Architect Archive
Thread: Response to your complaints on the Bestine Paintings
OkarasBargainBasement wrote:And in real life FYI, Engineers build and design towers and seige machines. Architects are designers and artists. Thats why architects get their degrees in the colleges of design not the colleges of engineering. And architect did not design the great pyramids of the castles of old europe...engineers designed them. Those were technical masterpieces...architects design artistic masterpieces.Architects design floor plans and space, engineers come up with the ways to build and make these things. And yes its splitting words and professions. But your asking for things and argueing that architects should have these things when they are not part of that profession. And one more thing, you do have to go up the engineering tree to get to architect, but you have to do the same tree for weaponsmith, droid engineer, and shipwright...guess the GAME isn't very realistic, but then again IT IS A GAME.
So Architeects are simply artists? Shapes and floorplans with no background in engineering? Looking at the course requirements for the school of architecture at The University of Michigan I see that the course descriptions for the "construction" and "structures" classes (and others) are essentially engineering courses, although the Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning is it's own division at the university. I think it would be more apt to say that architecture has one foot in art and the other in engineering. There is no bright line between the two as you seem to be suggesting. BTW there are history of architecture courses as well. I'd put money on them discussing "Engineering accomplishments."
If you want to justify comments with occupations, mine are as follows: Dairy farming, truck driving, Industrial power and control installations and service, factory laborer, and experimentalist in engineering/science. Academic training in engineering and physics. Does that mean I know what I'm talking about? Porbably not. Does it make me any more qualified to talk about this game and it's design? No.
Message Edited by Anthemion on 02-08-2005 02:27 PM
...have a nice day.Do you mean to call us all greedy, lazyand spoiled?
Yes or no.
OkarasBargainBasement wrote:
....And maybe I'm a simple person, but I am not spoiled nor greedy and I work with what is given to me...
You say there that you are not "spoiled nor greedy". This pretty much implies that you think others here ARE "spoiled and greedy". This is not the first time you've done this. In your first post you said: "I am not GREEDY, and I don't sell all my stuff at 500 credits per unit like most architects do" That reads to mean that you think most architects ARE greedy. IN other words its a broad personal attack against the character of everyone here.
If you don't mean to call us all greedy and spoiled then you really need to be more careful with your language. I mean that sincerely. If you don't want to start an argument then thats not the kind of language you should use.
Do you mean to call us all greedy, lazyand spoiled?
Yes or no.
Yea and No
OkarasBargainBasement wrote:
....And maybe I'm a simple person, but I am not spoiled nor greedy and I work with what is given to me...
You say there that you are not "spoiled nor greedy". This pretty much implies that you think others here ARE "spoiled and greedy". This is not the first time you've done this. In your first post you said: "I am not GREEDY, and I don't sell all my stuff at 500 credits per unit like most architects do" That reads to mean that you think most architects ARE greedy. IN other words its a broad personal attack against the character of everyone here.
If you don't mean to call us all greedy and spoiled then you really need to be more careful with your language. I mean that sincerely. If you don't want to start an argument then thats not the kind of language you should use.
I was just stateing that I am a simple person who works with what I am given with, I did not call anyone spoiled nor did I call anyone greedy with that 1 comment above. It was a general statement that went along with my commment of working with what I am given. You take things to literal too, and you don't look at the meaning of anything. I guess I need to spell everything out to make sure I don't hurt anyones feelings...
what I meant is that I consider myself a very simple person...if you give me 10 pieces, 100, or 1000 pieces of furniture I will work with what I have. Hopefully I will get more but if I don't, then I don't. I'm happy with what I have in the here and now. I don't need more things or more options to make the game fun or turn a larger profit I do well enough with what I have at hand. I don't ask for much, nor want much. I would love to see our profession get a whole revamp in itself, I think that would be awesome for everyone...do I see it happening no, if nothing happens will I be upset, maybe, will I still play as an architect, yes and I will be just as happy now as I was in the beginning, because I know that somewhere sometime, god only knows when something will come about. Just like when they gave us vehicles, and then player structures, the bestine paintings...granted all little things in retrospect of what other professions got, but I was very grateful for whatever they gave us, and never once did I ask for more.
