If London is trying to make itself into some kind of copy of Manhattan, it’s looking like a roaring success — if, that is, you’re going for the “soulless, impersonal, could-be-any-city” look.
Of course, I think it looked better back when I were a nipper:
That looks like London. The other looks like shit.
…and I’m not just talking about the Modernist buildings, either. My own loathing of this architectural form is, I think, well documented (here, here).
What Theodore Dalrymple talks about is how awful the first actual Modernist architects were: Gropius, Van Der Rohe and of course, the execrable Le Corbusier (to name but three) were all either pure totalitarians (Le Corbusier) or Nazi sympathizers and supporters. But we all knew that.
What Dalrymple explains further is how this “school” of architectural thought has turned into the leitmotif of all modern architectural teaching (just as Marxism has infected the liberal arts disciplines):
[He] knows that he is arguing not against an aesthetic, but against an ironclad ideology. The architectural Leninists have been determined so to indoctrinate the public that they hope and expect a generation will grow up knowing nothing but modernism, and therefore will be unable to judge it. (All judgment is comparative, as Doctor Johnson said.) In Paris recently, I saw an advertisement on the Métro (a few days before the fire in Notre-Dame) to the effect that Paris would not be Paris without the Centre Pompidou—which, of course, has a good claim to be the ugliest building in the world. In the face of such an advertisement promoted by the cultural elite, what ordinary person would dare demur?
That description of the Centre Pompidou in Paris, by the way, is not egregious:
…and that’s the “pretty” side. Here’s the hideous one:
I am also heartened by Dalrymple’s characterization of the horrible Tour Montparnasse as “said to be the most hated building in Paris” (and with good reason):
Never a jihadi-piloted airliner when you need one…
Read the Dalrymple piece for the full horror.
From Patricia McCarthy:
Our left has done such terrible damage over the years. They have destroyed academia, especially our once great universities. Few of them today permit free speech or freedom from the forced acceptance of all things politically correct. They no longer value critical thinking, so they do not teach it. They indoctrinate. Students who deviate from the new rules that seem to have leapt off the pages of Orwell’s 1984 will be harassed, punished. They have terrorized the young with their frightening exhortations of man-caused global warming hysteria. They are working hard to obliterate the absolute truth of gender. Science and biology be damned.
Kinda sounds a lot like the Preamble to the Declaration Of Independence, doesn’t it? Let’s hope that words like this can spark a similar reaction among normal, decent people.
And the article is a LOT better than this small excerpt.
By the way, when did this bullshit become acceptable?
and:
I know, it’s supposed to do… what, exactly? Fuck with my eyesight?
This works perfectly:
Rule #1 of photography: no damn unfocused blurriness, unless for effect — and then it must be the focal point of the pic.
Blurring the borders just makes my head ache after a while, and I loathe this affectation with a passion.
Wow. How about this for a headline?
Keynote speaker at Bob Jones University diversity conference says Muslims should be ‘locked up’
Just kidding. Here’s the actual headline:
Keynote speaker at Harvard diversity conference says Christians should be ‘locked up’
Read the rest, if you feel like it. Then load up yer favorite gun and a couple hundred rounds of ammo, and head out to the range. That’s what I’m going to do, later.
Fuck ’em.
At his recent wedding, Idris Elba is reported to have said, “There’s no point in trying to fit in when you were born to stand out.” And while that’s true, there’s also that Australian(?) saying that “The tall flower will always be the first to be cropped.”
In rants passim, I’ve railed against the follies of architectural folly, wherein the ego of the architect takes over the aesthetic sensibilities of the building, making it a tall flower in the neighborhood. Making the building an extremely personal statement, therefore, is all very well, as long as you acknowledge the fact that your taste isn’t for everybody — with all its concomitant perils. Here’s an example:
The asking price of a property that appeared on TV’s Grand Designs has been slashed by almost £1million in just six months.
The owners Bram and Lisa Vis have taken the drastic step after the ultra-modern property with six bedrooms failed to sell.
The huge 7,200 square foot house is set within 2.2 acres of land with an additional 3.8 acres of private beach, along with a heated swimming pool and a jacuzzi.
The luxury home on the Isle of Wight was completed in 2014, and featured on Channel 4’s Grand Designs the following year.
The key word is this: “ultra-modern”. Here are a couple-three pics:
Because of all this, and despite having matchless coastal views:
And despite having had nationwide, even worldwide exposure on TV, we have this unfortunate outcome:
The significant reduction has seen the asking price drop from £3.95million in autumn last year to £2.99million today and means the couple are selling the property for less than the project cost to complete.
I have to admit, even if I had the money, there is no way I would even consider this modernist carbuncle — and clearly I am not alone in this judgement, hence the lack of interest in the market. Furthermore, there’s a life lesson to be learned from this sorry tale.
Go ahead and indulge your ego by all means. Just be aware that “standing out” (especially in the extreme, as in the above house’s style) may not always result in a favorable outcome.