Quote:
Originally Posted by realm0854
Forgive me. Frankly I didn't mean offense. And I'm sorry you all view me as pretentious because I do believe the public can learn to understand Modern Architecture. It takes effort, however. Architects don't inherently know what buildings are about. We don't just know how to design buildings because we're born with the skills. We learn it, just like any professionals. It isn't acceptable for the public to think they have the same knowledge as doctors or computer programmers. So why the double standard that takes away all the professional credibility of the architect? People think we're all about cool forms and that architecture is skin deep. I've posted several points on this thread that prove otherwise but no one seemed to listen. I only grew irritated as people continued to neglect my requests to reconsider some of their assumptions. I just want people to stop and ask a few more questions before they blast these buildings. Try to find out what the architect was really trying to do before you make a decision. I'm sorry if you think that translates to me telling you to have the exact opinion as me.
|
By all means, if we're discussing the technicalities of actually designing a building, or discussing architectual history, or discussing how best to indicate importance with the building facade, or intricate geometries, or any number of other subjects, I would most definitely trust your knowledge and take your word for it. We're not talking about that though. We're simply discussing architectual preferences.
I'd trust a mechanic to fix my car over myself and my own amateur skills anyday, but just because a mechanic knows how to fix an exhaust manifold doesn't mean that the Ford Taurus is the greatest car on earth just because he drives one.