[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 555 KB, 807x337, decay.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
7256404 No.7256404 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Today I walked across my campus and compared the old buildings of my university with the new ones. The old buildings are beautiful places with stucco, ornaments, statuary, polished stone and so on. The new building are just cubes made out of glass and beton without any decoration. Just behold the pic of our historical library and our current one. There were fucking marble discus-thrower in our old library. However it's not alone the buildings: Just compare old textbooks with new ones, or old scientific equipment with new one: Today it's just functional: no decoration, no ornaments, no beauty.

Such things made my really sad: I think that in former days, the scientists were really proud of their work: Science was an art and the university was literally a temple of knowledge. Today science is a business and the uni is a knowledge factory. I doubt that this is a good attitude.

What do you think about this development?

>> No.7256411

I'm sorry that you have to actually work instead of masturbating all day.

>> No.7256431

Basically this.
You want to honour science? Go to a museum.

>> No.7256439

It's not very economic, all that money could go to better learning tools/more teaching staff. I'm sure the heads would love to make an architecture project like that, were the whole world is competing, no time.

>> No.7256445

The libraries today have more books in smaller spaces. They are just more efficient in times where the physics department leeches away all the money.

But I agree with you, beauty is nice.

>> No.7256496

I just wonder why it was no problem in the past but nowadays, where such buildings would only cost a fraction of it's original cost, they haven't even enough money to renovate the old buildings.

>> No.7256504

With the advent of 3d printing I expect grand architecture to make a comeback.


>> No.7256507

imagine there was a mathproblem battle long ago between two people on who knew the solution to the cubic equation, since none of them wanted to show it to others;

>> No.7256537

The people of today are busier than our ancestors, and human labor has a much high price. That's why it's a bigger problem, but if you have such a passion for architecture then make a difference.

>> No.7256556

Yeah, tomorrow I go to my libary and just start to paper the walls.

>> No.7256561


One can only hope for this to become reality.

>> No.7256576

>The people of today are busier than our ancestors
Technology is a force multiplier.
We have the technology and logistics to produce more materials, and build the same structures with a fraction of time and cost.

>> No.7256601

The people who spend their entire lives obsessed with people from the past seem to think our ancestors had a lot more free time than us. And I agree with the consensus, even though we cut things down to a fraction our workload is still so much bigger.

>> No.7256641


Yep hollow stone details that could be filled with concrete after being set into place.

Sand blasted or smoothed to finish.

Sounds cost effective

>> No.7256647

Society as a whole has very little appreciation for beauty or greatness. The only thing that matters is cost.

>> No.7256648

privatization made everything about money and not about ideals.

I mean free market has a lot of other benefits, so I think it's worth it.

>> No.7256661

Yeah, and in the past fedoras were fashionable and philosophy was acceptable ...

How about you grow up?

>> No.7256671

>compare old textbooks with new ones
Old textbooks were complete shit.

>old scientific equipment with new one
New is better and cheaper.

>I think that in former days, the scientists were really proud of their work
If you're not proud of your work you've done a pretty shitty job.

Old building was 10x more expensive.

>What do you think about this development?
I think you should grow up.
You sound like a highschool fedora kid.

>> No.7256721

there is literally nothing wrong with philosophy.
what are you even smoking?

>> No.7256745

>It's not very economic, all that money could go to better learning tools/more teaching staff.
I think you mean "more administrative staff".

It's the little crawly salary-suckers who busy themselves making work for each other that drag everything down to mediocrity.

>> No.7256766

Because any money that is going toward architecture and beautification is money that is NOT going toward learning materials, equipment, and anything that actually help productivity.

Grant money would be your only hope in this situation.

>> No.7256773
File: 3.68 MB, 4269x2324, Vatican_Altar_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I know, your amifag colleges and cities looked shitty all along. But here in Europe we had and have some nice architecture. For some buildings, the people worked hundreds for years to build them. Therefore they will also survive for hundreds of years and, most important, look so fucking good you can't imagine. So it's really sad if you go through the city and see a 200 years old palace and besides it a 20 years old grey block. You begin to wonder for what we invent all the science and technology if we only use them to build such shit. There's no beauty and no art nowadays. Sure, such things are "ineffective" and "needless" but that's what art is: It's only there to please your heart and mind and that's more than enough reason to exist. You will feel much better if you live and work in an aesthetic environment as in a grey block. And it's not debatable: Nowadays you could build such things with a fraction of cost, effort and time. I don't say that we should build barrack palace with stucco and putti everywhere. We could certainly use a modern style which suffices our today's demands and still fits between the old buildings. Beauty and functionality are not mutually exclusive.

