tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782792124434572025.post688122867084132440..comments2024-01-05T14:03:34.310-05:00Comments on CityKin: Manufacturing ConsentCityKinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09068481950069401281noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782792124434572025.post-78394006654544246782008-08-06T21:01:00.000-04:002008-08-06T21:01:00.000-04:00I don't think he is against display of the structu...I don't think he is against display of the structure or clear distinction of the technical parts so that the technology is understandable. He is against innovation for the sake of being different aka Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas. He may be against the "machine aesthetic" (I think he is) but that is not his argument here.CityKinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09068481950069401281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782792124434572025.post-13613191891988516202008-08-06T19:20:00.000-04:002008-08-06T19:20:00.000-04:00But this muddles up innovation in industry, which ...<I>But this muddles up innovation in industry, which is technical, with innovation in aesthetics, which is just taste.</I><BR/><BR/>Doesn't that argument depend on where you draw the boundaries between "industry" and "aesthetics" and, indeed, whether you draw a distinction at all? The author distinguished the two as "technical" versus "taste," but I just don't see that as being true. To me, the two are always intertwined in some way and, in fact, I prefer to see some trace of "industry" in the "aesthetic" end result; it helps me make sense of what surrounds me.VisuaLingualhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05940655509018040523noreply@blogger.com