Another Triumph of Aesthetics over Techn ology

“Sorry, I know this is non-bping related but this p.o.es me. Lockheed hasn't even tested their JSF vertical lift. Fighter pilots are a bunch of pretty boys.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2001/nf20011018_2072.htm ">Joint Strike Fighter”

“What was that Boeing expression in the 70's... Will the last person leaving Seattle please turn the lights off?
Lights out.”

“That's when I left the area.”

“Form follows function. Everything else is so much useless ornamentation.

Gee, I'll bet those Afghanis are impressed at how pretty the planes bombing them are.”

“arclite -

Useless ornamentation?

Ugh.

The bauhaus movement ruined architecture. Wouldn't the Louvre or the Taj Mahal look pretty crappy inside a glass curtain wall?”

“Useless ornamentation is my bread and butter.

Taj Mahal=plain pine box
(shudder)”

“I don't get it Biz, why are you POed. The article states that:

"So far, Lockheed has the edge. Its design to replace the F-16 is simply better on technical and aesthetic grounds, analysts say. Boeing was forced to redesign its tail section, and its forward placement of the
engine creates a center-of-gravity challenge. Lockheed, on the other hand,
opted for the more traditional placement of the engine in the rear of the
fuselage, which more evenly balances the plane and makes the engine easier to
replace and maintain.

Lockheed has apparently answered skeptics about the viability of its untested
"lift-fan" system, developed by Rolls Royce. "The lift-fan concept works," Burbage says. And it is favored over Boeing's "direct-lift" system, Pentagon
sources say."

If it is technically superior and looks good too, what's wrong with that?”

“i was wondering what the deal was, too. i thought i might of misread.”

“Boeing's design for the JSF looks like "a flying frog with its mouth wide open," say Air Force and Pentagon sources, who have tastelessly dubbed it "Monica."

Biz, you surely had to know that Lockheed (in TEXAS) was going to get the contract when Bush (from TEXAS) stole the election.”

“Hye Rad, how did you like how they called the Boeing design Monica? I thought it was hilarious!”

“Damn, Spock beat me to it.”

“they could call it "slurpee"!”

“Part of the reason that Biz is POed is that she probably works for Boeing Military Aircraft and Missile Systems in Mesa, AZ where the AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopter is produced.”

“She's a stripper, I tell ya.”

“yeah, clothes = useless ornamentation! ;-)”

“Ahhh violin my friend, we need to sit down one day and have a long discussion about our passion for architecture.

If this doesn't work, try the second one.

Louis Kahn

www.greatbuildings.com/gbc/architects/Louis_I._Kahn.html

I'm a modernist. And what particular style do you have such passionate admiration for, my NJ friend?”

“I like architecture that could be mistaken for sculpture or at least blurs the lines.”

“The old, expensive, impractical/impossible to maintain stuff: Renaissance, Baroque, Victorian I guess.

Looking at the new casino/hotels in Atlantic City and historical photos of the beauties they replaced, I see how the city lost its soul.

As an appraiser/consultant I'd tell you to tear them down but as a human, I mourn them.”

“Buy the way, you've still got that curly quote stuck the wrong way in your code. Copy this into wordpad or something:

<a href="INSERT URL"target="_blank">INSERT LINK NAME</a>

In place of INSERT URL”

“Hey, violin. I think I'm still using dumb quotes in my code.

Why, phiosophically, do you admire these styles, violin? What deeper meaning do they convey to you? What is the truth behind the nature of their "soul"?

Or do you just think they look pretty?”

“Thanks violin. I'm on it.”

“Nothing wrong with looking pretty.

It's like other forms of art. You can admire the craftsmanship that went into it. Synch with the designer's thought process (maybe). Be surprised by little details. It's alive.”

“BaSO4, that is a bunch of biased journalistic B.S. Boeing has tested their JSF (and proven it works). Lockheed has not.”

“"The Devil is in the Details." Mies van der Rohe

"Less is More" Mies van der Rohe

"Form Follows Function." Louis Sullivan

"Form and Function are one." FL Wright


I believe that add-on ornamentation takes away from the deeper meaning of what a building should be: An honest statement of it's materials, relation to it's context, and functionality of it's spaces. Ornamentation has little or no use in an honest structure. The same goes for anything that mankind builds.

The craftsmanship should be in the construction details. Ornamentation serves no honestly useful function. As far as ornamentation goes, anything more is less. Ornamentation is a lie. A structure that lies lacks integrity.”

“Aren't many of Wright's masterpeices falling apart?

Flat roofs leak. Monolithic concrete slabs lack expansion joints.”

“You betcha, violin. He was very dogmatic and he insisted on some very questionable details.

