Epistemic Status: Not a cohesive theory of community art perception/criticism, just speculation that two or more things are related
For those who haven't seen it, Scott posted his latest piece on architecture, last night, a review of Tom Wolfe's "From Bauhaus To Our House.". The comments are pretty similar to past comments. I'm less interested in the question of why people do or don't like modern architecture (there's a lot of variation in quality, and tastes vary - of course it's polarizing) than the variation in discernment over McMansions, a type of architecture defined by qualities that are a) bad and b) to me, fall in to the category of "once you see it, you can't unsee it."
For our purposes, I'll use the guide from McMansion Hell (https://mcmansionhell.com/post/149284377161/mansionvsmcmansion, https://mcmansionhell.com/post/149563260641/mcmansions-101-mansion-vs-mcmansion-part-2), which includes simple heuristics like Relationship to the Landscape: Often, a New Traditional mansion carefully considers its environment and is built to accentuate, rather than dominate it. A McMansion is out of scale with its landscape or lot, often too big for a tiny lot. and Architectural and Stylistic Integrity: The best New Traditional houses are those who are virtually indistinguishable from the styles they represent. McMansions tend to be either a chaotic mix of individual styles, or a poorly done imitation of a previous style. This house in Texas invokes four separate styles: the Gothic (the steep angle of the gables), Craftsman (the overhanging eaves with braces), French (the use of stone and arched 2nd story windows), and Tudor Revival (the EIFS half-timbering above the garage), each poorly rendered in a busy combination of EIFS coupled with stone and brick veneers. (Follow the links for annotated photos.)
These criteria are really heuristics - part two includes a house that could go either way, with arguments on each side - but they aren't "rocket surgery" to apply, it's just a matter of discernment; why can't everyone learn to apply the criteria, whether or not they share the opinion that McMansions are bad architecture? The criteria of mixing styles can require more consideration than the others - it takes some scrutiny to determine if stylistic elements were mixed in a thoughtful manner - and whether or not the styles are complementary is a matter of taste, but most of it is pretty simple.
[Edit 1: I was thinking of this at the time, but too lazy to go back to the ACX post to incorporate it - this is similar to how an artist friend of Scott's discribed how she identified an AI-generated image as AI art and why she disliked it. Once you see it, can you unsee it? Does it change how much you enjoy the image?]
This reminded me of a video jazz musician and YouTuber Adam Neely made on the question of whether Laufey's music is within the jazz genre. TL;DW, no, he puts her alongside 1950s pop that borrowed from the same set of musical styles as jazz of the period, but applied those stylistic elements to pop songs, rather than a musical form defined more by improvisation (especially group improvisation) than aesthetic. One clip used in the video is someone asking why it matters if jazz musicians don't recognize Laufey's music as jazz - good point; why are we asking the question, in the first place? My speculation is that Laufey's fans want her music to be considered jazz, not pop that has stylistic elements in common with jazz, because jazz has cultural cachet and drawing a distinction between jazz and superficially similar pop music would be perceived as gatekeeping or snobbery. In light of the precedent of 1950s pop, this is rather silly - jazz musicians aren't turning their noses up at Sinatra and Bennett - but, in addition to being denied the cachet associated with jazz appreciation, I can imagine that being told you lack the discernment to tell jazz from non-jazz feels like being told you lack taste.
Discernment and taste are distinct phenomena; if Scott tells me that he agrees with the criteria for distinguishing McMansions from other architecture, we establish inter-rater reliability for this, but he disagrees that they're bad design, I'll accept that he is capable of discerning the style, while declaring our tastes to be different. But Scott writes that architecture buffs tell him about superior modern architecture he might like and he can't discern the difference. To what extent is the discussion of architecture unproductive because people are conflating discernment and taste?
If you can't discern the difference between two things and someone else says that they have strong opinions over their respective quality, do you question your discernment or their taste? In the absence of a prior that you need to cultivate your abilities of discernment, I would speculate that you are more likely to question the other person's taste and are liable to come to the conclusion that their discernment is arbitrary, from which it follows that they're engaging in snobbery. Counter-Snobbery would be to reject the "arbitrary" distinction or, if conceding that there is a distinction, embrace the supposed "lesser" of the two things.
If you can't discern the difference between two things and someone else says that they have strong opinions over their respective quality... what do YOU do?
