>>6370636To the one person that didn't take my pseudo-intellectual pretentious braggart prick act seriously, I agree, like a lot of art fields, I personally feel that a lot of architecture is so caught up in the "form" aspect that the "function" aspect takes a hit.
Most architecture built usually serves a particular person, believe it or not. While I'm sure there are exemptions, most architects design buildings for a client that intends to use that building. Whether that client is a government official, a private person seeking a residence, or a corporation, the majority of buildings aren't built just for artistic purposes. At the base of it all, is somebody looking for a new structure. That being said, that somebody might want something that speaks something on an artistic level, or something that represents the current "zeitgeist". I know that terminology is something an elitist would use, but this best describes why these buildings are built. And on a certain level, I agree. Some "avant garde" architecture is pretty cool shit. It's one of the reasons I'm in the field..
Anyway, the buildings I listed as "shit" are obviously not bad by most standards, as they get the job done and then some. Function-wise, they do a good job. However, it's obvious they are trying to make a statement form-wise. The ones I listed as shit usually try to emulate a style instead of doing something that represents the current state of the field. In other words, they try to create a cheap knock off of something that's already been done. For example,
>>6369071 is not a bad house of course, but it's trying to create a tropical house feel, yet it's in a modern neighborhood and oversized. This
>>6366639 is again not bad, but it wastes space, has uninteresting water feature ornamentation, and is a bad combination of materials.
