Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoHiRiser
Why should they be preserved if there is widespread divergence of opinion regarding their aesthetics?
|
that's precisely WHY it should be saved. any work of art that can produce such profound and deep division of opinion between love and hate, leaving very little middle ground, is absolutely worth saving. if we only saved the safe "pretty" buildings that everyone agrees on, then we wouldn't be saving much of anything at all.
it's posible to hate a work of art yet realize that it's important to save. case in point for me, the R.R. Donnelley building. i hate it. to me, it's a pastiche monstrosity that looks like a greek temple that was pumped full of steroids and then vomited all over itself.
YET, even i realize that it is a very important work of architecture, perhaps the pinnacle of 80s po-mo caricature architecture at its most garish excess. i may disagree with the aesthetic results that particular line of design philosophy ended up with when pushed to its extreme, but i would never wish to see such a building demolished merely because i find it "repugnant". it has significance beyond what i, one lone single peon of a human being, thinks is beautiful or ugly.
historical preservation is about so much more than just saving what you or me or joe six pack thinks is "pretty". the fact that you don't even know that doesn't encourage me to place much stock in your opinion. yes, you are entitled to your opinion, as is every individual, but not all opinions are created equal. i'll place for more faith in the profoundly more informed opinions of scores and scores of architects and historical preservationists who study these works of art for a living, than i will in the opinion of some random dude who points at building and says
"hey, that thing is fugly, let's blow that shit up".
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467
^ While we're back on this Prentice discussion, how crucial do people think the black international style (-ish) base to the building is? In other words, if NW agrees to spare/use the building only on the condition that it can rebuild/refurbish the bottom several floors, how less unpalatable would that be?
|
it wouldn't be my first choice, but i could certainly live with a recladding of the base if that's the compromise that has to be made to save that glorious floating tower.
concrete that floats, how magical! bertrand was a serious wizard.