The first 13min are just terrible elementary arguments already refuted so many times. Someone who is all about education arguing about something he seems to know nothing about.
@@alb0zfinest it really is sort of pathetic seeing Alex going down this road, circlejerking nonsense about how horrid modernity is and all that it creates
Two self righteous simps posing as adults. When they are older they will look back at this trite tripe and squirm. That twat with the tash is like the living representation of an itchy hole.
@@attilatormasi1733 I consider that a win. Tetris' main goal is to make you fail. If you can be so stubborn that you crash the game, you've stopped it, and therefore, won
I selfishly loved this conversation because I’m an architect and it was interesting to hear two lay people talk for an hour about it. In response to why the modern state of architecture is “uglier” than the buildings of the past, I think that it’s an incredibly complex set of reasons, many of which were touched on. The impact of the automobile can’t be underestimated on how it has changed the scale and quantity of the built environment. The massive increase in the population, thereby requiring so many more buildings, has made buildings more industrialized and mass produced, making them less about design and craftsmanship and more about quantity over quality. The cost of construction and materials has vastly changed what we use to make buildings from. And technology has shifted the priorities of buildings and space. And I think we don’t educate the public on architecture nearly enough for them to understand what makes for good/beautiful architecture. We prioritize having lots of space over higher quality space. The houses we live in are 2-3x the size of what we used to live in. We care more about size of beauty.
Also we have building codes now. Many people in ye olde times would have lived in shacks and hovels because that’s all they could afford. Those shacks and hovels were so badly built, they wouldn’t have come down to us. So that means we’re also dealing with some survivor bias - meaning we look at the houses that survived and conclude that all ye olde houses were well built and aesthetically pleasing, forgetting that those houses were built by those with enough money. Nowadays we have building codes that mean no one can build ramshackle hovels. (And rental laws that mean you can’t rent out ramshackle houses.) This means that people are obliged to live in better quality houses, but because lacking money is still a thing, people scrimp on the details that make a house aesthetically pleasing because… they literally can’t afford it. See: 90% of NZ’s housing stock.
Met both in Durham when Alex came to debate for the Durham Union. We had a pre debate dinner. Had no idea Sheehan was an influencer of sorts. Both the most down to earth lads! Love to see them do a podcast together. This will be a train journey treat.
Honestly if you took someone from ancient Egypt to the modern day and showed them the pyramids they would be aghast. Since the pyramids would originally have been smooth gleaming white with a gold cap.
His advice to read 1 primary source and ‘extrapolating’ from that to supposedly ‘really understand’ what it was like in a given time period is pretty questionable advice. Sure it’s interesting but you shouldn’t form anything beyond very small-scale historical conclusion from only 1 primary source, especially given most people do not have the expertise to fully analyse and take valuable information from a historical primary source.
You cannot just ‘become a historian’ by applying your mind to a primary source , if you don’t have the skills to do so. You can definitely get something valuable out of it but I would argue it’s only a method of ‘understanding’ maybe a small aspect of history
You’re OBSESSED with architecture. As someone who is interested in architecture I’ve found the recent discussions very intriguing, although you should’ve pushed him more on brutalism, maybe then we could’ve gotten him to toss a pillow in frustration.
Life is like Tetris. It advances more quickly as you play longer, random pieces often misfit the base layer, the point of playing is not to reach an end point, and if you stop trying you will lose quickly. Accurate model of the environment
@@Godzilla010_ I did wonder if it is longer IRL, but given the informal start (lazy editing?) I'm willing to believe nothing was left on the cutting room floor 🤣
@@Godzilla010_ and yes it would have been annoying if Alex didn't clarify the question. @CosmicSkeptic is truly sharpening those interview skills it's been a pleasure to watch his progression over the past few years!
I figured he got emotional and just asked for it to be cut out in post. It’s hard to be emotional/teary eyed in front of millions of people you don’t know.
This guy is laborious to listen to. Broken words, sentences, thoughts, lack of brevity when it would have behooved him, etc. A five paragraph answer at the end about wisdom was the icing on the cake. I’m sure there are those who would applaud his apparent thoughtfulness….perhaps it’s just me, but I found it difficult to listen to. Charley Browns parents comes to mind…
Yeah, same here. I find the answer to the first question, being this about his own slogan "A beautiful education", very poor, inarticulate, non-deliberate, showing lack of prior reflection, verbose but not necessarily telling, and altogether uninteresting. It makes me not want to keep listening.
I disagree, it’s nice hearing someone speak that isn’t a professional podcaster online every once and a while. Makes things feel more human. You would absolutely hate SoftWhiteUnderbelly.
39:00. One important difference between then and now, concerning the quaint villages, is that when they were built, many farm labourers, mill workers, miners, etc. were provided accommodation by their employers, for rent. When they lost their job, they often lost their homes. Also many village cottages nowadays are 2 or 3 dwellings knocked into one...and costing many hundreds of thousands. The current owners have plenty of money to spend on beautifying their properties, while the original occupants were often very poor, and had large families It's the same in the cities. Tiny mews houses and red-brick Victorian factories, that survived the WW2 bombings, have been gentrified, and turned into expensive houses and flats for the owners of those village residences. As industry collapsed and rural work disappeared, the housing assets were appropriated by the wealthy, and the poor are increasingly forced into ugly, unsafe(Grenfell), living spaces. They are the slums and filthy tenements of the modern age
I got the impression this guy ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-talked a whole lot, but said very little: Beauty is subjective, people don't like new things, people like old things not because they are beautiful but because they are old, it has always been like that, Read primary sources instead of history books. That a a lot of rhetorical questions out of nowhere than didn't really seem to go anywhere and that lacked context or real relevance.
I actually love my relationship with social media. I’m pretty selfish with it. I post my own stuff, keep in contact with friends I’ve made from the armed forces, travelling and/or university and that’s about it. I don’t endlessly scroll very often. I turn off notifications from Facebook and Instagram. I don’t have e Twitter. I am more interested in TH-cam as people like yourself, Bart Erham and various others post content I enjoy which most consider educational. I am able to keep my toes dipped in philosophy and mythology which I did my degree and masters in. I learn about strength training, dead languages, guitar and singing (I’m an operatic tenor) I think a lesson I have learned is to keep my mind too busy with things I want to learn than I can often endlessly scroll.
