Recent comments in /f/general

oolong wrote

Chinese artists … never lose sight of the fact that producing works in large numbers exemplifies creativity, too. They trust that, as in nature, there always will be some among the 10,000 things from which change springs.

this reminds me of ai weiwei's sunflower seeds exhibition, millions of individually painted and crafted seeds, none of them really unique but still singular

and re the last paragraph, the way i was taught to approach brush painting and calligraphy was more focused on creating a kind of flow for strokes. like, having a feel for qi or the spirit of nature in order to transfer that power into your work. it sounds really uhhh superstitious i guess from a western perspective but it is what it is

2

toasthaste wrote

The Ise Grand Shrine, the supreme Shinto sanctuary located on Honshu island, is 1,300 years old for the millions of Japanese people who go there on pilgrimage every year. But in reality this temple complex is completely rebuilt from scratch every 20 years.

I've been there! That was my first exposure to that concept of "replacing all the parts of a thing doesn't make it stop being the same thing". I still find that whole idea really cool.

and then

This religious practice is so alien to Western art historians that, after heated debates, UNESCO removed this Shinto temple from the list of World Heritage sites. For the experts at UNESCO, the shrine is 20 years old at most.

c'mon man -__-

I always did find it weird how like, an incredibly accurate forgery of a painting is worth so much less than the original. It's such a good forgery that you couldn't even tell the difference! It looks just as good!

3

flabberghaster wrote

A few months ago, i was riding my bike and a person stepped off the curb, causing me to swerve and ultimately my bike to come out from under me in a crash.

As I was laying on the ground the guy came up and put his hand on my back asking if I was ok. It was the first time someone had touched me in like, months, and it was inexplicably nice. Just a concerned person, showing their concern.

Which is not to say, everone go out and touch everyone, but, it was nice and it really struck me.

9

Moonside OP wrote

tbh I do want to admit contemporary academic success measured by metrics isn't, like, the way to decide these things since phrenology also had its heyday once. I haven't been reading Chomsky since I was like 14 so I can't judge him adequately but I'm also somewhat disinterested in him so yeah.

1

neku OP wrote (edited )

I feel like this mashup was created for the sole purpose of attracting jstpst.net users like it's so specific but also perfect for this community. so dumb i love it

also its a good way of reminding me that like, This Year is a really good song

3

hollyhoppet wrote

You know while we're tearing the article apart I think the thing that irks me the most is the title like... it could have been "Why I Hate Contemporary Architecture" but using "you" makes it feel like... I dunno the word for it but yeah I don't like it :P.

2

hi_i_post wrote

well thats an angry and populist article, but i see where it's coming from. It's pretty telling how easy the authors mix up modernism and postmodernism imo. I think it's easier to understand in the historical context, for example how classic pre-WWII modernism was pretty human-orniented (how dare they just write off Gropius as a misanthrope) and how popular housing projects from that era still are. And how after WWII you couldn't just start to rebuild everything in a traditional style, as just about every system that shaped that old world had catastrophically failed. I totally get sentiment of just trying to reinvent everything, mocking of the past, and doing away with all kinds of lavish facades to hide behind. That being said i completely agree with the authors about most things that were put up after like the 80s of so. These fucking soulless mallscapes everywhere, and still so much empty spaces and fear of density.

3

hollyhoppet wrote

On a more serious note, I do agree that public buildings especially ones for services oriented toward disadvantaged people should be generally significantly less dour. But yeah I also agree with you that the author went a bit overboard with some of their assessments.

Also that building in Paris is in one way really rad looking but yeah I would hate living in the city with that looming over everything lol.

3