Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Architecture and IMs

  1. #1
    Creepy-male

    Default Architecture and IMs

    So, in Cambodia, I briefly visited all the well-known temples. Two were very starkly contrasted: Angkor Wat and Bayon, which I find interesting due to the former being a Hindu temple and the latter being a Buddhist temple.

    Bayon was interesting due to having a much more complex geometric structure, seemingly built around circles. As well, most of the forms were really round, giving a soft, fuzzy, indefinite feel. Angkor Wat meanwhile had a very simple, direct construction, seemingly built around squares and quadrants, with hard, sharp edges.

    I guess Socionics and architecture is a topic that is seldom discussed, but one that I find rather interesting. Any thoughts? Are my correlations dud? Can you think of any more around architectural styles and IMs?

  2. #2
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sensors like it more simple. Intuitives like it complex and sometimes go over the top -> building collapses and/or is still being built after centuries (Sagrada Familia in Barcelona).
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  3. #3
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, it's quite interesting. I actually wanted to make an own thread in which I wanted to see if introverts prefer so called 'introvert' architecture/houses and extroverts the other ones (these terms are actually used). Generally I see a correlation not in simple/complex, but rather in traditional/innovative regarding sensing and intuitive types. Especially if you look at many of those modern buildings, they're are extremely simple because they mostly consist of cubes. But I think there are more N-types among those who actually like those buildings.

    I think Le Corbusier, another famous architect, might be LII. But I haven't learned much about him yet.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  4. #4
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I dunno here about the idea that intuitives prefer complexity, sensors simplicity.

    I greatly prefer clean, solid architecture to the exuberant and detailed. In art and design generally, I look for modern, clear, strong qualities.

    What I do greatly prefer is warmth > coldness and slightly organic > machine-ish, if that makes sense. I also prefer subtle color to bold color. And harmony of architecture with the surrounding environment, both the physical landscape and the prevailing local style ... that matters to me.

    My ideal is a strong, simple building with quality finishes and fixtures, and then just enough softness in the decor to keep things from being harsh.

  5. #5
    limNol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    130
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golden
    I dunno here about the idea that intuitives prefer complexity, sensors simplicity.
    Seconded -- I think logical intuitive types especially can become attached to the idea of simplicity. Also, I think some Si egos could go for complexity because of the sheer depth of sensory experience it provides.


    As far as architecture in general goes, I think architects are boring people who could do so much more with the power they have. I mean, look how fucking monotonous and repetitive most cityscapes are. We could be building structures that capture people's imagination and provoke strong reactions in them, but instead architecture becomes a game of "how many different kinds of rectangles can we create?" and walking down the street looking at the buildings becomes a painfully boring experience that we're desensitized to only by virtue of the fact that we're forced to do it every day.

  6. #6
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by limNol View Post
    As far as architecture in general goes, I think architects are boring people who could do so much more with the power they have.
    I think you forget that architecture is bound to real-life circumstances. It's not just about how a building looks. It also has to work the way it should, it needs to be integrated into the city and many people live with or in it, not just a few. It's always hard to make so many clients happy. Besides that, normal buildings should look normal. Or do you want to live in one of Frank Gehry's creations?

    Quote Originally Posted by limNol View Post
    I mean, look how fucking monotonous and repetitive most cityscapes are. We could be building structures that capture people's imagination and provoke strong reactions in them, but instead architecture becomes a game of "how many different kinds of rectangles can we create?" and walking down the street looking at the buildings becomes a painfully boring experience that we're desensitized to only by virtue of the fact that we're forced to do it every day.
    Same here. Imagination and strong reactions cost shitloads of $$$. Even if I agree that 'modern' style of pure geometric shapes of buildings is not actually good looking, people can't build a Disney Castle in every town. Cities are mainstream by nature, and they also have to, because a lot of people have to get along with it, as I said above.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  7. #7
    limNol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    130
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sure, but something doesn't have to be boring and unoriginal to be functional! You keep saying that buildings need to be "normal" and need to be "mainstream," but that seems like a pretty arbitrary judgment. What determines what's normal and mainstream, and why is that something we should just accept? It's true that it's hard to make everyone happy, but does that mean we should make everyone bored instead? Some people don't like the color red -- does that mean we should paint everything beige?

