Home › Forums › West Seattle Rants & Raves › Is there such a thing as an absolute scale in discussion of aesthetics?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 21, 2008 at 9:14 pm #588785
MASMemberJust got word of the discussion of the now infamous “Sign Theft” thread, and wanted to start a real discussion about one of the concepts floating around in the posts.
As the spouse of someone with advanced degrees in art and art history I hear from time to time that my taste in art is terrible, though art which I create is generally well liked, even by my spouse – not just my Mom.
Are the aesthetics of something an absolute, which we can judge using some sort of useful scale, or is there more opinion involved than measurement? If there is opinion involved, is popular opinion enough to determine what is beautiful and what is not, or are there guidelines that must be used which enforce some sort of standards to beauty?
I’m posing these questions without any real agenda other than to hear what folks have to say. To me it seems that just being popular isn’t enough – or reality television should be considered high art, along with fart jokes and faking emails from your boss. On the other hand, I don’t care for the idea that some set of rules should govern our ideas of beauty or ugliness.
PLEASE don’t refer to the sign theft thread except to cite examples of how folks critique art and beauty. I’m with the moderator on that topic, it’s done.
November 21, 2008 at 9:32 pm #647773
JenVMembernot to sound cheesy, but “the heart wants what it wants” – I happen to find urban decay and industry beautiful, while others find it a blight. I would never try to change anyone’s mind, I just know that I have different taste than many others around me. this is an example of an artist/photographer who just blows me away:
November 21, 2008 at 9:53 pm #647774
RainyDay1235Member“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”
November 21, 2008 at 10:00 pm #647775
ZenguyParticipantJen, they are beautiful and it is all in how you look at things.
I have often thought about “what is art?” and for me it has to have some sort of composition. For example a solid white canvas I would not consider art unless there was some sort of composition in the brush strokes. A toilet sitting in the middle an art museum too is questionable.
But I would never judge someone else for liking something I do not. Variety is the spice of life!
November 21, 2008 at 10:05 pm #647776
JoBParticipantJenV.. i agree.. that blows me away too.
i think i still have a black and white drawing of a grove of trees.. trunks only.. by one of disney’s first artists.
people keep asking me why i keep it. i love it. something about those trunks is incredibly real to me… perhaps more real than reality.
MAS
i suspect high” art is determined by the most forceful opinion among experts… and i am not so sure i agree with them much of the time.
And it is clear that there are vast differences among the public when it comes to aesthetics.. otherwise we would all own the same art.. and furniture and clothing and…
as it is even our choices are dictated by availability first.. what some group of buyers decides will be available for us this season… and that is likely decided again by the buyer with the most forceful opinions:)
and secondly by the market… what succeeds is replaced in the market.. what fails is not.
that’s true even for crafters as their choice of available materials is as limited by buyers as any other commodity.
I don’t think i could define my set of aesthetic parameters.. it’s all about how something makes me feel.. and that is also dependent upon the environment and my attitude that day.
I think that if you asked 100 of us to rate any piece of art on a scale of one to ten on several parameters that it is unlikely two of them would give the same score on all parameters… but that a majority of totals would cluster in one 10 or 20 point range.
I think that would be an interesting experiment.. especially if you had one group of 100 of mixed ages and ethnic or economic backgrounds and control groups of a hundred each of single ethnic or economic backgrounds and single age groups.
I suspect you would get a tighter cluster of totals from people with similar backgrounds.. the tightest likely from those of a similar age group and a similar ethnic or economic group… and i suspect economics would be more telling than ethnic background.
We are all the sum of our experiences.. and i suspect we form our basic likes and dislikes pretty early and then adapt them to our changing environments as we age… with the most honest evaluations appearing as we age and lose concern about the approval of our peer groups.
I am often amazed when something i think totally lacking in any aesthetic appeal catches the public eye and becomes the latest in a long line of fads.
it’s too bad that occurs so often in buildings :( they take a long time to go away…
this was probably more answer than you wanted MAS.. and to the wrong question:) … but there you go.. when it comes to aesthetics i think even the discussion is subject to interpretation.
November 21, 2008 at 10:18 pm #647777
MASMemberThe problem with beauty “being in the eye of the beholder” is that we are often forced to make decisions on a community basis (note just about every WSB entry regarding new developments – most recently the Admiral Safeway) about what is beautiful and what is not. If it’s all just about what _I_ like, and there is no societal or community influences, we can never expect to agree on something like what kind of buildings we would like to see here.
