Comments on: Princely Facades http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/06/19/princely-facades/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=princely-facades Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:49:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Nathan P. Origer http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/06/19/princely-facades/comment-page-1/#comment-105 Nathan P. Origer Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:39:50 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=323#comment-105 *it's, rather. Blame the early-evening beer and gin. Also, "appreciate" should be "appreciation". "Construction" = "constructing". Finally, all of that, the run-on sentence, should conclude with something about how, in this era, anything halfway-good is better than the crap most modernists give us. *sigh* *Note to self: Booze plus commenting equals bad idea.* *it’s, rather. Blame the early-evening beer and gin. Also, “appreciate” should be “appreciation”. “Construction” = “constructing”.

Finally, all of that, the run-on sentence, should conclude with something about how, in this era, anything halfway-good is better than the crap most modernists give us.

*sigh* *Note to self: Booze plus commenting equals bad idea.*

]]> By: Nathan P. Origer http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/06/19/princely-facades/comment-page-1/#comment-104 Nathan P. Origer Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:18:57 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=323#comment-104 I'd argue, for what its worth, that surfaces go pretty far. Granted, given the typically cheap materials wherewith we tend to construct even "important" building, they won't go as far as the surfaces of a hundred years ago may, but, as you note, even schmaltz can — and often is, even if only moderately — better than something "real". To me, it goes back not simply to a question of finances, but to matter of culture and a sufficient respect and appreciate for the importance of the public realm. Folk a century ago managed to make humble but beautiful buildings because that's what made sense to them. It may have cost them a bit more, but it was worth it. But in an era of hyper-individualism, when respect for the past (and our forebears) and adequate concern for our descendants no longer matter, we end up construction rote shite, seeking to outdo Frank Gehry in the most–self-aggrandizing–but–at–the–same–time–atrocious category. Or the "I'm cheap and don't give a damn" category. Three cheers from this small-R republican for Bonnie Prince Charles. I’d argue, for what its worth, that surfaces go pretty far. Granted, given the typically cheap materials wherewith we tend to construct even “important” building, they won’t go as far as the surfaces of a hundred years ago may, but, as you note, even schmaltz can — and often is, even if only moderately — better than something “real”.

To me, it goes back not simply to a question of finances, but to matter of culture and a sufficient respect and appreciate for the importance of the public realm. Folk a century ago managed to make humble but beautiful buildings because that’s what made sense to them. It may have cost them a bit more, but it was worth it. But in an era of hyper-individualism, when respect for the past (and our forebears) and adequate concern for our descendants no longer matter, we end up construction rote shite, seeking to outdo Frank Gehry in the most–self-aggrandizing–but–at–the–same–time–atrocious category. Or the “I’m cheap and don’t give a damn” category.

Three cheers from this small-R republican for Bonnie Prince Charles.

]]>