daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Has architectural modernism failed?
Yes 190 45.13%
No 231 54.87%
Voters: 421. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 23rd, 2011, 01:10 PM   #181
kaligraffi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
I did not know you were expert in misreading context.

Let me quote myself earlier on:

They were not academic elites. They were the Aristocracy, the Gentry (i.e., landed/not working), and the Dilettanti, and many of them considered going to University beneath their dignity, and wore the title " amateur" as a badge of honor.

It is of course clear to any educated person that the context of the above comment is the 18th century. And is it too much for me to assume that you know why the context is the 18th century?
Yeah, too bad you wrote this:

I do really understand what you are getting at here. What is the NORM? If you think that classical styles were the norm for the common people, then you are dreaming. Art and architecture in previous centuries were the exclusive preserve of the elite, who had time and leisure to pursue these things.

"Previous centuries" doesn't equal the 18th century. You were wrong. Better luck next time.

Quote:
But the truth is that classical styles were never the norm for the common people even during the Roman period. In the towns all over the Western provinces and in the metropolitan East and in Egypt and Judea, the bulk of the population were not even Roman citizens, and therefore did not partake of the Hellenic lifestyle of the Conquerors. And even in Rome, the domestic architecture of the urban poor and the slaves was not the architecture of the Imperial foundations. And only Roman citizens had access to amenities like the great public baths (the slaves were too busy stoking the fires). To claim that "in many aspects of life classical styles were very much the norm for the common people" goes against the established facts and displays abject ignorance of Roman history and sociology. Simply reading the Christian bible would have told you as much, if you have never read anything else from the classical authors themsleves.
If we look at Roman ruins from Spain to Syria, we see public bathhouses, libraries, ampitheatres, temples...built by the Romans to not only show non-Romans why they were in such good hands but to demonstrate the power of their empire. Non-Romans would certainly have seen them (that was the half the purpose of building them) and/or used them. Roman classical architecture did become the norm for the masses in many aspects of life.

On your claim that only Roman citizens had access to the baths: first, in Roman society these were commoners, they weren't equites or senators...so you're already wrong. Second, freedmen and non-citizens did have access to public buildings. It's not like a freedman or a non-citizen would be denied entry to the Markets of Trajan.

Lastly, many slaves did in fact encounter classical architecture...when they lived and worked in their master's domus or when they visited the forum on their master's business or when they competed in gladiatorial games.

Quote:
And so you have not heard of the great building projects of Justinian, the Domus Aurea of Nero, the edifices of the Emperor Constantius in Antioch, those of the Emperor Claudius in Rome, and Octavian Augustus himself, who boasted that he transformed Rome from a city of brick to a city of marble? I don't even mention the foundations of the Emperor Constantine throughout the empire, not to mention the founding of the Imperial City of Constantinople.

Such a comment is typical of people who glean their knowledge of architecture from TV shows and popular novels.
Yeah, too bad you didn't understand my point. Funding building projects isn't the same as helping to design buildings. Hadrian did the latter as well as the former. The only other figure you could say did the same would be Justinian with the Hagia Sophia, but that's hardly the classical Roman era that we were discussing. Nero, Augustus, Claudius...they were patrons, but we don't have any solid evidence of them actively designing structures like you had insinuated.

Quote:
If you think Gamla Stan is unchanged, think again. Much of it has been radically modified in the 17th and 18th centuries, and during the Gustavian Golden age.

Even Wikipedia gets it right when it states:
Yes, living cities change. Does that mean that Gamla Stan was teeming with aristocrats and bishops? That commoners were denied entry? No and no. Sorry, you're wrong.

Quote:
Or perhaps it exposes your ignorance of one of the most complete records of how the common people lived in one of the great city-states of Medieval Italy?
Unless Duccio wasn't allowed to visit churches or public buildings, it does nothing to prove your point.

Quote:
And you expect ME to take you seriously when you post such a ridiculous comment? lol.
So you can't defend either your own fallacious arguments or the idiocy of modernist anti-architecture. Interesting. Stones and glass houses and all that.
__________________
The principles discoverable in the works of the past belong to us; not so the results. It is taking the end for the means. - Owen Jones
kaligraffi no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 23rd, 2011, 03:14 PM   #182
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligraffi View Post
Yeah, too bad you wrote this:

I do really understand what you are getting at here. What is the NORM? If you think that classical styles were the norm for the common people, then you are dreaming. Art and architecture in previous centuries were the exclusive preserve of the elite, who had time and leisure to pursue these things.

