Youtube comments of John Peric (@johnperic6860).
-
1300
-
174
-
113
-
53
-
44
-
39
-
37
-
30
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
24
-
16
-
15
-
13
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
@TheNobleFive
Faster connections isn't the problem (please read carefully).
The US already had 160,000 miles of paved federal highways built by the 1940s, and 260,000 miles of efficient passenger rail built by the 1920s (more than any country on Earth today). Every town in America with over 1000 people had a rail station.
Despite these extant means of rapid transport, small towns continued to grow throughout most of the US (granted at a slower pace than cities) until the 1950s.
So again, the problem isn't rapid transit, it's how the rapid transit is done.
Railways and federal highways were built along existing trails, and took travelers directly to the center of small towns, where they would then get to purchase goods and services from local stores. Hence why Route 66 is often called the main street of America.
Fast-forward to the 1950s and the federal highway defense act is passed, which seeks to expand existing highways and reroute them around (rather than through) small towns.
Once the new interstates were rerouted away from the downtowns, people of course stopped driving through downtowns, stopped buying goods and services from said towns, and the towns therefore entered a perpetual recession and their residence of course left (especially the young ones). Mainstreet was replaced with the truck stop.
A great example of this is Lordsburg, New Mexico. The town was the historic junction between federal highway 80 (the precursor to interstate defense highway 10) and federal highway 70. At its peak before the rerouting in the 1960s, the town had a population of 3,500 and a median income comparable to the national average.
The town's population steadily grew until the I-10 reroute (which shifted traffic half a mile away from downtown). Once this happened, Lordsburg's downtown quickly died as travelers stopped coming in. Since then its median income has plummeted to one third the national average and its population has fallen by nearly 40%. This was a direct result if the I-10 reroute.
Other towns which haven't been bypassed by defense highways (to save 2 minutes of driving) have typically continued growing in pace with nationwide birthrates (biggest difference being they don't attract foreign migrants).
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@DecadeAgoGaming
No, that's rather extremely unlikely.
1.) A runaway greenhouse effect has never occurred on Earth in the last 4.5 billion years. It is very likely not even a physical possibility, because real uninhibited positive feedback loops rarely exist in real life, and no evidence of them exists within Earth's climate.
2.) While ecosystem collapse is certainly a possibility, it isn't attributable to climate change. This is almost entirely attributable to the loss of ecosystems to humans developing and altering natural regimes on land. For example, the loss of wildfires in the eastern United States has resulted in the expansion of dense forests, invasive species, and the loss of prairies, wildflowers, and the pollinators they supported.
3.) Massive methane releases are unlikely. During the Eemian climate maximum, temperatures were around 1- 3 °C warmer globally, and the fastest rates of warming were comparable or greater than today, and yet we did not see this massive release of methane. Given the insane heat capacity of our oceans, the rapid release of methane carbonate deposits is extremely unlikely. Essentially all of the current increase we have seen in methane in our atmosphere can be attributed to agriculture, building reservoirs, and deforestation.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@CheeseBae
You are confusing technological modernization with modernist (enlightenment) philosophy.
The Arts and Crafts movement opposed technological modernization (industrialization); it did not oppose enlightenment philosophy but was rather founded in it.
Modernization and modernism are not the same, and your confusion about these two things is what has you confused.
Modernism is a liberal enlightenment philosophy applied to art and form.
Liberalism is simply the rejection of objectivity in favor of subjectivity and individualism (this was often manifested as anarchism). Conservatism, conversely, is the embrace of objectivity (this is often manifested as upholding authority).
The Arts and Crafts and Impressionist movements were founded on the philosophies of humanist-socialist thinkers, such as John Ruskin and William Morris, and Deists, such as JMW Turner.
The main tenets of these movements were:
- Embrace a more abstract and simple form.
- Embrace the capabilities of the individual
- Embrace human craftsmanship, especially separate from the divine (e.g., humanism)
- Embrace naturalism.
