RIP Good Taste.

[LabelKing]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/fashion/25house.html

 

[apropos]

Ugh.

 

[Nataku]

Damn......it never ends..... :sigh:

 

[Girardian]

Ugh x 2. McMansion fever has gripped the world.

 

[SField]

Just imagine all the granite countertops that are going to end up in landfills in about 2-3 years.

 

[CunningSmeagol]

Originally Posted by freshcutgrass

Not allowing 8-year olds to drive cars is not selfish...it is in the interest of the greater good. But dictating and enforcing rules on taste is far harder to do.

You think we should "dictate and [enforce] rules on taste"? Do you really think that society has a right to dictate and enforce taste in what someone does with a house he paid for that supercedes an individual's property rights? In other words, do you deny the latter in favor of the former? What happens when society "dictates" that it's not tasteful to be jewish? Do you form a non-profit altruistic society and lobby them to convert?

 

[CunningSmeagol]

Originally Posted by freshcutgrass

Hold on a minute...what do you mean "if" it exists???? Are you so myopic and cynical as to suggest such sentiments don't exist? It is roughly what Aristotle referred to as polity.

This is a great reaction. It happens every time.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by CunningSmeagol

You think we should "dictate and [enforce] rules on taste"? Do you really think that society has a right to dictate and enforce taste in what someone does with a house he paid for that supercedes an individual's property rights? In other words, do you deny the latter in favor of the former? What happens when society "dictates" that it's not tasteful to be jewish? Do you form a non-profit altruistic society and lobby them to convert?

I don't think you have the required knowledge of aesthetics to discuss this, please get away from thread ASAP. Thank you.

Not that I'm that much into dictating taste and not that it is not done (normative) to some degree anyway.

Oh and I take it I can still burn my Rembrandt?

 

[freshcutgrass]

You think we should "dictate and [enforce] rules on taste"?

I think it is self-enforced. Most people are sheep and therefore have their taste dictated to them by default anyway, depending on where they get their influence. The problem lies in who's controlling the influence.

We have managed to create a vast and diversified world of pop-culture, style and taste, as opposed to the less comprehensive one of the past...which is good in a way. The problem is, it tends to be a mile wide...and an inch deep.

Do you really think that society has a right to dictate and enforce taste in what someone does with a house he paid for that supercedes an individual's property rights?

I think we already do. I think you have it backwards...whatever you do with your real property, cannot supersede laws pertaining to what you can do with that real property. Legal obligations aside, having to endure looking at other people's bad taste is just one of life's challenges.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

I don't think you have the required knowledge of aesthetics to discuss this, please get away from thread ASAP. Thank you.

Not that I'm that much into dictating taste and not that it is not done (normative) to some degree anyway.

Oh and I take it I can still burn my Rembrandt?
I know somebody who received a small Cezanne from their grandparents. Unfortunately, this was a disgusting person with an even more disgusting wife, and both are rather clueless. Somehow, they were able to basically destroy the piece by being so messy, smokey and disgusting that the combination of mold, smoke and humidity reduced the market value by about half, when they went to sell it to finance their disgusting little lives. You can burn your Rembrandt.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by iammatt

I know somebody who received a small Cezanne from their grandparents. Unfortunately, this was a disgusting person with an even more disgusting wife, and both are rather clueless. Somehow, they were able to basically destroy the piece by being so messy, smokey and disgusting that the combination of mold, smoke and humidity reduced the market value by about half, when they went to sell it to finance their disgusting little lives.

You can burn your Rembrandt.

My own mother sadly mistreated a more modern painting (had more to do with it being an earlier work so using cheaper materials and being stored in a somewhat humid place before sale than paintings made and sold after the artist had known success)anyway you should have seen the painter's face when she saw what had happened to her work, was almost worth it.

I'm not saying your pigs don't have the possibility of destroying their own work just that I'm against them having that possibility. I readily admitted that with functional objects that also represents "applied arts" there is some room for discussion but to bring everything back to private property and nothing but is shortsighted (like most market initiatives). I love french laws where the large inheritence taxes can be offset by the gift of works of art to the state; the results are here in the form of great museums and large collections.

I have a personal interest in layers of art works (think Rodin adding a sculpture to a roman vase or 18th century artists renovating-thus interpreting- ancient greek statues at the request of the owners of Papal or Royal collections). I'm not sure how we can do that directly today aside of using references (think caterpillar-looking assemblages of Mark Newson's orgone chair made by artist Étienne Bossut).

 

[Big A]

Originally Posted by Connemara

Who the **** wants a Colonial or Federal style house in Palm Beach?!

Travesty, I say.

There are a lot more of them on Palm Beach than you might think. Drive around down there and peek through the hedge walls, you'll see tons of them.

 

[Girardian]

I view owners of truly significant works -- which I would define as either being works which of themselves have historical significance or works by creators/artists/architects of historical significance -- to be stewards as much as owners.

I myself live in an architect's former personal residence. Although he does not enjoy widespread fame or recognition, I consider the home to be notable for certain unique design elements and amazing craftsmanship.

As his former personal residence, it is not large, not on a dramatic piece of property, and not safeguarded from the whims of neighborhood trends or changing tastes.

Nevertheless, I feel an obligation (which is also a pleasure) to care for it appropriately, and to invite him to work with me as I make changes and improvements (even to the yard / hardscape).

Is the home mine? Yes. Am I free to do with it as I wish? Yes.

But that would not make any act on my part appropriate or right. As a steward of the home, I feel an obligation to ensure that it is properly cared for and that the original architect at least has an opportunity to express an opinion for a future vision of any changes to the home.

 

[Nataku]

^^ It would be nice if all owners of non "cookie-cutter" homes would feel the same way. Props to you, my friend.

 

[Domindart]

Originally Posted by thekunk07

i've never understood people who spend tons to build new houses that look like old houses. progress, people. progress.

well I dont know.. look at how people buy jeans that are ripped up and tattered. They want that old look.. good analogy? I dont know...