In your opinion, which are the most interesting topics?

[WorldDesigner]

[WorldDesigner]

[WorldDesigner]

Since this topic has diverged somewhat, what you guys say we keep as much possible with original topic intent?

Anyone have any opinion on these top topics ?-->>

-Sustainable Built Environment, Carbon neutral by 2030 - 55804

-Concept in Architecture - 45507

-What makes Dubai's architectural market so hot? 31589

-Architectural History ?

-Creativity in Architecture

-Vertical Vs Horizontal Living another direction?

I find these interesting and it would be nice to see comments on the same.

But of course, the direction of a topic should be allowed also some freedom of expression. If everyone feels comfortable with discussing alternate topics, I find no objection to that as well.

[ArchiMotion]

Thanks. Among these topics listed, it seems the topic on creativity in architecture was interesting.

These latest threads going also seem to be attracting a high post to click ratio.

I find the one on Form Follows Function - the definitive answer amusing...

[solidred]

[csintexas]

[ArchiMotion]

You guys sound like a bunch of Yankees fighting a Civil War.

Golly, why doesn't anyone get any respect around here? Is this forum some type of cupola network, where members gang up on differing viewpoints? Communist tactics at their best.

In all this, I see no true free expression of opinion, but rather a community member attempt at mocking and ridiculing other members.

If at least people had some significant opinions of their own on these matters, rather then trying to "pick-off" what they consider their "enemies of thought".

Or is this more like little children making snowmen and "picking-off" their targets, while they laugh, jump and flee in haste at any sign of a serious battle?

[csintexas]

Sorry but someone going to such trouble to put little dashes between all their words/letters is just very funny.

I couldn't help it.

[ArchiMotion]

Well, maybe those little dashes were put there for a reason, and nobody bothered to ask why.

It is when we make assumptions that are actually opportunity to ridicule, is when we realize that the assumptions are not actually assumptions, but hidden attempts to ridicule those who have opposing viewpoints, rather then trying to address the opposing viewpoints in an objective way. Then, others come along on the bandwagon, in a type of group behavior, further augmenting the effect of the initial attack. Like a domino effect.

[lekizz]

You're very defensive, aren't you, Archimotion. Aren't you here to study the popularity (or otherwise) of the threads on this forum? You're gettng somewhat side-tracked.

Who or what exactly was your study for? What was the aim?

And what exactly is your connection with WorldDesigner? Can't he speak for himself? You must admit, it is just plain weird to put all those dashes in those overly long conrtibutions, eccentric at least. Disturbing at worst. It reminds me of an essay I wrote when I was a teenager, about my favorite artist. I wrote it using different coloured pencils (the colours used by the artist) thinking I was oh so clever. Of course, I was quite rightly slated by my tutor on the grounds that the essay was barely legible. Somehow I don't think WorldDesigner is a angst-ridden teenager and maybe they should know better.

[ArchiMotion]

I would like also to see this subject back on track, should this be in the general interest, but I also enjoy general discussion. And the essence of what I was analyzing has been demonstrated, namely that it is not the threads with the highest post count that are the topics most read, but the ones with the highest number of visits, since the number of responses to visits remains low across the board. The next issue is which topics seem to appeal most to design communities. This was observed by the number of visits more then by the number of responses. Also the validity of conducting a debate on past subjects, as a means to determine which topics, according to members actually doing the responding, seem the most significant. Next, to determine why people participate in online discussions. Trying to determine also which is considered best author, according to community opinion, which post is most unique, and other questions as initially posted, in order to generate discussion around the topic of these online forums in a more open way. It is a way also to break the ice and see some interesting debate on various subjects related to the topics which were rated the highest among the list. Also with this data am able to determine which other forums others find interesting and why. As any research, this data serves various purposes, to improve content of third party web sites, to help create topics interesting to architects, to help understand where the traffic is coming from, the quality of search mechanisms, the ratio of actually community active members to responses and many related issues, such as higher content for web blogs, articles and the like. Now days the best way to create relevance is by including content in the data. And content people are looking for. Also, it is simply a large and broad means of understanding and then applying this data.

Now other users such as the one you cited may be also new to this forum, and by participating in a more active way, one can get a better feel of the actual members participating actively in these online forums, their likes and dislikes, even when there is casual contact or no relationship among members, other then the online experience. So why should there be a connection between members who agree? Now, if it be for group identification, that is fine, as long as other members are not being tar-feathered in the process. Also, don't know how these forums work, but have had seen one or another member have posts caught in the online spam system, which apparently seeks for e-mail addresses, sequential posts, keywords and the like and apparently also blocks the members or even bans them if too many attempts of posts are made, or if particular keywords or combination of keywords or web sites, or e-mail addresses appear in the same content --- this is only from a general observation and feedback with members, but may or not actually reflect how the system is designed to work. In any event, other users may be attempting to circumvent such mechanisms to get their messages across in some way, so I wouldn't entirely condemn them as long as they have a valid message to tell us. We know that in communist countries, there is complete control, and such automatic mechanisms are able to pick out words that those countries consider to be politically unacceptable, blocking member access to certain content sites.