  8. #8
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,632
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd regard much modern urban architecture (functional, sober) as Gamma. By contrast, baroque architecture and romantic architecture, seeking to instill a sense of wonder and might to mundane surroundings, strikes me as very Beta, as is Greco-Roman and Ottoman architecture, rooted in those same precepts.

    Traditional Japanese architecture I'd regard as quintessentially Delta, focused on aesthetic harmony with nature rather than surpassing nature. As for Alpha architecture, the best example is probably postmodern architecture, retro-futurism, and steampunk. Same whimsical sense of unrealism regarding architecture as Betas, but rather than looking to past glory it looks to the future for inspiration.
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov

  9. #9
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by limNol View Post
    Sure, but something doesn't have to be boring and unoriginal to be functional!
    That's right. Unfortunately, it's still cheaper this way, and that's why you'll also find many unoriginal and boring buildings in almost very city.

    Quote Originally Posted by limNol View Post
    You keep saying that buildings need to be "normal" and need to be "mainstream," but that seems like a pretty arbitrary judgment.
    What I said was: ordinary buildings should look 'normal'. There are 'ordinary' and 'outstanding' buildings. Apartement houses, super markets, single-familiy homes are examples of the first, theatres or city halls are examples for the second category. Nobody wants to live in something which was designed to be a church for example. They need to be somewhat mainstream because it's not fair if the taste of a single designer or a group of people decides the style of the city. However, it's a tough decision how much mainstream or individualism is acceptable. You have to find the medium way.

    Quote Originally Posted by limNol View Post
    What determines what's normal and mainstream, and why is that something we should just accept? It's true that it's hard to make everyone happy, but does that mean we should make everyone bored instead? Some people don't like the color red -- does that mean we should paint everything beige?
    Adjectives like 'normal' and 'mainstream' are deteminated by the taste of the majority. And that taste is mostly influenced by our cultural heritage. There are always people who dislike a certain idea, you can't avoid that. It's still a good idea not to experiment that much, in my opinion. At least not in a existing town. It's not that I like the appearance of most towns, in my personal opinion, everything is far too mixed. There should be a coherent style for every city which still allows individualism.

    Quote Originally Posted by he died with a felafel View Post
    Gehry's style is not that bad, can actually be kinda cool and functional on the inside too.
    I never said Gerhy would be a bad architect. I just wanted to say that people probably don't want to live in his buildings, since most of them belong to he category of outstanding buildings. (see above)

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    I'd regard much modern urban architecture (functional, sober) as Gamma. By contrast, baroque architecture and romantic architecture, seeking to instill a sense of wonder and might to mundane surroundings, strikes me as very Beta, as is Greco-Roman and Ottoman architecture, rooted in those same precepts.
    I really like Jugendstil. :wink:
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  10. #10
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,632
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaDoomer View Post
    What I said was: ordinary buildings should look 'normal'. There are 'ordinary' and 'outstanding' buildings. Apartement houses, super markets, single-familiy homes are examples of the first, theatres or city halls are examples for the second category. Nobody wants to live in something which was designed to be a church for example. They need to be somewhat mainstream because it's not fair if the taste of a single designer or a group of people decides the style of the city. However, it's a tough decision how much mainstream or individualism is acceptable. You have to find the medium way.
    I completely disagree. I think city design should be aesthetically pleasing and attractive, rather than boring and sober. Most people I would wager would like living in a place that looks awe-inspiring, or at minimum wouldn't mind if the interior were properly comfortable.

    I think living in a place that was designed to be a church would be awesome.