It was liberal, enlightenment, and therefore modernist in every sense. John Ruskin, among others, called JMW Turner the Father of Modern Art (which most scholars today agree with).
The Arts and Crafts movement laid the foundations for the later Vienna Secessionist movement, Modernista movement, Art Nouveau, Bauhaus, etc. This isn't controversial.
In fact, the Modernista movement was also very upfront about its opposition to industrialism and the bourgeois class, similar to the Arts and Crafts (this didn't make it any less modernist, of course).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@MikelosM
Hmm, no, every single day on average has warmed by roughly the same amount (though there's difference between the rate and linearity of the warming between the summer and winter).
Summer temperatures have actually risen slower, on average, than winter temperatures, with average summer temperatures only rising about 1.5° since 1950 (this is because summer temperatures in Florida are more impacted by marine air rather than continental air, like in the winter).
And no, 2-3°F of warming means on average the entire distribution of temperatures will shift 2-3°F upward, meaning instead of 90° as an extreme, it should be 92-93° (which again, isn't discernable, especially over. 50 year period, especially when year to year temperature changes are highly variable).
And according to Florida's state climate summaries (which I can link in another comment, if YouTube permits) the state has seen no discernable trend in the number of days exceeding 95°F in the last 120 years.
As for heat indices, I can't find any historical data on that except from Miami, which has seen a warming of 0.54°/decade. Since Florida's precipitation has stayed relatively constant then the average dew point must've increased at a similar rate to temperature trends, particularly during the summer (Florida's wet season), which would correspond to a state wide increase in summer heat indices of around 2° since 1950.
And lastly, nowhere in Florida is the sea temperature getting up to 98-100°F. I live 60 miles west of the station where that temperature was recorded (Manatee bay), and our sea temperatures have not exceeded 91° ONCE this entire year, and are currently sitting at a balmy 86°. Further, no buoy surrounding the one in Manatee bay recorded such high temperatures; for instance, Biscayne bay, 5 miles east, was a balmy 85-87° when that 100° water temperature was recorded.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robertfetrow4612
"And hundreds of millions of Americans who use those interstates to travel and guess what? Most everyone you claimed was displaced most likely used that interstate highway system."
And why does that matter? If I blew up your home and replaced it with a McDonald's, the fact you ate at said McDonald's wouldn't make blowing up your home any better. I don't know what kind of reasoning that is.
Most of those displaced by the interstates would be communities that would get little use out of them (e.g. rural communities or dense, walkable communities).
And it shouldn't go without mentioning that highways literally existed before the interstate. All the defense highways did was add lanes to existing freeways and reroute traffic around small towns rather than through them. That's LITERALLY all they did.
Americans, and those who would be displaced, could've just as easily driven our already extant 160,000 miles of paved highways WITHOUT the interstate Defense highways.
"It was the greatest advancement in travel in the USA"
No, the greatest advancements in travel were:
- The Numbered Highway system, which was completed in 1926 with 160,000 miles of paved highways (this includes roads such as Highway 66, Highway 101, and Highway 80).
- The National Rail System, which was completed in 1919, with 260,000 miles of railways and a station in every town with over 1000 people.
- The National Air transport system (which is the safest and most efficient means of transport today).
The Defense Highway Act only added lanes to 1/4 of the highways already built in the Numbered Highway system, destroyed rural and urban communities, and displaced millions of people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@That-Guy_
No, it is, as much as you may want to refuse it, there's nothing new under the sun, you're just the same as the 30,000 people living in pompeii 2000 years ago.
There is a natural objective law and morality, and while the source of this law is revealed in Christianity, it is accessible to any culture through secular means. e.g. this is where conservatism and liberalism ultimately come from, a rejection of this universal objective truth versus and acceptance of it. Nothing more, nothing less.
We're currently just undergoing our new liberal phase, just as the Romans did, the Athenians did, the Damascus did, Babylon did, and so on. There's absolutely nothing new under the sun.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CheeseBae
You are confusing the modernist movement with something being modern (as in new).