LOL Do I detect a slight touch of misplaced Class-Conflict consciousness? Not all British people speak Thames-Esturese, or fink dat da chip on dar soldier - is a mark of correct/ necessary street credibility. Neither Alex O'Connor nor Sheehan Quirke speak like Kenneth Clark or Brian Sewell - they are not Port Side Out, Starboard Side Home; what you seem to mean is they are too intellectually attached, by education, like me - hem, hem - to be well proper Kool. Ho! And Hum! I guess, is the answer. I appreciate their efforts to be clear .. it can be a little stuffy, in delivery .. but it is worthwhile (whether one likes it or not). Yo! ;o)
"Within reason". Where is the reasoning here? I dont like it so it's wrong? Maybe this whole thing is disingenuous along with the previous discussion about religious art.? Here even the "expert" sidesteps that capital a Architecture is design not art. Most of what seems to be disliked here is aesthetic yet the outward shape of a building or the decoration upon it, is a tiny portion of architectural design. Real architects make buildings work for people, sympathetic to the social, domestic or other activity requirements. More "modern" architecture archieves this better than most "old" archtecture where the decoration or outward form were the only considerations. One could argue objectively that gothic churches were terribly designed for their purpose, however were decorated beautifully, and over time humans learned to live with them out of necessity. To encourage the decoration of modern buildings that "work" in a gothic church style would be ludicrous. And if we just build more gothic churches because they looked pretty then the majority would complain that they didn't "work" as a building. So...as for complaining that modern art doesn't move you emotionally as old religeous or classical art does, and modern architecture is ugly....within reason I think this must be clickbait....and I bit.
In a recent move I ran across a few old issues of Time, Newsweek, and various newspapers from the 80s that my mother had put aside for whatever reason. Reading the articles was a real eye-opener, as everything was written as if the audience was made of literate adults. The contrast between these grownup-oriented bits of prose and the grade-school level sorts of things you run into in news articles today was stark.
There are intelligent articles today, just like there was then. And there was plenty of propagandistic nonsense back then, as there is today. I experienced the 80s, and it was a time of supreme arrogance, ignorance, hypocrisy and selfishness. You can't look at a few articles and make an accurate judgement about a historical period. Television was total garbage in the 80s. Newspapers were as bad then as they are now. The New York Times basically pushed hawkish, cold war propaganda not much more objective than Pravda. There is hundreds' of times more quality material on youtube alone than there was in all the media combined in the 80s. And worst of all, the average citizen _had no way of authenticating anything._ Now, we can do our own research and check facts for ourselves with more effectiveness than at any time in history.
You were supposed to provide evidence on why modern world is so ugly. Instead you provided evidence on why modern architecture is less interesting. I didn't expect such clickbait from this channel.
Man these podcasts just get better and better…I am UK chartered Architect. Alex you are ahead of the curve..the UK government recently smuggled into the planning law the need for “Beauty”. This podcast also provides me with 2 hours “continuing professional development” points. Kudos sir. I try to bring beauty into my small pocket of Yorkshire. (Wildblood Macdonald)
What Jacob Reese Mog an average bloke on the street and a professional artist and professional modern artist believe beauty is so vast it’s gonna be weird. Might have never had Tudor, Gothic, Georgian or Victorian style if they were limited to their current views of beauty back then
I don't recognise their description of 'Historians' or 'Historical non-fiction' writing, whether you mean from a pop-history sense or from an academic sense. It sounds like he is confusing a secondary school level of History education with what *Historians* do and write about, which are not the same. Academic history writing isn't 'this happened on this date, then this happened, he was born here, he did this' - it is all about motivation and context, and he seems to confuse very early history education with history as a job. His comments smack of someone who hasn't actually read much history, especially academic history from the past 100 years.
My hunch is that the media by which people "access" the past often lacks a truthful depiction of the horrid state of affairs. They forget that the ancient world wasn't one made in marble, for instance. Or even that the 19th century is not predominantly the coquetry of saloons and balls that we come across in the novels and films.
But look at the state of which less important construction is being carried out. We no longer have elegant boulevards, cozy alleys or majestic bridges. This is simple stuff like infrastructure. In the past they would always be embellished with character. Nowadays we don’t think beauty exists, or atleast we have kept the label and removed its content so who is to put any value in it. The world has definetly become more ugly. Not because of changing taste or style but simply by the fact that aesthetics arent viewed as important. Today we build dark parking garages full of concrete. Do you really believe that these structures would be as hideous if they were built 200 years ago?
@MrReedling seems like you're romanticizing a past that never happened. 200 years ago, the streets were filled with horse crap, the smell was unbearable, as depicted in many books from the time. I really don't see old buildings as beautiful in any way. Glass and steel are much more visually clean, as they make the spaces feel much more open.
@@eolendes6432 architecture has adopted the ”global westernised culture”. Since it is a very academic profession, being very western in its organisation architecture is generally built on the same ideas globally if we’re talking about the last 80 years. Architecture is being treated similarly across the world because smaller countries naturally want to copy the culture of the hegemon. Of course there are differences, but I don’t get how that ties back to my comment. Things like highways and parking garages look pretty much universally the same wherever you go and traditional architecture is universally more beautiful wherever you go.
This guy keeps asking very non-specific questions and then says "it's not a trick question". He seems to be wanting to project some sort of higher understanding, without actually giving any meaningful context or examples. So weird.
He's asking questions where the whole point is to demonstrate that what you think of from the top of your head is more what is taught / recorded / popular than what mundane day to day would be.
Sheehan, you could improve world aesthetics and do us all a favour by matching your socks to either your shoes or your trousers. The red ones are ugly. Learn from Alex.
That was without a doubt, and without hyperbole, the most enjoyable conversation I've listened to. I felt like I was one of your old friends right there with you. Please bring this man back for more
Too much pseudo-intellectual peacocking from this young man. Very little substance behind anything he says. Too focused on the presentation of his opinions and not enough energy spent on trying to formulate an opinion based on his understanding of the actual subject matter. I spent the whole conversation believing that he had something of worth to add but it just never arrives. Kind of like a British Jordan Peterson without all the vocabulary gymnastics. All in all, waffle.
I noticed that, too. It's very different from listening to really interesting people like Sir Roger Scruton and, say, younger Richard Dawkins. People who actually have something to say regardless if those things are agreeable to me or not.
Alex, for what its worth I often put your videos on my second monitor while I play Baldur's Gate 3 or Cities Skylines. I appreciate the conversation as opposed to all the colorful pulled up socks you're guests wear.
@@imperialloyalist4799 life has never had purpose, and man then had the same illusions available as man now. Choose your purpose or accept the lack of.
Wooow! I never expected to hear about Serbia or the Saint Sava's Temple/Church (not cathedral, as it's orthodox) on Alex's platform, and especially not with a positive tone considering the role the Serbian Orthodox Church plays in both Serbia and Balkans (and especially in the last 5-10 years). Awesome:D Greetings from Serbia!
Has this guy ever built anything? He said a university built what looks like a "prison" for $14 million. Imagine the amount they would have spent on a beautiful fancy building.