    Also, this sort of reinforces my point about modern architecture molding to Gamma values...
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov

  11. #11
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    I completely disagree. I think city design should be aesthetically pleasing and attractive, rather than boring and sober. Most people I would wager would like living in a place that looks awe-inspiring, or at minimum wouldn't mind if the interior were properly comfortable.
    I don't understand why people read things in my posts which I don't write... is that what you want to read or what?
    I never said anything against aesthetically pleasing or attractive architecture. On the contrary, I don't even like extremely minimalistic buildings which lack any kind of details. It's also self-evident that people like comfortable interior design.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    I think living in a place that was designed to be a church would be awesome.
    I'm still quite convinced most people wouldn't.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  12. #12
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,632
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaDoomer View Post
    I never said anything against aesthetically pleasing or attractive architecture.
    You basically said that cool architecture should be constrained to places people don't go to often. I on the other hand think the whole city should look awesome, and I think so long as interior design was reasonably comfortable no one would complain. And if they did fuck em.
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov

  13. #13
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    You basically said that cool architecture should be constrained to places people don't go to often. I on the other hand think the whole city should look awesome, and I think so long as interior design was reasonably comfortable no one would complain. And if they did fuck em.
    You are obviously mixing up the terms here. With 'outstanding' I don't mean better looking than 'normal', I mean outstanding in the true sense of the word. Just because a apartement buildings looks 'normal' or just not too flashy, it doesn't mean it's boring, uncreative or ugly. Who says a trivial building (or at least a building with a trivial purpose) can't look good? Everyone expects that important buildings look somehow interesting, unconventional. Can you imagine how a city would look if it was full of giant, solitary and individual buildings which all have an own concept? Just like a patchwork rug. Outstanding buildings have to be placed carefully at important places. Normal buildings are needed to include them in the context of the city as a whole. That's how the design process works. I have no objections to your goal of a city which looks completely awesome, not just some spots. It's just a matter of money.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  14. #14
    limNol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    130
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei
    You basically said that cool architecture should be constrained to places people don't go to often. I on the other hand think the whole city should look awesome, and I think so long as interior design was reasonably comfortable no one would complain. And if they did fuck em.


    Also, I think the idea that today's mundane cityscapes somehow reflect the desires of the majority is off the mark because most people have no say in how the environment they live in is shaped. As you point out, these decisions are driven by economic motives -- not the wishes of the people who actually live in these buildings and pass them everyday (and even less by a desire to make this architecture engaging). Instead, since creating and being engaged by the architecture around us isn't really an option, people mold their viewpoints and tastes to the structures around them instead of vice-versa.

    MegaDoomer, you say there are ordinary and outstanding buildings, but I don't see the basis for this artificial dichotomy. Why should we ever try to make things ordinary?

    Fuck making everything vanilla so as not to offend anyone. Imagine if artists thought this way -- a trip to the museum would mean spending hours looking at beige canvases. You know, if some of the buildings I see inspire awe in me and some piss me off, that's a lot better than being equally bored by every building I see..."little boxes on the hillside," as the song goes.

    This viewpoint seems to be based on the false assumption that it's possible to create "neutral" architecture. But it's not. Everything we do takes place in the environment around us, and this environment is always going to create a certain conscious or unconscious reaction in us, it's always going to shape the way we think, and it's always going to actively promote a certain way of life; and pretending that we can somehow "neutralize" this with a strong dose of bland doesn't change a thing.

    edit- MegaDoomer, just saw your last reply...

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaDoomer
    Can you imagine how a city would look if it was full of giant, solitary and individual buildings which all have an own concept? Just like a patchwork rug.
    But people don't perceive a whole city as one unit. Yes, maybe if you were to zoom out and perceive the city as an abstraction, it wouldn't look so hot, but in everyday life, when you're walking down the street or whatever, the effect would be one of constant wonder and surprise.

  15. #15
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,632
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Awesome isn't the same as unique though -- Every building looking unique and extremely flashy would just look garish and gaudy. Rather ideally a city should be designed so that it all fits together in a splendorous display. More Munich and less Shanghai.
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov

  16. #16
    limNol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    130
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Damn, Munich looks awesome. Why are Europeans so much luckier than Americans?

  17. #17
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by limNol View Post
    Also, I think the idea that today's mundane cityscapes somehow reflect the desires of the majority is off the mark because most people have no say in how the environment they live in is shaped. As you point out, these decisions are driven by economic motives -- not the wishes of the people who actually live in these buildings and pass them everyday (and even less by a desire to make this architecture engaging).
    Sure, money is an important factor, but not only this. Most things which affect the public can't be decided directly by the people. City development/design is one of those things. In my personal opinion, it's part of the job of a good city planner to create reasonable and acceptable solutions for most people, not just a few. There is no other possibility to handle that. Besides that, planners are experts (at best) who know a lot of things the general public doesn't know and understand. That's why they have to decide where things are heading toward.

