2007.07.19 15:33
Verb: Featured Discussion
"Public discourse when it comes to public building projects" is not exactly what my questions were addressing. What I was questioning is the notion that somehow "public discourse" is lacking (or even non-existant) and thus requires a "call to arms" rhetoric. Basically, are thing really that bad? And if they are, then at least explain what that bad situation is.
I'm assuming that public discourse when it comes to public building projects is not something that never happens. In fact, I've been on the public side of a public discourse when it came to a public building project--a park building planned for a site that would have ruined the only nice part of the park left; because of my public outspokenness the building never happened. Yes, I'll all for public discourse when it comes to public building projects.
"never ask a question for which you already can't expect the answer".
2007.07.19 14:14
Verb: Featured Discussion
...can you explain where the imperative , as in "we need to take more responisiblity over our role in society," come from? And who exactly is this "we"?
2007.07.19 13:59
Verb: Featured Discussion
I never said that expanding client base is a bad thing. I'm all for expanding architecture's client base. (Again, I'm misinterpreted.)
2007.07.19 13:43
Verb: Featured Discussion
...look at my questions again, none of which were "why do we need it?" What I asked was: "Where does the imperative for public discourse come from?" and "Is the public asking for it?" You gave a vague, subjective answer. That you interpreted my questions as "opposing" tells me, at least, to not really trust your judgment, and is indeed indicative of "perhaps architects are hypercritical."
What I'm actually advocating is for you to take a much more objective view of what it is you're promoting as "public discourse".
Expanded client base aside, the desire seems to be one where, if the public is more aware of architecture and the makings of good design, then the built environment would subsequently be somehow better. Is that right? And if so, is the premise for more "public discourse" then nothing more than a vague assumption?
You ask what my methodology is, and I don't see that there's any real clear methodolgy to what your doing either
2007.07.19 12:42
Verb: Featured Discussion
...how exactly have I called for a reduction of architectural discourse?
3335e
| |
20022401 Silent Witnesses Intro Extro Houses model axonometric
| |
20022403 iq58 iq61 domestic museum site plan
|