"Previous centuries" doesn't equal the 18th century. You were wrong. Better luck next time.
So it IS clear that you didn't get the implicit reference to the 18th century (see my previous post). Where there any "Dilettanti" in ancient Rome? You know some personally, perhaps? Clearly you do not know your history.

Quote:
If we look at Roman ruins from Spain to Syria, we see public bathhouses, libraries, ampitheatres, temples...built by the Romans to not only show non-Romans why they were in such good hands but to demonstrate the power of their empire. Non-Romans would certainly have seen them (that was the half the purpose of building them) and/or used them. Roman classical architecture did become the norm for the masses in many aspects of life.
There were Roman citizens throughout the Empire, and they were a small percentage of the population, since they usually were members of the army or the civil administration. Similar to the Macedonian Kingdoms post-Alexander, they maintained the Hellenic lifestyle (which included the baths) independent of the local population, be they Egyptians, Judeans, Gauls, Illyrians, etc.

For example, have you ever read an account of Jesus preaching in the public baths in Jerusalem or Cesarea? There is a good reason why you don't. To have been inside even one of them would have been ritually unclean for a Jew.

Quote:
On your claim that only Roman citizens had access to the baths: first, in Roman society these were commoners, they weren't equites or senators...so you're already wrong. Second, freedmen and non-citizens did have access to public buildings. It's not like a freedman or a non-citizen would be denied entry to the Markets of Trajan.

Lastly, many slaves did in fact encounter classical architecture...when they lived and worked in their master's domus or when they visited the forum on their master's business or when they competed in gladiatorial games.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Roman citizens and those who partook of the Hellenic lifestyle comprised a small part of the Roman Empire? Have you not read anything from the ancient authors and historians, the bible, and the countless texts past and present dealing with Roman life under the Empire?

Do not waste my time simply because your knowledge is deficient. You can improve by further study.

Quote:
Yeah, too bad you didn't understand my point. Funding building projects isn't the same as helping to design buildings. Hadrian did the latter as well as the former. The only other figure you could say did the same would be Justinian with the Hagia Sophia, but that's hardly the classical Roman era that we were discussing. Nero, Augustus, Claudius...they were patrons, but we don't have any solid evidence of them actively designing structures like you had insinuated.
Again, clearly, you do NOT understand your Roman history. So Nero had no say in the design and construction of the Golden House? That the Emperor Constantius had no say in the design of the Octagon in Antioch? That the Emperor Claudius did not actively revive the architecture and precedents of the Etruscans, simply because he wrote and studied extensively this subject?

Again, I ask you to improve your rather deficient knowledge. How can I consider you a classicist, if you don't even know your Roman History?


Quote:
Yes, living cities change. Does that mean that Gamla Stan was teeming with aristocrats and bishops? That commoners were denied entry? No and no. Sorry, you're wrong.
Let me quote you:

Their abodes did indeed survive whenever medieval town centers survived.

In the case of Gamla Stan, they didn't. So what right have you to give this as an example? I am sorry, but that is just plain stupid.

Quote:
Unless Duccio wasn't allowed to visit churches or public buildings, it does nothing to prove your point.
The point from the original argument (which you butted in without reading in full, btw) is that Medieval towns were not Disneylands where the bulk of the houses and structures were fit to be put on postcards, and that architecture for the common people -- their dwellings -- are better-looking than today's houses.

Can you not follow an argument, even when it did not concern you in the first place? Please read the entire chain of arguments. It is the least you can do.

Quote:
So you can't defend either your own fallacious arguments or the idiocy of modernist anti-architecture. Interesting. Stones and glass houses and all that.
As I have said previously: mene mene tekel upharsin.

Last edited by tpe; August 23rd, 2011 at 03:23 PM.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 04:00 PM   #183
kaligraffi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
So it IS clear that you didn't get the implicit reference to the 18th century (see my previous post). Where there any "Dilettanti" in ancient Rome? You know some personally, perhaps? Clearly you do not know your history.
There was no implicit reference, only you trying to move the goalposts after it was demonstrated that you were incorrect.

