41–50 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should take the first step and kill yourself. Then we can talk about what others should do.
The first step is to practice a little self-restraint with the baby-making, obviously.
The big problem with Le Corb is not that his stuff is ugly. It’s that his designs are inhuman. No one with any choice wants to live or work in that kind of development. It’s striking! Bold! Architects love the look! But form should follow function and Le Corb’s idea of function is “a machine for living” and there’s not too much room in that vision for things extraneous to living like “dreaming” or “enjoying life,” so…
This. And the funny thing is Le Corbusier and other modernists intended to design for humans: - They add large parks between the buildings - You get the huge highrises and long boulevards because of separation of function, because they want to put the living quarters far away from the smelly factories - They use a lot of concrete and prefab components to keep everything affordable - They design community areas into t…
interesting to read that freewayifying the urban cores wasn't just an american obsession (although this seems to predate the american phenomenon by about 30 years).
i wonder how far it got? was there a french cognate to the freeway revolt? iirc, paris already has some of the highest housing density in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bravo, you'll make Malthus and eugenics peddlers proud...
Then offer a better solution. Because humans stacked 1000 per acre emitting rivers of sewage is pretty bad too. If it wasn't so normal it would be hellish.
You would make a more cogent point if instead you were asking about policies improving the quality of life of future people instead of defending genocidal ideas. Sadly you don't.
It should probably be pointed out that Paris has a history of "knocking it all down" to make space for the New. Haussman did that. Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral, one of the most iconic sacral buildings of the world (?) sits on the rubble of its Christian predecessors (as well as an ancient pagan temple, oh well, zeitgeist). The difference was that Le Corbusier's stuff is, as most of this thread attests, ghastly, mayb…
I think the cutoff is the invention of photography. The only way painters could remain relevant is by doing something original rather than beautiful. Then the other arts followed. Modern classical music is impossible to listen to most ears. And architects followed too, more interested in creating an original shape of glass or concrete rather than building anything beautiful and pleasing. There is hardly any piece of…
I have the idea that it's related to atheism. Once you believe all of life and all of nature is ultimately some brute atoms buzzing back and forth anyway, then what your imagination creates is likely to look pretty brutalist. If you believe it's angels and God's creation all the way down you will place meaning and symbols into the large elements and every tiny bit. Anyone else can see this connection?
It should probably be pointed out that Paris has a history of "knocking it all down" to make space for the New. Haussman did that. Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral, one of the most iconic sacral buildings of the world (?) sits on the rubble of its Christian predecessors (as well as an ancient pagan temple, oh well, zeitgeist). The difference was that Le Corbusier's stuff is, as most of this thread attests, ghastly, mayb…
I think the cutoff is the invention of photography. The only way painters could remain relevant is by doing something original rather than beautiful. Then the other arts followed. Modern classical music is impossible to listen to most ears. And architects followed too, more interested in creating an original shape of glass or concrete rather than building anything beautiful and pleasing. There is hardly any piece of…
You are letting them off too easy. Have you ever seen a photograph that looks like https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ICilJlD5nhA/ThQQ_v2LKzI/AAAAAAAAA... ?
Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abbey_in_the_Oakwood#/medi... ?
Or https://i.pinimg.com/originals/11/9f/2a/119f2ac0958cb4261015... ?
The modern styles void of any aesthetic appeal are by far not the only ones photography has not supplanted. The layperson may be excused for thinking art's only goal was photorealism, but when coming from experts, that is a deliberate lie, used to ridicule anyone that dares complain how beauty was excised from the modern art world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first step is to practice a little self-restraint with the baby-making, obviously.
Name a single developed country where to high birth rates are an issue? What? You can’t?
It should probably be pointed out that Paris has a history of "knocking it all down" to make space for the New. Haussman did that. Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral, one of the most iconic sacral buildings of the world (?) sits on the rubble of its Christian predecessors (as well as an ancient pagan temple, oh well, zeitgeist). The difference was that Le Corbusier's stuff is, as most of this thread attests, ghastly, mayb…
"We weep with our eyes full of tears for the old Paris, the Paris of Voltaire, of Desmoulins, the Paris of 1830 and 1848, when we see the grand and intolerable new buildings, the costly confusion, the triumphant vulgarity, the awful materialism, that we are going to pass on to our descendants."
Fast forward 100+ years and suddenly that quote sounds hilariously wrong. Makes you wonder what possibilities we're missing out on today by clinging to an aesthetic past.
Just because Corbusier's dystopian prison ideas missed the mark, doesn't mean there isn't a better vision out there for a livable city just waiting to be implemented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then offer a better solution. Because humans stacked 1000 per acre emitting rivers of sewage is pretty bad too. If it wasn't so normal it would be hellish.
Why would I offer a solution to a problem that is non-existent. The world will have less population by the end of the century. You would make a more cogent point if instead you were asking about policies improving the quality of life of future people instead of defending genocidal ideas. Sadly you don't.
Of course along with this he didn't see the big issues we know now through bitter experience - car dominance destroying street life, lack of human scale and beauty in mass-produced buildings, poor safety/security, bleak open spaces, etc. Some perhaps are unfair to blame on him as they are in our mind as a result of poor/cheap implementation in other schemes. But we should at least marvel at what Corbusier did understand for his time and how clearly he was able to express it.
