As some with a PhD in architecture history and theory studying reconstruction of socialist cities during Stalinism, it is interesting to see that Stalinist Architectural thinking is embraced by conservatives today. The emphasis on beauty, on regional details to display identity in architecture, and the possibility of shaping society by surrounding them with beautiful architecture: classic Stalinist thinking. I was very disappointed by Robert Adam: connecting the Roman Catholic Church with community identity is simply displaying an utter lack of knowledge about architecture history of the past centuries. Indeed, the Catholic Church has been the sponsor of most great works of architecture in almost any architectural style thinkable. Sadly, the utter lack of knowledge summaries not only Adams contribution but the entire conference. Education is so important, and this conference has been an eloquent display education is needed more than ever
This is just a classicism echo chamber. The middle speaker himself confessed to not bothering to understand the opposing views, which is a most basic prerequisite of philosophical discourse.
That remark shows that you have absolutely no idea about the debate of modern architecture of the past two centuries. But ignorance seems to be what the speakers and moderator of this event binds (regards from someone with a PhD in architecture history and theory)
I wish people defended classicism in less philosophical ways. To me, the only defense necessary is that people tend to prefer classic styles over modern ones. It doesn't take a genius to realize that large unbroken expanses of the same material (like the ubiquitous full glass façade) are boring to look at and that people like buildings with ornamentation.
𝐩𝓻Ỗ𝓂Ø𝓈Ｍ
As some with a PhD in architecture history and theory studying reconstruction of socialist cities during Stalinism, it is interesting to see that Stalinist Architectural thinking is embraced by conservatives today. The emphasis on beauty, on regional details to display identity in architecture, and the possibility of shaping society by surrounding them with beautiful architecture: classic Stalinist thinking.
I was very disappointed by Robert Adam: connecting the Roman Catholic Church with community identity is simply displaying an utter lack of knowledge about architecture history of the past centuries. Indeed, the Catholic Church has been the sponsor of most great works of architecture in almost any architectural style thinkable. Sadly, the utter lack of knowledge summaries not only Adams contribution but the entire conference.
Education is so important, and this conference has been an eloquent display education is needed more than ever
Broken clocks, innit
What books on architecture would you recommend, and who are some architects you'd recommend looking into?
This is just a classicism echo chamber. The middle speaker himself confessed to not bothering to understand the opposing views, which is a most basic prerequisite of philosophical discourse.
Much less of an echo chamber than any modernist debate
Get out of here modernist, we don't like you.
" The middle speaker himself confessed to not bothering to understand the opposing views". Where in the video was this? :)
That remark shows that you have absolutely no idea about the debate of modern architecture of the past two centuries. But ignorance seems to be what the speakers and moderator of this event binds (regards from someone with a PhD in architecture history and theory)
I wish people defended classicism in less philosophical ways. To me, the only defense necessary is that people tend to prefer classic styles over modern ones. It doesn't take a genius to realize that large unbroken expanses of the same material (like the ubiquitous full glass façade) are boring to look at and that people like buildings with ornamentation.