Quote:
There were Roman citizens throughout the Empire, and they were a small percentage of the population, since they usually were members of the army or the civil administration. Similar to the Macedonian Kingdoms post-Alexander, they maintained the Hellenic lifestyle (which included the baths) independent of the local population, be they Egyptians, Judeans, Gauls, Illyrians, etc.
Roman citizens weren't the only people at bathhouses, libraries, ampitheatres. Gauls, Egyptians and other peoples began to adopt Roman customs and lifestyles over the decades and centuries after the Roman conquest of those regions.

Quote:
For example, have you ever read an account of Jesus preaching in the public baths in Jerusalem or Cesarea? There is a good reason why you don't. To have been inside even one of them would have been ritually unclean for a Jew.
Judaea was singularly exceptional among the provinces of the empire in terms of separation. The Jews didn't at all want to intermingle with the Romans and that was that. You won't find this type of relationship elsewhere. Basically, it's the exception that proves the rule.

Quote:
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Roman citizens and those who partook of the Hellenic lifestyle comprised a small part of the Roman Empire? Have you not read anything from the ancient authors and historians, the bible, and the countless texts past and present dealing with Roman life under the Empire?
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the process of romanization held with it the use of Roman buildings by Roman subjects, citizen and non-citizen alike?

Quote:
Do not waste my time simply because your knowledge is deficient. You can improve by further study.
Tell me again how the Markets of Trajan had guards checking ID's at the door. Who could forget the famed Centurion-Doormen of the imperial period?

Quote:
Again, clearly, you do NOT understand your Roman history. So Nero had no say in the design and construction of the Golden House? That the Emperor Constantius had no say in the design of the Octagon in Antioch? That the Emperor Claudius did not actively revive the architecture and precedents of the Etruscans, simply because he wrote and studied extensively this subject?
Show me evidence of Nero saying "OK now let's create an oculus in this room measuring such-and-such diameter" and maybe you'll have an argument.

Quote:
Again, I ask you to improve your rather deficient knowledge.
Now tell me again how slaves and non-citizens never encountered classical architecture...even though for many of them, their lives were defined by it.

Quote:
Let me quote you:

Their abodes did indeed survive whenever medieval town centers survived.

In the case of Gamla Stan, they didn't. So what right have you to give this as an example? I am sorry, but that is just plain stupid.
Gamla Stan was a medieval center that evolved just like any other, and so what we have now is an amalgamate of non-modernist architectural periods, much of it architecture that common people lived in and dealt with on a daily basis.

Your position is that no one below the rank of bishop, noble or a rich merchant was allowed within the confines Gamla Stan. Have fun trying to prove that.

Quote:
The point from the original argument (which you butted in without reading in full, btw) is that Medieval towns were not Disneylands where the bulk of the houses and structures were fit to be put on postcards, and that architecture for the common people -- their dwellings -- are better-looking than today's houses.
Thankfully, they weren't Disneylands (what's with the modernist obsession with that theme park? Can anyone explain that to me? Modernist apologists bring up Disneyland more than a Florida tourist brochure), but they were vital towns that did employ pleasing aesthetics in their architecture. It is no surprise that when such areas have come down to us, even when changed during the 600 years or so before modernism, they are widely appreciated and cherished by today's observers.

That's far more than you can say for the century-long failure of modernist "architecture". Remind me again how you don't care that the Farnsworth House was a terrible design.

Quote:
As I have said previously: mene mene tekel upharsin.
How very modernist of you.
__________________
The principles discoverable in the works of the past belong to us; not so the results. It is taking the end for the means. - Owen Jones
kaligraffi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 04:18 PM   #184
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1924

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
Which is NOT an ACADEMIC elite, correct? Don't forget that your original contention is that it was an ACADEMIC elite. The ACADEMIC part was what started of this entire argument, remember? See your earlier posts!

So, if you agree that this has nothing to do with being ACADEMIC, then we are in agreement. Agreed?
I'm sure those people regarded themselves as acedemic, but it's still rather skirting round the point.

My proposal was that people who are advocates of a new architectural movement, or even those who judge building in terms of their architectural significance rather than how they look, are perhaps the worst judges of aesthetics. They are just either too biased, or appreciating buildings for reasons the public don't care about.