Now you will say I “should grow up“ and I’m “obsessed with people from the past”. You may don’t know it but that’s what we call “culture” here in Europe.

>> No.7256776

Modern life is decadent.

>> No.7256840

Brit here, yes art is needed and yes science is to be celebrated but thats what galleries, museums and public libraries are for.
Schools need all the money they can get, so don't waste it on expensive architects and carved pillars when your grey block can save money for other things.
Its ugly but practical, if the whole world was like it it would be dreadful, but as long as the past is kept and our achievements are celebrated, we should try to focus on getting equally beautiful things through technology.

>> No.7256865

Funny that. You seem to think that America has no buildings that look really quite good. Don't get me wrong, there should be more, but we are not uncultured swine like people like to make us out to be. We have capitol buildings with gold roofs for Christ sake.

>> No.7256905

that's called

>> No.7256958

ITT: beauty and productivity are mutually exclusive

>> No.7256978


This is actually a really accurate response.


>> No.7257240

This a thousand times over.
Can anyone give me a reason to believe that universities are going to start cutting out all the superfluous administrative bloat?
I need hope...

On topic: maybe it's because scientists were valued more in the past. Now we just value doctors and lawyers. Not true in Asia however. What do their universities look like?

>> No.7257251

I stopped reading the minute you made it about yourself.

>> No.7257274

I agree with you about architecture; these shitty, modern libraries are a disgrace. However, new textbooks and scientific equipment are way better than the past, what are you thinking?

>> No.7257278

>maybe it's because scientists were valued more in the past
Or is simply more practical and not as expensive? Do we REALLY need the library to be a Gothic church when a common ass building will do?

>> No.7257281


Societies have always spent resources on developing culture. It's inspirational and has much longer staying power. I'd feel a lot more productive in a grandiose building than one that has no respect for its books.

>> No.7257289

>I'd feel a lot more productive
Universities aren't about your feelings, they're about learning.

>> No.7257307


Feelings are emotions, not at all what I was talking about. Better working conditions are known to increase productivity and creativity.

>> No.7257314
File: 16 KB, 226x300, 1109145993[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

What is this human emotion called productivity?

>However, new textbooks and scientific equipment are way better than the past
That's clear, but they looked like thousand times better. I would make it like this: modern structure ,didactics and function, but a more sophisticated and majestic cover and layout, not such ugly drawings in awful colors.

>> No.7257330
File: 16 KB, 256x256, 1416323075312.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Funny enough, at my uni it's the opposite. All of the older buildings look like crap and all of the new buildings are made with a mixture of slick architecture and cheap style.

>> No.7257334
File: 1.58 MB, 974x768, PEMEXpolice.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

i agree with OP. education has become about learning to endure boredom and follow instruction. Cramping the space cramps the mind. maybe its intentional, maybe not, but the new, cramped, boring library is still a blessing!

>> No.7257341

Your old library was a drawing?

>> No.7257369

You can be productive anywhere, you don't need a big ass fancy building for that. It's pointless and in the end that money could go to better places.
You care too much for looks, looks alone are worthless and the least you should worry in a scientific field.

>> No.7257372


It could be argued that a beautiful building increases worker productivity

>> No.7257401
File: 145 KB, 900x587, 1420034985400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

what do you expect from humanism with cost control ?

in humanist democracy, the republic and the biggest instituions must not offend people. Plus they must be careful on the time and money cost of anything, while beauty is found in details on useless artefacts.

you want democracy, you want cheap and bland stuff

>> No.7257417

It could be argued that, sure, but where are the measurements?

>> No.7257433

I am an architect and this reasoning is very dumb.

>> No.7257443
File: 986 KB, 938x703, Screen Shot 2015-05-13 at 08.29.03.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Past situations always look nicer than the present, because we only know of them what centuries of memory chose to remember.

check "survivor bias"

I just came back from the opening of the new Fondazione Prada in Milano, and I can tell you that your views are very reduced. the relation between old and new is way more complex than that.

Also: gold cladding anyone.

