the listserver sends a 'Welcome!' message about the Design-List
which i noticed was recently (?) changed from one of a rather
amorphous openness to contributions to one that reverts to a
keyword which is associated with Howard's defining of the list's
scope, and it is argued that because these concepts such as
'the art of architecture' and basic and applied design, are open
for interpretation (unless the ideas are being actively or passively
censored, as does happen in the schools quite openly on these
same issues) -- that these keywords act as articles of faith for the
true believers who have built careers on the metaphysics and
personal power to be gained by proprietizing and controlling
the meaning and interpretation of these keywords. an open-
mind would be given great latitude within a scope of basic
and applied design, art and architecture, but repeatedly this
is not what is happening when what is said is not liked by the
keepers of keywords. for instance, the privatization of basic
keywords (public domain, no less)-- the privatization of the
language and its meaning, and then the inability to compete
openly with these ideas in a reasonable manner in a public
forum as is this, as to validity of the arguments being waged.
basically, it is proposed that because of the dynamics of the
authority held within current architectural institutions, that a
whittling down of the ideas has happened so much, so far,
that there is no ability to speak to greater issues because of
issues of control of the language of architecture, by architects
or those who pimp for seductive ideologies of easy eyecandy.
many an antiglobalist has glorified the architects of globalism.
so too, 'the art of architecture' literally _bounds_ the ideas in
a very small subset of the totality of the question of architecture,
(model 1) -- less the range of art and architecture (model 2) --
and neither would seem to introduce the limits being found in
the creative and imaginative contributions _donated to this
list, public works. it is fine for private ire to disagree, but to
control what fits within this very small boundary is basically
the decision of one person: Howard, the list owner. and even
then, it is completely arbitrary as to what facts are used or are
ignored. instead, a slew of architectural spam is the result,
and if this is to be an outlet for ideas and conversations that
is good. if it is to deny the right to question, it reflects what is
going on in the universities and is well represented right now.
architecture, design, art are much greater than e-postcards
and imagery. put some original work and ideas online, put
some work online, donate some ideas and debate some of
the ideas, address what you challenge in tangential ways.
otherwise, this is not a public list, it is now a moderated list.
and that is really sad, especially from someone who believes
in the arts, architecture, design, education, RD&D, and is a
good teacher and person. open up the list to ideas again.
else, this might as well be called the DESIGN GOP LIST by
the Pennsylvania State University and associated Alumni.
'the art of architecture' -- venn logic diagram, model 1
x marks the spot (you are here)
--
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 art of architecture' -- venn logic diagram, model 2
x marks the spot (you are here)
--
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
which i noticed was recently (?) changed from one of a rather
amorphous openness to contributions to one that reverts to a
keyword which is associated with Howard's defining of the list's
scope, and it is argued that because these concepts such as
'the art of architecture' and basic and applied design, are open
for interpretation (unless the ideas are being actively or passively
censored, as does happen in the schools quite openly on these
same issues) -- that these keywords act as articles of faith for the
true believers who have built careers on the metaphysics and
personal power to be gained by proprietizing and controlling
the meaning and interpretation of these keywords. an open-
mind would be given great latitude within a scope of basic
and applied design, art and architecture, but repeatedly this
is not what is happening when what is said is not liked by the
keepers of keywords. for instance, the privatization of basic
keywords (public domain, no less)-- the privatization of the
language and its meaning, and then the inability to compete
openly with these ideas in a reasonable manner in a public
forum as is this, as to validity of the arguments being waged.
basically, it is proposed that because of the dynamics of the
authority held within current architectural institutions, that a
whittling down of the ideas has happened so much, so far,
that there is no ability to speak to greater issues because of
issues of control of the language of architecture, by architects
or those who pimp for seductive ideologies of easy eyecandy.
many an antiglobalist has glorified the architects of globalism.
so too, 'the art of architecture' literally _bounds_ the ideas in
a very small subset of the totality of the question of architecture,
(model 1) -- less the range of art and architecture (model 2) --
and neither would seem to introduce the limits being found in
the creative and imaginative contributions _donated to this
list, public works. it is fine for private ire to disagree, but to
control what fits within this very small boundary is basically
the decision of one person: Howard, the list owner. and even
then, it is completely arbitrary as to what facts are used or are
ignored. instead, a slew of architectural spam is the result,
and if this is to be an outlet for ideas and conversations that
is good. if it is to deny the right to question, it reflects what is
going on in the universities and is well represented right now.
architecture, design, art are much greater than e-postcards
and imagery. put some original work and ideas online, put
some work online, donate some ideas and debate some of
the ideas, address what you challenge in tangential ways.
otherwise, this is not a public list, it is now a moderated list.
and that is really sad, especially from someone who believes
in the arts, architecture, design, education, RD&D, and is a
good teacher and person. open up the list to ideas again.
else, this might as well be called the DESIGN GOP LIST by
the Pennsylvania State University and associated Alumni.
'the art of architecture' -- venn logic diagram, model 1
x marks the spot (you are here)
--
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 art of architecture' -- venn logic diagram, model 2
x marks the spot (you are here)
--
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
