> They are built faster not only because of CAD, better engineering
> practices, standardized materials and whatnot, but because they lack all
> those artsy arabesques and filigrans that adorn all nooks and cranies of
> old buildings. Today it is all about practical, safety and ergonamical
> concerns, any art or attempt at beauty is bare.

Or perhaps it's that, you know, fashions change?

(Plus, building a simple cube is probably vastly cheaper than building 
something beautiful. How many people can afford the extra cost?)

> all mirrors, glass and metal tubes covering some gigantic basic
> geometric figure. I guess most people can emulate these in povray SDL
> quite comfortably. Try doing that with old buildings, palaces and
> cathedrals... :D

Oh hell, have you *seen* the geometry that goes into some cathedrals? 
It's like a mathematician's dream... or nightmare... I'm not sure which.

I could look at those spandrels all day...

Post a reply to this message

On 28/02/2011 05:07 PM, nemesis wrote:

> better tools made us dumber. We have a remote in our hands and no desire
> other than zapping mindlessly...

Speak for yourself. :-P

I doubt I'd have learned about the Laplace transform, waveguide 
synthesis, numerical integration, fractal geometry, or a dozen other 
things if I lived way back in the days when "computer" was a valid human 
occupation.

> Sometimes I wonder about a modern digital sound studio in the hands of
> Bach or Degas in the possession of photoshop...

Bach + DAW = the world is no longer safe. O_O

My god, the fugal possibilities are terrifying...

Post a reply to this message

>> That may be the case for you but better tools make me get more out of
>> them.
>
> That's not what I see in general: compare our angular, plain and boring
> architecture engineered with the help of CAD software with that from the
> baroque period;

Styles change. These days, if you build an intricate piece of 
architecture like that, everyone would go "eh, that's very old and out 
of date isn't it?"

> Mozart symphonies to trance music made with computers;

I happen to *like* trance. :-P

(Which is more than I can say about Mozart symphonies... mostly because 
I don't remember any of them.)

I will grant you though that we are currently flooded with cheap 
mass-produced music that isn't very good. I guess we have simple 
economics to blame, rather than computers. I suspect people are still 
out there making good music; it's just harder to find now.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Today it is all about practical, safety and ergonamical 
> concerns, any art or attempt at beauty is bare.

Most buildings today are built with the intention of having multiple owners 
and occupants over their lifetimes. Buildings like court houses, legislature 
buildings, churches, etc where you're not expecting different people to 
occupy it over time tend to have many more occupant-specific decorations. 
Buildings like normal residential houses are more plain because you want it 
to be customizable by whoever buys it after it's finished. Look at normal 
residential buildings built 1000 years ago, and they're really not very 
decorated either. Again, 90% of old buildings have been torn down and 
replaced, so you don't see shanty towns built 200 years ago.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Mozart symphonies to trance music made with computers;
>
> I happen to *like* trance. :-P
>
> (Which is more than I can say about Mozart symphonies... mostly because
> I don't remember any of them.)

It's not about liking or disliking, it's about recognizing a high watermark for
the art when you are facing it.  Likewise, recognizing what is cheap, lame and
plain mindless no matter how much you like it.  In other words, it's about
putting your personal tastes in a balance and weighting it against what best
History has preserved for their worth.  Requires common sense, context and a
good dose of humility.

>
> I will grant you though that we are currently flooded with cheap
> mass-produced music that isn't very good. I guess we have simple
> economics to blame, rather than computers. I suspect people are still
> out there making good music; it's just harder to find now.

Don't you find that a bit disconcerting in the Information Age?

Post a reply to this message

On 02/03/2011 07:40 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> Mozart symphonies to trance music made with computers;
>>
>> I happen to *like* trance. :-P
>>
>> (Which is more than I can say about Mozart symphonies... mostly because
>> I don't remember any of them.)
>
> It's not about liking or disliking, it's about recognizing a high watermark for
> the art when you are facing it.

Oh, I don't think anybody is arguing with the self-evident fact that 
there's almost nothing technically sophisticated about trance, and that 
the work of Mozart has a great degree of technical sophistication to it.

That doesn't mean I have to actually *like* it. And think about it - 
what kind of music is more profitable to produce? Music that's 
technically impressive, or music that people will actually pay money for?

That said, I really hope the general populous start getting bored with 
boy bands and girl bands really soon now...

>> I will grant you though that we are currently flooded with cheap
>> mass-produced music that isn't very good. I guess we have simple
>> economics to blame, rather than computers. I suspect people are still
>> out there making good music; it's just harder to find now.
>
> Don't you find that a bit disconcerting in the Information Age?

I figured I was just getting old or something.

Post a reply to this message

On 02/03/2011 4:09 PM, nemesis wrote:

>>
>> I've yet to see a baroque building that was built quicker, safer or
>> cheaper than modern buildings.
>
> ah, it is a certain kind of art and beauty in itself to witness a neat
> technical solution, isn't it?
>

True :-)

> They are built faster not only because of CAD, better engineering
> practices, standardized materials and whatnot, but because they lack all
> those artsy arabesques and filigrans that adorn all nooks and cranies of
> old buildings. Today it is all about practical, safety and ergonamical
> concerns, any art or attempt at beauty is bare.
>

True but I put human life above art.

>> If you want beauty in modern buildings what about St Mary Axe, London,
>> Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, the Pompidou Centre Paris? I could go on.
>
> all mirrors, glass and metal tubes covering some gigantic basic
> geometric figure. I guess most people can emulate these in povray SDL
> quite comfortably. Try doing that with old buildings, palaces and
> cathedrals... :D
>
Mere details ;-)

>> But I sympathise with your feelings.
>
> a true renascentist, that is, a man from the Renaissance. :)
>

Thanks I would say a renaissance man.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Music that's 
> technically impressive, or music that people will actually pay money for?

Mozart died a pauper. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

On 03/03/2011 9:03 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Music that's technically impressive, or music that people will
>> actually pay money for?
>
> Mozart died a pauper. :-)
>
I think that’s a misconception. Mozart was buried in a multiple grave 
but that was common practice in Vienna at that time.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On 03/03/2011 9:03 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> Music that's technically impressive, or music that people will
>>> actually pay money for?
>>
>> Mozart died a pauper. :-)
>>
> I think that’s a misconception. Mozart was buried in a multiple
 grave 
> but that was common practice in Vienna at that time.

 From wikipedia:
There had been delays in calling a doctor—probably, according to 
Halliwell, 
because of a lack of funds.[26]

However, you may very well be right. I was under the impression he was po
or, 
certainly poor relative to his abilities.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message