I'm using the word modern as the broader modernist movement encompassing all modernist architecture, including moderne (such as Villa Sovoye), prairie school (such as the Robbie House), Bauhaus school (such as the Bauhaus building), Art Deco (such as the Field Building), Art Nouveau (such as the Sagrada Familia), etc.
Gothic architecture was modern (as in new) at one point but not modernist; those are two very different terms. Modernism (not modern as in new) is a broad philosophical liberal movement in art.
For instance, when someone speaks of "modern art," they do not just mean the Avant-Garde of the 20th century, they mean the entire modernist movement, including its earliest stages, including impressionism.
I'm talking about the philosophical movement behind the architecture, you are talking about whether something is recent or not.
So again, was Gaudi a modernist?
I'm not continuing forward until that last question is answered.
2
-
@CheeseBae
"Gaudi did not build Modern architecture, he built in a form of Art Nouveau architecture."
So, modernista is not a modernist style?
"Prairie school is not Modern architecture, it is an outgrowth of Arts and Crafts."
Fascinating, so you mean to tell me the Robbie House is not modernist?
How about Organic Architecture, such as Frank Llyod Wright's Taliesin West, which directly stems from his earlier Prarie school?
"You need to decide if you're talking about architecture or philosophy"
I'm talking about the philosophy behind modern art, including architecture. These are not mutually exclusive terms.
"while Art Nouveau and Arts and Crafts were a continuation or an evolution of traditional architecture."
No, they were fundamentally different, in respect to their philosophical roots, from traditional architecture. Having vestiges or even some inspiration from the past does not make something traditional. By that logic, "post-modernism" isn't modernist.
This is like saying the Pearl Academy of Fashion isn't modernist since it has vestiges of traditional Indian architecture.
A swallow does not a summer make - just because vestiges of tradition exist does not mean something is traditional.
Arts and crafts, and the subsequent modernist styles, such as Vienna Secessionist, Art Nouveau, Bauhaus, etc., were based on rejecting objective form and the divine in favor of subjective form and naturalism/humanism. That's what separates Arts and Crafts from, say, Queen Anne and other traditional architecture.
This is made very clear by the fact that these movements were literally founded by secular socialists, humanists, and naturalists; if you don't know this, then you've done little research on the founders of these styles.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zachweaverproductions2523
You're not really negating my point.
Companies and their cronies ("foot soldiers") are not the cause, they're a feedback for sure, but not the cause.
The cause far predates Amazon, Google, and so on, and goes back to the 17th century with philosophers like Descartes and John Locke.
Think of the cult of the free thinkers, American revolution, the rationalist movement, the humanist, the impressionist, and so on before thinking Amazon or Target.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Good video.
Conservatism is not an inherent objection to change and conversely, liberalism isn't an inherent acceptance of change.
Liberalism and conservatism are philosophies that can best be summed as the following:
Objective collectivism versus subjective individualism.
A great example of this is the divide on morals, The conservative position would be that there is an objective and universal moral truth while for liberals one would claim that morality is subjective and up to the individual or culture at hand.
Further, there's nothing inherent about cities that makes them more conducive to the other, with one exception... The only argument I can see that cities may be inherently more liberal, especially with respect to the Judeo-Christian heritage of the West, is that cities are wealthier and as people grow in wealth they rely on themselves rather than God for answers.
Taking that into consideration, and as you said, cities are bell weathers, they just reflect the trends society will be going towards, be it conservative or liberal. For instance, the culture of Christian Rome was more conservative than the countryside that surrounded it (this is especially visible in the British Isles), or the European Renaissance, which was born in cities and was more conservative than the countryside that surrounded said cities.
And lastly, if you purely define liberalism and conservatism by these basic philosophical notions of objectivity versus subjectivity, then I would say 5th century BC Athens or 1st century BC Pompeii was probably more liberal than even the most liberal cities today.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DecadeAgoGaming
1.) All cases of anoxia in our oceans thus far are occurring due to nutrient overloading from sewage and agricultural runoff.