It is rather academic/elitist to suggest that only the qualified are able to judge whether such buildings are "worthy of preservation" or not.

Quote:
I do really understand what you are getting at here. What is the NORM? If you think that classical styles were the norm for the common people, then you are dreaming. Art and architecture in previous centuries were the exclusive preserve of the elite, who had time and leisure to pursue these things.

Do you think that the rise of Baroque Art and Architecture was brought about by the consent and approval of the masses? That is ridiculous.

It rose because of the patronage and support of the Papacy, the Church, and the Nobility of Italy. To hell with what the common people liked or didn't like.
It's a good thing I'm not suggesting that then, isn't it?

I said the public (probably) liked baroque buildings, and probably liked the older gothic buildings too. It would have been the elites knocking the gothic buildings, and then the baroque buildings later, and every subsequent fashion for building after that.


Quote:
For your information, a lot of those horrid buildings in the past didn't have a style. The Roman tenements were simply cubicles set inside buildings without ornament or style. The poor can't afford such trifles.
Again, not something I'm arguing. I'm not saying the general public thought thoise building were nice either.


Quote:
And do you realize that the town centers were the abodes of the princes, bishops, and wealthy merchants? If you mistake those for the common architecture of the day, then I don't know what to say.
A lot of those cities must have had a massive imbalance of the wealthy compared to everyone else then, as the attractive medieval architecture typically went to the edge of the city walls - i.e. the whole city.

Quote:
Take Moscow. Do you judge Moscow of 500 years ago by the Kremlin and Kitay-gorod? If you think the rest of Moscow were like these places, then dream on.
Does anything beyond churches survive from 500 years ago in Moscow? It's been pretty extensively rebuilt, and in any case, isn't regarded as a hugely attractive city.

Quote:
The fact is: many of these "survivors" didn't survive by accident. They were deemed worthy of the upkeep, especially because of their locations. The same can be seen in Manhattan today, where most of the so-called PRE-WAR residential buildings prior to the 1920s survived mostly in the UWS and the Western part of the UES. Vast tracts of the notorious tenements no longer exist, although quite a few still remain -- much more liveable now because of modern alterations.
So how do you explain the vast medieval centres of many Italian cities?

And which Italian cities are the least attractive? The ones like Bologna, or the ones like Milan with it's modern buildings?


Quote:
Vast parts of medieval London were squalid and ugly by any standard -- which is not to say that it didn't have splendid monuments and edifices. So was any other city in Europe at the time. Read the contemporary accounts of Londoners and Parisians. It is not surprising that the nobility spent more time on the architecture of their country seats and palaces, rather than in their abodes in the city.
Most talk about terrible living conditions, not architecture (beyond places that were decrepit and falling down).

But again, it's not a point I'm making. I've never claimed all old building were lovely.

Quote:
This is a classic example of creating a myth of the past, without reference to hard facts, contemporary historical accounts, and visual records.
What myth? We can see with our own eyes the preserved medieval cities where they've been preserved. They are no doubt more liveable today than 500 years ago, but there's a big reason why such cities have modern office blocks on the outskirts rather than the centre - and it's not short-sightedness.

Quote:
See my above comment. My only suggestion is that you do some reading. For example, refer to some of the comments of Ruskin, W. Morris, the period accounts and photographs of Whitechapel, etc. There is no excuse to be uninformed when there is so much material available.
Again you seem to be attacking points I haven't made rather than addressing anything I'm saying.


Quote:
You can believe what you want to believe. The cities of old were never the Disneylands you make them out to be.
OK.

Maybe you'd like to offer a suggestion as to why Milton Keynes (or any new town) isn't regarded as the architectural equal of Siena.
Rev Stickleback no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 04:25 PM   #185
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1924

What it mainly boils down to is that the bad buildings of previous eras were often the ones that were built with no concern beyond function.

The same is true of modernism. The problem with modernism is that is more or less has building with no concern beyond function as one of its principals.

That thinking does mainly seem to have been moved away from, and for good reason.
Rev Stickleback no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 04:38 PM   #186
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligraffi View Post
There was no implicit reference, only you trying to move the goalposts after it was demonstrated that you were incorrect.


Roman citizens weren't the only people at bathhouses, libraries, ampitheatres. Gauls, Egyptians and other peoples began to adopt Roman customs and lifestyles over the decades and centuries after the Roman conquest of those regions.


