Quote:
|
This is a really interesting thread, in the sense that there is always much debate between faking old buildings and building contemporary styled ones, however usually the debate seems pretty cut and dry to me since the faked structures tend to do it on the cheap, and look like crap. Many of these buildings however seem to be of very high quality, and so they blur my opinion.
|
Your statement highlights a significant problem. There is nothing "fake" about the buildings I posted. True, they are using a design language pioneered in the past but that does not make them fake by any means. Architectural styles are in my opinion, timeless. A painting done in a style invented long ago is not fake. It is just a piece of art. A painting done in a style invented more recently is not really new, just done in a different style. And yes, while I often decry "modern" architecture because some architects seem to be designing pieces of "art" instead of functional buildings I still find the metaphor apt
Quote:
|
Bad examples don't invalidate the relevance of the entire enterprise.
|
Quite true. Had it not been true then "modern" architecture would be in trouble.
What I tire of is critics who decry structures that use design language pioneered in the past and do not admit that they just do not like that particular style. I freely admit I do not like most "modern" structures because they are done in a style I find repulsive.