>> No.7257446
File: 142 KB, 680x498, 4kids.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.7257452
File: 1.21 MB, 1000x1169, lollibraries.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.7257457
File: 32 KB, 468x311, comparingthistothatlolsocool.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.7257476
File: 57 KB, 650x400, arch1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>posts a generic library


>> No.7257479

To me things like this, or you know those modern apartments, that are all white or grey, with metallic kitchens, where everything looks like Apple designed it.
Well those places, to me, look like they weren't designed by living beings for living beings, they don't look, and feel, like they are mean to be lived in. They look like surgical halls, hospitals, some place where a robot goes to sit in absolute stillness and recharge.
They look like houses/rooms where psychopaths would live, someone devoid of emotions and well, life.
There must not be color, there must not be smell, there must not be personality, no mess, every room/house must look the same, there must be no signs of life.

I hate most of the modern design.

>> No.7257482
File: 91 KB, 800x600, Seattle_Public_Library1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Op's mistake is assuming that the situation at his location is representative of all locations. Grand, ornamental statements are still being made today, if not necessarily in neo-gothic.

>> No.7257485

To me this looks like a library in a mental hospital.

>> No.7257493

Seems like you are oversensitive. What field you study that you have enough time to worry about how things are not pretty enough?

>> No.7257494

Awesome. So, you understand that you have an opinion. Science hasn't "lost it's beauty". You're just a picky fuck

>> No.7257511


Seems like I hit a sensitive spot maybe with you two.
Well I think I made some pretty objective points, I wasn't talking about whether someone likes their room green or blue, I was talking about rooms that look like surgical halls or hospitals just with a line of green, like that cubical library.
Pure white or metallic rooms, you know like for instance the one Hannibal has in that tv show.
Or Kingpin has in the new Daredevil tv show.
Robotic houses made by robots for robots, the reign of mind and ego.

>> No.7257517


Of course it has. Science, since world war one, has been intertwined directly with Engineering.

Science has become a means to and end, and that end are marketable, useable products like vaccines, repeating rifles and aircraft.

But despite this, Science is now far larger and mainstream than ever. The average person has a direct incentive to learn and understand the world around them when there is demand to derive products from that knowledge. Soulless? Yes, but such is industrialized society.

It's called STEM for a reason, the intertwining of Science and Engineering has greatly benefited humanity. In the past century, we can now produce 100x the food we require with just .5% of the population employed in agriculture. Likewise, we now have cars that can speed us almost anywhere on multilane freeways and we can distribute information freely via the Internet. We even put men on the moon and potentially space travel might become affordable within our lifetimes. People themselves live longer and are smarter too.

Overall, it's a massive improvement in every regard.

>> No.7257525

You didn't hit a sensitive spot. You're just being silly as shit.

Because you relate pure white or metallic rooms to a mental hospital or something along those lines doesn't mean everyone else relates with that. I personally think a lot of modern architecture is very beautiful and gives off a si-fi/21st century/simple feel to skyscrapers, houses, whatever, and I understand that that's my opinion.

>> No.7257529

Stopped reading right there.
What is it with you guys and your inferiority complex?

>> No.7257530

Better technology =/= better living conditions necessarily.
We produce more food, yet more people are starving, we distribute info more freely yet people are dumber than ever, etc.
Considering our level of technology, and what we use and not use it for this world is actually at its new low point, if you get what I mean.
So no, new tech will not save us, we are the ones that need to grow and than will we see real useful application of our technology.

>> No.7257548

You known we are busy, in 4chan all day, theres no such thing as "time" anymore. Be real please.

>> No.7257554
File: 48 KB, 800x389, d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Modern architecture is not about ornaments, it's muh deconstructivism and muh minimalism like pic related. It's the same for universities as for every other building, but unis don't want to smbolize that they are stuck in the past.

Also capitalism, no money for empty space.

>> No.7257564
File: 2.04 MB, 2048x1536, Birmingham Library.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Ah, well, maybe you just have shit taste?

>> No.7257565 [DELETED] 

In Medieval times libraries were a database of all human knowledge. They often had religious significance. Modern libraries are simply another (now much more inefficient) way of accessing information to gain knowledge, that which could just as easily be found online.

>> No.7257567

But it looks the same anon, that is objective.

I never said that I don't understand that's my opinion. Actually I read my comment again now, and I noticed a strange thing, I started my sentence with "To me...", I started my second sentence with "Well those places, to me, look like...".
This almost seems like I made sure that everyone who reads this understands that this all is my opinion.
Now the only conclusion that I can come to is that either you are not good with english, which I don't believe is the case, or that you are trolling, a possibility, or that you are dumb, a possibility, or that I hit a sensitive spot.