2.) Yes, you can argue that climate change is a factor, but it is not the determining factor. With climate change on its own, said ecosystems and species would be able to adapt, and most are even now. The issue is environmental degradation, which, regardless of climate change, will cause ecosystem collapse and despeciation. Preventing ecosystem degradation and restoring lost ecosystems and disrupted environmental regimes should be our goal, and would almost eliminate the issue entirely.
A great example of this is the Great Barrier Reef. While yes, heat stress was harming the reef, it was primarily a product of chemicals released into the water by agricultural, sewage, and shipping runoff as well a chemicals in sunscreens causing the decline of the reef. Since these issues have largely been addressed, bleaching in the reef has plummeted, and coral cover has recovered to a record high since record keeping began.
3.) The Eocene occurred 33.8 million years before the Eemian even started. The lack of a methane release during the Eemian, which was only 0.12 million years ago, has nothing to do with the Eocene. The amount of methane stored in permafrost in the Eemian should have been comparable to modern times, considering its preceding glacial maxima were equal in magnitude.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ronaldsmith6829
"This is another argument that sounds valid on the surface and fails to address the whole issue. The N.H.S. did contribute to the degrading of Small Town America."
I didn't say the National Highway System, I said the Federal Interstate Defense Highway system.
The original federal highway system was great, with literally no harmful societal side-effects I can think of. It made it so people could safely get across America in a matter of a few days (similar to today) rather than weeks.
"However it wasn't the major cause. Yes the N.H.S. did reduce some of the business in small towns, particularly when they were denied an offramp. However what really killed off business in small towns was the growth of Chain Stores like Walmart, Home Depot, etc... Even in the cities, small business is hard put to compete with Chain and Big Box stores. There are studies that have proven Walmart killed every small town and small business within twenty miles everywhere they were built.
"
No, it definitely was a major cause, even for towns with off-ramps.
If a new road diverts traffic from your town, even if there’s an off-ramp, people aren’t going to drive through your town, and if they don’t drive through your town, they can’t see what business is even there and if they can’t see what business is there, they can’t stop to spend their money.
Going back to the Lordsburg, NM example, the town didn't begin dying when the closest Walmart was built 80 miles away in 2011, the city began dying the moment the interstate re-route was completed because people began driving past the downtown rather than through it (for obvious reasons).
When people stopped driving through downtown THEN chain corporations, such as Mc. Donald’s, Pilot, Hilton, etc., moved in and opened hotels and truck stops.
The economies of these small towns along the highways were not sustained by locals but by travelers, and when the interstate re-route was done, it took those travelers away from Lordsburg. This is the case for every small town bypassed by the interstate.
Literally, EVERY instance you look at of an interstate by-passing a town’s business district, the town’s business district (and typically the town itself) dies.
The rise of major chains in these watering-hole towns is largely an effect of the interstate that only acted as feedback to killing the town.
Sorry, if people don’t know your downtown exists, they won’t stop there to use its goods or services.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OmarOsman98
Claiming to be a prophet isn't a cause for stoning under Mosaic law, much less stoning without trial.
If they stoned him for claiming to be a prophet without trial, they'd all be punishable up to death as well.
And no, he literally said, "Before Abraham was, I am."
"I and the Father are one.”
Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
John 29:39
Jesus very clearly claims to be God, and Jews very clearly understand what He is saying, and they very clearly want to stone Him for blasphemy (not for claiming to be a prophet, which pretty much every other Jew at the time was doing).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterclarke7240
You forgot what you commented:
"The heat from the sun CAN start fires, if there's sufficient dry fuel and oxygen.
However, most wildfires are the result of human actions, whether deliberate or accidental. Even a spark from an overhead electrical wire can be sufficient, particularly in an area experiencing a drought, such as Hawaii"
I then responded:
"okay, but that has nothing to do with the ambient temperature of the air. The sun can spontaneously ignite fuel even if its -30 outside."