William Morris was talking about the streets of London, not the train station. When was the world not ugly? The better question is *when and where.* When and where sufficient time and resources are spent on facades and interior, visual environments are pleasing. Optimists, for whom the system seems to work, will often bob and weave to avoid facing the reality that modern capitalism and the collective/individual quest of greed has caused most of our modern issues, especially the ugliness that is despised today. Sheehan Quirke doesn't strike me as the type to spend his days peddling on ugly train tracks, through ugly vistas and torn down stations, from ugly industrial job sites with dripping rust, to ugly mass constructed workers ghettos with dripping rust. For Petes sake, most town streets are littered with ugly stores and megamarts. Everywhere you look it's glowing plastic and crying concrete. At the end of the previous century, depending on where you live, the pricing laws for common housing ensured that apt resources went into building projects. The profit you could earn and the price you could charge where tied to the cost of construction and upkeep. Today you can charge "market price and rent" which basically means tough cheese for consumers. It also means that there is no incentive to make nice things. Why make an expensive facade? It will only subtract from the bottom line. This is why the old part of town looks nicer. Inb4 "complaining about capitalism from a smartphone" arguments: Nope, sorry, your dad is wrong about everything. Your smartphone and computer, while bearing capitalist markings, overpricing and the shame of child labour, where researched and developed in the state sector, and the internet was called DARPAnet before the US STATE military shared it with the reprobate. Basically, everything that works was RnD'd in the state. Capitalism piggy back rides on industrialism and the commisar class can't and won't aknowledge facts. Look up Mariana Mazzucato for more.
29:00. I have a strong suspicion that in 150 years, the Shard, the Gherkin and other such buildings, will have long since been demolished. The upkeep, maintenance, utility and aesthetic of these monuments to ego and conspicuous extravagance, will be consigned to the scrapheap of history. The main offender of beauty in most modern urban landscapes seems to be the need to plaster every available surface with advertising slogans and logos, closely followed by the apparently random proliferation of warning signs and admonitions. lol
The point they were making is that houses and buildings last longer than we do. Sure everyone should have a house, but wouldn’t it be great if all the houses had mandatory beauty standards. Everyone can have a house, AND there can be beautification practices.
@@unleashedbread6146so somehow recreate the building style of the past so they last long? The only objection I have to this is that a lot of them tend to have restoration work done to them to stop them from collapsing or sinking, could be wrong though.
Regarding the efficacy of the internet, it appears that the issue lies less in the preoccupation with the inconsequential- provided a basis for measuring value can even be established- and more in the dependency on continuous stimulation: challenges that may have originated from the formative years of many individuals (growing up with the constant stimulation from screens). If the internet were used solely as a tool for education, it could arguably be the paramount mechanic of the modern age. However, its usage as an instrument has become a crux for many people, and that is where issues stem from.
You didn't bring out Vitruvius on architecture is my favorite author. The raisins of the animal sacrifice, the choice of the wind by their names, and the quality of the water by their flows. The orientation of the building depends on the character of the occupants of the future building that would correspond to their living. Someone who raises early will have the sun of the morning raising its window. Vitruvius is a treasure. He is architecture for the architect not for the Masson. It was really enjoyable to listen to you speak about architecture. Nowadays nothing is thought to ease the life of the individual. No countertop to put an extra item while operating a machine let's say for the bus tickets. People work full-time and get less and less services. We will end up transitioning all day long having nowhere comfortable to go all day long as a job and no one to help on whatsoever. Just bumping on each other like in a pinball machine. Structures would stop covering us from the elements. We will live under the sky in full humanity nothing else, you know?! You are fantastic both of you.
We started our evolution journey with a "beautiful" relationship with nature. I know that when I'm not near trees and birds I feel a bit empty. Right now architects are getting together to develop housing communities based on this new concept of "Trauma informed design" which includes lots of nature and also the design is in a way that encourages socializing. If this will help the poorest people among us, those whom have been homeless, those whom have lost everything then why can't this design be integrated in more city buildings? The design itself increases quality of life. We need beauty and bird feeders and binoculars and huge trees that welcome owls and other wildlife. Native vines growing about. Running water streams that encourages fishing. We need community and design can encourage that. So many ideas! I'm really enjoying this conversation! The internet brought this to me and for that I'm very grateful. Even if I at the age of 45 will never have the chance to work in this area I will sill have the opportunity to talk to youngsters with hopes of inspiring
A better comparison to the Vegas Sphere is probably Time Square. I think another point that hasnt been made (to this point in the show) is how the first big new projects look the most out of place and therefore garish because the surrounding skyline hasnt been updated and aesthetically filled in around big new projects like this. One of the reason things that have been around for at least several decades look less out of place is because of the even just slightly gravitational pull of new project around it to adopt its style a bit even if not completely. The giant centerpiece TV in time square would look like an affront to the eyes if all the buidling around it were also still old red brick. The first brutalist structures were almost certainly these just completely out of place cubes when everything around it was still brick with metal roofing with chimneys and what not. But as the city continues to update it all blends together.
Confirming my suspicions about greek statue profile picture dudes; all pretention and no substance. Dressing up as an 'intellectual' and speaking in an overly laboured verbose way because he has nothing interesting to say. No curiousity for or knowledge of the things he denigrates. Modern art bad? Old things good? Amazing insight. I'm desperate to know more lmao Alex please find guests outside this sphere of privately educated poshboys. Maybe someone who knows what they're talking about?
Have you been to marlin bahnhoff? Absolutely a marvel of modern architecture that expresses the same grandiosity you mentioned in the video. Absolutely stunning
Except that these " wonderful" modern eysores won't last over 30 or 40 years and then they will inevitably fall apart, whereas traditional and vernacular architecture has remained proudly standing for centuries and centuries. Modern architecture reflects modern depressive nihilistic minds. It is not only explained by utilitarianism as this fellow has tried to argue. About history he has a point but only if you consider anglo historians. France has a far richer and sophisticated approach to studying history. Try reading Jacques Le Goff for instance and the whole History of Customs french school of history, it is fascinating.
Lots of that old architecture could have fallen down though, I live in a 100 year old house and the guy who built it barely built any foundations. The area I live in has many thatch roofed houses and without fail one burns to the ground almost every year. Older stuff was defiantly more built to last but some of these concrete and steel structures will last for a long time.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but are skyscrapers and such not being built with our modern understanding of structural integrity (which is more complete than ever)? The notre dame would be a pile of ash if not for human upkeep.
@@unleashedbread6146 This requires a complex and highly technical answer. No time for that here. Please read Leon Krier writings where he deals with these issues. Many of his articles and some videos are easily available online.
