From: Daniel Goldin <mcguffin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 11:18:31 -0800
On Tue, 17 Jan 1995, Daniel Goldin wrote:
> "PS Now, please don't start quoting me as saying that it's ok for
> to be immoral. PERSONS may be moral or immoral; architects need only do a
> good job."
> "Architects are PEOPLE, for the most part. This antique notion that the
> artistic part of a person is some mystical God-given thing floating free
> of character is an excuse for self-indulgence and, for that matter, bad
> art. Weak, corrupt people don't make powerful buildings. They go for the
> bucks. They toss off malls and theme parks."
On Mon, 19 Jan 1995, David Sucher responds:
>Morally powerful people, to follow up on what you say, prefer
>poverty, I gather. We should all be down on Skid Road hearing the sermons,
>Such moral superiority on ths list! Perhaps I'm cranky this morning but I
>just am amazed at the complaining and whining here; we're all just too
>pure for this earthly plane. So people who design malls and theme parks
>are somehow 'weak and corrupt.' And we should all be embarassed and
>guilt-rideen about our American standard of living...
To believe in being moral is not the same as claiming "moral superiority."
Morality is not a contest.
As for that bit of sarcasm, "We should all be down on Skid Road(sp)
hearing the sermons..." I'm not advising hair-shirts. I don't think
there's any particular virtue in poverty, or any particular sin. I simply
think this: to go against your beliefs for the sake of money is to be weak
and, yes, corrupt. As an artist, you're in danger of blunting your
instrument as well.
Are people who design malls and theme parks morally corrupt? I don't know.
Maybe there are people who believe in those little city-states of
consumerism, and work earnestly on them. But I'm certain that a talented
architect who designs what he knows is crap because the pay is higher
devalues his talent.