He also designed ceiling heights around his 5'8" (5'-9"?) stature.

He sometimes also bolted his furniture to the floor so that people couldn't change his designs in any way.

Frank wasn't the end-all be-all of architecture. But he sure designed some interesting spaces.

It's very difficult to get your structures to function well for more than fifty years without some serious maintenance. Entropy happens.”

“I'd love to live at Fallingwater, flat roof and all.

I wonder how many times I'd have to get up in the middle of the night though.

tinkle, trickle, tinkle, trickle, tinkle, trickle...

”

“Bizzygirl, I'm with you. I have no doubt that Boeing is putting out a superior product. They have been building the best military aircraft for many years.
The fighter pilots want Corvettes, and Bush is from TX. That is two big strikes against Boeing. The USA will be sorry if they take Boeing out of military aircraft production.”

“And....Arc and Violin, you should start an architecture thread and I'll chime in with my superior opinion. You will want to hear what I have to say.”

“Why is image unimportant in designing military aircraft?

War is definitely about image and propaganda. Even if a system doesn't really work - e.g. Patriot in Gulf War - if you can get the enemy to believe it works, then you have an advantage.

Good looking planes might seem more sinister. Of course, I do agree, the planes have to work.”

“Dunadan,

Where in the article does it say that Lockheed will produce aircraft in Texas? I thought Lockheed's skunk works were is So Cal. Boeing would produce the aircraft in MO.

Lockheed built the F117A stealth fighter, what military fighter has Boeing produced lately?

As far as architecture goes, Albert Speer, now there was an architect (assuming of course that you're the fuhrer of the Third Reich!)”

“Oh, so this is Another Triumph of Politics over Technology. That makes me feel better.

What about, Another Triumph of False Reporting in the Press? I would like to see them produce those pentagon officials they are supposedly quoting. What official would leak info about the largest defense contract in military history?”

“"Beware of the military-industrial complex." Dwight David Eisenhower”

“Yep, Lockheed won the contract
Sorry Biz.”

“looks like I'm moving to Maryland”

“Hey Biz that means you'll be joining us on ECTs!

Can't wait to meet yer cute self.”

“See, it's not so bad!”

“I would like to defend the importance of asthetics in fighters. In war, preception is power. If you are flying an intimidating looking fighter, it will cause a psychological reaction in the enemy troops. It would be kind of hard to scare the enemy if you were flying a a Martha Stewert aircraft. The same goes for the mental attitude of the pilot. If he thinks his plane is better, then he is more likley to fly like that and use the plane to its maximum potential.”

“I don't see how it really matters what the plane looks like to the target of the attack. The JSF will be delivering high-tech weapons from a distance where it will basically look like a speck.”

“wsexson: That's what is so funny sometimes about sci-fi movies and TV -- the spaceships (operating in a vacuum) are made to be visually appealing or threatening, when the advanced technology and the environment would allow for far more utilitarian structures (look at the "sleek" international space station). Not to mention, if we are fighting air engagements today at great distances, imagine the distances such engagements would be fought in space -- not likely to fit on a TV screen and still be visible. But then no one would watch the shows.

But it is also true that the Air Force wants a plane they, as fighter jocks, like the looks of and can use in the sales pitch when telling the taxpayers how much the country needs it. That's not a comment one way or another on the quality of the plane or the actual need for it, but on a fundamental communication issue.”

“And I suppose that the sleek plane would make a better recruitment TV commercial for the Air Force.

Frankly, I think it is more significant that the planes will be assembled in TX than what they look like.”

“wsexson, how cynical of you, LOL! Here I thought it was just the Pentagon's fear that if the planes were made in Seattle they would come with MS software and be susceptible to bugs. Boeing will have to find a way to get Gates elected president, then the juice will flow NW instead of SW.”

“If they're loaded with Micro$quish, they can crash without even taking away the wheel chocks.

Praise be to Bill! Lord of the underworld!”

“the new plane would of been made in St Louis not SEattle”

“Biz, If you hire on with Lockheed and move to Ft. Worth we can start a thread about how the backpacking opportunities around here suck. I used to live in the PNW and came here for the $$$$. That's God's country up there. I wish I could go back but there's too much californication goin' on.”

“they shoulda bought this

”

“If you were impressed by Albert Speer, BaSO4, you should check out Hitler's work. He wanted to be an architect too. His professors told him that he lacked imagination. Duh!”

“Actually, I threw that in as a joke. Was Speer a good architect?”

“Not really. Monumental buildings to the glory of the master race don't speak to too many people's souls. He mostly just copied past styles. Sort of like the houses most people want to buy.”