This conversation would benefit from an injection of political theory and political history. For example, the concept of “alienation” branches out and touches several of the topics discussed. There are political and economic implications. “Why does everything feel fake?” “Why is ugly architecture being built if nobody likes it?” “Why are people more isolated than ever in the age of social media?” Alienation. We are alienated from the bosses that employ us, and the workers making our goods/services. We are alienated from our Uber drivers when people report never speaking to them once! Modern society is highly alienating. Maybe we should strive to break that isolation, and reforge human relationships in all aspects of life.
Well, I think the world has always been "ugly". It depense on what corner of the world you occupy that may seem uglier than before. Also, we maybe much more aware of the ugliness in the world, but it isn't necessarily more uglier than in past times.
About the History bit (fag's break): It's funny how you guys talked about this seemingly "innovative" idea of studying History considering the minute cultural habits and ideas of individuals without mentioning the "Annales school" (Marc Bloch, Jacques Le Goff, Georges Duby, Carlo Ginzburg, etc.). The story goes that British historians were not really "fans" of this French way of doing History. Maybe you guys had never heard about it, which puzzles me. If you guys want to check it out, I recommend "The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II" by Fernand Braudel and "The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller" by Carlo Ginzburg. Talking about the movement, you could read "The French Historical Revolution: The Annales School 1929-89" by Peter Burke.
Working hours: The lowest ever Income inequality: We are *going back* to the high period of Industrial Revolution. The only difference is that there isn't mobilisation like back then. Global sea rise: The main difference is that now we have enough knowledge to stop it, and enough science to think on alternatives Biodiversity: Same as above. Many species were lost before being discovered because people didn't have the means to save them at time (if they weren't killing actively their living ways). Now we have a fair share of laws to protect it. Except the last, all the whole problems could be solved if the masses didn't acted passively with fear of being labeled as "dirty leftists". We have now the means that were unthinkable to know mere 50 years ago. But no one has the energy of 50 years ago to protest for better. Everyone got harnessed by their bosses and are scared to fight for anything besides their low income wages.
Sorry but all this info is wrong. Now two partners have to work, and we can't even afford to have kids, working hours are longer, and in the USA, they are longer than anywhere else in the world. We have known about climate change due to CO2 Rise since the 1890s and in the past 50 years, animal extinctions have only been increasing. We are living through a human caused mass extinction event. You should look up some of this stuff instead of just regurgitating propaganda@@aminadoce
Get early access to episodes, and get them ad-free, by supporting the channel at www.Patreon.com/AlexOC
This interview is so British I got colonised.
Good. The next step is a colonoscopy. It hurts a whole lot more and is where most converts bail out. Hold your ground.
@@greghamilton6681 hurts?! a colonoscopy?! What kind of crazy docs are there in the UK?
The first 13min are just terrible elementary arguments already refuted so many times. Someone who is all about education arguing about something he seems to know nothing about.
@@alb0zfinest it really is sort of pathetic seeing Alex going down this road, circlejerking nonsense about how horrid modernity is and all that it creates
lol facts
A conversation between two young old men.
Brilliant observation...
Two self righteous simps posing as adults. When they are older they will look back at this trite tripe and squirm. That twat with the tash is like the living representation of an itchy hole.
Quite the paradigm; astute observation
With only amused appreciation in my intent, I am minded of the History Today sketches by Newman and Baddiel.
It’s basically a fraud congratulating himself while an intellectual with bills to pay listens
«it's like Tetris. You can't win»
Guys, you haven't been keeping up on Tetris.
Tetris just crashes at a fix point. That is not winning it has just been declared as such because you can't get past that
@@attilatormasi1733 How appropriate for this channel that we need to ask ourselves the age old question: "what is winning?"
@@attilatormasi1733 I consider that a win. Tetris' main goal is to make you fail. If you can be so stubborn that you crash the game, you've stopped it, and therefore, won
"The only winning move is not to play"
1:17:40 The bits where you cut back and forth between the empty chairs depending on who's talking made me laugh so much
alex lowkey funny ash
I should really watch these videos instead of just listening to them. I could have missed this.
My favorite part 😂😂😂
PRICELESS:DD
in 10 years people will think this isnt a joke but just an artifact of the A.I that cut the video.
"I don't like to put books behind me for my videos because it looks pretentious." Alex O'Connor
That was clearly sarcasm.
Did Alex hurt your feelings, mate?
@@brotherben4357 I think the books did. He might be allergic to them
@@brotherben4357
Over supporting your hero leads to………….
@@DavidSmith-vr1nb lol
This is the most British podcast ever.
Tell me the definition of "british" uncultured yank
People say that about everything Alex has ever done
As a German, that's the most British podcast I have ever heard and I totally love it.
@@Gurkenklemme Ditto.
So? Is it plus or minus?
I selfishly loved this conversation because I’m an architect and it was interesting to hear two lay people talk for an hour about it. In response to why the modern state of architecture is “uglier” than the buildings of the past, I think that it’s an incredibly complex set of reasons, many of which were touched on. The impact of the automobile can’t be underestimated on how it has changed the scale and quantity of the built environment. The massive increase in the population, thereby requiring so many more buildings, has made buildings more industrialized and mass produced, making them less about design and craftsmanship and more about quantity over quality. The cost of construction and materials has vastly changed what we use to make buildings from. And technology has shifted the priorities of buildings and space. And I think we don’t educate the public on architecture nearly enough for them to understand what makes for good/beautiful architecture. We prioritize having lots of space over higher quality space. The houses we live in are 2-3x the size of what we used to live in. We care more about size of beauty.
modern buildings are nothing but repulsive trash
Also we have building codes now. Many people in ye olde times would have lived in shacks and hovels because that’s all they could afford. Those shacks and hovels were so badly built, they wouldn’t have come down to us.
So that means we’re also dealing with some survivor bias - meaning we look at the houses that survived and conclude that all ye olde houses were well built and aesthetically pleasing, forgetting that those houses were built by those with enough money.
Nowadays we have building codes that mean no one can build ramshackle hovels. (And rental laws that mean you can’t rent out ramshackle houses.) This means that people are obliged to live in better quality houses, but because lacking money is still a thing, people scrimp on the details that make a house aesthetically pleasing because… they literally can’t afford it.
See: 90% of NZ’s housing stock.
I couldn’t agree more…today I think nothing shapes building’s form more than the automobile and mostly for worse.
Thanks for the inside insight😊! When you say the automobile changed architecture do you mean that we now have to fit buildings into smaller spaces?
Wow, the audio quality is marvellous in this one! It's basically ASMR
Don’t get hot now!
The empty seats was a fine comedic bit for a pretty interesting conversation
Chris Evans is really committed to nailing this English role
As a German, that's the most British podcast I have ever heard and I totally love it.
@Native_Man123bro go somewhere else with that garbage
@Native_Man123Europeans could support local parties and politicians that are in favour of limitibg immigration
Met both in Durham when Alex came to debate for the Durham Union. We had a pre debate dinner. Had no idea Sheehan was an influencer of sorts. Both the most down to earth lads! Love to see them do a podcast together. This will be a train journey treat.