You argued against them, by saying the sun can cause spontaneous ignition. While this is true, it isn't exactly relevant to the discussion of ambient temperatures causing fires (and therefore climate change fueling fires).
So yes, when you are discussing whether Climate Change increasing ambient temperatures has fielded fires, it is not relevant to bring up direct heating from the sun, which is not related to climate change whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CJ_Espinoza
"God or gods* ... scientific community"
It does not matter what I or the scientific community believes, God is real regardless.
With that said, God is provable, and I didn't provide evidence because...
1.) You didn't explicitly ask.
2.) It would massively distract from another aspect of our conversation, and I left my evidence vague so you can ask questions. You're trying to have two conversations now, we should stick to either one or the other. Since you've made it clear you want to save the issue of objectivity for later, we can focus on the conversation of God.
"My point is you cannot... not based in fact"
You've made it clear you want to focus on the topic of God, so let's keep this conversation coherent and save this conversation about objectivity for later.
So with that said, let's start talking about God! We can start with prophetic evidence.
So to begin, can you tell me what event is being described here?
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
2O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
3But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.
4Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
5They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.
6But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
7All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
9But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
11Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
12Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
13They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.
14I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
15My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PJH13
"If he was 17 at the time, I might agree with you."
Why does it matter if he was 17 or 40 at the time? That literally has no bearing on whether his heart has changed regarding that. Heck, whether or not he did it a year ago would have no bearing on whether his heart changed regarding that.
"It was only a few years ago and he was a fully grown adult."
And fully grown adults can have a change of heart. Similar to how you absolutely still do wrong to people yourself, but we both know you can change from that.
"It's not a matter for me to forgive someone anyway, it's for their victim."
No, it is actually everyone's business to forgive someone, if said person is truly repentful and turned away from the wrong they did.
And frankly, you are the one holding the weight of the wrong he's done in the past over his head right now. If he has genuinely had a change of heart and turned away from his abusive behavior then you are absolutely are in the place of needing to forgive him, especially being you're the one holding it against him.
"What I am concerned about, is what it tells us about how suited he is for one of the biggest responsibilities in the world."
With all due respect, even if he had zero change of heart regarding his abusive behavior in his personal relationships, this would have literally zero bearing on his capacity to be a leader. Sorry to let you down, but if personal wrong-doings was a bearing on one's capacity to lead, then literally every person to ever hold a position in the executive branch in all of US history would be unfit, by your books.
That said, if he HAS had a true change of heart and is truly in a different position regarding how women should be treated, e.g. with respect and dignity, why would you hold his past over him and say that his past disqualifies his merits now, even if his heart is where it should be now?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bart_u
The Arts and Crafts movement was literally founded on the Enlightenment-era humanist and naturalist philosophy of men such as John Ruskin.
Most of those in the Arts and Crafts movement were devout humanist socialists, such as T. J. Cobden-Sanderson.
It developed in tandem and from the same philosophies of the impressionist movement.
"The Arts and Crafts Movement was, in many ways, a precursor to modern architecture and design. This Movement’s emphasis on basic forms, asymmetry, and stripped-back design provides a foundation and framework for the later, modern designs to emerge from twentieth century."
The arts and crafts movement was the direct visual and philosophical precursor to the Vienna Secessionist movement, Modernista, and Art Nouveau.
The Bauhaus School is a merger of the Grand-Ducal Saxon Academy of Fine Art and Grand Ducal Saxon School of Arts and Crafts.
It is not remotely up for debate that the Arts and crafts movement, starting the the 1850s-1860s, was the start of the modernist movement.
1
-
1
-
@CheeseBae
Per the Getty Institute (First source that appears):
"The term 'Modern architecture' describes architecture designed and built within the social, artistic, and cultural attitude known as Modernism. It put an emphasis on experimentation, the rejection of predetermined 'rules,' and freedom of expression in art, literature, architecture, and music."