I think the latter one is true because in your last comment you said you like modern design and in my previous comments I drew a parallel between that and being a robot or a psycho and you simply took offense.
What I say doesn't necessariliy mean it's the truth but you know ow they say: "In every lie there's a bit of truth and in every truth there's a bit of a lie.".
An interesting thing to note is that I didn't say that I dislike all modern design, I specified which I think is empty of life. Do with that what you will.

>> No.7257568

In Medieval times libraries were a database of all human knowledge. They often had religious significance. Modern libraries are simply another (now much more inefficient) way of accessing information to gain knowledge, that which could just as easily be found online.

Thus, science itself hasn't lost it's sense of beauty. Science is still gorgeous. The libraries have simply lost their significance, now having merged into the digital era.

>> No.7257569

>Has science lost it's sense of beauty?
This has nothing to do with science. Stop blaming modern architecture on science.

>> No.7257580
File: 7 KB, 275x183, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Anon I didn't say that to me, those designs are in bad taste, I said that they are empty as in, they have no taste. There's food I dislike, there's food I like, this to me is like a grey paste that has nutrients but absolutely no taste. Also I like much of modern architecture and design, I specified.
For instance the building in the picture is just awesome and very sci-fi to me.

>> No.7257596

>uni is a knowledge factory.
I thought universities were factories that handed out diplomas along with crippling amounts of debt.

Any actual knowledge you earn while getting that degree is tertiary.

>> No.7257600
File: 251 KB, 682x1024, Barbican_Estate_Tower_2007.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Brutalism is the new beauty

>> No.7257615

Architecture is nice and all, but it's inefficient and unnecessary and doesn't really contribute. If you want to stick to a true scientific efficiency, then no complex architecture is the best idea.

>> No.7257629

>yet more people are starving,
and those people who are starving are created by technology

also, from the spear to the automobile, the nature of the humanity is nothing but to ease our lives. Our essence is technical, including artistic fields.
Whatever we do, we do it to lessen our pains and enhance our pleasures. We are fundamentaly hedonistic and throughout time, we select the techniques having the highest hedonistic yield.

>> No.7257653

>true scientific efficiency
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Science doesn't have to be efficient.

>> No.7257671
File: 104 KB, 300x300, 2338015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Science doesn't have to be efficient

>> No.7257682
File: 516 KB, 1536x2048, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>that many windows

Okay no

Try this

>> No.7257684

But it should be as efficient as possible to allow for more science!

>> No.7257686

i wonder how much office space costs there

>> No.7257690

Why must science be efficient? You must be American.

>> No.7257702

>Brutalism is the new beauty

Not since the 1970s.

>> No.7257704

It doesn't have to be efficient in research, but should be as efficient as possible when possible to allow for the most research.

>> No.7257705

>i wonder how much office space costs there

Only machines work there:


>> No.7257716

Old buildings needed high ceilings for ventilation and to redirect sunlight. Modern buildings can create light and ventilation themselves. Nowadays it's easier to heat and insulate a shorter, plain building. As a fan of efficiency, this is important. Libraries should be about the books, not the walls.

>> No.7257747

The beauty of science is not in the surroundings, nor is it the covers of the books. It's in the power of an analytical mind to make the observations and see the connections.

>> No.7257765

This is the main library in my city in Sweden:


>> No.7257780

>Whatever we do, we do it to lessen our pains and enhance our pleasures.
Kekkity kek.
Have fun on that treadmill.

>> No.7257820


Keep telling yourself that from a windowless dungeon. Of course there's natural beauty in science, so shouldn't the environment reflect that? These newer libraries can be shut down and converted to a restaurant at a moment's notice; buildings that put care into their appearance stay around forever.

>> No.7257843
File: 178 KB, 1024x717, Ok58l4J_1_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>The beauty of science is not in the surroundings, nor is it the covers of the books. It's in the power of an analytical mind to make the observations and see the connections.
yeah, the old ''all is in the content, not the form'' for the pleb love too hear.
Too bad that your content deprecates decades after decades, theory after theory, model after model. Only the form of what the content remains. But hits is too much to demand for most people, especially for illiterate people.

your stance is the same idocy of publishing your articles with appalling syntax, disastrous typography and taking latex for sufficient, because ''what matters is the content you guys''. And a few years later, all that remains is a shitty article with a content that nobody cares about. Well done mate. You always love to do the bare minimum, do you not ?