Your best podcast to date. The banter between you two brings out the best of what you already do so well.
I love the opening to this episode - random conversation 😅
Honestly if you took someone from ancient Egypt to the modern day and showed them the pyramids they would be aghast. Since the pyramids would originally have been smooth gleaming white with a gold cap.
Source?
@@cat_and_cabbage4662 the history channel
@@cat_and_cabbage4662it is known
@@cat_and_cabbage4662history
@@cat_and_cabbage4662trust me bruv
His advice to read 1 primary source and ‘extrapolating’ from that to supposedly ‘really understand’ what it was like in a given time period is pretty questionable advice. Sure it’s interesting but you shouldn’t form anything beyond very small-scale historical conclusion from only 1 primary source, especially given most people do not have the expertise to fully analyse and take valuable information from a historical primary source.
You cannot just ‘become a historian’ by applying your mind to a primary source , if you don’t have the skills to do so. You can definitely get something valuable out of it but I would argue it’s only a method of ‘understanding’ maybe a small aspect of history
Preach.
You’re OBSESSED with architecture. As someone who is interested in architecture I’ve found the recent discussions very intriguing, although you should’ve pushed him more on brutalism, maybe then we could’ve gotten him to toss a pillow in frustration.
Great discussion!!!
Hilarious to keep changing the camera while you smoke!!!
No worries, I had a smoke break with y'all!
Life is like Tetris. It advances more quickly as you play longer, random pieces often misfit the base layer, the point of playing is not to reach an end point, and if you stop trying you will lose quickly. Accurate model of the environment
Ok but the cigarette break part is such a vibe
As much as I hate smoking, the break format was great
1:18 That long pause... Priceless!
Also there are 2 cuts during it lol. Its kind of annoying that he said "what do you think it means" when really he just didnt have an answer.
@@Godzilla010_ I did wonder if it is longer IRL, but given the informal start (lazy editing?) I'm willing to believe nothing was left on the cutting room floor 🤣
@@Godzilla010_ and yes it would have been annoying if Alex didn't clarify the question. @CosmicSkeptic is truly sharpening those interview skills it's been a pleasure to watch his progression over the past few years!
I figured he got emotional and just asked for it to be cut out in post. It’s hard to be emotional/teary eyed in front of millions of people you don’t know.
@@jjrodriguez6513 who wouldn't?! Gazing into Alex's grey eyes... 🤣
I'm 20 seconds in and good lord, that hair. Magnificent.
16:07 I love how casually you just went outside to continue the conversation, hilarious! And swapping the camera between the chairs is comedy gold!
This guy is laborious to listen to. Broken words, sentences, thoughts, lack of brevity when it would have behooved him, etc.
A five paragraph answer at the end about wisdom was the icing on the cake. I’m sure there are those who would applaud his apparent thoughtfulness….perhaps it’s just me, but I found it difficult to listen to. Charley Browns parents comes to mind…
Pretentious
Basically; a pretentious arsehole.
Stop acting like a queer
Yeah, same here. I find the answer to the first question, being this about his own slogan "A beautiful education", very poor, inarticulate, non-deliberate, showing lack of prior reflection, verbose but not necessarily telling, and altogether uninteresting. It makes me not want to keep listening.
I disagree, it’s nice hearing someone speak that isn’t a professional podcaster online every once and a while. Makes things feel more human. You would absolutely hate SoftWhiteUnderbelly.
❤ What a soulful conversation! ❤
I must say that trees make up for any architectural disaster, there is something healing about them.
This conversation is awesome, it truly feels like a conversation between two close friends. And the bit when you two are missing is HILARIOUS
That Ciggerate break and the Camera switching to the Speaker's empty chairs is the most Alex thing Alex can ever Alex.
Bro, "So far, so good." I'm dying here, lovely interview.
39:00. One important difference between then and now, concerning the quaint villages, is that when they were built, many farm labourers, mill workers, miners, etc. were provided accommodation by their employers, for rent. When they lost their job, they often lost their homes. Also many village cottages nowadays are 2 or 3 dwellings knocked into one...and costing many hundreds of thousands. The current owners have plenty of money to spend on beautifying their properties, while the original occupants were often very poor, and had large families
It's the same in the cities. Tiny mews houses and red-brick Victorian factories, that survived the WW2 bombings, have been gentrified, and turned into expensive houses and flats for the owners of those village residences. As industry collapsed and rural work disappeared, the housing assets were appropriated by the wealthy, and the poor are increasingly forced into ugly, unsafe(Grenfell), living spaces. They are the slums and filthy tenements of the modern age
I loved the casual attitude of this podcast. Felt like two dudes just talking about stuff at the bar.
I got the impression this guy ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-talked a whole lot, but said very little: Beauty is subjective, people don't like new things, people like old things not because they are beautiful but because they are old, it has always been like that, Read primary sources instead of history books. That a a lot of rhetorical questions out of nowhere than didn't really seem to go anywhere and that lacked context or real relevance.
I actually love my relationship with social media. I’m pretty selfish with it. I post my own stuff, keep in contact with friends I’ve made from the armed forces, travelling and/or university and that’s about it. I don’t endlessly scroll very often. I turn off notifications from Facebook and Instagram. I don’t have e Twitter. I am more interested in TH-cam as people like yourself, Bart Erham and various others post content I enjoy which most consider educational.
I am able to keep my toes dipped in philosophy and mythology which I did my degree and masters in. I learn about strength training, dead languages, guitar and singing (I’m an operatic tenor)
I think a lesson I have learned is to keep my mind too busy with things I want to learn than I can often endlessly scroll.
Absolutely sickening level of poshness on display here, I'm not going to lie.
its ghastly
Why do you think so?
"Indeed, indeed!"
LOL Do I detect a slight touch of misplaced Class-Conflict consciousness? Not all British people speak Thames-Esturese, or fink dat da chip on dar soldier - is a mark of correct/ necessary street credibility. Neither Alex O'Connor nor Sheehan Quirke speak like Kenneth Clark or Brian Sewell - they are not Port Side Out, Starboard Side Home; what you seem to mean is they are too intellectually attached, by education, like me - hem, hem - to be well proper Kool.
Ho! And Hum! I guess, is the answer. I appreciate their efforts to be clear .. it can be a little stuffy, in delivery .. but it is worthwhile (whether one likes it or not).
Yo! ;o)
@@TheLeonhammpretty cringey comment mate no offence
Rarely I listen to a podcast from start to end in one sitting but this here is an exception. You ought to invite this guest again
"Within reason". Where is the reasoning here? I dont like it so it's wrong? Maybe this whole thing is disingenuous along with the previous discussion about religious art.?
