about as decoration--
for those who can afford such a banal luxury, and to also
assume this is in any way near equivalent is questionable.
not for architects, it is assumed though-- these buildings,
these houses of humanity, these designs are not built by
architects (individuals)-- they are individuals who are not
good buildings-- an architecture of eugenics at the least.
then you go on to write the moral goals of what an architect,
like yourself, as you are an officially sanctioned one, and a
teacher, and the 'owner of this design list' it should not be
forgotten, -- you speak of how it should be the 'desire' (the
inner, felt obligation or need or striving or compulsion) of
'the architect' (individual) to lift up the suffering person ---
even in a non-monetary context! even if they cannot pay.
well, that's good to know, very good indeed as, indeed,
many cannot pay for such luxurious buildings for small
minded clients today, who want their own little piece of
the world walled off from everything that is not them, that
they do not want to see, nor believe in. even if it is the art
of architectures that displease owners of such domains.
will others let it happen? you ask. good question/problem,
maybe there are others, than architects, that can solve, or
answer those questions, that are non-architectural as you
have presented them. will 'architects' (individuals) _let this
happen? 'architecture' can surely let this happen, yes, yet
'architects' seem to be a limiting factor in _allowing it to, as
it threatens the utopian belief system of modernist ideology,
which has thoroughly been dissected on list over a period
of years and which surely does not need reminding of how
basic an observation this is in the context of today's world.
i mean-- is it necessary to debate the World Trade Center
in such an art of architecture context, disregarding the fire,
the planes, the catastrophic collapse, and the role of the
industry to fundamentally do nothing to question the role
of design in creating this monstrous human hazard, which
now is being rebuilt by the next generation of true believers
that skyscrapers can do no harm to the base needs of the
people it is meant to serve, that the problems/questions,
as you wrote, are for others, not for architects, architecture?
that may be why nothing has changed. it is someone else
who need to deal with this. if only life were this easy, and
architecture, too, if only being an architect were having a
professional license to kill, by design, without moral qualm.
it would not be so bad, the absurdity, if the pious were not
so fervent in their absolute belief in the righteousness of
the system as it exists, and their despotic powers to dictate,
control, and own all the means of information by which the
ideas of architecture are to be conveyed. a real wonderland.
you're also right: will anyone in the process (of architecture)
teach (the architects) how to provide for themselves? -- each
individual has to decide where they stand, on what grounds.
i stand with architecture, far beyond the limitations of pigeon-
holing the ideas and possibilities within a sub-context of art,
to define without moral ambiguity yet ethical conscience, the
values and larger goals, architects are dime-a-dozen Howard.
it is a label, and means little unless one actually is an architect.
last i heard, there's no AIA to give you a medal for such things.
you earn it, not by money or family connections, but by merit.
merit is not rewarded in the architect schools today, as they
are not about architecture, they are about individuals, egos.
mindsets, belief systems, and secular religion without morals.
and free ideas, freedom of mind is a threat to such a model;
it bothers the institutions to no end, to see itself as such. it is
a diseased, sick, broken, ugly, fetid, wasteland of potentials.
it is lost to slum lords of the past, now despot monopolists of
the ideologies of architecture, teaching their extremism in the
schools about a fantasy world that no one else understands,
but them-- so pay them the money-- then architectural jihad!!!
to hell with this architectural taliban --- architecture lives on!
(students have something to teach too, you know, Howard).
On Tuesday, August 24, 2004, at 09:05 AM, Howard Ray Lawrence wrote:
<snip images>
The character of the face is a way of communicating the need/want of<image.tiff>
architecture, shelter, and support to other human beings---maybe it
even could be a communication to some architects! And, for those who
only pose problem/questions, there is a need for others to
solve/answer those problems/questions. It should be the desire of the
architect to lift up the suffering person---even in a pro bono
context! But, then, will others let it happen? And, will anyone in
the process teach them how to provide for themselves?
.H.
----- Original Message -----
From: "brian carroll" <human@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Facades, Masks, and Real Faces.
> what character is the face of a impoverished child
> dying of malaria with which no architecture exists
> to support or even identify as a living human being?
>
> On Monday, August 23, 2004, at 12:06 PM, Howard Ray Lawrence wrote:
>
> > However, the face/facade, at its best, should reveal the true
> > character of the person or architecture
>
> --
> The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
> To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
>
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html