Comment by mygo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mygo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Is the goal to make beautiful structures, or is it to make beautiful structures as if they still have the characteristics of wood?

I’m inclined to believe that, if the original masterful wood-crafters had instead began their professions with stone, that they would have created beautiful structures that fully explored the capabilities of stone, and that their contributions to architecture may have looked a little different, but no less aesthetic.

So, assuming the will of the original craftsmen was to simply make the most aesthetic structures that their materials would allow (and maybe I’m wrong about that), would it be paying homage to them by making stone copies of their wooden accomplishments while working in a new medium with different characteristics, or would it be paying homage to them by continuing their pursuit and fully exploring the capabilities of stone, as the forefathers had done with wood?

That’s a question with no right answer... but I personally believe that homage is not to copy one’s output, but to copy one’s input.. To seek what they sought. To do as they would have done if they had stone instead of wood.

I have a good deal of agreement with you, but the architectural (as opposed to engineering) crime that bugs me the most is an egoistic new structure that makes no attempt to work with its surroundings, when its surroundings have merit in their own right.

> Is the goal to make beautiful structures, or is it to make beautiful structures as if they are still have the characteristics of wood?

Beauty is subjective and the development of taste is path-dependent. A thing can be beautiful because it evokes features that make a designar successful for functional reasons in historical media.

I'm not in disagreement with you, but there is another aspect to consider.

In the case of many of these structures, their physical form is a reflection of some spiritual aspect. They're basically religious icons. Their design may be carried forward in part just because not doing so would be disrespectful on a spiritual level, or because they remind people of something. But they're not all the same.

There are probably thousands of different torii gates with slightly different designs. Some show an extended nuki with kusabi wedges, a modified mortise and tenon style joinery. But many torii gates don't feature these. Nuki joints are actually widely used as ornamental carpentry, and can be found in several non-wooden objects.

The construction of most torii, regardless of their material, seems to be about aesthetics (and honoring whoever paid to put it up) before the rest.

If you want maximum accomplishment with a material, check out their multi story pagodas that use a massive wooden beam in the middle. It acts as a mass damper and prevents the different floors from sliding off the building during an earthquake, as they aren't attached to each other. Hard to do that with stone! :)

I agree with you, but only because you seem to have missed the crux (no irony intended) of Ayn Rand's ideology. She hated how even the style of the buildings around her embodied a people and culture she saw as a threat to her vision of the world and wanted to tear down. She would have no "homage" to it at all.

We are under no obligation to regard Rand as the last word on anything, fortunately.

Agreed. It's pretty questionable to tell a Frenchman he shouldn't be proud of the Eiffel Tower because he didnt personally design it.

Then why do you keep bringing up Rand's opinion on architecture only to state that you disagree?

Because an earlier post misunderstood Rand's position and I wanted to clarify it. I guess I should have been more clear. My appologies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com