Here even the "expert" sidesteps that capital a Architecture is design not art. Most of what seems to be disliked here is aesthetic yet the outward shape of a building or the decoration upon it, is a tiny portion of architectural design.
Real architects make buildings work for people, sympathetic to the social, domestic or other activity requirements. More "modern" architecture archieves this better than most "old" archtecture where the decoration or outward form were the only considerations.
One could argue objectively that gothic churches were terribly designed for their purpose, however were decorated beautifully, and over time humans learned to live with them out of necessity.
To encourage the decoration of modern buildings that "work" in a gothic church style would be ludicrous. And if we just build more gothic churches because they looked pretty then the majority would complain that they didn't "work" as a building.
So...as for complaining that modern art doesn't move you emotionally as old religeous or classical art does, and modern architecture is ugly....within reason I think this must be clickbait....and I bit.
You two are wonderful. Great chemistry great conversation. I hope this is the start of a beautiful collaboration. ❤❤❤❤❤
In a recent move I ran across a few old issues of Time, Newsweek, and various newspapers from the 80s that my mother had put aside for whatever reason. Reading the articles was a real eye-opener, as everything was written as if the audience was made of literate adults. The contrast between these grownup-oriented bits of prose and the grade-school level sorts of things you run into in news articles today was stark.
There are intelligent articles today, just like there was then. And there was plenty of propagandistic nonsense back then, as there is today.
I experienced the 80s, and it was a time of supreme arrogance, ignorance, hypocrisy and selfishness. You can't look at a few articles and make an accurate judgement about a historical period. Television was total garbage in the 80s. Newspapers were as bad then as they are now. The New York Times basically pushed hawkish, cold war propaganda not much more objective than Pravda. There is hundreds' of times more quality material on youtube alone than there was in all the media combined in the 80s.
And worst of all, the average citizen _had no way of authenticating anything._ Now, we can do our own research and check facts for ourselves with more effectiveness than at any time in history.
This is a very keen observation.
You were supposed to provide evidence on why modern world is so ugly. Instead you provided evidence on why modern architecture is less interesting. I didn't expect such clickbait from this channel.
Loved the conversation, hated the smoking! You're killing your lungs.
Love
Mum
Man these podcasts just get better and better…I am UK chartered Architect. Alex you are ahead of the curve..the UK government recently smuggled into the planning law the need for “Beauty”. This podcast also provides me with 2 hours “continuing professional development” points. Kudos sir. I try to bring beauty into my small pocket of Yorkshire. (Wildblood Macdonald)
What Jacob Reese Mog an average bloke on the street and a professional artist and professional modern artist believe beauty is so vast it’s gonna be weird.
Might have never had Tudor, Gothic, Georgian or Victorian style if they were limited to their current views of beauty back then
I don't recognise their description of 'Historians' or 'Historical non-fiction' writing, whether you mean from a pop-history sense or from an academic sense. It sounds like he is confusing a secondary school level of History education with what *Historians* do and write about, which are not the same. Academic history writing isn't 'this happened on this date, then this happened, he was born here, he did this' - it is all about motivation and context, and he seems to confuse very early history education with history as a job. His comments smack of someone who hasn't actually read much history, especially academic history from the past 100 years.
This guy feels too full of himself to continue watching.
I agree he’s a little insufferable
Yes
As an architect from Latin America, I found this discussion fascinating!
What is your favorite architecture, or what kind of architecture do you like?
Not your best interviewee. Trying too hard to sound profound
Couldn't agree more
I like how he mentioned Tetris as an endless game, but it was beaten this year for the first time in history.
저는 세상이 옛날부터 항상 추악했다고 믿습니다.그러기에 과거보다 지금이 더 추악하다는 성급한 오류를 범해서는 안된다고 생각합니다.
It has always been ugly, and it has always been beautiful. 👍
Ugly stuff gets destroyed
Off the charts Pomposity. My screen is drenched in it.
I'm not sure that the aesthetics of buildings is a "big big problem" considering all the other real problems we haven't figured out yet...
It is though, they somewhat directly discuss the reasons why in this discussion.
came to read the comments to see wtf is the video about. i forgot it's only been 4 minutes!
He seems to know a lot and says a lot but I dont find any meaning in his words beyond that.
I feel the exact same way when I hear Jordan Peterson talk
@@greenspring9437 I found him way more understandable than Peterson
I feel like that was mostly because of the immensely subjective nature of the topic, which was beauty in architecture.
He rambles a lot but it’s possible that this format just might not be his forte.
I don't think the world is ugly any more so than before.
My hunch is that the media by which people "access" the past often lacks a truthful depiction of the horrid state of affairs. They forget that the ancient world wasn't one made in marble, for instance. Or even that the 19th century is not predominantly the coquetry of saloons and balls that we come across in the novels and films.
But look at the state of which less important construction is being carried out. We no longer have elegant boulevards, cozy alleys or majestic bridges. This is simple stuff like infrastructure. In the past they would always be embellished with character. Nowadays we don’t think beauty exists, or atleast we have kept the label and removed its content so who is to put any value in it. The world has definetly become more ugly. Not because of changing taste or style but simply by the fact that aesthetics arent viewed as important. Today we build dark parking garages full of concrete. Do you really believe that these structures would be as hideous if they were built 200 years ago?
@MrReedling seems like you're romanticizing a past that never happened. 200 years ago, the streets were filled with horse crap, the smell was unbearable, as depicted in many books from the time. I really don't see old buildings as beautiful in any way. Glass and steel are much more visually clean, as they make the spaces feel much more open.
@@MrReedling What do you mean by "the world"? it feels like you should travel more.
@@eolendes6432 architecture has adopted the ”global westernised culture”. Since it is a very academic profession, being very western in its organisation architecture is generally built on the same ideas globally if we’re talking about the last 80 years. Architecture is being treated similarly across the world because smaller countries naturally want to copy the culture of the hegemon. Of course there are differences, but I don’t get how that ties back to my comment. Things like highways and parking garages look pretty much universally the same wherever you go and traditional architecture is universally more beautiful wherever you go.
This guy keeps asking very non-specific questions and then says "it's not a trick question". He seems to be wanting to project some sort of higher understanding, without actually giving any meaningful context or examples. So weird.
Nah he just explains things
He's asking questions where the whole point is to demonstrate that what you think of from the top of your head is more what is taught / recorded / popular than what mundane day to day would be.
I find the shard not to be all too ugly, and it’s very very useful for navigating while cycling around
This two guys are amazing ❤❤
Honore de Balzac said "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Too frequently, beauty is financed by great crimes.
