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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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
'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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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...)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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!
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.
Drop the i. It will be the StevePad Pro.
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.
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****.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
'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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.