[lekizz]

Ah, right, I didn't realise Oregon was communist

[solidred]

[ArchiMotion]

What happened with djswan, Lidjia and others who were around here, ya still with us? There are some interesting points being made along the lines of this discussion and interesting to see how it has evolved.

It would be nice to somehow see if some of the original ideas and topics will end up being connected in some way to these diverging ideas. Going back to the topics in the original post, which are listed among those topics with the highest click count - participants from those topics and ideas from those posts and topics may have much to contribute in terms of these recent issues being discussed. The question is rather many of those are still around, particularly considering that recently only a hand full of members have been participating in discussions in this section of the forum. Perhaps this demonstrates a strictly narrow interest in particular topics by a few members, or it could be the tendency of group behavior, where members who know each other tend to comment on the latest topics, in a way to keep themselves abreast with the latest topics of discussion, so as to maintain the unity of thought and ideas....

Thus, it seems many are fond of discussing architecture yes in these forums, but also there is a tendency for other issues also to draw a lot of attention and participation, as well as opposing viewpoints, as can be seen in a few parallel discussions going on in this forum. Some of these are related in one way or another to a few of the topics which are also among the top topics listed in this post.

For this reason, it would be interesting to see which of those topics re-appear in current ideas.

[ArchiMotion]

There is a need to get some of these topics back on track. With this in mind, one could expand the reasoning beyond the limits of FFF into more broad reaching related ideas.

I found this article is interesting -->>

"Aesthetic Functionalism"

http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=324

An enlightening view on the history of various form - function definitions.

1. Introduction

In "pure art," artworks such as paintings, poems, plays and partitas are produced with the sole purpose of providing aesthetic experiences. In architecture and industrial design, objects are created with the intention to satisfy not only aesthetic criteria but also, primarily, criteria of utility and practical function. This combination gives rise to the crucial issue of how the two types of value relate to each other. Is practical function independent of aesthetics or are they in some way connected?

This was a central issue in the functionalist movement in architecture and design, one of the most influential artistic and cultural movements of the early twentieth century. The term 'functionalism' is ambiguous, not least since the functionalist movement contained diverse and partly contradictory artistic and social tendencies.[1] Modernist architects and designers had a difficult time fighting against influential conservative enemies. They soon found that an efficient argumentative strategy was to emphasize that their constructions were more functional than traditional architecture and design. Hence, even if the architecture of a house was largely based on geometrical principles (and thus on "pure" aesthetic considerations), it was more expedient to represent it as based on principles of functionality. It is important, therefore, to distinguish between functionalism as an historical movement and the more limited "functionalist" viewpoint that the aesthetic properties of an object depend on its functionality. Here we will be concerned with the latter, but statements by members of the functionalist movement will be used to exemplify the positions analyzed.

Functionalism in this sense is much older than the functionalist movement. In Xenophon's Symposium, Critoboulus says that he can distinguish a beautiful object."

A few topics covered -->>

- The Reduction Thesis

- The Independence Thesis

- The Thesis of Aesthetic Duality ( This one is good )

This leads us to an intermediate standpoint between the reduction and the independence theses: When an object has a purpose or practical function, then some but not necessarily all the aesthetic judgments that can legitimately be made about the object refer to that function. We do not need to require, and will not require, that this categorization of the aesthetic judgments be known by the agent. An agent with a high capability of introspective aesthetic reflection may, at least in principle, be able to distinguish between the two types of judgments by bracketing her knowledge of the object's practical function and judging it as a pure object of art. Other agents may not be able to do this, but can nevertheless be said to make both types of judgment.

"5. Conclusion

In summary, we have rejected two theses about the relationship between aesthetics and practical function, namely the reduction and independence theses. Aesthetic value is neither fully reducible to practical function nor completely independent of it. Instead we have defended a thesis of aesthetic duality, according to which objects with practical functions can be aesthetically appraised both under descriptions that refer to these practical functions and under descriptions not doing so. Finally, we have defended the contributory thesis according to which satisfaction of functional requirements in most cases contributes positively to aesthetic value. Hence, some support can be found for aesthetic functionalism, but only for a very weak form of it."

I find this issue interesting -->>

"Is practical function independent of aesthetics or are they in some way connected?"

It seems the article is very pertinent also to general tendencies as seen in these forums - to define the direction of modern ideas on this subject.

I like this idea -->>

"Aesthetic value is neither fully reducible to practical function nor completely independent of it."

One could say form, function and aesthetics are inter-dependent and exist in varying degrees of of expression, according on the personal theory of the individual designer. To some, the focus becomes the the form and function. To others, the focus is more on the aesthetics of those forms then on meeting the functional requirements. The best application seems to be the one which applies a reasonable amount of balance among the three.