Thats what I mean by being greedy and spoiled...it was a reference to my attitude to the profession, and I don't expect everyone to feel that way, and I don't care, I was just stateing thats how I approach the game and profession and I am completely happy with it. You have to live it day by day, and work with what you are given as in life. I would love to get a 10k pay raise, but I won't get it nor will asking for it get it for me either, since I work on commission...so I work with what I have, and am happy I have anything. Does that make sense now, I wasn't saying it about anyone, I was compareing it to my attitude about how I look at the game. And don't assume I mean anything about anyone unless I specifically point it out about someone. Agreed, thank you.
OkarasBargainBasement wrote:
Do you mean to call us all greedy, lazyand spoiled?
Yes or no.
Yea and No
Why didn't you just answer "No"? You should have just said 'No'.
An ambiguous answer like that is what is causingproblems here. You leave room for people to think you still do consider some or most of the people here to be greedy, lazy and spoiled. We don't know for sure. Some people might assume one way, but some people will assume the other. Either way someoneWILL assume what you didn't want them to. Or some people won't make an assumption and just consider it unanswered. But then they mightwonder why you didn't give a straight forward answer...
The problem is you left it open to interpretation. So someone will interpret something other than what you wanted.
OkarasBargainBasement wrote:
....And maybe I'm a simple person, but I am not spoiled nor greedy and I work with what is given to me...
You say there that you are not "spoiled nor greedy". This pretty much implies that you think others here ARE "spoiled and greedy". This is not the first time you've done this. In your first post you said: "I am not GREEDY, and I don't sell all my stuff at 500 credits per unit like most architects do" That reads to mean that you think most architects ARE greedy. IN other words its a broad personal attack against the character of everyone here.
If you don't mean to call us all greedy and spoiled then you really need to be more careful with your language. I mean that sincerely. If you don't want to start an argument then thats not the kind of language you should use.
I was just stateing that I am a simple person who works with what I am given with, I did not call anyone spoiled nor did I call anyone greedy with that 1 comment above. It was a general statement that went along with my commment of working with what I am given. You take things to literal too, and you don't look at the meaning of anything. I guess I need to spell everything out to make sure I don't hurt anyones feelings...
Yes. You should to be as clear as you can. Especially when what you are saying might offend others. People WILL take things literally. We don't know that it isn't meant literally. How could we? We don't know you personally. All we know of others on the Internet is WHAT you say and HOW you say it.
For example: If I said: "I'm not from California. I'm from Oregon. I'm not an idiot." Then people would think I'm calling Californians idiots. Did I say that literally? Well not exactly, but people will definitely read it that way. (I'm not saying Californians are idiots, its just an example for discussion sake.) Crude example, but you should be able to see my meaning.
Thats almost the kind of thing you're doing. You start your initial post saying basically that you don't think people here should complain so much. Then you start describing yourself and mention things like how you are not GREEDY like "most" architects". If you say most archictets are GREEDY then most architects will be offended by that.
...I would love to see our profession get a whole revamp in itself, I think that would be awesome for everyone...do I see it happening no, if nothing happens will I be upset, maybe, will I still play as an architect, ...
ON this, you and I agree.
yes and I will be just as happy now as I was in the beginning, because I know that somewhere sometime, god only knows when something will come about. Just like when they gave us vehicles, and then player structures, the bestine paintings...granted all little things in retrospect of what other professions got, but I was very grateful for whatever they gave us, and never once did I ask for more.
On this,you and I disagree.
I am asking for more from SOEin the hopes that it will help us to get more. Like I said, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. We are SOE's customers. Thats my viewpoint on it.
