[bmicraft]

> Well, Architecture (contra building design) is high art. It is not for the unwashed. 80% of the people also prefer drivel for their cultural fare.

The people should get what the people like, not what the elite likes. Nobody cares what you consider "high art". The term in itself is pretentious.

Your "high art" is too desperately trying to make a name by standing out through being weird instead of better.

[yubblegum]

People do get what they like and they should. We are discussing Architecture with a capital A. It has always, since day 1, been an elite concern. No one took polls of e.g. Greeks to see if they approve of the Parthenon. The English common man was not consulted by Christopher Wren. The list goes on and on. What is ironic is that this "traditional architecture" that reactionary ones like you keep raving about is nothing about recyclying "high art" of their ancestors.

Materials change. Scale requirements have changed. Techniques have evolved. The forms are reflecting that. It is entirely correct to note that many of such efforts (mostly copycat rehashing of masterpieces of modernist architects by lesser talent) have proven ineffective, but that it is just the nature of the field. Architecture is not software. It takes generations to iterate through the possible solutions.

> Your "high art" is too desperately trying to make a name by standing out through being weird instead of better.

You have zero idea of what I consider high art in architecture. You are tilting at your own windmills buddy.

+There is nothing pretensious about distinguishing high and low cultural efforts. Let's consider our own field: should we all be forced to code in JavaScript and disavow more powerful constructs such as e.g. Haskell since the "common man" is incapable of groking it??