+
From: Nidhip Mehta <nxm8320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 15:24:59 -0400
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, Nicholas Musolino Jr. wrote:
> what part of 'fuck you' was "unnecessary arch-speak"? I was rather pleased
> at my pithiness. I guess I'll have to go back to floating ideas in
> 'incomprehensible jargon': that trusty phrase that every undergraduate
> learns to defend him/herself against ideas they don't want to learn.
I, too, was rather pleased at its pithiness. That was the thrust of my
concern. "Unnecessary arch-speak" wasn't referring to 'fuck you' at
all. And, please, don't allow yourself to think that 'incomprehensible
jargon' deters people like me from wanting to learn. In fact, it's
richness of language that helps promote the motivation to learn (at least
for me). But richness only goes so far before it becomes ornamentation.
> effect). This certainly legitimizes the idea that buildings are texts.
> But if we are to apply this notion thoroughly, why do we so transparently
> accept the framework of this text, i.e, the laws and contracts that govern
> the making of descriptions? Unlike fiction, as much information surrounds
That's partially what I'm questioning as well. In my point, the
framework that is generally accepted is the standardized language that
architects seem to use in description of buildings (and it's not
contractual context that I'm referring to). It's the 'jargon' that seems
to prevail while clarity and/or originality in language seems to go ignored.
Nidhip Mehta
School of Architecture, NJIT