I don't think its a 'right way' versus a 'wrong way' but more of personal style or preference in how to deal with it.
Thats what I mean by being greedy and spoiled...it was a reference to my attitude to the profession,
This is where I think your point isn't clear. At least I'm not understanding you clearly. This is the kind of thing where you're language is ambiguous and leaves it open for people to assume the worse. i.e. someone might think you just said that the whole profession was 'greedy and spoiled'.
Do you consider it "greedy and spoiled" for us to want SOE to fix some of the outstanding issues we've got or improve our profession? I don't.
and I don't expect everyone to feel that way, and I don't care, I was just stateing thats how I approach the game and profession and I am completely happy with it. You have to live it day by day, and work with what you are given as in life. I would love to get a 10k pay raise, but I won't get it nor will asking for it get it for me either, since I work on commission...so I work with what I have, and am happy I have anything. Does that make sense now, I wasn't saying it about anyone, I was compareing it to my attitude about how I look at the game. And don't assume I mean anything about anyone unless I specifically point it out about someone. Agreed, thank you.
Do you think that I personally am a hateful and mean spirited person? You didn't imply it, you actually said it explicitly:
"And you all talk about my tone in these messages, I have never read such rage especially from Pawlin, in responses. Mine is out of frustration, your's is out of hatred and just meanness. "
If you read "rage" or "hatred" or "meanness" in my responses then you assumed that I meant something that I did not specifiallly write. You perceived tone and meaning that is simply not there.
Do you think I'm actually not employed in the computer industry? You sureimplied it.
You really can not say and imply the kinds of thingsyou have in this thread and then expect people to not be offended or react to it.
People WILL assume you mean things if your language implies it or if your wording is ambigouous. That WILL happen and you can't expect everyone in the world to know for sure what you mean if you leave it at all open to interpretation.
If you say things about people directly then they will react.
I will say in these last set of posts your tone has changed some, and you haven't come off so abrasive and agressive, so thank you for taking some time to calm down and use your head to write (most) of your recent responses.(you still need to work on it some, because you still come across as a little insulting with some of what you say) (I will say i was amused at you saying me and my co-conspiritors. Like we get together and decide who to bash. I think we were all in disagreement with you because your tone was abrasive and insulting)
Second i will say that breaking apart someones argument and responding to individual parts is very good debate, and is neither malicious or spiteful, just a good way to orginize a reasonable argument. By the way when you did this in your recent responses you came off sounding about 100 times more intelligent than when you went off on a rant.
Third here's the definition of Architect, taken straight from the dictionary:
ar·chi·tect
Pronunciation: 'är-k&-"tekt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French architecte, from Latin architectus, from Greek architektOn master builder, from archi- + tektOn builder, carpenter -- more at TECHNICAL
1 : a person who designs buildings and advises in their construction
2 : a person who designs and guides a plan or undertaking (the architect of American foreign policy)
I think this is how most people, including myself, see architects. So someone had to design these buildings like castles and Pyramids. Anyways the point i was really trying to make was an Architect isn't just designing art, he's designing a building too. For example Gaudi (not good with the spelling, even though i have seen some of his work) was hired to design the cathedral in downtown Barcelona, yet it was still a cathedral, he still needed to have some functionality to his design and artwork. He still needed spires and crosses on the top of those spires..etc etc. If it didn't have that functionality it wouldn't be a building, it would be a sculpture. So yes an Architect has to have an art to his design, but he also have to have a funtionality to the building, whether it be a castle, pyramids, cathedral, etc.
Another question i have for you, if there have been no Architects until the last 50 years or so, who designed Roman Architecture, Gothic Architecture, Greek Architecture, Basque Architecture, and all those other styles that have been here for the last 4000 years?
(Just for the record, i didn't get my knowledge from any high school history class. My knowledge on Midievil castles comes from actually visiting many of the castles and taken tours and been there and seen them up close and personal. I am using the words that tour guides and the official historians have used to call the designers of these Architectual marvels, yes the engineering of building these structures was a masterpiece, but so to was the design, which, according to the definition above, is done by Architects.)
