Far be it from me to engage in professional snobbery, PC, but for one who has erected such impregnable walls around their conception of 'art' and 'taste,' I'd be casting my eye a lot closer to home before rubbishing anyone else's aesthetic sensibilities.You see, I'd been suggesting that it is possible to objectively determine that one thing is art and another is just a pile of shit, and Den disagreed. I'd suggested that individual taste is certainly subjective, but that what we like is nonetheless able to be analysed objectively to tell us something about ourselves and the way we see the world -- to which Den disagreed. I'd suggested that art is a shortcut to our philosophy ... and Den suggested I was talking nonsense.
Objectivity does not exist in art. You are a poor arbiter of taste if said taste is to be measured against the art you post (as 'the only true art').
'I see' your credentials as dubious. You demonstrate few intersections with what I enjoy and find engaging and entertaining about the visual arts, but the difference is that I don't claim any kind of intellectual authority for my opinion.
You post a lot of the classics on your site as examples of good architecture, but very few modern, current architects or buildings. Either you don't have your finger on the pulse as it were, you don't believe any good architecture is currently being produced, or (my bet) you wouldn't know good architecture if it landed on you from 6000mm AFFL.
So what's a commentator to do?
Well, in the interests of free speech and artistic and architectural debate (and of getting the fingers of 'Not PC' readers closer to the pulse -- where I know they want to be), I invited Den to join with me over the next week-and-a-bit in each posting here at 'Not PC' five of our own architectural favourites, and with each an argument for why we say it's good, and then let's see where it gets us.
So tonight, Den kicks off with ... well, you'll just have to tune back in tonight and find out, won't you. See you then.
RELATED: Architecture, Art