Posted Feb 6, 2007, 10:40 PM
|
|
BANNED
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
|
|
My main complaint with your argument was that you referred to the buildings of preserved victorians of cities like SF as a whole as "tacky" when the definition of tacky is "showing poor taste or quality." And I think we can all agree that the quality of substance, whether it be ornamentation, structure, and so on, is, by this definition, far more "tacky" today than it was in the Victorian era which you knock.
However, the subjectivity of "taste" has developed, or rather, transformed, throughout generations, but I think it is hard to find somebody with admirable credentials in the field of history and architecture that would tell you that, by its definition, architecture design and structures of the Victorian era was at all "tacky."
And is it not the experts such as these who have always dictated what "taste" and "quality" is and always has been?
|