Re: architecture can't die

Guys, guys, guys.

I'm glad that the debate over the death of architecture died, though I still
believe that it will never die (the debate nor the field) since there
is a sense of architecture in everything man-made.  (best source: Corbu
borrowing the aesthetic of oceanliners directly...)

I just leafed through the debate all at once, as I was gone for the holidays
when the **** hit the fan.  Damn...too much to handle at once.  I have to
admit, though, there was an awful lot of hyphenated gobbly gook in the
soup.  I always envisioned this bulliten board to be a fantastic meetingplace
for people of all ages to share/criticize/vent, but in the end that it would
be somewhat intellectually stimulating.  I think it is time for a mildly
Laugier-like list of problems/answers to be undertaken to kind of clean up
the board so it can actually function.  I know, lots of you are already
formulating what you are going to respond to (even take it out of context,
with those funky cool arrows and such...) just because I mentioned Laugier.
(then again, maybe not)  I will put forth a few of my own now, you guys do what
'cha what.

Problem One:  Hyphenated Terms.

These are just plain unprofessional.  In creating a meta-language (oops) you
are just creating havoc on the net.  Sure, you are reduced to single words,
but a little restraint now and then is all a part of SELF CONTROL, that
neat thing our society is founded on.

Problem Two:  Taking Phrases out of Context.

Yes, it saves time.  Yes, it directs your attention to the goods.  No, it
is not a valid way to interact in such a critical forum as this was originally
intended.  People end up writing entire letters that are based on sample
s of other letters, which are based on other notes... in a wildly Derridian
spiral.  Sure, Decon is valid for the broad view of language, but on the
small scale we can avoid this trap of meaningless exchange.

Problem Three:  To Publish or Not to Publish.

In case you didn't notice, every thing you write here on this board is
 published.  We all (500 or so?) get a copy.  Thus we are all published
 architect pushing
our theories/ideas/schmegma around.  Who cares who is published, where, or why.
In the end it is just a matter of information.  Ideally, only the best get
published.  But then again, there is John (not to be confused with myself)
Whats-his-name-super-hyphenated-carrying-too-much-weight.

Problem Four:  references.

They would be nice.  Sure, they are ofld fashioned, but some of us are still
reading out away from the net.  When serious criticisms are levied, some
sort of textual reference might be nice.  In the end it is not what gets
on the net that matters, it is what we take away from it.  Some of us are
here to learn in this amazing forum only previously imagined by SCI-FI
writers.

Problem Five:  Organization.

Sometimes stream of consciousness writing is appropriate-- as in the case
of poetry or the like.  Most of the time it is unnecessarily confusing.  If
some of us can't surf the net unless on some sort of mind-altering substance,
then stick to social newsgroups.  Fun at others expense is not fun at all.
Sure hierarchy is bad in the broad notion of society, but in the small scale
nature of this board we can enjoy a little bit of organization in the light
of asc-ii chaos.

Problem Six:  Devil's Advocacy.

If all you want to do is create debate over nothing, I'm sure there's a news-
group that will suit your needs elsewhere;  or maybe you can even invent it!!
There is enough for us to debate here that is fairly serious, that unnecessary
banter is a chore to delete from our files.

I think I'll stop there.  Sure, call me conservative (you'll be wrong, but...)
but I'd like to see this board shift gears and show the remnants of some sort
of self control.  If the net is really the new frontier, the all the choices
 areours for the making.

I kind of relate what I just spewed to something my design prof. and I
 discussedlast semester:  Working in one's head instead of on paper.  If one has
 no
hard lines on paper at some point that he/she or others can interact with, then
really no work is being done, and the energy is wasted.  These are my
hard lines, presented for consumption and criticism.

After all, rules are made to be broken.

Later,

John Pohorylo
NJIT Grad Student
jfp7400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx