This thread is the exact mirror of Adrian's "visionary" thread, which wasn't generally about things that were actually visionary so much as it was just contemporary stuff people liked. There were plenty of exceptions, as there are here, but that was the general rule.

I wonder if we'd find the same people complaining if we went back and looked, or if we'd see ideological bias.

Church of St. George - Koptovo, Russia
http://www.pomor-plotnik.ru/gallery/...SECTION_ID=312

http://www.pomor-plotnik.ru/upload/iblock/d4f/1.jpg

http://www.temples.ru/private/f000054/058_0003180b.jpg

But you have to admit that visionary is a much more subjective term than traditional.

^^^ Not really. I view "visionary" as the opposite of "Traditional". Visionary looks solely to the future while traditional looks solely to the past.

some mod removed my post?!...that is unbelievable.....i was actually trying to spark a discussion by demonstrating that you can make spectacular architecture that is very respectful of traditional values and ideas.....instead its hed kandi posting over and over third world religious building with no discussion at all....nobody knows what point he is trying to make....is he suggesting that we should build these things in north america?.....is he suggesting that because they use traditional construction techniques in india that it should also be done here?.....we dont know...there is no discussion.....he just keeps posting essentially the same thing again and again....is he expecting us to see the same russian church for the tenth time and we all suddenly believe that fake old buildings are awesome?.....he wont even give any reasoning for his fascination with historic reproduction...he just keeps adding more and more images of the same thing.....this thread is pointless without engaging is some debate about it.

what is the point of this web site if not to learn from real debate about these issues?

any explanation from whichever mod decided that actually trying to spark something interesting out of this ridiculous thread is an offence that warrants deletion of my post?

before my post was so rudely deleted, i showed a few images of renzo piano's, Jean Marie Tjibaou Cultural Centre in New Caledonia, which manages to look both to the future and the past very effectively....it is both visionary and traditional.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...do_Oriente.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...do_Oriente.JPG

http://c.img-dpreview.com/0141827-01.jpg
http://c.img-dpreview.com/0141827-01.jpg


i'd submit calatrava's gare do oriente railway station in lisbon, portugal. notice the repetition of the gothic arches.

Well, you say it's not subjective but you only state your view of what is visionary. I don't know... seems like that shows that it's subjective.

Balinese Temple - Brussels, Belgium

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4995/63353354.jpg

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/670/43048053.jpg

Well that is true, unless he is stating a fact, it is subjective, but with the Renzo Piano building, the use of materials and the overall structure are actual facts when compared to traditional building styles there...therefore that would be objective...the fact that it is an amazing building, while I agree with him that it is, that is subjective.

Speaking of subjective, the point of this thread is extremely pointless and I am surprised it is allowed to continue, this is worse than a thread that starts a horrible name calling argument.

Paul Goldberger points out in his recent book "Why Architecture Matters" that in the past it was common to draw upon historical styles to create new buildings. He gives the example of the Woolworth Building. Its a Gothic building, but everyone looks at it now as something very much of its time. He also talks about the Lincoln memorial actually being a very innovative and modern building, stylistically in spite of the use of Greek pillars. Reading his book has given me a different perspective on modern buildings that draw upon the past.

You know, I can't remember the last time I saw Adrian's visionary thread...odd...

No one has responded to it since August, but it's still there.

Jain Center of New Jersey - Essex Fells, USA (PLANNED)
http://www.jaincenternj.org/html/picture%20gallery.htm

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5114/front20view.jpg

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/3397/rear20view.jpg

Unfortunately for this argument, words have meanings and definitions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/visionary

See number 4, the only one that applies to this use of the word visionary:

"having or marked by foresight and imagination"

Too bad that you can't just decide a word means whatever you want it too or else what you said might just be a valid argument. Don't even try to argue that language is subjective either because the very fact that you understand what I am saying right now means its not. If words have varying meaning then there is no way we could understand each other, everyone would be speaking their own unique language.

My "view" only applied to the idea that the two words are opposite, not the definitions of the words. Since, outside of extremely concrete concepts like mathematical theory, its nearly impossible to define the word "opposite" (i.e. what is the opposite of creation? Is it destruction? Is it nothingness? Is it a void?) and since there can only be one opposite to any one concept, it is a point open to subjective debate. Unlike the meaning of words which is not open to debate since language would be useless without shared meanings.

:haha: You don't have to break out Merriam Webster. I was never talking about the dictionary definition of a word. I am pointing out that it's a word for which the use will be disputed by different people. It's subject to people's individual ideas of what is and isn't visionary -- the meaning of the word being constant, yes. Its use, no. One critic's "visionary" is another critic's "uninspired." It's like so many other descriptive words, such as "ugly." The definition of ugly is clear (or at least I hope I don't have to quote a dictionary!) Yet it's a highly subjective term. Get the difference? The word "traditional" isn't used in the same way. You haven't disputed this.

Golden Temple Pagoda in Nan Lian Gardens - Hong Kong, SAR China
http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/parks/nlg/en/index.php

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/3...d4024535_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alaw168/331034624/

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/3...77e8b3d5_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alaw168/331035753/

Jakriborg - Jakriborg, Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakriborg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2653/...25af0df4_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/influcom/3800462395/

http://www.thekollektiv.se/wp-conten...g-1024x731.jpg
http://www.thekollektiv.se/

Chi Lin Nunnery - Hong Kong, SAR China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Lin_Nunnery

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...nnunnery-2.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2306/...0402a5db_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/simbon/2442773851/

I agree with you on that one, Trueviking - I thought of posting that complex myself.

I guess traditional means different things to different people. For some, it's about creating perfect replicas, for others, its about imitating decorative motifs. Some believe it's about using traditional materials, whilst for post-modernists its more about taking the language of old buildings, and using it to make their buildings 'legible' for the people that use them. For others still it's about taking the spirit in which a building was created, and building something contemporary in that same spirit.