>> No.7257861

i prefer libraries that looks like this.

my uni library is very tech savy and I don't like it.

contemporary and traditional all the way.

>> No.7257865
File: 59 KB, 400x267, eastwing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Picture of a nice contemporary/traditional library at the university of bristol (UK).

>> No.7257879

Modernism and empiricism

>> No.7257893
File: 30 KB, 480x390, can't argue.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

pretty things are distracting
distractions can interfere with work by getting people thinking of new things
thinking of new things can leads to developing new things
these new things interfere with our work
>therefor we should eliminate all the pretty things, and even the the people who make pretty things (artist),
so we can get back to our work of developing new things

>> No.7257950

wow that's a disgusting point of view
seriously, you can't get more pragmatic and capitalist than that, I'll even go out of my way and say that's borderline fascist
"pretty things" are a part and will always be a part of humankind. Pretty things aren't necessarily distracting, they can also be relaxing, comforting etc. So making a "pretty" library can actually be better, because people will feel more comfortable in this space. Even the most primitive human beings, who did almost everything for survival, had somehow a notion of "art" and did things that could be considered artistic. Why the fuck do you think it would be unnecessary now?

>> No.7257954

He's right though.

Also Fascism is great, some of humanities greatest achievements and atrocities were achieved on Fascist regimes. It's as if you purposelessly want to live in a boring world were nothing ever changes and people keep masturbating over old ideas.

>> No.7257957

How is he right? Baning art and artists? What kind of shitty, pragmatic world is this where you want to live? A "boring world" would be the one you're describing, where everything's repressive and everybody does everything only when it "reaches an achievement". I'd rather slow down ""progress"" so I can have a balanced world, where people can express themselves, than a world where progress is tremendous, but at the same time humans can't be free to express themselves.
>fascism is great
oh why do I bother

>> No.7257971

Artists create boring shit that are representations of nature or their limited imaginations. Science and engineering creates a world that never was, and not just mere representations of that world.

Which creation is more worthy?

>> No.7257985

Is everybody a scientist?
Does everybody want to be a scientist?
Is life only about science/"progress"?
What is "worth"? You mean practical worth? Are humans only about practicity?
Your first statement is very biased. I, myself, love art in it's various forms. I also enjoy science, as it gives as a deeper understanding of our universe and gives us technology.
You can't rule humankind based on your own stupid, narrow-minded views of how it should go. Besides, your utopia is actually a distopia. It is part of human nature to develop art. If you want a world without it, or where it's supressed, you'll need constant supression of various human instincts. And we all know how that would go.
Also, how could you say artists "create boring shit that are representations of [...] their limited imaginations"? Don't you listen to music? Don't you enjoy a nicely done house, a beautiful painting? Art also creates things that never were. Your conception of what art is is flawed to it's roots.
I'm seriously amazed you can develop such acrobatic logic as to see art as "useless, boring shit".

>> No.7258010

Why are you still posting?

>> No.7258011

why wouldn't I be?

>> No.7258012

Who's gonna pay for it? Also those are libraries, very few scientists I know work in libraries.

Labs have never been very pretty.

>> No.7258013
File: 119 KB, 600x600, item17.rendition.slideshow.libraries-18-bodleian[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I tought we invented science and technologie to shape our environment to our wishes. So what is the use if the environment we build is ugly and shabby? Nowadays we research and develop just to produce and expand complet aimlessly and without meaning. The economy has gone off the rails an has taken science with it.

>> No.7258018

Because you're just posting fluff with no real arguments.

>> No.7258021

tfw I'm reading this while naked in bed touching my weener.

>> No.7258030

I posted a lot of arguments, if you want to ignore me, that's fine. Of course art is "useless" if seen by a practical worldview. What I'm saying is that the practical worldview is the actual useless thing. It has no actual practical application (since humans are not about practicity) and will never be fully developed, unless you build an entire society over supressing our most humane instincts. I'll ask you the same question I did before:
>Don't you listen to music? Don't you enjoy a nicely done house, a beautiful painting?

>> No.7258052

>since humans are not about practicity
they are
even not being practical is practical

>> No.7258071


>> No.7258151

Why would the old libraries be more beautiful than for example this one >>7257765 ? What you find beautiful is related to your taste. I like old castles and cathedrals too, I just don't think that implies modern buildings are ugly.

