or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Steve Jobs gets OK to raze dilapidated mansion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Steve Jobs gets OK to raze dilapidated mansion - Page 4

post #121 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

To the both of you: My argument with Parkettpolitur from the very start is that you can't write a scientific formula for what constitutes cultural significance. There is no real SCIENCE behind it. Only human perception.

There might not be a formula, but there certainly are ways to arrive at an objective judgment of specific qualities a work of art might have or not. Look, I'm not going to go into this because I'm about to go to bed and I'm not an art historian, but if what you say were true, not only would Literary studies and Art History not be sciences, we would have no way of even talking about why Joyce's Ulysses might be a more significant work than Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code or why a painting by Giotto might be a more significant work than a painting by Kinkade.



Quote:
No, that's not my argument... but for argument's sake, let's say it is. If we had mapped out every single brush stroke, and every single color, and could reproduce Mona Lisa perfectly, why not destroy the original?

-Clive

There is an ontological difference between an original and a copy that was produced with the aid of an apparatus, but I'm sure as hell not going to delve into Benjamin now, sorry
post #122 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo View Post

That old house looks like a cheap motel.

Yup, "Worst Western."

Or "La Choza!"
post #123 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Okay, I'm all for the preservation of 'historic sites and landmarks' and I'm also for the preservation of holy lands and burial sites of native Americans. However, I do think we are taking this a bit too far.

- Was this house a residence of an important figure in this nations history?

- Was this house designed by a famous architect like Frank Lloyd Wright?

- Was this house the scene of an important event in our history?

- Did William Jefferson Clinton not have sex with Monica Lewinsky in this house? (sorry I couldn't resist)

If not, then this house needs to be moved by an architectural preservation society with their own funds and in a timely manner or they should take some pictures and HD video provided the OWNER will allow it and then call it a day.

Sorry if this sounds insane but if a property owner wants to remove/demolish/move/etc a building on the property then then should be within their right to do so (with limited exceptions) provided they follow the building and zoning codes of the area. Stopping the property owner from doing some SHOULD require truly extraordinary circumstances and claiming 'not too many of those style buildings still exit' sounds like a very weak argument at best.


Take a look at my first post in this thread, with all the links. The AI article is incomplete.

This link should work

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...3&postcount=28
post #124 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by newworldorder View Post

I agree. soon with the new world order religion, except that of worshipping our mother earth government will be banned and I hope all its practitioners will be put to death. We don't need religion in this planet. Only the government deserves to have the position of God Almighty.

Think of it, one language, one currency, one people, one world. And our lives would not have to have drama because we would have purpose... to serve our God the new world order. No one would be unhappy. And there would be no violence after the purging. There would only be compliance and happy productive people.

Troll much?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #125 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

Take a look at my first post in this thread, with all the links. The AI article is incomplete.

It's wrong, actually.

But good luck with that. I've said the same thing at least three times to no apparent effect.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #126 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Seconded

Burn mother f*cker, burn...
post #127 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

This would be a valid point if Steve Jobs weren't a goddamned billionaire. He's just being stubborn and stingy on this one.

And? He owns the lot, wants the lot, but doesn't want the house anymore, why should he pay anything more than demolition cost to have it hauled away? If he can't even give it away, then what value does it really have?

Besides, the architect wasn't that notable, the original owner is no longer notable, and supposedly the most notable features of the house were removed with later additions. It's certainly not a Machu Picchu, not a Wright house. I think I'm siding with the impression that this battle was waged primarily by sentimental value placed on it by the family of one of its previous owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbsmd View Post

Steve,

Just build a house somewhere else. No big deal.

Save Our Heritage

-- Sent from my iPhone

Why can't you pool with other people to buy the house from him? If you're going to use government authority to block it, then you should be willing to compensate him for the lost property rights. Telling him he can't tear down the house and telling him to pay for all of the house's relocation so he can use the land it's on is a bit much. The word is that the house is for the taking and you won't take it? Why would you turn down that deal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

Yes, because SJ is an exemplary philanthropist. Oh wait...

It's unfortunate, but it also doesn't have anything to do with this situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv View Post

People are talking about morality. Somebody said that it is not moral. I am saying that owning slaves is moral because it says so in the Bible.

That's bordering on trolling, religious comments don't belong on this forum.
post #128 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Besides, the architect wasn't that notable, the original owner is no longer notable, and supposedly the most notable features of the house were removed with later additions. It's certainly not a Machu Picchu, not a Wright house. I think I'm siding with the impression that this battle was waged primarily by sentimental value placed on it by the family of one of its previous owners.

Your statements are: not true, not true, not true, not relevant, not relevant, and not true. In that order.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #129 of 209
For those who'd like some background about the house and the point of view of those trying to save it:

http://www.friendsofthejacklinghouse.org/
post #130 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

So according to you we could just burn the Mona Lisa, since we have high-quality posters of the painting? Christ, you can't be serious.

First of all... YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! ...

If you are trying to compare that structure on Steve's property to the Mina Lisa it's a bit of a stretch wouldn't you say?

Now on to your question (as silly as it sounds). YES! YES! YES! If the OWNER (who legally paid for an item of art) - no matter WHAT it was, is allowed to do whatever they wish with it. He/She could use it as a bath mat or as a drip pan in the garage.... In this world we still have personal freedoms and doing foolish things with money happens to be just one of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

No, that's not my argument... but for argument's sake, let's say it is. If we had mapped out every single brush stroke, and every single color, and could reproduce Mona Lisa perfectly, why not destroy the original?

'mapped it, unmapped' it doesn't matter... as I said above the owner can do as they please with something they own. I could buy up all of the Fabergé eggs in the world and play tennis with them... or see how far I can drop them without breaking them...

Atrocious acts you say? Maybe so... but whats the difference between me crushing them and some rich old fool who buys them and keeps them for himself? Either way the pubic isn't benefiting from them...

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv View Post

If Steve owned it he could destroy it.

Finally, someone I can fully agree with.

Remember this is all about what you can and can't do with something you own... and to the person who trying to use The Mona Lisa as some kind of argument to defend the saving of that house....
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #131 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Okay, I'm all for the preservation of 'historic sites and landmarks' and I'm also for the preservation of holy lands and burial sites of native Americans. However, I do think we are taking this a bit too far.

- Was this house a residence of an important figure in this nations history?

- Was this house designed by a famous architect like Frank Lloyd Wright?

- Was this house the scene of an important event in our history?

- Did William Jefferson Clinton not have sex with Monica Lewinsky in this house? (sorry I couldn't resist)

If not, then this house needs to be moved by an architectural preservation society with their own funds and in a timely manner or they should take some pictures and HD video provided the OWNER will allow it and then call it a day.

Sorry if this sounds insane but if a property owner wants to remove/demolish/move/etc a building on the property then then should be within their right to do so (with limited exceptions) provided they follow the building and zoning codes of the area. Stopping the property owner from doing some SHOULD require truly extraordinary circumstances and claiming 'not too many of those style buildings still exit' sounds like a very weak argument at best.

According to this Wikipedia page the architect was fairly popular and I'd claim that most of Santa Barbara's charm might be due to its influence. You do whatever you want to do, perhaps not of the stature of Frank Lloyd Wright but a famous architect nonetheless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...ith_(architect)

I'd say worth saving. In particular if it is one of the few or only examples of his architecture in the Bay Area
post #132 of 209
Sounds like an Inquisition is in order...or at least an Inquisitional Revival.
Sometimes, dead is better. ~Stephen King
Reply
Sometimes, dead is better. ~Stephen King
Reply
post #133 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

First of all... YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! ...

If you are trying to compare that structure on Steve's property to the Mina Lisa it's a bit of a stretch wouldn't you say?

Now on to your question (as silly as it sounds). YES! YES! YES! If the OWNER (who legally paid for an item of art) - no matter WHAT it was, is allowed to do whatever they wish with it. He/She could use it as a bath mat or as a drip pan in the garage.... In this world we still have personal freedoms and doing foolish things with money happens to be just one of them.



'mapped it, unmapped' it doesn't matter... as I said above the owner can do as they please with something they own. I could buy up all of the Fabergé eggs in the world and play tennis with them... or see how far I can drop them without breaking them...

Atrocious acts you say? Maybe so... but whats the difference between me crushing them and some rich old fool who buys them and keeps them for himself? Either way the pubic isn't benefiting from them...



Finally, someone I can fully agree with.

Remember this is all about what you can and can't do with something you own... and to the person who trying to use The Mona Lisa as some kind of argument to defend the saving of that house....

I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question that if a Chinese company were able to buy the statue of liberty and decided to destroy to build the headquarters of Panda Express (or anything else they wanted to build there) would that be alright, as they own the place? Would you oppose it? If a Russian Oil company were to buy Mount Rushmore, would it be alright for them to change the faces on the mountain and put Putin, Medvedev, and a few other cronies in place of the US presidents? Would someone in this country have anything to say, or should we all cheer and say that this is proof of how the US protects the private property laws? I hope the tongue in cheek angle comes across. However, what is serious is that there are limits to what one can do with private property when it interferes with public good.
post #134 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

Just Google images for "George Washington Smith houses" and see how nice and rather expensive they are. Goes to show others appreciate that relaxing style of architecture and willing to pay big to get it.

Steve could restore the Jackling House with his billions easy and even make it a museum if no one would buy it, but somebody would being perched on top of the exclusive hilltop and all that land around.

That sounds nice if it was something Steve actually wanted to do... The 'expense' is not the issue nor is how much lots of other people pay for them.. Steve doesn't LIKE that home he clearly likes the property and thats why he purchased it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

When you have as much money as Steve or Bill Gates, you have the opportunity to do certain things nobody else can to do to preserve history for later generations to appreciate.

Since you've linked a number of other examples of this mans work AND how much money the buyers paid for them it seems we have plenty of examples and its not like this is the last home standing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

What it sounds like it is that Steve doesn't appreciate those who appreciate other artists works. You must like what HE likes, and he likes glass and metal.

Imagine that someone who wants to live in a home that appeals to HIM... The lunatic! Let me ask you... who ordered you to buy and live in the home you're in, and be happy about it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

Steve should just leave the Jackling House alone, sell it to someone who would restore it and take a tiny loss next to his billions before he builds a giant glass and metal behemoth on top of that hill and be the eyesore of the neighborhood.

Yea but again Steve is a big boy and already knows that he can do what he wants provided no laws or variances are being broken. I think it was is personal legal team that clued him in.

You are trying to turn this around into something that it's not.. if this home was such a rare gem of the earth then why wouldn't the George Washington Smith Society jump on it as soon as it was put up for sale... Or better still buy if from whoever was the pervious owner before it ever made it to market.

You are talking about what would be the 'really nice' thing to do (with someone else money mind you) and I am talking about what any citizen of the earth should allowed to do.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #135 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huracan View Post

I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question that if a Chinese company were able to buy the statue of liberty and decided to destroy to build the headquarters of Panda Express (or anything else they wanted to build there) would that be alright, as they own the place? Would you oppose it?

Would I oppose it? Thats a silly question since first of all I'm a 2nd generation citizen of this country and can still remember my grandfather telling me of his voyage from Sicily to NY and his time spent on Ellis Island. More importantly its a silly question because the Liberty Island (and the Statue) is a national landmark and also on the National Register of Historic Places. Finally, it's been owned by the federal government since 1800. So there is little point in asking the question... You see there are avenues established by the federal government and LIKELY each and every STATE government to protect important sites/places/monuments/etc.

But if it wasn't deemed WORTH of such protections or specifically denied from such protections then YES the owner could do whatever they wanted. However I certainly wouldn't be happy about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Huracan View Post

If a Russian Oil company were to buy Mount Rushmore, would it be alright for them to change the faces on the mountain and put Putin, Medvedev, and a few other cronies in place of the US presidents? Would someone in this country have anything to say, or should we all cheer and say that this is proof of how the US protects the private property laws? I hope the tongue in cheek angle comes across. However, what is serious is that there are limits to what one can do with private property when it interferes with public good.

Yea... I don't need to repeat my point above do I?!?

Google national landmark protections and the National Register of Historic Places and while your at it the National Park Service. Theres are all used to protect both of the wonderfully vivid examples you gave.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #136 of 209
Look people can argue till their blue in the face... but it comes down to this. If the federal, state and local governments gave someone the okay to demolish a building then that should be the end of it. If you feel that strongly lobby the proper groups who have the powers to stop it.

Look Steve purchased this property back in 1984 and had made his intentions known for quite some time... If, in all this time 15+ YEARS easy, Superman hasn't come to rescue this landmark then guess what folks he's probably not gonna come now.

But hey, never say die... those or really want to save this house and not just stick it to Steve go for it get in touch with the groups trying to save the home and donate time, money, or whatever you can. You never know it might actually work... Oh and what the heck even those who want to stick it to Steve, go with em what do I care. And if you DO happen to get this site protected then I'd certainly side with you. However, I don't have a personal interest in this and frankly don't feel the home is really worth of being put on the protected lists. If it was, it would have happened A LONG LONG LONG time ago.

Now you might think that I'm a Steve or Apple fan boy but nothing could be furhter from the truth. I do like most of their products but when I hate the stunts they pull, and as of late I think they've been pulling A LOT of em! I'm the first to say so... and often argue for pages with one of the forum admins who will go nameless and or other defenders of the faith.

Nothing I like better than trying to defend my point of view... /ah
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #137 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huracan View Post

According to this Wikipedia page the architect was fairly popular and I'd claim that most of Santa Barbara's charm might be due to its influence.

Popularity wasn't the issue. In fact he designed a relatively small number of buildings since he began his design career late and died quite young. In that time he became one of the most influential architects in California history.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #138 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Since you've linked a number of other examples of this mans work AND how much money the buyers paid for them it seems we have plenty of examples and its not like this is the last home standing.

The house is significant because it was designed by Smith. How many other examples of his work remain is not relevant.

Quote:
IYou are trying to turn this around into something that it's not.. if this home was such a rare gem of the earth then why wouldn't the George Washington Smith Society jump on it as soon as it was put up for sale... Or better still buy if from whoever was the pervious owner before it ever made it to market.

Again, not even remotely relevant. Because the house is historically significant, by the accepted definitions of significance, and as determined by a person qualified to make the judgment, the city was compelled to comply with California environmental laws before allowing it to be demolished.

Quote:
You are talking about what would be the 'really nice' thing to do (with someone else money mind you) and I am talking about what any citizen of the earth should allowed to do.

You mean, violate the law?
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #139 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by soybeangumdrop View Post

It will be a magical home built at an unbelievable price, and it will be called the iStevePad...

Drop the i. It will be the StevePad Pro.
post #140 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huracan View Post

I think I have seen enough posts to see a trend.

1. Anyone who owns property should be able to do with it as it pleases.
Under this logic the owner of the Empire State building could decide to demolish it and nobody could say anything about its historical value. Down with it! Any reasonable person can see that there are limits about what one can do with their property.

2. Most if not all people commenting on this article don't think the Spanish Colonial revival style is worth protecting.
Makes me wonder if people would say the same about demolishing the Dolce Hayes mansion of the same style, or what would they say about the more Victorian style Winchester house. What about demolishing most of downtown Santa Barbara because we don't appreciate Spanish Colonial revival style?

I have a lot of respect for Steve Jobs when it comes to creating technology products. However, I think on this one he is wrong. He just let the house deteriorate to justify demolishing it. Why did he buy it in the first place if he didn't like it?

From the pictures I've seen I think the building is worth saving. What should be the means of saving it I can't say, but knowing how much money Steve Jobs has and seeing that he doesn't seem to be much into charity or philanthropy he could start his philanthropic ways by saving this building, perhaps by making it a small museum or a place that could be visited.

I agree with 1 and 2, but if I didn't there is still the matter of it not being a good example of Spanish Colonial revival style. The house had an addition that destroyed the original version beyond repair (and beyond anything leaving the doors and windows open would do). If Save Our Heritage really wanted to protect examples of this architectural style, they would be trying to protect a pure example. Besides, I'm sure whatever he builds in its place will be remarkable and go down in history.
post #141 of 209
Excellent! And put an adobe fence around it. I suggest using only Native Americans, Protestants, and Pagans to build it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

Drop the i. It will be the StevePad Pro.
Sometimes, dead is better. ~Stephen King
Reply
Sometimes, dead is better. ~Stephen King
Reply
post #142 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

I agree with 1 and 2, but if I didn't there is still the matter of it not being a good example of Spanish Colonial revival style. The house had an addition that destroyed the original version beyond repair (and beyond anything leaving the doors and windows open would do). If Save Our Heritage really wanted to protect examples of this architectural style, they would be trying to protect a pure example. Besides, I'm sure whatever he builds in its place will be remarkable and go down in history.

This was considered in the analysis but was determined to not be an issue affecting its significance. The significance of the house was never at issue in this dispute. It is a settled fact.

Funny how many instant experts in architectural history we've got here all of a sudden.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #143 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by newworldorder View Post

I think you people should stuff your antiquated ideas about property rights. Our Party is working hard to dissolve that outdated concept. The only thing that matters is what is good for the nation and world.

Jobs does not have the right to just go and destroy something. It was right for the government to step in but it sounds like some judges have yet to be replaced with more open minded Progressives.

Maybe if people understand that no one should have the right to own property issues like this would be a non-issue.

Housing and plans for housing should be submitted to the government, the government should then approve or disapprove. If approved then the home could be built but then the tenant would pay rent to the government for the use of that home. You see how simple that is? And no more silly drama.

And yes everyone has a right to education and healthcare at no cost to them.

Wake up America, the only course of action to save our world is for all nations to unite with one government body. Then we would have only one language, one people, one earth, and everyone would have everything.

Very funny, tek****.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #144 of 209
Man, reading this thread reminds me of why I left the USA.
post #145 of 209
Yeah, I give up. You guys are right. Everyone who owns anything should be allowed to do whatever they please with it. It's their property after all, and this is merely a legal matter. Ethics are unimportant. All that matters is hard science. Anything that cannot be expressed in a formula is not worth expressing at all. An individual does not have any obligations to their community or society. Homo homini lupus. We live for today and for the future, not for the past. Tear down that old crap. Burn the Mona Lisa if you will, we already know what it looks like. There is no ontological difference between an original and a copy. Burn, baby, burn.

I hate to say this, because I genuinely like the US and its culture, but I'm gonna be the snooty European in this case and tell you guys that you're fucking philistines.
post #146 of 209
Quote:
I have other old comments to rehash on this subject. Put simply preserving this one house is not for the greater good, it's a fetish these folks have and it's disgusting.

Second this sentiment. Some people simply take preserving history to the extreme AT other people's expenses.

BTW, arguments like this really have a simple solution, people that wants to save it and are so high-n-mighty... should put up the cash and buy the property from Jobs. Otherwise, really...shut it?! What's more annoying than getting your nose up someone else's business and get all ethical on them? Also, dont even compare this house to Mona Lisa painting...it's not even close.
post #147 of 209
May someone richer than you private property uber alles lot move next to you and erect an eyesore that forevery blots out your share of the sunlight. Enjoy your decaying roads, bridges, train system, Greyhound buses, poor out of work beggars and high crime rates. Don't forget to lock your doors.
post #148 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJedi View Post

May someone richer than you private property uber alles lot move next to you and erect an eyesore that forevery blots out your share of the sunlight. Enjoy your decaying roads, bridges, train system, Greyhound buses, poor out of work beggars and high crime rates. Don't forget to lock your doors.

Poor out of work beggers don't make great product's for us like Steve does. You seem to be forgetting that.

That house is an eyesore. Steve will replace it with something insanely great. That house is one big Window's Floppy Disk! Bye Bye!!
post #149 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Your statements are: not true, not true, not true, not relevant, not relevant, and not true. In that order.

Your reply is: opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion, and opinion. In that order.

There are no rules to determine who is important, who is unimportant, what is significant, and what is not. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

'mapped it, unmapped' it doesn't matter... as I said above the owner can do as they please with something they own. I could buy up all of the Fabergé eggs in the world and play tennis with them... or see how far I can drop them without breaking them...

But a painting that has been as well studied as the Mona Lisa could be locked up, never to be seen again, (or yes, Parkettpolitur, even burned) and there would be no loss of knowledge. The shame in doing such a thing would be purely sentimental. That is what I've been trying to get through Parkettpolitur's noggin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

There might not be a formula, but there certainly are ways to arrive at an objective judgment of specific qualities a work of art might have or not.

Oh, you mean, like a formula?

A "formula" doesn't need to be a mathematical statement...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

Look, I'm not going to go into this because I'm about to go to bed and I'm not an art historian, but if what you say were true, not only would Literary studies and Art History not be sciences, we would have no way of even talking about why Joyce's Ulysses might be a more significant work than Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code or why a painting by Giotto might be a more significant work than a painting by Kinkade.

Read what I wrote earlier. The study of any sort of history is to gain knowledge about the past. Appreciating literature and art is (and should remain) completely separate. It is a matter of opinion. The reason "great works" are called so is because they mean something to a wide audience throughout time. Works that don't aren't necessarily less great, but they certainly have less survivability. Just because I like Dream Theater more than Vivaldi doesn't mean I should expect them to go down in history and be studied and appreciated by music experts hundreds of years from now...

Significance is purely in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

There is an ontological difference between an original and a copy that was produced with the aid of an apparatus, but I'm sure as hell not going to delve into Benjamin now, sorry

You're actually starting to argue for me now... The difference is metaphysical, not "mathematical."

And you absolutely cannot have a board of pompous know-it-alls decide what is of metaphysical importance to all humankind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJedi View Post

Man, reading this thread reminds me of why I left the USA.

Why? Hello... I'm the one arguing that you can't write a formula for "important." Because of this we must actually weigh practicality versus sentimentality, instead of just taking "the formula" for granted. i.e. we must actually analyze the work.

How dare Americans... analyze art with their own eyes. For shame.

T'would be much easier to just accepting the SOH's opinion that it's noteworthy, like many others here have.

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #150 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

I read your next to last line as 'interconnected glass tubes' and immediately had thoughts of human hamsters...

time to upgrade the glasses...

I should have used that, much funnier!
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #151 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

There might be a difference in reality, but in principle it's the same thing. If an object is deemed to be culturally significant, it doesn't matter whether it's situated in the center of town where everyone can see it or in a location where only its owner can see it. It is worthy of protection in both cases. Following your logic, someone who owns a Picasso that is never exhibited - and thus not visible to the public - would have every right to just burn it. I'm not sure any sane person would assert that.

By the way, your initial point is quite interesting. I have never been to the US (though I would love to visit someday), so I'm out of my element here, but I refuse to accept your contention that Americans don't value their cultural heritage, because this implies that they don't HAVE one. Sure they do! Some of the most significant buildings and works of art in the whole world are situated in the US. Now, this particular house might not rank among those, but it definitely appears to be a part of California's cultural heritage - not in the "oh-look-that-place-looks-kinda-neat-and-old"-way, but in the "an-important-architect-built-this-house-and-it-is-a-remarkable-example-of-its-architectural-style"-way.

Well yes if it is a privately owned Picasso then they would indeed have the right to burn it. Although, I would ask that he at least make a utube video of the most expensive bonfire in recent memory.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #152 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv View Post

Poor out of work beggers don't make great product's for us like Steve does. You seem to be forgetting that.

Not just beggars, but even average-earners do not create thousands of jobs, nor do they bring fantastic products to market, and work to make them affordable so that all our lives can be just a little easier.

That's why I don't understand all the animosity towards the wealthy. There are a few who abuse their wealth, yes, but overall we should be thanking those who employ and produce, otherwise we would neither have the livelihoods we do nor the conveniences that we enjoy.

(It's also the reason why overseas jobs are actually a GOOD thing. It brings more of the opportunities we have to those who are not as fortunate. Those who want to horde jobs in the US (or elsewhere) are the greedy ones...)

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #153 of 209
they should move it where that plan the next apple store. it was be such a stark juxtaposition from the current Apple store designs. mixing the old spanish style of the house with apple products would be so unusual and cool. customers would flock from outside the zip code to check it out in the same way people check out the unusually designed mcdonalds around the world. i saw a program on it. there's a cool mc'ds in rome than looks like an italian art gallery, one that looks like a barn in the midwest, a french cafe style in montreal and so on. imagine if the next few apple stores broke from the convention of brushed aluminum!
post #154 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

Yes, because a billionaire has the exact same moral and political obligations to his community as someone without any wealth at all... If you truly believe that, I consider myself happy not to have to share a country with you and I'll leave you with this simple quote from the German constitution (well, Grundgesetz): "Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good."

Ok. Hasn't Germany outlawed Naziism? Isn't it illegal to traffic in Nazi era relics? How many nazi era public works and buildings that remained after WWII were preserved?

Please don't misunderstand I am not calling anyone a nazi or saying that there crap should have been preserved. Isn't it possible though, that historians in the future, will be saying that we should have saved it?

And while on the decline, the Usa has much stronger property rights then Europe has traditionally had. I am not talking about Public Properties like parks, offices and such but the individual's right.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #155 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Your reply is: opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion, and opinion. In that order.

My replies have been 100% factual. They come from over 35 years of experience working with this very subject. Yours have been rant, rant, rant, rant -- coming from zero knowledge and prejudice against concepts you don't understand.

Yes, there are "rules," and your refusal to acknowledge that they exist is nothing more than reality avoidance, a determined effort to not learn even when given the opportunity, and pointed in the right direction. Apparently you believe that nothing you don't already know can possibly be true.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #156 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

I hate to say this, because I genuinely like the US and its culture, but I'm gonna be the snooty European in this case and tell you guys that you're f%@king philistines.

I havent be called that in a while.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #157 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Apparently you believe that nothing you don't already know can possibly be true.

We know that Steve wants to tear down a diapitated eyesore and replace it with something insanely great.

He has done that many time's before. Flash is the latest example.

Do you still use floppy disk's? Ever hear of photographs and memories?
post #158 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

My replies have been 100% factual. They come from over 35 years of experience working with this very subject. Yours have been rant, rant, rant, rant -- coming from zero knowledge and prejudice against concepts you don't understand.

Yes, there are "rules," and your refusal to acknowledge that they exist is nothing more than reality avoidance, a determined effort to not learn even when given the opportunity, and pointed in the right direction. Apparently you believe that nothing you don't already know can possibly be true.

I'm not denying that there "ARE" rules that are currently used to determine what is historic, what is significant, etc. What I'm saying is that the reliance on rules to determine such things is an error of modern humankind. Great works will make themselves known, and withstand time on their own merit. They won't require a board of "experts" to determine their greatness.

Here you argue that I am disconnected from the subjects of art and history when, in fact, I appreciate them more than one who accepts the "expert" judgement of (in)significance simply because I refuse the judgement and see for myself what speaks to me. One who accepts someone else's judgement of a work of art without viewing it and analyzing it oneself is merely a sheep, and has no true appreciation for the work. And that is not the preservation of art or history for its universal greatness. It's the preservation by obligation.

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #159 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Great works will make themselves known, and withstand time on their own merit. They won't require a board of "experts" to determine their greatness.


-Clive

Exactly. Just like Penn Station. It was not as good as Madison Square Garden.

And that old horrible run down house will not be as good as Steves new one, especially if the "expert's" don't like it. It will withstand time on its own merit.
post #160 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

I'm not denying that there "ARE" rules that are currently used to determine what is historic, what is significant, etc. What I'm saying is that the reliance on rules to determine such things is an error of modern humankind. Great works will make themselves known, and withstand time on their own merit. They won't require a board of "experts" to determine their greatness.

Here you argue that I am disconnected from the subjects of art and history when, in fact, I appreciate them more than one who accepts the "expert" judgement of (in)significance simply because I refuse the judgement and see for myself what speaks to me. One who accepts someone else's judgement of a work of art without viewing it and analyzing it oneself is merely a sheep, and has no true appreciation for the work. And that is not the preservation of art or history for its universal greatness. It's the preservation by obligation.

-Clive

You did deny the existence of rules for determining what is historic -- several times. They exist whether you know about them or not.

I have not argued that you are "disconnected" with the subject of history (I have not commented on art at all if only because it's a separate topic) but simply that your complete lack of knowledge on the subject of history and how artifacts of history are determined to be important, does not seem to inhibit your expression of strong opinions about the subject. I could reel off any number of topics which are beyond my knowledge or expertise, but that does not give me permission to deny the existence of expertise in those areas. That concept seems strange to me, but you seem to believe in it quite firmly.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Steve Jobs gets OK to raze dilapidated mansion