Per Wikipedia (The second source that appears):
"Frank Lloyd Wright was a highly original and independent American architect who refused to be categorized in any one architectural movement. Like Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, he had no formal architectural training. From 1887 to 1893 he worked in the Chicago office of Louis Sullivan, who pioneered the first tall steel-frame office buildings in Chicago, and who famously stated "form follows function".[21] Wright set out to break all the traditional rules. He was particularly famous for his Prairie Houses, including the Winslow House in River Forest, Illinois (1893–94); Arthur Heurtley House (1902) and Robie House (1909); sprawling, geometric residences without decoration, with strong horizontal lines which seemed to grow out of the earth, and which echoed the wide flat spaces of the American prairie. His Larkin Building (1904–1906) in Buffalo, New York, Unity Temple (1905) in Oak Park, Illinois and Unity Temple had highly original forms and no connection with historical precedents."
There is a Modern movement, more formally Art Moderne, which is a streamlined and futurist movement, including Villa Savoye; however, this is simply an avant-garde movement in the broader modernist movement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scrupulousscruples
The goal of impressionism was to break down imagery into more subjective and abstract forms.
This is made very evident by JMW Tiurner's works: Norham Castle, Sunrise (1798), Norham Castle on the River Tweed (1823), and Norham Castle, Sunrise (1845), which was a series of three paintings created over some 48 years.
The first work from 1798 was of a romanticist style, objective in form. A straightforward communication of his first visit to Norham Castle in 1797.
The second work from 1823 was one of the first examples of impressionism in history. While still clear in form, a clear breakdown between representing reality objectively was occurring (with the painting deliberately being left to appear incomplete).
The third and final work from 1845 was a definitive example of impressionist art. Form had completely dissolved into total unrecognizable subjective and abstract form. One could not look at it and discern anything except perhaps water and a sunrise.
Completely abstract in form, this is what impressionism is, and it was the definitive start of the modernist art movement.
I highly recommend reading about JMW Turner's philosophies on art, especially later in his life, and why Humanist socialists, such as John Ruskin, praised him so highly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would be cautious to act as if the art that survives represents the best of the era.
The art that's most likely to survive is that made by the average person.
Lets say you go and grab 100 people of the street right now and ask them to draw the best picture of a human that they can. Chances are, none of them will be fantastic, maybe some would be decent, but non what anyone would call mastery.
Now, lets say you're an archaeologist, you find 100 surviving depictions of the human form carved in tablets or drawn on somesort of paper. Just like with our previous scenario, chances are none of them will be fantastic, some bad, some mid, and some decent - what the average person can do.
I would say that if you're trying to find a reference of what the best in society were capable of, looking at bust is a better proxy for how good artist were at capturing the human form (as statues will be more likely to survive the test of time in greater numbers than some drawing on paper).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
8:30 small correction, but it's the other way around. The Coriolis effect is weakest at the equator and strongest at the poles. This is why hurricanes rarely form within 500km of the equator. The reason hurricanes form in the tropics is only because of the fact there's lower wind shear, warmer water, and good atmospheric circulation.
Edit:
18:50 another correction. There is no evidence that shows an increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes (at least in the Atlantic) over the last 140 years. At best the data is inconclusive and there's essentially no consensus on how global warming is impacting hurricane intensity, frequency, and strength (this is coming from the IPCC, NOAA, and AMS).
Hurricanes aren't as simple as "warm water". Hurricanes are heat engines and thus require organization and energy gradients. There's no evidence that conditions have garnered increased energy gradients and improved organization.
And citing damage as a metric for trends in hurricane strength is very misleading. This phenomenon is not because hurricanes have become more intense or strong, but rather because we have more infrastructure in their path. When normalizing hurricane damage for the amount of infrastructure present, there's essentially no trend in hurricane damage over the last 100 years (within the Atlantic, where data is available).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1