Well no one is denying there's a similarity of course. Some of the difference is just that Hancock is a cleaner, simpler, more classic design. Plus the way that Hancock integrates with its setting is so iconic totally dominating everything and standing out while acting almost as a "reflecting pool" for its neighboring landmarks which is an effect that the larger area of uninterrupted surface can provide. And its sheer heft (girth) gives it greater presence than if it were slimmer.
But I think part of it also comes down to the artistic canon. Art and design do not exist in a vacuum. Each piece or design relates to other designs and the wider world, and good examples always add something to the overall artistic storyline of beauty and human creativity. Over the decades we've seen countless examples of blue glass towers with some being better and some being worse. And while these are both high quality, Hancock is one of the originals. For me, when a design archetype becomes ubiquitous, every new iteration elevates the original to an ever higher status, while lowering the maximum amount of credit that each new example can be given. Simply because it represents less originality and less of a creative achievement. Kind of like how a classic sports car that represents a milestone in design and engineering will always be venerated more than one of the many contemporary models that draw inspiration from it.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
|