Sheehan, you could improve world aesthetics and do us all a favour by matching your socks to either your shoes or your trousers. The red ones are ugly. Learn from Alex.
yep it just goes to show he is clueless
That was without a doubt, and without hyperbole, the most enjoyable conversation I've listened to. I felt like I was one of your old friends right there with you. Please bring this man back for more
They are a really cool duo to listen to, I agree with bringing Sheehan back
Too much pseudo-intellectual peacocking from this young man. Very little substance behind anything he says. Too focused on the presentation of his opinions and not enough energy spent on trying to formulate an opinion based on his understanding of the actual subject matter.
I spent the whole conversation believing that he had something of worth to add but it just never arrives. Kind of like a British Jordan Peterson without all the vocabulary gymnastics.
All in all, waffle.
To be expected of statue pfps
@@korpen2858yup all of em. Got rocks for brains
He is popular on twitter, that's all you need to know.
I noticed that, too. It's very different from listening to really interesting people like Sir Roger Scruton and, say, younger Richard Dawkins. People who actually have something to say regardless if those things are agreeable to me or not.
Alex, for what its worth I often put your videos on my second monitor while I play Baldur's Gate 3 or Cities Skylines. I appreciate the conversation as opposed to all the colorful pulled up socks you're guests wear.
been waiting for this since you mentioned it in the Pageau pod. good work mr cosmic
"You don't know what you're talking about, do you?"
(Anton Chigurh)
11:00 the Tetris analogy didn't age well
Think the world is ugly now?
Try living the life that you are now but 500 years ago.
Back when life had purpose?
@@imperialloyalist4799 life has never had purpose, and man then had the same illusions available as man now. Choose your purpose or accept the lack of.
@@imperialloyalist4799Perhaps life had more compelling distractions, but it certainly didn't have any more "meaning."
you are conflating aesthetics and pragmatism
life being harder then does not change that buildings are ugly now
@@Senumunu 'ugly' as human behavior... not the way buildings look.
This man be dripped as fuck.
What do you mean by "dripped"?
@@liambishop9888 What do you mean by "coloquialiy used slang for: dressed very well or pleasing to the eye"?
@@loiiblank4699 thanks
@@loiiblank4699 thanks
“So far so good”
Glad i wasnt the only one to pick up on that😂
Wooow! I never expected to hear about Serbia or the Saint Sava's Temple/Church (not cathedral, as it's orthodox) on Alex's platform, and especially not with a positive tone considering the role the Serbian Orthodox Church plays in both Serbia and Balkans (and especially in the last 5-10 years). Awesome:D
Greetings from Serbia!
Smoking is bad.
"Alex O'Connor, you know he's about, what, 6'3", is that how tall you are?"
"Well, I'll allow it"
continuing to edit the video after they leave for a cig is the best possible gag that shit is so funny
I love you, Alex.
He's gorgeous isn't he?
@@sophie800The most impressive 24-year old I ever encountered. And yeah he‘s cute too.
Has this guy ever built anything? He said a university built what looks like a "prison" for $14 million. Imagine the amount they would have spent on a beautiful fancy building.
William Morris was talking about the streets of London, not the train station.
When was the world not ugly? The better question is *when and where.*
When and where sufficient time and resources are spent on facades and interior, visual environments are pleasing.
Optimists, for whom the system seems to work, will often bob and weave to avoid facing the reality that modern capitalism and the collective/individual quest of greed has caused most of our modern issues, especially the ugliness that is despised today. Sheehan Quirke doesn't strike me as the type to spend his days peddling on ugly train tracks, through ugly vistas and torn down stations, from ugly industrial job sites with dripping rust, to ugly mass constructed workers ghettos with dripping rust.
For Petes sake, most town streets are littered with ugly stores and megamarts. Everywhere you look it's glowing plastic and crying concrete.
At the end of the previous century, depending on where you live, the pricing laws for common housing ensured that apt resources went into building projects. The profit you could earn and the price you could charge where tied to the cost of construction and upkeep. Today you can charge "market price and rent" which basically means tough cheese for consumers. It also means that there is no incentive to make nice things. Why make an expensive facade? It will only subtract from the bottom line.
This is why the old part of town looks nicer.
Inb4 "complaining about capitalism from a smartphone" arguments:
Nope, sorry, your dad is wrong about everything. Your smartphone and computer, while bearing capitalist markings, overpricing and the shame of child labour, where researched and developed in the state sector, and the internet was called DARPAnet before the US STATE military shared it with the reprobate. Basically, everything that works was RnD'd in the state. Capitalism piggy back rides on industrialism and the commisar class can't and won't aknowledge facts. Look up Mariana Mazzucato for more.
29:00. I have a strong suspicion that in 150 years, the Shard, the Gherkin and other such buildings, will have long since been demolished. The upkeep, maintenance, utility and aesthetic of these monuments to ego and conspicuous extravagance, will be consigned to the scrapheap of history.
The main offender of beauty in most modern urban landscapes seems to be the need to plaster every available surface with advertising slogans and logos, closely followed by the apparently random proliferation of warning signs and admonitions. lol
Who says it's ugly? Pining for the past? Most people have and still live in squalor.
1:16:27 I had indeed left my laptop to the side and was doing the washing up 😆
This fella is the only Twitter user with a Greek statue profile picture that should be listened to.
Literally every other one is to be ignored.
A lot of them Greek Statue Profile Pics on Twitter seem like fascist, but I'll give Alex the benefit of the doubt with this guy 😅
@@liambishop9888 yeah for sure they are to be avoided on sight, this guy is always posting interesting stuff.
Alex didn't mention that modernism is almost 80 years old. Many of these buildings have been around for generations and we still find them ugly...
Alex, your guest was....uninspiring.
This guy is getting an early start on being a wise old man
His body will not dissentigrate differently than a fool
Watched the entire video. Where's my Achievement Award?
ladies and gents, just found the epitome of smugness
LMAO the bit with the chairs 😂
So pretentious. Let's make sure everyone has α house before calling it ugly
The point they were making is that houses and buildings last longer than we do. Sure everyone should have a house, but wouldn’t it be great if all the houses had mandatory beauty standards. Everyone can have a house, AND there can be beautification practices.
@@unleashedbread6146so somehow recreate the building style of the past so they last long? The only objection I have to this is that a lot of them tend to have restoration work done to them to stop them from collapsing or sinking, could be wrong though.
Regarding the efficacy of the internet, it appears that the issue lies less in the preoccupation with the inconsequential- provided a basis for measuring value can even be established- and more in the dependency on continuous stimulation: challenges that may have originated from the formative years of many individuals (growing up with the constant stimulation from screens). If the internet were used solely as a tool for education, it could arguably be the paramount mechanic of the modern age. However, its usage as an instrument has become a crux for many people, and that is where issues stem from.