[Edit 2: While this was in the mod queue, Scott published a new post on theories of taste. Some of the commenters are commenting along the lines of a causal relationship between developing abilities of discernment with changes in taste, without using those terms. Interestingly, neither Scott nor a commenter went back to that section of the AI art post, even though the new post begins "Recently we’ve gotten into discussions about artistic taste (see comments to AI Art Turing Test..."]
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm with @FiveHourMarathon on this. Trust me, a big house isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially if you don't have kids. From 2017 to 2023 I lived in a rather large house and used it thus:
The entryway led into a large combination living and dining area. The dining side had a sliding glass door that led out onto a patio. The living side was 12 feet from the wall to the back of the couch. While this is actually a little closer than at my current house, I don't think anything is gained by more distance. Actually, a bit is lost because now I have to keep my stereo speakers wider to maintain proper imaging in the sweet spot. The dining side was probably a tad smaller than a standalone dining room would have been, but it was still big enough to fit a sideboard and had the added advantage of making it easy to eat in front of the TV without feeling like a piece of shit.
There was a reasonably sized eat-in kitchen that the dining area made redundant. I seldom ate in there, and the kitchen table became a pile of junk mail and grocery bags. Having multiple dining areas is redundant; in houses that have both a formal dining room and an eat-in kitchen, the kitchen isn't really a place you can have a dinner party, but I've noticed a trend toward just making a larger kitchen where the dining area can be as formal as it needs to be for most people. I'm not going to complain about having both, but if you have both, one or the other is rarely used for its intended purpose.
There was another, smaller living area with a small fireplace. I put my bookshelves in here along with a smaller stereo and used it for reading. I entertained people in here on exactly one occasion (excepting larger parties where people can go anywhere) when I invited some friends over for drinks after going out to dinner and I wanted to have a fire.
The master bedroom wasn't particularly large but since I only used it for sleeping it didn't matter. A king-size bed would have been cramped once you included dressers, BUT it had a walk-in closet the size of a small bedroom. The idea clearly was that all the clothing storage/laundry/dressing would be relegated to the closet, and that's how I used it. With a queen and a couple nightstands the bedroom was quite roomy. Now, some of these larger houses have master bedrooms that are big enough to have their own separate sitting areas with couches and televisions, but I don't really see the point in this. To cosplay living in a studio apartment?
Bedroom 2 was used as a home office. This was necessary since I was working almost exclusively from home for most of the time I had the house, but if I weren't then I would have preferred to have the computer in the small living room.
Bedroom 3 was used as a guest bedroom for the once or twice a year I had overnight guests.
Bedroom 4 was a junk collector.
There was a powder room off the entryway that was used frequently and a full bath upstairs apart from the master that was used rarely. I once thought about asking my girlfriend to move all of her hair stuff, etc. into the other bathroom but decided against bringing it up because a) she didn't live there so it's not like there was a ton of it and b) the master had a jack and jill so it would seem a bit ridiculous.
It had a finished basement that contained a couch that the prior owner left there and a bike trainer. I had a small stereo to listen to while on the bike and a 40" TV for Zwift, but that's about it. I only used the bike trainer in the winter. No one ever sat on the couch. The room was primarily used as a way to get from the garage to the upstairs. The basement also had a separate laundry/utility area. I couldn't feasibly use this as a junk collector because if I entertained guests had to go through here to get to the kegerator.
I had a two car garage that I used for storing my car. I used the other side to work on bikes, except I let my girlfriend park here when she stayed over in the winter.
At the time I was living there, the house seemed entirely too large. Cleaning it was a pain in the ass. Heating it was a pain in the ass. Cooling it was fine, but I only turn my AC on if it's going to be above 85 for more than a few days, which in Pittsburgh is only a couple times a year. If I lived in a hotter area or was more sensitive it would have been a pain in the ass. I was able to find use for all the space, but I'd be lying if I said I used it all that much. I bought the house because the price was well below what one would expect due to certain topographic complications involving the lot. For one person, it felt huge.
How big was it? About 2,000 square feet. For someone with kids, it would have been fine. I could understand going a little bigger. My uncle's house is 2600 square feet and it seemed more than big enough for three kids. But 4,000? Larger living rooms just put you farther away from the TV. Larger bedrooms add nothing. A larger kitchen does nothing once you have sufficient counter space. There are only so many rooms you can hang out in. The house I'm in now is about 1400 square feet and I don't see any appreciable decrease in my standard of living.
I'd add that overly large houses are a classic example of upper middle class tacky, in that they would be nicer or make more sense if one were richer and had servants and leisure class hobbies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link