response to 1st columbus question

Every building has their own function. House for living, church for religion, school for learning... Throughout history, people decorate only important buildings. The kings or queens always have the most magnificent buildings because of their superior positions. The reason most prisons are plain and undecorated is because prisoners are generally disrespected. But nowadays, buildings are decorated to beautify the society. Everyone wants their own house to be pretty. Function is important but aesthetic is also important today. Most people want to visit a beautiful country or town instead of a plain one. Prison is still one part of a city. The exterior of a prison is important to the society as a whole. The society and culture today made aesthetics as important as functions. Architectures are like commercials. Instead of stating the facts about a product, people tend to make the commercial artistic and interesting. The aesthetic side of something is more attractive to people than plan facts or functions.
About Ben's horse rock or horse sculpture. I found myself more attracted by horse rock. There are many many different horse sculptures. It is very common. A sculptor can make a horse sculpture in like a week. But the formation of a horse rock can be up to hundreds of years. Things that's common are usually less attractive than things that's rare. For example, if I have 100 cookies and 1 chocolate. I would pay more attention to the chocolate even if i like cookies more.

Explanation through Atlas Shrugged

Aristole's law of identity has no counterexamples. We can take all class trying to invent some random creative examples that try to prove that "A is NOT A", but it won't happen. I think that a lot of people don't really understand the law and how simple it really is (though one of the most important laws of knowledge). I'm almost finished with the novel Atlas Shurgged (SOOOO GOOD!..by Ayn Rand, creator of the philosophy of Objectivism), and as I was reading it last night, I came across a paragraph that described Aristotle's law perfectly. it helped me to understand-try to object to the law after reading this. The plot's reallyyyyy complicated, but here, the speaker is John Galt, and he's giving a speech to the whole country (which is ready to crash) broadcasted on the radio:

"To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was--no matter what his errors--the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.
"Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute, or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too."

Intentionality in Art

One interesting idea introduced in Cpt. Perkins' posts was the intentionality of art and its implications. What effects are created by art created with intention that are absent in art unintentionally? To frame the question in concrete terms, let's consider two objects: Horse Sculpture and Horse Rock. Horse Sculpture was created by a respected artist who carved every last detail with great planning and foresight as to their implications. Horse Rock was a naturally occurring phenomenon created randomly by erosion and weathering. The two are identical.
Is Horse Sculpture more powerful (in terms of effect on the viewer) than Horse Rock?
I say yes, it is, because the artist's intentions and reasons create a transactional (woot Lyday) relationship with the viewer. The Horse Sculpture serves as a means of communication of the artist's ideas to the viewer.
Horse Sculpture accomplishes more than simply communication. This communication inspires thought and "a pause". But as one passes Horse Sculpture, it may as well be Horse Rock. The inspiration and pause of Horse Sculpture are indistinguishable from those caused by Horse Rock. However, the communication is not part of the experience of viewing Horse Rock.
This relates very well to the scenario of observing the architecture of Columbus as a resident. If simply observed, the architecture may as well be naturally occurring, because without any information about its creator, communication is not established. Yet if the same building is observed with respect to its creator's intention in making it, communication is established and the understanding between sculptor and viewer is strengthened.
Note: I use "intentionality" in reference to what the architect/artist intended in the creation of the building/piece. Mr. P uses "intentionality" in reference to city planning, as well as creation of individual structures. Intentionality takes a role in city planning as to the arrangement of the buildings, but also in a different sense as "why bother".
To be edited, this is a bit jumbled.

How do I know time?

This puzzles me: If I place a treadmill in the back of a truck moving 25 mph and stand on it without turning it on, I and the treadmill would also be moving at 25 mph. Yet, if I turned the treadmill on at normal human gait (3 mph) and began walking, I would be moving at both 3 mph and 25 mph. Also, the structure of treadmill would be moving at 25 mph, but the tread would be moving at 3 mph in reverse and simultaneously 25 mph forward. I, the truck and the treadmill are also moving at the rate of the rotation of the Earth, which means we're moving at three different speeds. If I'm moving opposite of the rotation of the Earth, we're now moving at four different speeds. Thus, it seems I can arrive at my destination at four different times. I don't even want to contemplate what happens when I consider the expansion of the universe.

To answer the first question on columbus---I think its obvious that the beauty/artistic element of a building is secondary to its functionality. whats the use of a pretty prison if it can't keep convicts inside? The question of why art impresses us/affects us is a really good one. Why did we all think the huge house with the gardens was pretty? is there a definition of what's beautiful and what's not? For me, it's HOW it was made and how UNIQUE it is. Its impressive because men made it; if it were mass produced at a factory by machines, it wouldn't be impressive or unique, and therefore not have much appeal, in my opinion. Old houses or other old pieces of art are impressive because we ASSOCIATE them with the past, which many people admire. Maybe we can't say that anything's truly "beautiful" on its own----because what is "beauty" anyways? we can't define it because it differs so much from person to person. maybe it's the feelings and ideas the object represents in our past or memories that's beautiful

Columbus: The Large

The final of my three posts about our trip to Columbus touches on the large vision of the city, and in so doing reflects to my original post, Columbus: The Intentional. In addition to creating an environment that can inspire personal reflection and creativity, the city leaders have clear been led by notions of connection. One architect would look at other buildings and try to design another that complemented the surrounding area. Nowhere could you find lock-step uniformity, yet everywhere you could see complementarity, and this seemed to be part of a larger vision for the entire city. The focus of city leaders through the years has unquestionably been forward and outward...forward to the future and outward to other people, designers, aspects of the city, etc.

Where do you see the Columbus vision reflected or decidedly not reflected in Indianapolis, in surrounding communities, elsewhere in Indiana, or in the United States? What kind of leadership is required to cast and realize such vision? What kind of citizenry is required to support and not to hinder such efforts?

Columbus: The Small

Some of these thoughts will tie into the previous post on Columbus: The Intentional. I was quite taken by the off-center design of the one church we visited, especially the rendering of the Jerusalem cross on the side. A traditional Jerusalem Cross looks like this:

On this particular church, however, the architect had embedded the cross into the brick in such a way that parts of it stood out in relief, while others were recessed into the wall. This was absolutely unnecessary. In fact, so far was this detail from being necessary that it causes us to ask the questions, "Why did he do it? What is the effect of such design? How did he achieve a recognizable design with a decidely different structure?"

It is entirely possible, and indeed probable for most locals for whom familiarity has no doubt bred a certain degree of oblivious contempt, that some people can walk past this and other of the architectural features throughout town and give them not a moment's thought. But for others, and occasionally even for the jaded, such subtleties can arrest the hurly-burly momentum of life.

They can give us a pause to reflect, to think, to be inspired, to be human.

And so I end this post by asking, what slows you down and causes you to ponder? From where do you draw your quiet inspiration? Try looking at the usual paths of your life...you home, your neighborhood, your ways to and from frequent destinations...with the intention of seeking inspiration. What do you find?