What does /his/ think about Lord Kenneth Clark and his BBC documentary Civilisation? Do you agree that architecture is the best judge of what makes a culturemore than literature, art, etc.?
Yes, because architecture is universal while reading and art are exclusive to the upper classes, especially in the pre-Modern periods. Although I would say a people's folklore and fairytales are even more important, but they was usually confined to a oral tradition so are largely lost to us.
I guess architecture is probably a better measure than literature or art, since it combines engineering, mathematics, art and (vague) commentary on social structure and lifestyle all in the one thing.
Come to think of it, that actually just made me really depressed, since our legacy is going to be deconstructionist monstrosities for the foreseeable future. What are people going to look back and say about our culture's architecture in 300 years?
"The early 21st century was a period of such vapid decadence and pretentious posturing that even the places they lived and worked became works of deliberate ugliness, designed to contradict all concepts of beauty and functionality, simply because those qualities had come to be considered boring and low brow by the elite of this era".
It could show the extensiveness of the trade network the civilization has access too. i.e. rare and foreign building material
The amount of skill of the laborers, the technological level of a civilization and possible the wealth and culture behind the structure.
Deconstructionism obviously won't last, but the damage has already been done to the landscape. Our only hope is that there is such a backlash that people quietly knock the things down in 50 years, instead of putting them on heritage lists.
I think that because a lot of them are practically built to be destroyed we shiuld be gine. I do feel like some of the colossal ones ought to be protected, just as feats of human ingenuity
Monumental architecture preserves well, but it's a pretty narrow window into the world it represents. The opposite end of the spectrum would be oral traditions, which could tell you vastly more, but which we have much worse access to.
yes because literature and art are the product of individual imagination, whereas architecture involves the efforts of many laborers, trade to import building materials from across the land and centuries of accumulated knowledge in architectural technology
> Do you agree that architecture is the best judge of what makes a culturemore than literature, art, etc.?
At what point in the series does he say this? From what I remember he examined works of painting, and sculpture just as much if not more than architecture.
The last episode, I believe. In retrospect that was a little misleadmisleadIng, since he does spend tge middle episodes on almost exlusively art.
I think his point was that civilization can be shown in art, but it has a better chance of representing individual ideas than architecture does. Durer, for example, was able to produce art that defied current ideas of how man was to be viewed, whereas Raphael's building designs required state and church approval and had more pressure to abide by more people's ideals