Ha! Good catch, about Alsop, Melanie!..You read the Guardian!! good girl..I mean, good woman! Alsop actually sounds like kind of a fun guy, in the article..
And I agree,I sort of just like getting fired up about Landscape..
I don't think anybody is saying 'all or nothing' (except maybe Alsop).I find that Americans like to reduce everything to , "well sometimes, and some people" - you can't learn ANYTHING when this is introduced into a conversation- it is a complete conversations stopper, like "I don't recall," in a Senate heargin...I have an aquaintance who always does that..So take a minute to say, Oh, I will never accuse 'everyone' of being one way, and just go on back to the subject at hand...
Unless you are a real jerk or non-observant, OF COURSE it is not everybody doing one thing..but agree that this is true about the human race, and move on to the more interesting generalities..
(and we do n ot need to go to the extreme of Glenn Becks, who is also non-factual... it is possible to have a conversation with generalities without being a racist, or being untrue..don't you think you can say what was going on in Stalinist Russia, with the sculptures? Can't we analyze the society that produced this? Gloria Steinem thinks that Nazi Germany partly happened becasue of an extrememly patriachal familyl structure...Now that is a fun opinon...!!!)
Hmmm... first let me say that because I have never had the privilege of meeting you, nor am I too adept at reading minds...
I tend to respond to what is actually said, or in this case what was written. So, if I am replying in a way that feels to you as "a real jerk or non-observant"... it is based on what has been expressed here.
I don't know if that was your intent Trace One, but to me at least... THAT feels like a "complete conversation stopper".
hm..was not my point at all, Melanie..I am saying the opposite of what you are reading, as far as I can tell..
The jerks or non observant statement refers to people who actually believe ALL of a type are one way..You, as far as I can tell, were arguing the opposite of that - that of course it is not ALL LA or ALL architects who are one way.. A more tolerant perspective, of course.
but I also see that statement, however true, as being a conversation stopper..I think that it should go without saying that we are hopefully not totally predjudiced or unreasonable about individuals..But may still have an opinion of overall trends, hopefully based on some fact..
Too often I see us unable to make any argument, or any observations, because we are so afraid of the 'all or nothing' argument knocking us down..If one says "California LA's are not as flashy," of course you don't mean all California LA,s..that to me goes without saying..
I want to take that one step further and say, that indivduals of course will vary..But that should not totally preclude one from social anyalysis, the analysis of group behavior..
trying,here..too much to read, probably..Perhaps my own pet peeve, also..
no no no!! I am saying that people who actually believe that groups are unniform, i.e., that the blanket statement , "all LA from california are flashy" must be absolutely true - people who are unable to nuance their opinon of groups for individuals are the jerks..
You guys are making the OPPOSITE argument (most recently..) You are saying that the statement that "all california LA's are flashy" (for example) is NOT NECESSARILY TRUE, as many individuals vary..
My post was to go one step further than your guys obviously rational statement.
I want to make the point that Yes all generalities can be qualified by individual cases..But don't let that stop one from social (group) analysis..
Alsop was a jerk to say LA's don't know plants..and of course he is wrong about idividuals, and in making a general statement, opens himself up to the charge of being an intolerant jerk..
But don't let that discourage us from the analysis of groups..There is a group truth that exists, to some extent, about many things (maybe Alsops statement, maybe not..)
Isthat more clear?
don't just leap on those two words..!
I am more accurately likening my own perspective to that of intolerant jerks ..(there, how's that)
It is jerks who vehemently insist that groups have single identities...("All LA's don't know plants!)..This type of analysis leads to racism..and is actively and quite accurately discouraged in our society..
I saw Melanie at introducing that tolerant and more accurate attitude that group analysis has problelms..(The opposite of the jerks I have defined above..)
However, I still feel there is something to be gained from generalizing about group behavior..( I am arguing FOR jerk-dom, for the Alsops..)
How's that for sticking my neck out..individually, of course..
Alright... NOW I think we are on the same page again. :) (also too funny, Trace)
Thanks for your input Andrew, I was beginning to think it was only me... :)
Yes, of course we can speak in general terms... and we should when appropriate. I just get lost when those pesky qualifiers are used w/out clarifying intent. This is precisely why I usually ask if I am understanding the meaning behind the words so as NOT to take offense when none was intended. (and even if it was... I prefer to understand why rather than walk away)
Now that I have delved into Alsop's career a bit more, I am becoming increasing curious as to what may have been some additional underlying triggers of this public spar. The unspoken, yet obvious conflicts of interest. Or perhaps they were addressed in the 'debate' but not shown in the video clip?
Your point is well taken. Architects in general, once the basics of site analysis and programming are worked though, do have less 'evolving parameters' to work with... in general. Buildings are meant to withstand all types of weather, whereas LArchitects, are also dealing with plant materials and other ameliorating factors that tend to transform and erode throughout the seasons... in general. :)
Of course, Archs deal with these factors inside the buildings themselves, with the building materials and hopefully with the way the building plays to site specific opportunities and constraints. So, one could say that both Archs and LArchs do have to consider the same principles, but in an obviously more specific manner.
I had the pleasure of spending some time in the new SF Academy of Sciences Museum the other night. Now there is an amazing example of cohesive planning and execution that incorporates all of the above conditions. The barriers of inside/ outside are purposfully blurred and one could not readily point to where the Arch left off and the LArch began.
Throughout history—with the exception of the great Olmsted, of course—it seems that landscape architects seldom find their way into the design spotlight. Lurking in the shadows of a project's sources, the portion of folks…