If there is valuable content, it is used by someone to get more accurate content. If the content is worthless, let it be forgotten. It may sting, but it's really better that way.

The rest of your comment is filled with something you pulled out of your ass. Not even gonna bother commenting anything else on that.

>> No.7258166

>windowless dungeon
>Implying modern libraries have brutalist architecture.

The irony of your post is that all modern public buildings has a "put glass walls fucking everywhere" approach.

>> No.7258245

We don't say that we should imitate some 200 years old architecture. You could easily build a modern style building witch looks as good as the old palaces. More than that: I'm sure with a little effort you could build buildings which looks ten times better. The problem is, and that's what we complain, that the goal of the current architecture is mostly to produce as cheap as possible. Sure, there are still design elements and decorations and stuff, but it's only as much as absolutely necessary. In former days, they tried much harder as today to build a nice building. If we would spend the same affort nowadays, our campusse and cities would look like fucking elysium.

>> No.7258251

it was just a necessity
you had to build pillars and arches everywhere because the building materials were shit and it was the only way to support the roof, plus the ceiling was so high because otherwise you wouldnt get enough ventilation.
Do you think people spent decades on one building because they enjoyed it? If they had concrete back then all the buildings would have been simpler.

Oh and have you been to an "old" building in winter? The isolation is nonexistent and heating it to the point where it feels like a modern apartment requires orders of magnitude more enegry, so your only choise is to wear warm clothes all the time. And you get no phone/wlan signal through the walls.

Fuck all old shit
Function > form

>> No.7258258
File: 138 KB, 500x425, Cambridge_University_Library.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Implying modern libraries have brutalist architecture.

>> No.7258288
File: 68 KB, 333x500, bruce-yuanyue-bi-jugendstil-architektur-217629[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Do you even read the posts?
We don't say to copy old buildings. We only say to put more effort in our new buildings. Of course we would use new materials and techniques.

>it was just a necessity
That's the dumbest thing I read in this thread so far. Sure the architecture oriented towards the statistical possibilities. But it went much further. So e.g. for what is all the stucco and the ornaments needed? In my old math institute, there is a giant ceiling painting. For what's that? To hold off the rain?

What we say is not "function < form". We say

Function AND form

>> No.7258508
File: 103 KB, 400x267, 1--550979-Jugendstil-pixelio[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.7258523


>> No.7258544

nein, deutsch.

>> No.7258573
File: 15 KB, 304x202, bookbot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

This is the future of libraries.

>> No.7258650


For the most part I agree about the buildings, but the bit about textbooks is definitely horseshit. New (undergrad) textbooks are ridiculously flashy, and cost a fuckton more as a result. Old textbooks were the opposite extreme -- almost purely function with maybe a handful of decorative pictures or diagrams.

Advanced/graduate textbooks are the same as they've always been -- no frills. I'd prefer that they stay that way simply because I don't want to shell out more money for them, and pirating and reading ebook versions is inconvenient.

>> No.7258651
File: 13 KB, 177x133, Morgue-Feet-mednewskz[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.7259630

>the people worked hundreds for years to build them. Therefore they will also survive for hundreds of years

that's some preddy damn specious reasoning

>> No.7259639

so sorry your uni has found the money to buy better decorations, ornaments, and beauty.

no be a good go- er I mean academic and pay your bursar fees (1,000USD), athletic fee ($1500USD)...

>> No.7259914

Beauty in functionality, fuck off op

I appreciate baroque and conservation of old buildings as much as you, but I'd prefer if my uni didn't build expensive ass libraries and would spend it on actual learning material instead.

>> No.7259984
File: 410 KB, 406x536, 1429438286651.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

cheap af

>> No.7259985
File: 77 KB, 592x416, ss+(2015-05-14+at+05.46.18).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Yeah but fascists had style in spades.

>> No.7259992

I agree with this.

We've been hoodwinked. The ends and means have been switched under our noses.

