Hearted Youtube comments on The Aesthetic City (@the_aesthetic_city) channel.
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
A lot of these modern "architects" are going for shock value, prestige, fame and notoriety. Everybody wants to be the next Andy Warhol of Architects, and frankly, it makes me mad. It's SO selfish and condescending. If you want to be COMPLETELY original, put your shit in an art gallery. Don't subjugate the masses to your atrocities.
And in America, a relatively new country to most in the world, we are the worst of the worst. You have to go SEEKING any original, old-school beautiful architecture. Whereas in many other parts of the world, they keep and maintain their beautiful buildings. There's a reason people love going to Greece, Rome, Japan, and many other places. We're captivated by BEAUTY, not these weirdly, oddly shaped dung balls.
I will say, the last truly original and beautiful structure of modern design is the Las Vegas Sphere. THAT is truly impressive and beautiful. It's one of the rare modern architectures that works, but there is soemthing special about buildings that don't need all the flash and technology FOR it to work. Something that requires real craftsmanship, chisel and stoning, plastering and stone/brick work. I travel to see such works of beauty because it's so inspirational, and don't even get me started on how inviting these buildings are, then you step inside and you're greated to great feats of artwork colored on the walls, statutes, paintings, and just aesthetically pleasing works of art.
There is far too much emphasise on function over beauty, and beauty is important to our well-being. We all love to see it, admire it, be in awe of it, and experience it. But these buildings are actively saying "F U" to our natural human sensibilities, and mocking us for it by forcing us to endure looking at these ugly "works of art" for years upon years until their eventual demise, because another thing of note...these modern structures don't last long. They're easy to tear down and are never missed. There's a reason why we hesitate to tear down historical buildings. Hell, even the colloseum had an uproard over someone mildly defacing the structure and was swiftly punished for it. But if a modern sturcture were in it's place, we would think nothing of it.
Lastly, a beautiful city/town is always a pleasure to be in and visit. Everything just feels like you're in harmony and...welll..beauty. You look forward to the trip. Most large cities lack that charm, grace and sense of style our ancestors had before us. They're not training the younger generation to value the old and build on what already works. They're training them to dismantle what works, what makes humans happy, and turn it upside down. I just don't get it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Criticism suggesting that only the wealthy can afford housing in this beautiful location is simply repugnant in its ignorance. Firstly, if critics are concerned about the wealthy purchasing gated plots of land where they can isolate themselves from the concerns of others in the country, then why don't they criticize similar communities in other parts of Guatemala? It's evident that amidst the failures of the state in construction and architecture, such private initiatives demonstrate that the previous modernist approach was rather misguided, and it's necessary to remove ideologically biased government interference from the realm of construction. In a world where such housing is being mass-produced, the opinions of these "experts" would likely become irrelevant, which is what they fear – journalists thrive on reporting disasters and issues (that's their work), solve those problems, and they'd have nothing left to write about! Similarly, with bureaucrats who, wielding absolute authority, have allowed cities to be disfigured by repugnant architecture, typically permitting this to be done by their well-connected friends.
Secondly, such criticism is simply economically illiterate. Let's recall the early automobiles or mobile phones – initially, these goods were very expensive, affordable only to the truly wealthy. However, the profits earned by pioneers in these markets attracted other producers, competition led to continuous innovations, and these goods ceased to be the privilege of the wealthy, as the video author accurately points out. Observing this phenomenon doesn't require being an economist; it just takes keen observation. But in a world of biases, such clarity is evidently forbidden.
I can only wish the video author good luck; you are doing a significant and important job!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4