Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Architecture and Reality


??? Why would anyone remember what Charles said last week ???

Posted by RonK, Seattle | August 25, 2008 10:41 AM

I am glad you put “mean” in quotes because the idea that a building should mean anything more than what it does strikes me as foolish and a gilding the lily. What more profound meaning can a house have than "home"? Or a hospital than "comfort" or "care"? Things mean what they do. The pseudo-intellectualizing of design is the enemy of good architecture.

Ourousoff is matched in his own high standard of irrelevance by his subject, Woods; both Ourousoff and Woods are irrelevant to the architectural and planning issues of the day.

Ourousoff's judge fails whenever it comes down to earth. I think Archigram did stimulating, fun stuff but it too in its own day -- much less now -- has simply nothing of importance to say because, if for now other reason, it can't and shouldn't be built.

Posted by David Sucher | August 25, 2008 10:41 AM

Saying that Nicolai Ouroussoff agrees with Charles Mudede is like saying a Honda Civic functions the same as a vaguely round pebble.

Posted by N | August 25, 2008 11:16 AM

No no no. Buildings are supposed to be practical for the activities that happen in and around them. "Meaning" actually is the icing on the cake.

Not that it's not important for a building to have meaning, but "practicalism" is the best thing to have happened to architecture in a long time, and if it were a movement, I'd join it.

Posted by raisedbywolves | August 25, 2008 11:45 AM

Architecture coverage only inspires Ayn Rand fans. Cut it out.

Posted by dwight moody | August 25, 2008 12:05 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.