For example, I don’t like the EMP downtown, and I think that the new downtown public library is a version of the EMP that someone put creases into. (another example of this would be the AMC Pacer and the AMC Gremlin, virtually the same design choices.) I would be willing to forgive the library design if they had at least made it a functional library though with decent acoustic damping and intelligent arrangement of resources. In some circles both of these are considered aesthetic triumphs, and they won design competitions. Does that mean that most of the residents of Seattle think these are beautiful buildings? Unlike the library, the EMP actually functions pretty well for it’s intended task, so as an engineer I quell my dislike of the form and settle for function.
November 21, 2008 at 11:20 pm #647778
JoBParticipantMAS..
if unlimited choices were our option.. then beauty is in the eye of the beholder would not be an option in public spaces.
but the truth is that we get very few choices and public opinion on those is most often overlooked in favor of economic factors or the preferences of the largest tenant.
at best.. the public has input on minor design choices which may mean a slight change in some design elements.
As for form following function.. that’s where urban planning and zoning restrictions could make a difference and often don’t.
we don’t even really get to vote with our pocketbooks because many of the new public spaces are essential in some way and we end up visiting them whether we approve of the design or not.
in hindsight.. do we love it?
well.. i am intrigued by the building that houses the downtown library but agree that form does not follow function. It would make a great event space but fails for me as a library. i prefer to visit it online…
but i find that is true of several of the new groundbreaking design buildings that i have visited recently.
And although form does follow function in most of the condos at the base of the bluff on Alki.. i am not so pleased when i walk or drive past them… although they are aesthetically pleasing when viewed at night from downtown.
but that’s an individual opinion… beauty once again in the eye of the beholder.
November 22, 2008 at 12:35 am #647779
cjboffoliParticipantI missed the whole sign thing until it was over. But I have to say that as divisive and raw as it was (not to mention a little inappropriate when you consider the original post) there were some pretty interesting things being thrown out there.
Some of it reminded me of a big controversy that played out over in Queen Anne with this ultra modern house that got plopped down in a neighborhood made up almost exclusively of Craftsman style houses. Even before neighbors were quoted in the press that they thought the design of the house looked like an “abortion clinic” you could see that there was a lot more going on there than just a disagreement over aesthetics. Why a discussion of the subject of aesthetics gets as emotional, both there and here, is interesting in and of itself.
In terms of the original post, at least in the realm of architecture I think I recall that 16th century architects used geometry and formulas that related the design and scale of buildings to the human body. Their thinking was that there can be subtle clues in buildings that can make us feel good or bad..
I think artist Wassily Kandinsnky echoed this centuries later when he observed “…it is clear that the choice of object that is one of the elements in the harmony of form must be decided only by a corresponding vibration in the human soul.”
Though aesthetics can be personal, I think that we all might respond to good design in a visceral way that can be a challenge to articulate.
Looking to market forces to define what is successful in terms of design is probably a mistake. A lot of what gets built these days is more about economics than art. There are plenty of badly designed, non aesthetic things that are very successful. Just look at how common suburban sprawl is despite its ugliness.
And Job, I think that even if one doesn’t find the EMP or the Main Library necessarily aesthetically pleasing you can maybe find value in the fact that they take risks and for that reason alone they have tremendous value.
I feel like a lot of what was built in America in the last 60 years or so was done sort of haphazardly. Without a railroad depot that forced us to build everything compactly our landscape exploded in all directions. With things so far apart from one another maybe context wasn’t as important anymore. And the acutely individualistic nature of Americans amps this up even further.
I’ve watched with interest some of the planned developments like Sunrise and Celebration, Florida that have been carefully developed with very structured zoning and building codes, right down to the range of colors homeowners can paint their houses. I find them pleasing but other think they’re too stifling.
November 22, 2008 at 1:59 am #647780
JayDeeParticipantWhile the beholder may judge the beauty according to their own tastes, I think we can agree on (perhaps I didn’t take enough art classes) that symmetry is good (A word that always gets me, because it isn’t symmetrical). In a photo or landscape, balance is good, leading the eye to consider different elements, not just placing something at the center of focus. And scientists often refer to elegant theorems, those that are pleasing, going so far to say that elegant theorems are not only pleasing, but even more likely to be correct.