Judaea was singularly exceptional among the provinces of the empire in terms of separation. The Jews didn't at all want to intermingle with the Romans and that was that. You won't find this type of relationship elsewhere. Basically, it's the exception that proves the rule.


Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the process of romanization held with it the use of Roman buildings by Roman subjects, citizen and non-citizen alike?


Tell me again how the Markets of Trajan had guards checking ID's at the door. Who could forget the famed Centurion-Doormen of the imperial period?


Show me evidence of Nero saying "OK now let's create an oculus in this room measuring such-and-such diameter" and maybe you'll have an argument.


Now tell me again how slaves and non-citizens never encountered classical architecture...even though for many of them, their lives were defined by it.


Gamla Stan was a medieval center that evolved just like any other, and so what we have now is an amalgamate of non-modernist architectural periods, much of it architecture that common people lived in and dealt with on a daily basis.

Your position is that no one below the rank of bishop, noble or a rich merchant was allowed within the confines Gamla Stan. Have fun trying to prove that.


Thankfully, they weren't Disneylands (what's with the modernist obsession with that theme park? Can anyone explain that to me? Modernist apologists bring up Disneyland more than a Florida tourist brochure), but they were vital towns that did employ pleasing aesthetics in their architecture. It is no surprise that when such areas have come down to us, even when changed during the 600 years or so before modernism, they are widely appreciated and cherished by today's observers.

That's far more than you can say for the century-long failure of modernist "architecture". Remind me again how you don't care that the Farnsworth House was a terrible design.


How very modernist of you.
What I have said, it is written.

Do your homework, child, and it will profit you to do some extra reading before you waste other people's time on things that have been written about and elucidated by your betters.

And you can start with the Domus Aurea. I will suggest that you invest in a copy of Larry F. Ball's "The Domus Aurea and the Roman Architectural Revolution" from Cambridge University Press. If may be a trifle difficult for you to understand (given your deficient knowledge of all things Roman), but you must try, my dear child. You simply must try.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 05:13 PM   #187
kaligraffi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
What I have said, it is written.
And the arguments and facts that completely debunk your sad ideology are also written...but you've run away from them.

Quote:
Do your homework, child, and it will profit you to do some extra reading before you waste other people's time on things that have been written about and elucidated by your betters.

And you can start with the Domus Aurea. I will suggest that you invest in a copy of Larry F. Ball's "The Domus Aurea and the Roman Architectural Revolution" from Cambridge University Press. If may be a trifle difficult for you to understand (given your deficient knowledge of all things Roman), but you must try, my dear child. You simply must try.
Ah, so you try to change the subject when you can no longer defend your shallow arguments.

But if I knew nothing about Roman history, I wouldn't know that the Domus Aurea was basically deconstructed by the Flavian emperors, who then constructed the Flavian Ampitheatre (aka the Coliseum, which actually wasn't originally the name of the ampitheatre but of the colossal statue of Nero that stood next to it), the Baths of Titus and other works on the reclaimed land. The existence of these buildings, which were open (and sometimes free) to the general public, shows the arguments you abandoned to be wrong.

But hey, maybe next time you'll convince someone that the Farnsworth House is actually great to live in, even though no one's ever been able to accomplish the task. A few more allusions to Babylonia might do the trick.
__________________
The principles discoverable in the works of the past belong to us; not so the results. It is taking the end for the means. - Owen Jones
kaligraffi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 05:21 PM   #188
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback View Post
I'm sure those people regarded themselves as acedemic, but it's still rather skirting round the point.

My proposal was that people who are advocates of a new architectural movement, or even those who judge building in terms of their architectural significance rather than how they look, are perhaps the worst judges of aesthetics. They are just either too biased, or appreciating buildings for reasons the public don't care about.

It is rather academic/elitist to suggest that only the qualified are able to judge whether such buildings are "worthy of preservation" or not.
My contention is that in times past, academicians didn't define good taste, and this is true in architecture.

Quote:
I said the public (probably) liked baroque buildings, and probably liked the older gothic buildings too. It would have been the elites knocking the gothic buildings, and then the baroque buildings later, and every subsequent fashion for building after that.
Whether or not the common people liked them largely didn't matter, as they didn't influence what type of buildings replaced the former. And yes, what you call the "elites" had the say, although they were really not academicians or university professors, by and large.

