inconsistantcies and hyperboles
2000.11.08
Alex first (rhetorically) asked:
who designed the Baroque? OR How did the Baroque arise (emerge)?
Steve gave some initial answers, plus offered a "Baroque ending."
Alex then states:
When in my previous post I rhetorically asked who had 'invented' or 'designed' the Baroque, I was somewhat shocked to see candidates actually being proposed for this mythical position.
Steve now asks:
Why were you shocked and what specifically makes the emergence of the Baroque a mythical position?
Alex also states and asks:
It is noticeable that while we can have ruminations on metaphysics, when it comes to 'theorizing' about architecture as such - bang! We drop 50 levels of scale and talk about the 'feelings' of the individual artist (architect?). How this is supposed to explain the evolution of one style into another I don't know or the interactions between the many individuals involved.
Steve ruminates and states:
Can one do anything else but ruminate on metaphysics? And, if one can do something additional, please tell me what it is.
Specifically what 'feelings' of individual artists or architects were talked about in this discussion recently?
Please describe for me each of the 50 levels of scale that are dropped when one moves from ruminating on metaphysics to 'theorizing' about architecture via talking about artists/architects 'feelings'.
Does it not seem completely odd to discuss architecture without discussing works of architecture itself?
|