You didn't bring out Vitruvius on architecture is my favorite author. The raisins of the animal sacrifice, the choice of the wind by their names, and the quality of the water by their flows. The orientation of the building depends on the character of the occupants of the future building that would correspond to their living. Someone who raises early will have the sun of the morning raising its window. Vitruvius is a treasure. He is architecture for the architect not for the Masson.
It was really enjoyable to listen to you speak about architecture. Nowadays nothing is thought to ease the life of the individual. No countertop to put an extra item while operating a machine let's say for the bus tickets. People work full-time and get less and less services. We will end up transitioning all day long having nowhere comfortable to go all day long as a job and no one to help on whatsoever. Just bumping on each other like in a pinball machine. Structures would stop covering us from the elements. We will live under the sky in full humanity nothing else, you know?!
You are fantastic both of you.
Ah! Forgot to prompt the wisdom question beforehand… maybe next time! Another great episode
We started our evolution journey with a "beautiful" relationship with nature. I know that when I'm not near trees and birds I feel a bit empty. Right now architects are getting together to develop housing communities based on this new concept of "Trauma informed design" which includes lots of nature and also the design is in a way that encourages socializing. If this will help the poorest people among us, those whom have been homeless, those whom have lost everything then why can't this design be integrated in more city buildings? The design itself increases quality of life. We need beauty and bird feeders and binoculars and huge trees that welcome owls and other wildlife. Native vines growing about. Running water streams that encourages fishing. We need community and design can encourage that. So many ideas! I'm really enjoying this conversation! The internet brought this to me and for that I'm very grateful. Even if I at the age of 45 will never have the chance to work in this area I will sill have the opportunity to talk to youngsters with hopes of inspiring
A better comparison to the Vegas Sphere is probably Time Square.
I think another point that hasnt been made (to this point in the show) is how the first big new projects look the most out of place and therefore garish because the surrounding skyline hasnt been updated and aesthetically filled in around big new projects like this. One of the reason things that have been around for at least several decades look less out of place is because of the even just slightly gravitational pull of new project around it to adopt its style a bit even if not completely.
The giant centerpiece TV in time square would look like an affront to the eyes if all the buidling around it were also still old red brick.
The first brutalist structures were almost certainly these just completely out of place cubes when everything around it was still brick with metal roofing with chimneys and what not. But as the city continues to update it all blends together.
this is a good perspective i hadn’t thought of
Confirming my suspicions about greek statue profile picture dudes; all pretention and no substance. Dressing up as an 'intellectual' and speaking in an overly laboured verbose way because he has nothing interesting to say. No curiousity for or knowledge of the things he denigrates. Modern art bad? Old things good? Amazing insight. I'm desperate to know more lmao
Alex please find guests outside this sphere of privately educated poshboys. Maybe someone who knows what they're talking about?
Loved the conversation❤👌The guest is pretty erudite, especially for his age, Alex, you should definetely bring him back
Have you been to marlin bahnhoff? Absolutely a marvel of modern architecture that expresses the same grandiosity you mentioned in the video. Absolutely stunning
A singularly exceptional discussion 😊
Except that these " wonderful" modern eysores won't last over 30 or 40 years and then they will inevitably fall apart, whereas traditional and vernacular architecture has remained proudly standing for centuries and centuries. Modern architecture reflects modern depressive nihilistic minds. It is not only explained by utilitarianism as this fellow has tried to argue.
About history he has a point but only if you consider anglo historians. France has a far richer and sophisticated approach to studying history. Try reading Jacques Le Goff for instance and the whole History of Customs french school of history, it is fascinating.
Lots of that old architecture could have fallen down though, I live in a 100 year old house and the guy who built it barely built any foundations. The area I live in has many thatch roofed houses and without fail one burns to the ground almost every year. Older stuff was defiantly more built to last but some of these concrete and steel structures will last for a long time.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but are skyscrapers and such not being built with our modern understanding of structural integrity (which is more complete than ever)?
The notre dame would be a pile of ash if not for human upkeep.
@@unleashedbread6146
This requires a complex and highly technical answer. No time for that here. Please read Leon Krier writings where he deals with these issues. Many of his articles and some videos are easily available online.
This conversation would benefit from an injection of political theory and political history.
For example, the concept of “alienation” branches out and touches several of the topics discussed. There are political and economic implications.
“Why does everything feel fake?”
“Why is ugly architecture being built if nobody likes it?”
“Why are people more isolated than ever in the age of social media?”
Alienation. We are alienated from the bosses that employ us, and the workers making our goods/services. We are alienated from our Uber drivers when people report never speaking to them once!
Modern society is highly alienating. Maybe we should strive to break that isolation, and reforge human relationships in all aspects of life.
Well, I think the world has always been "ugly". It depense on what corner of the world you occupy that may seem uglier than before. Also, we maybe much more aware of the ugliness in the world, but it isn't necessarily more uglier than in past times.
About the History bit (fag's break): It's funny how you guys talked about this seemingly "innovative" idea of studying History considering the minute cultural habits and ideas of individuals without mentioning the "Annales school" (Marc Bloch, Jacques Le Goff, Georges Duby, Carlo Ginzburg, etc.). The story goes that British historians were not really "fans" of this French way of doing History. Maybe you guys had never heard about it, which puzzles me. If you guys want to check it out, I recommend "The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II" by Fernand Braudel and "The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller" by Carlo Ginzburg. Talking about the movement, you could read "The French Historical Revolution: The Annales School 1929-89" by Peter Burke.
I quite like this guy's Twitter and was excited for this podcast but is it just me that found him a bit distasteful, slightly rude even?
I got the same impression though to be fair I also hated his tweets.
8:30 better by every single metric? What about working hours? Income inequality? Global Sea rise? Biodiversity??
Working hours: The lowest ever
Income inequality: We are *going back* to the high period of Industrial Revolution. The only difference is that there isn't mobilisation like back then.
Global sea rise: The main difference is that now we have enough knowledge to stop it, and enough science to think on alternatives
Biodiversity: Same as above. Many species were lost before being discovered because people didn't have the means to save them at time (if they weren't killing actively their living ways). Now we have a fair share of laws to protect it.
Except the last, all the whole problems could be solved if the masses didn't acted passively with fear of being labeled as "dirty leftists". We have now the means that were unthinkable to know mere 50 years ago. But no one has the energy of 50 years ago to protest for better. Everyone got harnessed by their bosses and are scared to fight for anything besides their low income wages.
Sorry but all this info is wrong. Now two partners have to work, and we can't even afford to have kids, working hours are longer, and in the USA, they are longer than anywhere else in the world. We have known about climate change due to CO2 Rise since the 1890s and in the past 50 years, animal extinctions have only been increasing. We are living through a human caused mass extinction event.
You should look up some of this stuff instead of just regurgitating propaganda@@aminadoce