>> No.7259998
File: 47 KB, 800x534, 6bnsv86fapynjk927hob-41427.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>>pretty things are distracting
>distractions can interfere with work by getting people thinking of new things
>thinking of new things can leads to developing new things
>these new things interfere with our work
>>therefor we should eliminate all the pretty things, and even the the people who make pretty things (artist),
>so we can get back to our work of developing new things
stupid post

beauty appeases yo, gladens you and makes you more concentrate on something since you know that you can take beauty for granted. If you stumble on a difficulty, there is no reason to stop trying. Imagine this situation where beauty is absent. Then you rely on fear of nothingness to make progress. If you do not find the new thing, then you are left with nothing. This is tension and alienating. This is why the minimalist and brutalism causes suicide so high today.

If you are sure that you will find beauty even if you fail, you no longer have a reason to stop trying.

I do not expect from you to understand this.

>> No.7260004

Indeed. I think colleges and libraries should as much as possible be inviting places, so that people aren't making a sacrifice to their mood simply by going there. I don't think being irritated or uncomfortable is conducive to learning. Plus, a beautifully ornate building is an indicator of safety - that there are no vandals present, that the location is in good enough economic times to maintain such ornaments so you're unlikely to be burgled, etc. - thus naturally relaxing you for a state of focused learning.

But also, I think that they should look different/distinct to office buildings or other such things, to indicate that they are not primarily places of business and profit, but ones of increasing humanity, like churches and temples and such.

>> No.7260008

I read the thread and I think I see your point. The nazis loved to express the power of their regime through architecture, and they weren't the first to think that way, nor were they the last. Shit, didn't they want to build some super structure so large it would have had its own weather system?

>> No.7260844
File: 2.99 MB, 2503x1874, Welthauptstadt_germania_14[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Yeah, the "Große Halle"

>> No.7261587

/ic/ here.
as always /sci/ is too retarded when It tries to talk about non math topics.

I'll leave these here:

This is a good documentary on why beauty is the goal of art.

Don't fall for the jew lie that there is no objetive beauty.

>> No.7261865
File: 37 KB, 670x496, professordoge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

scientists have lost relevance. They are minions of the wealthy and need to provide results ASAP. The library on the right exemplifies the powerlessness of the guild; minimal space, stern forniture and no commodity.

Now go to a law school or architecture faculty library. Probably inside emblematic buiding, beautifully furnished, etc. Your example is just a small manifestation of the low relevance of the scientific work in today's social context.

>> No.7261898

Public non-state-university libraries are typically underfunded and outdated as shit.

Public university libraries can be really attractively done, at least in terms of architecture, lighting, and arrangement. Still not as good as marble or what not.

Private libraries are obviously well funded as well.

As a tangential thought, back when books were the only source of knowledge, we spent the time making their housing intricate. Now we have the internet, and everybody wants clean looking and responsive html/css and fun javascript. Different society similar notions, maybe.

>> No.7261911

take your antisemitism back to your shit-tier board, some of the greatest admirers of beauty and simplicity in math and physics (not to mention visual arts) have been jews. i hope you choke on chagall's circumcised dick

>> No.7261922

>being a jew is the same than being a cultural marxist
you kept talking about pol but can't understand basic pol facts.

protip: pol doesn't hate blacks.

>> No.7261926
File: 175 KB, 449x600, PP (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>mfw /ic is right and you are mad

>> No.7261932
File: 183 KB, 1024x696, 3443015_1_121006ms-ku-chagall-Marc_Chagall_Das_Hohelied_IV_1958_l_auf_Leinwand_Muse_national_Marc_Chagall_Nizza_Foto_bp[1].jpg_version=138719.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>SJW detected
If this is the best jewish artist you know, then your argument is very flimsy.

>> No.7261949

This cold and crappy facilities will help you stay efficient, slave.

>> No.7261965

when did i ever say something about pol and not about ic? are you confusing me with someone else or are you just retarded
also have you ever been to pol at any point

nah he's just among the most famous since i figured you'd be too busy shoving lit cigarettes up your urethra to research any artist who isn't aggressively anglo-saxon

>> No.7262001

that is somewhat what a library is

>> No.7262004


there was like 1 library when the first one was built

it didnt house many books and took 10 years to build

>> No.7262007

I take it you haven't been to a mental hospital

>> No.7262016

1. I'm not American.
2. The only one who is "shoving something up his urethra" is you, probably jewish cocks. No go back to /lit/, or /9gag/ or where ever you came from and let us grown-up discuss.

>> No.7262017


>> No.7262018


>> No.7262025


>> No.7262028


>> No.7262151

I agree. Moar aesthetics pls/.

>> No.7262163

Glad someone else noticed this

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.