Now going to the other side: The Experience Music “Pustule” (as a boss of mine calls it) is acceptable only because of it’s location near the Fun Forest, with the forgettable Center House and other Seattle Center architecture around it for immunization. I truly wonder how the EMP will age given Gehry’s penchant for designs that function marginally as buildings.
My main complaint about the Seattle skyline is much the same as my compliant about West Seattle architecture: Anyone can do as they please. Riding the Water Taxi, the city skyline looks best at a distance, with some colorful clouds thrown in to distract one from the pedestrian, one-off, just plain ignorant architecture of most buildings that taken as a whole is ugly. Regardless of which individual building one likes, it’s neighbor will be so ugly as to negate any bonus. I wish Seattle had imposed development guidelines as strict as Vancouver B.C.. When you go to Granville Island, the use of green glass in nearly all condos and buildings makes for a harmonious whole, often matching the green of the wind-whipped waters of False Creek. There, closer is better.
I would almost say that there is an absolute that can be enhanced or degraded by what one chooses to drape upon it. It in the best of worlds, a elegant draping is paired with the body to fit it and eternal art is created. My two cents.
November 22, 2008 at 6:08 am #647781
wingmeMemberi couldn’t disagree more with the idea that EMP “is acceptable only because of its location…with other seattle center architure around it for immunization.” in fact, it is widely regarded as an iconic representation of post-modernism. witty, irreverent, colors no longer constrained by color-wheel dynamics. “the incongruity between what is expected and what something really is.” that twenty-year rebellion has boomers written all over it.
November 22, 2008 at 12:42 pm #647782
Kayleigh2MemberThere isn’t an absolute standard of aesthetics of taste in any artistic expression, IMO, but I like CJ’s comment that you can find value in things you might not like personally.
The more someone positions herself as a fashionisa, for instance, the dorkier I generally think she dresses. (A reaction which could be partly my latent contrarianism or a reaction to pretentiousness.) People who are individualistic or quietly classy—those are the people whose fashion sense I like.
I almost never agree with the so-called experts on rock music (Elvis Costello is brilliant? Really?) but I generally agree with movie critics. I think hearing what the experts say–or even non-experts–is interesting and helpful, though, and sometimes I’ll see things differently as a result (like I never thought about the green windows that way before.)
I’m not sure what the best way is to design public projects, because you can’t make everybody happy. But this is a very interesting question.
–Kayleigh, who isn’t a boomer but likes the EMP, possibly because most everybody hates it
November 22, 2008 at 8:46 pm #647783
JoBParticipantwingme… I confess.. I am a boomer.. and still EMP confuses me.
but it does so in a mostly interesting way… so i still contemplate it often.
the best view for me is from the park overlooking seattle on the bluff partway up queen anne. from there it makes sense…
Do i find it aesthetically pleasing? no. But i do find it interesting.
the library is aesthetically pleasing from several viewpoints but not so much when viewed as a whole.. and definately not so much from the inside.
cjboffoli… I think public spaces lose a lot when they forget human scale. Such as the Whole Foods building going up. the rendering which took human scale into account and had setbacks and balconies was something i would have enjoyed both driving and walking past. I don’t think the winning concept will add anything aesthetically.. and it certainly does not achieve the objective of a walkable neighborhood…
it is economically viable though.. though i think they are unrealistic in their rental projections.
In the same vein.. the rehabs of existing structures that use the human scale facade of the existing building .. such as the bungalow court conversion proposed on California.. and set back and integrate the economically viable structure behind are both aesthetically pleasing and economically viable. there is a condo conversion on the west end of Alki that is particularly successful using that concept.
But my judgment is probably biased by the fact that I grew up in a time period when most buildings were built with human scale as one of the major considerations.
Jaydee… i am not as much a fan of classical symmetry as i once was.. though i melt for well constructed asymmetrical symmetry… a construct that would seem to be a conflict in terms but has created some incredibly interesting buildings.
…
Hubby just checked a book out from the library which follows old building through times to trace the modifications our changing aesthetics produce… How Buildings Learn.. what happens after they’re built by Stewart Brand… author of the Whole Earth Catalog.