Circe' Pojia
OkarasBargainBasement wrote:
I guess I have to do what you people do and say something 5000 times before it gets across to you...Architects and Engineers are two different professions with two different learning paths. Hence why at the majority of colleges out there Architecure is grouped with the college of Design, and Engineering is in thr College of (OMG) Engineering. And by you saying "troll" you have not only become as bad as me as you all say, but now your wrose, because those who drop themselves down to start insulting someone who may have insulted them only prove they are just as if not worse of a "troll" as I may be.
[commentary]
Again if you ever studied architecture in any detail...NOT HISTORY, you would see that it is a relatively new profession in retospect of the world. There have only been schools of architecture around at most colleges for less then 40-50 years. Prior to that structural engineers designed buildings.
[commentary]
Michelangelo...not an architect, not even an engineer, Leonardo DaVinci...not an architect, he was an inventor, artist and engineer, Frank Lloyd Wright...was not an trained architect, he was an engineer (thats why his designs, while famous,the form isnot sound), Mies Van Da Roer...not an architect, but again an engineer (and again while the buildings are masterprieces, they completely fail the motto of an architect "Form Follows Function"...and who said that Louis Sullivan back in the 1920's when he was redesigning Chicago with Daniel Burnham after the Chicago fire and Chicago Columbian Exposition. Engineers design function, Architects take the make sure the form completes the functionality of the object. the REASON I did not start name dropping is that other then the normal famous names of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, I dount anyone would have been familiar with Mies, or Skidmore Owing, and Merril, or James Patteson, or Tonia Bartel. Any of those names ring a bell for you, I doubt it. So what would the point of me dropping a few names do for me, other then make you say who the heck are those people. And Florence...while being a beautiful city in and of itself, was created by engineers not architects. Thats why if you had ever studied any of the plans for any of the churches their you would notice the interiors are all made of the same design, the only thing different is the xterior structure of the building and its ornamentation. So name dropping a hostorical city is pointless because architects didn't design them. History books say architect for a lack of a better term and to better help differentiate between what an architect no does and what an engineer did and does now.
A large percentage of Europes buildings, again while beautiful masterpieces and priceless among themseleves are formulaically(sp) a disaster. Architects study them now for their period relevence and the design aspects that artisans played in them. Frank Llyod Wright while being probably the most famously known person in this field of either architecture or structureal engineering like he was trained in, is not taught in most colleges, because his designed were incrediblly flawed. The most famous architects and engineers in history and the most famous buildings and structures in history are also some of the biggest design nightmores of history too. But thats what makes them famous is because they are different. The house you live in will never go down in history as being built or remembered long after it is torn down, but if it was designed completely askew, and made different then any other house in its form, it would then be famous and live on forever....that is why architects do not like to be classified as engineers...because engineers are functinally geniouses but form wise they are completely inept at designing anything worth while for the purpose it is meant for. Hence how the architecture profession came about.
[commentary]
Oh and on one last note, someone wrote about the University of Miami and architects having to take engineering classes...ever course no matter what school of architecure you go to will require you to take some structures courses. 12 credits on average to be exact. But since most architecture programs require about on average of 154 credits to earn a bachelors degree you can see how little 12 credits really reflects on something, take 1 engineering class for every 8 design classes you take does not make you anymore of an engineer then being a chemist or a doctor, or a banker does. And those engineering classes you were so well at pointing out are typically designed and geared towards architects, and typically are restricted to someone in that field but not always. At least thats how it was at most of the schools I applied for before my freshman year of school, and then at the three universities I attended to get my BS in architecture, and MUPP in community and regional planning, and MA in architecure. And think what you like...if you don't beleive what I am, thats your own choice, just as I have the right now to believe one word you say about 250 pages of blah blah blah