Quote:
A lot of those cities must have had a massive imbalance of the wealthy compared to everyone else then, as the attractive medieval architecture typically went to the edge of the city walls - i.e. the whole city.
Which is why you really don't see such things largely intact nowadays. What you consider as "old" have been modified drastically in succeeding centuries. There are exceptions, and you will see that in the remnants of Medieval cities ouside the main squares (cathedrals and civic palaces), the architecture is plain and nondescript.

Quote:
Does anything beyond churches survive from 500 years ago in Moscow? It's been pretty extensively rebuilt, and in any case, isn't regarded as a hugely attractive city.
The Kremlin also houses palaces, storerooms, etc, from 500 years ago. Some have been altered, some have not.

Quote:
So how do you explain the vast medieval centres of many Italian cities?

And which Italian cities are the least attractive? The ones like Bologna, or the ones like Milan with it's modern buildings?

Most talk about terrible living conditions, not architecture (beyond places that were decrepit and falling down).

But again, it's not a point I'm making. I've never claimed all old building were lovely.
As I said above, if you look at the domestic architecture (the parts that have not been altered), you will find them plain and nondescript.

image hosted on flickr

Medieval panno spaso by undalux, on Flickr

Quote:
Maybe you'd like to offer a suggestion as to why Milton Keynes (or any new town) isn't regarded as the architectural equal of Siena.
Whether they are equal or not depends on the quality of the comparisons made.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 06:17 PM   #189
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligraffi View Post
But if I knew nothing about Roman history, I wouldn't know that the Domus Aurea was basically deconstructed by the Flavian emperors, who then constructed the Flavian Ampitheatre (aka the Coliseum, which actually wasn't originally the name of the ampitheatre but of the colossal statue of Nero that stood next to it), the Baths of Titus and other works on the reclaimed land. The existence of these buildings, which were open (and sometimes free) to the general public, shows the arguments you abandoned to be wrong.
Do you recognize this famous passage?

formam aedificiorum urbis novam excogitavit et ut ante insulas ac domos porticus essent de quarum solariis incendia arcerentur easque sumptu suo exstruxit destinarat etiam Ostia tenus moenia promovere atque inde fossa mare veteri urbi inducere

If you know so much about Roman history, then please explain why this wasn't obvious to you from the beginning, when you made your ridiculous comment about Nero?

The fact is: you are totally ignorant of the primary sources, and your scholarship is probably as flaky as they come. How can one NOT be aware of this famous passage from a famous author and give comments that directly contradict the established textual/factual tradition?

Ahhh, these ignoranti...

Last edited by tpe; August 23rd, 2011 at 06:29 PM.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 06:40 PM   #190
kaligraffi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 2

Obviously, someone forgot to introduce tpe to the concept of "fabric" or "background" buildings. Even so, buildings like the one shown in the photo above almost always have a better relationship to the street than usual modernist fare (also take note of the blind arcade on the building on the right, as well as other details throughout the picture).

But anyway, tpe is ignoring that common residences can often include artistic detail (notice the drip-moulds on the left, the stylized lamps and the multi-level blind arcade on the right).

It's quite clear that tpe, being an apologist for modernism's anti-architecture, is either unwilling or unable to analyze buildings honestly. Quite typical, really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
Do you recognize this famous passage?

formam aedificiorum urbis novam excogitavit et ut ante insulas ac domos porticus essent de quarum solariis incendia arcerentur easque sumptu suo exstruxit destinarat etiam Ostia tenus moenia promovere atque inde fossa mare veteri urbi inducere

If you know so much about Roman history, then please explain why this wasn't obvious to you in the beginning, when you made your ridiculous comment about Nero?
We know that Nero's public projects altered the design of insulae in order to stop the threat of fires (something that was quite obvious after the Great Fire of his reign). What you said was that Nero came up with his designs all himself, which is quite unfounded. Provide evidence for the assertion or be proven wrong yet again.

I appreciate your continued concession that you were wrong about the Flavian Ampitheatre and other public Roman buildings. It's nice to see you admit you were completely wrong, even if by silent admission.