    Quote Originally Posted by limNol View Post
    MegaDoomer, you say there are ordinary and outstanding buildings, but I don't see the basis for this artificial dichotomy. Why should we ever try to make things ordinary?
    This dichotomy is not artificial, it is absolutely reasonable. You assume outstanding and ordinary are value judgements, but they aren't.

    Quote Originally Posted by limNol View Post
    Fuck making everything vanilla so as not to offend anyone. Imagine if artists thought this way -- a trip to the museum would mean spending hours looking at beige canvases. You know, if some of the buildings I see inspire awe in me and some piss me off, that's a lot better than being equally bored by every building I see..."little boxes on the hillside," as the song goes.
    A city is no piece of art, don't forget that. And hopefully, it will never be treated as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by limNol View Post
    But people don't perceive a whole city as one unit. Yes, maybe if you were to zoom out and perceive the city as an abstraction, it wouldn't look so hot, but in everyday life, when you're walking down the street or whatever, the effect would be one of constant wonder and surprise.
    It should be the goal to create a city which is composed of different elements. However, a kind of 'super-awesome' city like Aleksei is proposing would like a text which is written entirely in bolded, three-inch letters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    Rather ideally a city should be designed so that it all fits together in a splendorous display.
    Who wouldn't agree with that? Sorry to get back to that again, but I hope you have some billions spare cash for the über-awesome prison or the stylish new chemical plant.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  18. #18
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,632
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaDoomer View Post
    It should be the goal to create a city which is composed of different elements. However, a kind of 'super-awesome' city like Aleksei is proposing would like a text which is written entirely in bolded, three-inch letters.
    A paragraph of bolded three-inch letters wouldn't look cool though, it'd just look annoying. I am shooting for awesome. My goal is more something like this:

    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov

  19. #19
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,632
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaDoomer View Post
    Who wouldn't agree with that? Sorry to get back to that again, but I hope you have some billions spare cash for the über-awesome prison or the stylish new chemical plant.
    Old-style architecture isn't that expensive, actually.
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov

  20. #20
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    A paragraph of bolded three-inch letters wouldn't look cool though, it'd just look annoying. I am shooting for awesome.
    This was my example to explain it. If you want awe-inspiring buildings, you need others which just step back a little, literally as well as figuratively. Maybe just as a kind of reference of proportion. Sure, every building should look good, but every architect should know where the line is.

    As another example: Think of the buildings as persons. A city full of large, solitary, awesome-looking buildings would be like a society consisting of loners and total individualists. Everyone only cares about their own matters and they don't stay together like a real community. Just like a city, they would break up and not be seen as entity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    Old-style architecture isn't that expensive, actually.
    What exactly is 'old-style' architecture for you and why do you think it would be less expensive?
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  21. #21
    Creepy-male

    Default

    I remember reading an interesting quote; classical architecture is horizontally built, using columns ordered in line and wide rooms. gothic architecture is vertically built, using huge windows and large ceilings.

    That always fascinated me

    now most architecture is more modern/post-modern

    I believe in germany they had a modern style called "bauhaus".

  22. #22
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    I believe in germany they had a modern style called "bauhaus".
    Yes, one of the first modern building styles, 1919-1933. Still today, it's of great importance, and those new ideas of Walter Gropius and everyone who was involved were revolutionary. Weimar, where 'Bauhaus' was originally located was the place where I wanted to study since it's nto so far away from my home town. Not architecture, though. Most people aren't very impressed by this style today, but that's only because it lives on and is often found in the basic design of everyday items like chairs as well as buildings. You just have to remember, that this 'reduced' style was actually new back then. Not just copied like many of today's creations.

    I like the Bauhaus style, but honestly, I prefer Art Deco and Jugenstil (aka Art Nouveau). Mostly the latter.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •