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.
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.
You misunderstood my argument then. I've been saying that rules cannot be a good judge of what is important. By saying so is not to imply that we don't try (in error, of course).
The issue of what is scientifically important was addressed in an earlier post of mine. Any relic with even a single unique quality is scientifically important, and ergo worthy of at least some study. Once an absolute understanding of the relic has been achieved, its only remaining importance is sentimental. If there is more yet to be learned, then preservation of the relic is practical for scientific purposes.
I am not an expert of architecture, but from what I gather, this house is neither unique, nor rare, nor is this house even a pure example of the specimen in question as it has been modified since its original construction. There seems to be very little remarkable about this house.
Thus, from a scientific point of view, it is expendable and its only surviving purpose would, consequently, be largely sentimental.
The house is significant because it was designed by Smith. How many other examples of his work remain is not relevant.
Oh okay so EVERY building that was designed by Smith is automatically under the protection of recognized legal authority (that has the power to supersede a home owners normal rights? If this is REALLY the case then Steve was an IDIOT for buying it since some basic research would have told him that home couldn't be taken down ever!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
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.
Okay so it seems very clear that this house is under the protection of a National Historic Sites (type) of organization... and yet Steve was given the OKAY to pull it down... I must be missing something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
You mean, violate the law?
What Law?!?!? As I stated above the title of this article states "Apple's Steve Jobs gets OK to raze dilapidated mansion" is it NOT?
It seems to me from the title there is nothing ILLEGAL about about pulling down the building.
If a 11th hour ruling came in that I don't know about then that is where the any confusions might be stemming from.
Finally, I though I made myself QUITE clear but to restate my positions since people seem to only read what that want to read...
If this home IS under the protection of a legal authority, National Registry or some equivalent THEN as I said there is no dispute Steve can't TOUCH the house.
If this home IS NOT under the protection of a legal authority, National Registry or some equivalent THEN as I said there is no dispute Steve TEAR THE SUCKER DOWN.
So if you would be so kind... what happened since this article was written that made the title A so inaccurate?
The issue of what is scientifically important was addressed in an earlier post of mine. Any relic with even a single unique quality is scientifically important, and ergo worthy of at least some study. Once an absolute understanding of the relic has been achieved, its only remaining importance is sentimental. If there is more yet to be learned, then preservation of the relic is practical for scientific purposes.
HOWEVER... Science has also show us time and time again that one can NEVER have an absolute understanding of ANYTHING... NOT EVER. Did you know that scientists are still analyzing and trying to figure out __water__ I kid you not... As it turns out new theories are still being developed.. Well to be fair... the theories aren't NEW at all but OLD theories that were thrown out when a believed to be more accurate theory came along... but recently new methods of analyses have suggested once again that the OLD GUYS were more on the ball then they were given credit for... and now continued study goes on... AND THIS IS WITH A DROP WATER. So do you really think an absolute understanding of anything well ever happen?
New minds new tools new detection methods ... these almost always lead to a more thorough understanding... but and absolute??? Nah, I don't think any scientist would be foolish enough to make such an absurd claim.
You misunderstood my argument then. I've been saying that rules cannot be a good judge of what is important. By saying so is not to imply that we don't try (in error, of course).
The issue of what is scientifically important was addressed in an earlier post of mine. Any relic with even a single unique quality is scientifically important, and ergo worthy of at least some study. Once an absolute understanding of the relic has been achieved, its only remaining importance is sentimental. If there is more yet to be learned, then preservation of the relic is practical for scientific purposes.
I am not an expert of architecture, but from what I gather, this house is neither unique, nor rare, nor is this house even a pure example of the specimen in question as it has been modified since its original construction. There seems to be very little remarkable about this house.
Thus, from a scientific point of view, it is expendable and its only surviving purpose would, consequently, be largely sentimental.
-Clive
You don't understand how the criteria for significance work, so your conclusions are bound to be incorrect. The criteria do not include "scientific importance." Historic properties are not important because they provide data (with the exception of archeological sites, which is a separate topic). They are judged to be significant for the ways they represent or exemplify themes in U.S. history (including architecture). Rarity or uniqueness are not the criteria for eligibility.
The criteria aslo include a specific and extensively described method for determining if the property has sufficient "integrity" which is defined as the "ability to convey its significance," which fully takes in the issue of alterations. This evaluation is broken down into seven defined aspects. All of this has to be part of any analysis of significance. So you see, the method may not be empirical, but it's not arbitrary and it is not capricious. Sentiment has nothing to do with this.
This is a good point to repeat what I've said many times before in this thread: the significance of this house was never in question. So your post-hoc analysis is not only uninformed, it is not relevant to this instance. The battle which has been waged over the last few years over this house has been entirely about whether the city complied with California environmental law in authorizing the demolition.
HOWEVER... Science has also show us time and time again that one can NEVER have an absolute understanding of ANYTHING... NOT EVER. Did you know that scientists are still analyzing and trying to figure out __water__ I kid you not... As it turns out new theories are still being developed.. Well to be fair... the theories aren't NEW at all but OLD theories that were thrown out when a believed to be more accurate theory came along... but recently new methods of analyses have suggested once again that the OLD GUYS were more on the ball then they were given credit for... and now continued study goes on... AND THIS IS WITH A DROP WATER. So do you really think an absolute understanding of anything well ever happen?
New minds new tools new detection methods ... these almost always lead to a more thorough understanding... but and absolute??? Nah, I don't think any scientist would be foolish enough to make such an absurd claim.
When I was writing, I hesitated at "absolute" but decided to go with it anyway because it was to be taken within the context of study.
I majored in physics, so yeah, I'm familiar with near total lack of understanding of anything atomically-sized. Sure, we've gathered a bunch of data about it, but no one _understands_ it like we understand Classical Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is a messy formula that happens to fit what we observe, but regards for what's actually going on, we have a lot left to understand. Good thing that water is abundant enough of a specimen that we discard a single molecule and not have to worry about finding another one.
When it comes to understanding architectural styles, however, it's pretty well-understood what constitutes "spanish colonial revival." It can be described and replicated with near-perfect precision. I would call that an absolute understanding.
Oh okay so EVERY building that was designed by Smith is automatically under the protection of recognized legal authority (that has the power to supersede a home owners normal rights? If this is REALLY the case then Steve was an IDIOT for buying it since some basic research would have told him that home couldn't be taken down ever!
No, I did not say this, or anything remotely like it. The property was never "protected" in any way, shape or form. In fact the city council voted at least twice (that I know about) to authorize its demolition. This battle was never about that, as I have explained numerous times now. The law in question is the California Environmental Quality Act. This is the law with which every government agency in the state is required to comply. Whether the city did so in this instance, is what they have been fighting over in court.
The article was inaccurate in its statement about why the house was considered to be significant. I'm pretty sure I've explained this in detail at least twice already.
You don't understand how the criteria for significance work, so your conclusions are bound to be incorrect. The criteria do not include "scientific importance." Historic properties are not important because they provide data (with the exception of archeological sites, which is a separate topic). They are judged to be significant for the ways they represent or exemplify themes in U.S. history (including architecture). Rarity or uniqueness are not the criteria for eligibility.
The criteria aslo include a specific and extensively described method for determining if the property has sufficient "integrity" which is defined as the "ability to convey its significance," which fully takes in the issue of alterations. This evaluation is broken down into seven defined aspects. All of this has to be part of any analysis of significance. So you see, the method may not be empirical, but it's not arbitrary and it is not capricious. Sentiment has nothing to do with this.
If we have documented and understand the history in great detail, why would we require an object to represent or exemplify it?
If the theme in history requires a visual understanding, so long as we can reproduce that visual "relic," there's no need to preserve the original. But, of course it would be outrageous to "burn the Mona Lisa" as Parkettpolitur put it, because we have a "metaphysical" connection to it.
Preservation past the point of absolute understanding has everything to do with sentiment.
When I was writing, I hesitated at "absolute" but decided to go with it anyway because it was to be taken within the context of study.
I majored in physics, so yeah, I'm familiar with near total lack of understanding of anything atomically-sized. Sure, we've gathered a bunch of data about it, but no one _understands_ it like we understand Classical Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is a messy formula that happens to fit what we observe, but regards for what's actually going on, we have a lot left to understand. Good thing that water is abundant enough of a specimen that we discard a single molecule and not have to worry about finding another one.
When it comes to understanding architectural styles, however, it's pretty well-understood what constitutes "spanish colonial revival." It can be described and replicated with near-perfect precision. I would call that an absolute understanding.
-Clive
Funny you should say this. I was considering using Quantum Mechanics as an example of a subject about which I know virtually nothing, and so would never be caught trying to express an opinion about it. Even more to the point, if I was interested in knowing more about Quantum Mechanics, I'd want to ask someone who'd spent much of their lifetime studying the subject to explain it, and at least try to comprehend what they were telling me.
Odd, how the road for you doesn't seem to go both ways.
If we have documented and understand the history in great detail, why would we require an object to represent or exemplify it?
If the theme in history requires a visual understanding, so long as we can reproduce that visual "relic," there's no need to preserve the original. But, of course it would be outrageous to "burn the Mona Lisa" as Parkettpolitur put it, because we have a "metaphysical" connection to it.
Preservation past the point of absolute understanding has everything to do with sentiment.
-Clive
As I said at the start of this thread, I'm not going to argue the philosophy or the politics of historic preservation. If you are fundamentally hostile to the concept, which you certainly appear to be, then I'm not going to try to change your mind. My only purpose here has been to correct some major misunderstandings about how this process works. If your basic hostility to the concept prevents you from accepting this knowledge, if you continue to argue that your lack of knowledge trumps knowledge, then there is certainly nothing further I can say to you about it.
Either you want to know more about this subject, or you don't. I'm happy to spend more time explaining if you do, but please don't waste my time if you don't. Please let me know which it is so I can respond accordingly.
Funny you should say this. I was considering using Quantum Mechanics as an example of a subject about which I know virtually nothing, and so would never be caught trying to express an opinion about it. Even more to the point, if I was interested in knowing more about Quantum Mechanics, I'd want to ask someone who'd spent much of their lifetime studying the subject to explain it, and at least try to comprehend what they were telling me.
Odd, how the road for you doesn't seem to go both ways.
Yet, just as you wouldn't argue the formulae used in QM, I'm not arguing the rules of determining the historical significance of relics, architecture, whatever.
I'm arguing the philosophical mindset that preservation is for anything other than sentimental reasons.
As I said at the start of this thread, I'm not going to argue the philosophy or the politics of historic preservation. If you are fundamentally hostile to the concept, which you certainly appear to be, then I'm not going to try to change your mind. My only purpose here has been to correct some major misunderstandings about how this process works. If your basic hostility to the concept prevents you from accepting this knowledge, if you continue to argue that your lack of knowledge trumps knowledge, then there is certainly nothing further I can say to you about it.
Either you want to know more about this subject, or you don't. I'm happy to spend more time explaining if you do, but please don't waste my time if you don't. Please let me know which it is so I can respond accordingly.
I've never argued about anything OTHER THAN the philosophy of preservation... if you don't want to argue about it, why'd you join in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
if you continue to argue that your lack of knowledge trumps knowledge, then there is certainly nothing further I can say to you about it.
lol. So defensive...
...and contradictory...
Philosophy isn't a lack of knowledge, it's the love of knowledge.
Yet, just as you wouldn't argue the formulae used in QM, I'm not arguing the rules of determining the historical significance of relics, architecture, whatever.
I'm arguing the philosophical mindset that preservation is for anything other than sentimental reasons.
Philosophy != method.
-Clive
Yes, that is precisely what you are arguing, continually. On multiple occasions you have attempted to impose your own private criteria for what might be considered historic. These criteria are not the criteria used. Determining what is or is not historic is not about sentiment, it is based on the application of specific criteria, professionally interpreted by knowledgeable individuals, and based upon factual, documented information. That these interpretations don't involve formulae is not a measure of their validity as a method.
As I said, you are either interested in knowing about this subject, or you are not. I take it that the answer is not.
I've never argued about anything OTHER THAN the philosophy of preservation... if you don't want to argue about it, why'd you join in?
Because you are grossly misrepresenting the method, despite your complete lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Just as surely as I would be if I suggested that Quantum Mechanics is the result of faeries waving magic wands simply because I didn't know any better.
Good thing that water is abundant enough of a specimen that we discard a single molecule and not have to worry about finding another one.
And remember nothing it ever truly lost... (I'm not schooled in the sciences but I do love the subject) unless it has the unfortunate luck to wander near enough to an event horizon... and I think even then it's still speculated that the information isn't lost but perhaps that theory isn't in favor any more... I don't follow all the 'action' blow by blow..
No, I did not say this, or anything remotely like it. The property was never "protected" in any way, shape or form. In fact the city council voted at least twice (that I know about) to authorize its demolition. This battle was never about that, as I have explained numerous times now. The law in question is the California Environmental Quality Act. This is the law with which every government agency in the state is required to comply. Whether the city did so in this instance, is what they have been fighting over in court.
The article was inaccurate in its statement about why the house was considered to be significant. I'm pretty sure I've explained this in detail at least twice already.
Hmmm no fair... we were clearly not debating on the same issues... The only thing worse than losing an argument is to find the argument never existed in the first place. I guess the fact that you seemed to inject the worthiness of this architect (or home) as something that must be saved that threw me off. Oh well.
So I'll go quietly -- off to find a worthy topic I can argue with someone about...
Hmmm no fair... we were clearly not debating on the same issues... The only thing worse than losing an argument is to find the argument never existed in the first place. I guess the fact that you seemed to inject the worthiness of this architect (or home) as something that must be saved that threw me off. Oh well.
So I'll go quietly -- off to find a worthy topic I can argue with someone about...
IOW, one where you don't have to discuss the topic with someone who actually understands it?
Okay, maybe you didn't mean it that way. Not sure what you did mean though.
Regarding the "rigorous science" of historical committees, there is an episode of "This Old House" that I will never forget.
A couple was renovating an "historic" house somewhere in New England, and had to get permission from the "historical committee" for innumerable details.
Every house in the neighborhood was white, with black shutters and trim. It was considered "official" that this was the traditional paint job for these houses.
In the process of removing old damaged paint, the contractor discovered that the earliest layers, iirc, were something like Yellow and Green.
The couple, in their desire to honor the history of their house, told the Hysterical Committee of their plans to paint the house in the *actual* original colors.
You can probably guess the outcome. No Dice. The only acceptable color scheme was White with Black Trim.
So much for the "science" of historical preservation. It's only "scientific" in the Swedenborgian sense.
Comments
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.
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.
You misunderstood my argument then. I've been saying that rules cannot be a good judge of what is important. By saying so is not to imply that we don't try (in error, of course).
The issue of what is scientifically important was addressed in an earlier post of mine. Any relic with even a single unique quality is scientifically important, and ergo worthy of at least some study. Once an absolute understanding of the relic has been achieved, its only remaining importance is sentimental. If there is more yet to be learned, then preservation of the relic is practical for scientific purposes.
I am not an expert of architecture, but from what I gather, this house is neither unique, nor rare, nor is this house even a pure example of the specimen in question as it has been modified since its original construction. There seems to be very little remarkable about this house.
Thus, from a scientific point of view, it is expendable and its only surviving purpose would, consequently, be largely sentimental.
-Clive
The house is significant because it was designed by Smith. How many other examples of his work remain is not relevant.
Oh okay so EVERY building that was designed by Smith is automatically under the protection of recognized legal authority (that has the power to supersede a home owners normal rights? If this is REALLY the case then Steve was an IDIOT for buying it since some basic research would have told him that home couldn't be taken down ever!
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.
Okay so it seems very clear that this house is under the protection of a National Historic Sites (type) of organization... and yet Steve was given the OKAY to pull it down... I must be missing something.
You mean, violate the law?
What Law?!?!? As I stated above the title of this article states "Apple's Steve Jobs gets OK to raze dilapidated mansion" is it NOT?
It seems to me from the title there is nothing ILLEGAL about about pulling down the building.
If a 11th hour ruling came in that I don't know about then that is where the any confusions might be stemming from.
Finally, I though I made myself QUITE clear but to restate my positions since people seem to only read what that want to read...
If this home IS under the protection of a legal authority, National Registry or some equivalent THEN as I said there is no dispute Steve can't TOUCH the house.
If this home IS NOT under the protection of a legal authority, National Registry or some equivalent THEN as I said there is no dispute Steve TEAR THE SUCKER DOWN.
So if you would be so kind... what happened since this article was written that made the title A so inaccurate?
The issue of what is scientifically important was addressed in an earlier post of mine. Any relic with even a single unique quality is scientifically important, and ergo worthy of at least some study. Once an absolute understanding of the relic has been achieved, its only remaining importance is sentimental. If there is more yet to be learned, then preservation of the relic is practical for scientific purposes.
HOWEVER... Science has also show us time and time again that one can NEVER have an absolute understanding of ANYTHING... NOT EVER. Did you know that scientists are still analyzing and trying to figure out __water__ I kid you not... As it turns out new theories are still being developed.. Well to be fair... the theories aren't NEW at all but OLD theories that were thrown out when a believed to be more accurate theory came along... but recently new methods of analyses have suggested once again that the OLD GUYS were more on the ball then they were given credit for... and now continued study goes on... AND THIS IS WITH A DROP WATER. So do you really think an absolute understanding of anything well ever happen?
New minds new tools new detection methods ... these almost always lead to a more thorough understanding... but and absolute??? Nah, I don't think any scientist would be foolish enough to make such an absurd claim.
You misunderstood my argument then. I've been saying that rules cannot be a good judge of what is important. By saying so is not to imply that we don't try (in error, of course).
The issue of what is scientifically important was addressed in an earlier post of mine. Any relic with even a single unique quality is scientifically important, and ergo worthy of at least some study. Once an absolute understanding of the relic has been achieved, its only remaining importance is sentimental. If there is more yet to be learned, then preservation of the relic is practical for scientific purposes.
I am not an expert of architecture, but from what I gather, this house is neither unique, nor rare, nor is this house even a pure example of the specimen in question as it has been modified since its original construction. There seems to be very little remarkable about this house.
Thus, from a scientific point of view, it is expendable and its only surviving purpose would, consequently, be largely sentimental.
-Clive
You don't understand how the criteria for significance work, so your conclusions are bound to be incorrect. The criteria do not include "scientific importance." Historic properties are not important because they provide data (with the exception of archeological sites, which is a separate topic). They are judged to be significant for the ways they represent or exemplify themes in U.S. history (including architecture). Rarity or uniqueness are not the criteria for eligibility.
The criteria aslo include a specific and extensively described method for determining if the property has sufficient "integrity" which is defined as the "ability to convey its significance," which fully takes in the issue of alterations. This evaluation is broken down into seven defined aspects. All of this has to be part of any analysis of significance. So you see, the method may not be empirical, but it's not arbitrary and it is not capricious. Sentiment has nothing to do with this.
This is a good point to repeat what I've said many times before in this thread: the significance of this house was never in question. So your post-hoc analysis is not only uninformed, it is not relevant to this instance. The battle which has been waged over the last few years over this house has been entirely about whether the city complied with California environmental law in authorizing the demolition.
HOWEVER... Science has also show us time and time again that one can NEVER have an absolute understanding of ANYTHING... NOT EVER. Did you know that scientists are still analyzing and trying to figure out __water__ I kid you not... As it turns out new theories are still being developed.. Well to be fair... the theories aren't NEW at all but OLD theories that were thrown out when a believed to be more accurate theory came along... but recently new methods of analyses have suggested once again that the OLD GUYS were more on the ball then they were given credit for... and now continued study goes on... AND THIS IS WITH A DROP WATER. So do you really think an absolute understanding of anything well ever happen?
New minds new tools new detection methods ... these almost always lead to a more thorough understanding... but and absolute??? Nah, I don't think any scientist would be foolish enough to make such an absurd claim.
When I was writing, I hesitated at "absolute" but decided to go with it anyway because it was to be taken within the context of study.
I majored in physics, so yeah, I'm familiar with near total lack of understanding of anything atomically-sized.
When it comes to understanding architectural styles, however, it's pretty well-understood what constitutes "spanish colonial revival." It can be described and replicated with near-perfect precision. I would call that an absolute understanding.
-Clive
Oh okay so EVERY building that was designed by Smith is automatically under the protection of recognized legal authority (that has the power to supersede a home owners normal rights? If this is REALLY the case then Steve was an IDIOT for buying it since some basic research would have told him that home couldn't be taken down ever!
No, I did not say this, or anything remotely like it. The property was never "protected" in any way, shape or form. In fact the city council voted at least twice (that I know about) to authorize its demolition. This battle was never about that, as I have explained numerous times now. The law in question is the California Environmental Quality Act. This is the law with which every government agency in the state is required to comply. Whether the city did so in this instance, is what they have been fighting over in court.
The article was inaccurate in its statement about why the house was considered to be significant. I'm pretty sure I've explained this in detail at least twice already.
You don't understand how the criteria for significance work, so your conclusions are bound to be incorrect. The criteria do not include "scientific importance." Historic properties are not important because they provide data (with the exception of archeological sites, which is a separate topic). They are judged to be significant for the ways they represent or exemplify themes in U.S. history (including architecture). Rarity or uniqueness are not the criteria for eligibility.
The criteria aslo include a specific and extensively described method for determining if the property has sufficient "integrity" which is defined as the "ability to convey its significance," which fully takes in the issue of alterations. This evaluation is broken down into seven defined aspects. All of this has to be part of any analysis of significance. So you see, the method may not be empirical, but it's not arbitrary and it is not capricious. Sentiment has nothing to do with this.
If we have documented and understand the history in great detail, why would we require an object to represent or exemplify it?
If the theme in history requires a visual understanding, so long as we can reproduce that visual "relic," there's no need to preserve the original. But, of course it would be outrageous to "burn the Mona Lisa" as Parkettpolitur put it, because we have a "metaphysical" connection to it.
Preservation past the point of absolute understanding has everything to do with sentiment.
-Clive
When I was writing, I hesitated at "absolute" but decided to go with it anyway because it was to be taken within the context of study.
I majored in physics, so yeah, I'm familiar with near total lack of understanding of anything atomically-sized.
When it comes to understanding architectural styles, however, it's pretty well-understood what constitutes "spanish colonial revival." It can be described and replicated with near-perfect precision. I would call that an absolute understanding.
-Clive
Funny you should say this. I was considering using Quantum Mechanics as an example of a subject about which I know virtually nothing, and so would never be caught trying to express an opinion about it. Even more to the point, if I was interested in knowing more about Quantum Mechanics, I'd want to ask someone who'd spent much of their lifetime studying the subject to explain it, and at least try to comprehend what they were telling me.
Odd, how the road for you doesn't seem to go both ways.
If we have documented and understand the history in great detail, why would we require an object to represent or exemplify it?
If the theme in history requires a visual understanding, so long as we can reproduce that visual "relic," there's no need to preserve the original. But, of course it would be outrageous to "burn the Mona Lisa" as Parkettpolitur put it, because we have a "metaphysical" connection to it.
Preservation past the point of absolute understanding has everything to do with sentiment.
-Clive
As I said at the start of this thread, I'm not going to argue the philosophy or the politics of historic preservation. If you are fundamentally hostile to the concept, which you certainly appear to be, then I'm not going to try to change your mind. My only purpose here has been to correct some major misunderstandings about how this process works. If your basic hostility to the concept prevents you from accepting this knowledge, if you continue to argue that your lack of knowledge trumps knowledge, then there is certainly nothing further I can say to you about it.
Either you want to know more about this subject, or you don't. I'm happy to spend more time explaining if you do, but please don't waste my time if you don't. Please let me know which it is so I can respond accordingly.
Funny you should say this. I was considering using Quantum Mechanics as an example of a subject about which I know virtually nothing, and so would never be caught trying to express an opinion about it. Even more to the point, if I was interested in knowing more about Quantum Mechanics, I'd want to ask someone who'd spent much of their lifetime studying the subject to explain it, and at least try to comprehend what they were telling me.
Odd, how the road for you doesn't seem to go both ways.
Yet, just as you wouldn't argue the formulae used in QM, I'm not arguing the rules of determining the historical significance of relics, architecture, whatever.
I'm arguing the philosophical mindset that preservation is for anything other than sentimental reasons.
Philosophy != method.
-Clive
As I said at the start of this thread, I'm not going to argue the philosophy or the politics of historic preservation. If you are fundamentally hostile to the concept, which you certainly appear to be, then I'm not going to try to change your mind. My only purpose here has been to correct some major misunderstandings about how this process works. If your basic hostility to the concept prevents you from accepting this knowledge, if you continue to argue that your lack of knowledge trumps knowledge, then there is certainly nothing further I can say to you about it.
Either you want to know more about this subject, or you don't. I'm happy to spend more time explaining if you do, but please don't waste my time if you don't. Please let me know which it is so I can respond accordingly.
I've never argued about anything OTHER THAN the philosophy of preservation... if you don't want to argue about it, why'd you join in?
if you continue to argue that your lack of knowledge trumps knowledge, then there is certainly nothing further I can say to you about it.
lol. So defensive...
...and contradictory...
Philosophy isn't a lack of knowledge, it's the love of knowledge.
-Clive
Yet, just as you wouldn't argue the formulae used in QM, I'm not arguing the rules of determining the historical significance of relics, architecture, whatever.
I'm arguing the philosophical mindset that preservation is for anything other than sentimental reasons.
Philosophy != method.
-Clive
Yes, that is precisely what you are arguing, continually. On multiple occasions you have attempted to impose your own private criteria for what might be considered historic. These criteria are not the criteria used. Determining what is or is not historic is not about sentiment, it is based on the application of specific criteria, professionally interpreted by knowledgeable individuals, and based upon factual, documented information. That these interpretations don't involve formulae is not a measure of their validity as a method.
As I said, you are either interested in knowing about this subject, or you are not. I take it that the answer is not.
I've never argued about anything OTHER THAN the philosophy of preservation... if you don't want to argue about it, why'd you join in?
Because you are grossly misrepresenting the method, despite your complete lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Just as surely as I would be if I suggested that Quantum Mechanics is the result of faeries waving magic wands simply because I didn't know any better.
Good thing that water is abundant enough of a specimen that we discard a single molecule and not have to worry about finding another one.
And remember nothing it ever truly lost... (I'm not schooled in the sciences but I do love the subject) unless it has the unfortunate luck to wander near enough to an event horizon... and I think even then it's still speculated that the information isn't lost but perhaps that theory isn't in favor any more... I don't follow all the 'action' blow by blow..
No, I did not say this, or anything remotely like it. The property was never "protected" in any way, shape or form. In fact the city council voted at least twice (that I know about) to authorize its demolition. This battle was never about that, as I have explained numerous times now. The law in question is the California Environmental Quality Act. This is the law with which every government agency in the state is required to comply. Whether the city did so in this instance, is what they have been fighting over in court.
The article was inaccurate in its statement about why the house was considered to be significant. I'm pretty sure I've explained this in detail at least twice already.
Hmmm no fair... we were clearly not debating on the same issues... The only thing worse than losing an argument is to find the argument never existed in the first place. I guess the fact that you seemed to inject the worthiness of this architect (or home) as something that must be saved that threw me off. Oh well.
So I'll go quietly -- off to find a worthy topic I can argue with someone about...
Hmmm no fair... we were clearly not debating on the same issues... The only thing worse than losing an argument is to find the argument never existed in the first place. I guess the fact that you seemed to inject the worthiness of this architect (or home) as something that must be saved that threw me off. Oh well.
So I'll go quietly -- off to find a worthy topic I can argue with someone about...
IOW, one where you don't have to discuss the topic with someone who actually understands it?
Okay, maybe you didn't mean it that way. Not sure what you did mean though.
Man, reading this thread reminds me of why I left the USA.
From the tone of your posts, you appear to believe that you have found somewhere that is less crazy.
Would you mind sharing where that might be.
PM me if you don't want to share with other posters.
A couple was renovating an "historic" house somewhere in New England, and had to get permission from the "historical committee" for innumerable details.
Every house in the neighborhood was white, with black shutters and trim. It was considered "official" that this was the traditional paint job for these houses.
In the process of removing old damaged paint, the contractor discovered that the earliest layers, iirc, were something like Yellow and Green.
The couple, in their desire to honor the history of their house, told the Hysterical Committee of their plans to paint the house in the *actual* original colors.
You can probably guess the outcome. No Dice. The only acceptable color scheme was White with Black Trim.
So much for the "science" of historical preservation. It's only "scientific" in the Swedenborgian sense.