Quote:
The fact is: you are totally ignorant of the primary sources, and your scholarship is probably as shoddy as they come. How can one NOT be aware of this famous passage from a famous author and give comments that directly contradict the established textual/factual tradition?
Suetonius is a secondary source, not a primary one, since he wasn't alive during the reign of Nero. Nice "scholarship".

But since you're so fond of Suetonius, perhaps you can also tell us that Nero definitely burned down Rome himself and definitely played the lyre while it happened.
__________________
The principles discoverable in the works of the past belong to us; not so the results. It is taking the end for the means. - Owen Jones
kaligraffi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 07:13 PM   #191
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligraffi View Post
We know that Nero's public projects altered the design of insulae in order to stop the threat of fires (something that was quite obvious after the Great Fire of his reign). What you said was that Nero came up with his designs all himself, which is quite unfounded. Provide evidence for the assertion or be proven wrong yet again.
He "alters the design of insulae", but does not come up with designs on his own? Whatever does this mean? Pure quibble.

Also, you clearly don't read the latin correctly. Please- re-read.

Quote:
But since you're so fond of Suetonius, perhaps you can also tell us that Nero definitely burned down Rome himself and definitely played the lyre while it happened.
The section in Suetonius saying that Nero invented new forms has never been disputed, as it is also mentioned in Tacitus.

But surely, you are a better source than Suetonius and Tacitus!

Ahhh, these ignoranti...

Last edited by tpe; August 23rd, 2011 at 07:43 PM.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 07:23 PM   #192
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligraffi View Post
and definitely played the lyre while it happened.
And I make this comment separately since it is a bit OT. But this is another indication that you do not know your Suetonius.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 07:43 PM   #193
kaligraffi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 2

Let us note that tpe failed to address the points on common housing of pre-modernist architecture. The images I posted clearly show that abodes of common people did indeed have decoration, however humble, and that modernism fails where those styles of architecture succeeded.

Running away from architecture. Typical of any cheap apologist of modernism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
He "alters the design of insulae", but does not come up with designs on his own? Whatever does this mean? Pure quibble.
Oh, OK, so the owners of Pan-Am designed the Met-Life Building, Dr. Farnsworth designed the Farnsworth House and FDR designed the Empire State Building. Cool story.

Quote:
Also, you clearly don't read the latin correctly. Please- re-read.
Right, so where exactly in there does it say that he's a primary source on the Great Fire? Maybe you can help me out on that one, since you seem to believe he was.

Quote:
The section in Suetonius saying that Nero invented new forms has never been disputed, as it is also mentioned in Tacitus.
It also says porticus essent, which translates to "he erected porches"...does that mean he was out there with a hammer and nail building those parts of the insulae? Moral of the story: reading a history far too literally is silly. This isn't evidence that Nero himself designed the structures from top-to-bottom, it means he passed off on the designs and mandated their construction.

Quote:
But surely, you are a better source than Suetonius and Tacitus!
You can't even figure out that Suetonius isn't a primary source on the Great Fire.

Quote:
And I make this comment separately since it is a bit OT. But this is another indication that you do not know your Suetonius.
So upon whom did Suetonius assign blame for the fire?
__________________
The principles discoverable in the works of the past belong to us; not so the results. It is taking the end for the means. - Owen Jones
kaligraffi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 07:55 PM   #194
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligraffi View Post
Right, so where exactly in there does it say that he's a primary source on the Great Fire?
Even the gods make an occasional slip.

Quote:
It also says porticus essent, which translates to "he erected porches"...does that mean he was out there with a hammer and nail building those parts of the insulae? Moral of the story: reading a history far too literally is silly. This isn't evidence that Nero himself designed the structures from top-to-bottom, it means he passed off on the designs and mandated their construction.
Check your Du Cange and you will see what I mean.

You don't expect me to spoon-feed you all the way. correct? Especially when you don't even know your Seutonius!


Quote:
So upon whom did Suetonius assign blame for the fire?
OT: the point is, Seutonius never mentions a lyre.

Finally, as to all your other comments, I have said: what I have said, I have written. Let the readers judge by the arguments presented.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 08:10 PM   #195
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligraffi View Post
It also says porticus essent, which translates to "he erected porches"...
And I just checked with Loeb, which agrees with Du Cange (who agrees with ME!)

They translate:

"He devised a new form for the buildings of the city and in front of the houses and apartments he erected porches..."