I was surprised as he says that i am far more interested in architecture than he.. but i think he followed the author and in this case it was a good choice. We take it back wednesday:)
We were in the pearl district in Portland a week or so ago and on foot. One of the trends there are small urban fountain/parks beside buildings… achieved by very linear modernistic plantings and fountains. Some have space for “benches” and some just slow your progress down the street…
They all have two things in common… they mimic stream beds or naturalized settings and they all have very human scale.. even though those i admired most had very hard rigid modernistic lines.
My husband who is a destination guy was not so impressed.. but they really made me stop and ponder.
Elements like those make an urban landscape very walkable… and that is one objective the pearl district has definately achieved.
November 22, 2008 at 8:48 pm #647784
JoBParticipantalso..
perspective makes a huge difference. Drive the road down by the piers in downtown seattle.. it is a far different experience architecturally depending upon whether you are driving north or south.
November 23, 2008 at 12:47 am #647785
cjboffoliParticipantJoB: I’m with you philosophically. But sometimes breaking the rules of scale just works. For instance, New York City’s Chrysler Building completely disregards the notion of human scale. And I’ve seen that building at all hours of the day, in different seasons and in vastly different light and yet it always astonishes and never subjugates. Likewise, go stand very close to the EMP sometime (or the Guggenheim Bilbao for that matter) on a bright summer day and look carefully at how colors dance over the undulating metal as you walk around and slowly change your perspective. It is architecture at its playful best. Sometimes you need to see architecture with your heart as well as your eyes.
November 23, 2008 at 2:47 am #647786
wingmeMemberwhat he said!!!
November 23, 2008 at 4:39 am #647787
wingmeMemberJoB…paul allen sez it’s meant to convey/suggest a stylized electric guitar, but i agree with cj; what’s truly spectacular is the interplay and vibration of color
November 23, 2008 at 7:51 pm #647788
JoBParticipantcjboffoli and wingme..
the play of color and light is what interests me about the EMP… from the hill you can see jimmy’s smashed guitar.. which is why i like that perspective…but isn’t that more a matter of material than architecture? I am fascinated with it as a huge piece of public art.. but it fails me as a building.
The art museum by Frank Geahry in Minneapolis is an example of that interplay of light and materials that actually manages to also work as a building from nearly every perspective… though it is definately more imaginative from the outside than from the inside.
The “new” Walker Art Center in Minneapolis is equally impressive both inside and out… for that interplay you mention.. though neither it nor the art museum are colorful. That would be too “interesting’ for the good folks of Minnesota:)
http://www.pbase.com/mmingo/image/49345281
The new library in Minneapolis by Cesar Pelli is an example of the kind of interplay of planes that is the hallmark of our new library.. yet it functions as a library… creating intimate nooks and welcoming public spaces inside.
BTW.. it is far more impressive than the photographs would lead you to expect..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Public_Library
I use Minneapolis examples because that is where i was last on foot for any protracted amount of time and because architecture was one of the delights of finding myself marooned there:)
BTW.. none of those buildings is human in scale… except that they all manage to pull off the same resonance that the Chrysler building evokes… and i agree it is one of my favorite buildings…
i even like it better than Frank Lloyd Wright’s work … and he produced some architecture that definately meets every criteria for me except human occupation ;~>
Perhaps they are appropriately out of scale?
now there’s an interesting question.. what makes a building appropriately out of scale? Is it something to do with symmetry.. or a homage to nature? I know that is what is working in the public spaces in the Pearl in Portland.
The new Guthrie center in Minneapolis is another one of those public spaces that confuses me. I still don’t know what to think of it. It is intentionally not human in scale nor human in experience.
While at first glance it is approachable enough… once inside the architects choice to make you feel that you had to ascend to new heights to encounter art… through the use of one of the steepest 2 + story escalators i have even been on.. and his intentional evoking of mystery through the use of interior spaces that really do need numerous signs to navigate from one space that to another.. even though you can easily see where you need to go… and his cantilevered structure over the Mississippi.. at the end of an intentionally long journey.. leave me flat… tho the theaters themselves are well done.
but Minnesotans love it.. i think because it invokes just enough of a feeling of grandeur for them without making them unduly uncomfortable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guthrie_Theater
I don’t know that i want a building to be that much experience… but perhaps buildings that offer novel experiences are the new aesthetic…
i can’t imagine how uncomfortable the sweeping excesses of modern architecture must have made those who first stepped into their cavernous spaces feel….
i can just imagine some woman walking along saying that progress was all well and good but one shouldn’t feel as though they were on an amusement park ride in a building ;~>
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.