Do you agree?
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 08:15 PM   #196
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback View Post
The same is true of modernism. The problem with modernism is that is more or less has building with no concern beyond function as one of its principals.
That is not true. But we believe what we want to believe.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 08:24 PM   #197
kaligraffi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 2

I would once again like to note that tpe has failed to address the points on pre-modernist residences, which shows a complete disinterest and/or inability to deal with the realities of architecture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
Even the gods make an occasional slip.
Every argument you've put forward has been dispensed with. It's not an "occasional slip", being utterly wrong is a habit of yours.

Quote:
Check your Du Cange and you will see what I mean.
In other words, you're retreating from yet another debunked argument.

Quote:
You don't expect me to spoon-feed you all the way. correct? Especially when you don't even know your Seutonius!
You couldn't even figure out that he wasn't alive during the Great Fire.

Quote:
OT: the point is, Seutonius never mentions a lyre.
So it's your position that Nero sang in costume during the fire he intentionally caused? Is that your argument? The point is that Seutonius' account of the fire (a secondary source, by the way) is highly suspect and unlikely at best.

Quote:
Finally, as to all your other comments, I have said: what I have said, I have written. Let the readers judge by the arguments presented.
Yes, and the counterarguments that debunk all your points, the ones you've run away from, are also written. Too bad you're incapable of engaging in any honest analysis of architecture.

Quote:
And I just checked with Loeb, which agrees with Du Cange (who agrees with ME!)

They translate:

"He devised a new form for the buildings of the city and in front of the houses and apartments he erected porches..."

Do you agree?
So you think Nero was out there himself building porches in front of apartments and houses with hammer in hand?
__________________
The principles discoverable in the works of the past belong to us; not so the results. It is taking the end for the means. - Owen Jones
kaligraffi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 08:30 PM   #198
kaligraffi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
That is not true. But we believe what we want to believe.
Yes, it is certainly true. Modernism has actively tried to get rid of ornament, it has condemned such "superfluous" elements.

Of course, I already showed you why this is an incorrect viewpoint, and you abandoned the argument precisely because it's indefensible.
__________________
The principles discoverable in the works of the past belong to us; not so the results. It is taking the end for the means. - Owen Jones
kaligraffi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 08:32 PM   #199
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,307
Likes (Received): 8164

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligraffi View Post
So you think Nero was out there himself building porches in front of apartments and houses with hammer in hand?
Vespasian was forced into exile because he fell asleep during one of Neros poetry readings. Nero played in theatres and during one rebelion he suggested that the best way to crush it would be for him to go in front of the rebels and weep. So all in all Nero building porches wouldnt surprise me.
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 08:41 PM   #200
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligraffi View Post
I would once again like to note that tpe has failed to address the points on pre-modernist residences, which shows a complete disinterest and/or inability to deal with the realities of architecture.
Please read my above posts. They are easy to understand (even by you!) and are self-explanatory.

Quote:
In other words, you're retreating from yet another debunked argument.
I see that you don't know your Du Cange either. Are you really a classicist?

A modernist, perhaps?

Quote:
The point is that Seutonius' account of the fire (a secondary source, by the way) is highly suspect and unlikely at best.
And his statement about Nero inventing new forms is correct. Agreed?

Oh! I forgot that you don't know your Du Cange!

Quote:
Yes, and the counterarguments that debunk all your points, the ones you've run away from, are also written. Too bad you're incapable of engaging in any honest analysis of architecture.
Then if you feel so secure about your arguments, then you would stop repeating yourself like a little child who has just soiled himself, correct?

If you are not insecure, then let your arguments stand beside mine in the previous posts, and let the readers decide.

Quote:
So you think Nero was out there himself building porches in front of apartments and houses with hammer in hand?
This comment is typical of your argument. lol

Fool! Debate with the editors of the Loeb Classical Library, and not with me.

And go read your Du Cange!


----------------------

Finally, I quote myself again. From my previous post:

Quote:
I suspect that your feelings against Modernism are based more on prejudice than knowledge of the structures themselves. To gloss over the most rigorous (i.e., Classical) symmetries imposed on many of the finest buildings of Mies can only be explained by a lack of knowledge of its details -- accidental, or self-imposed.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
architecture

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu