But is must be remembered that in the late 20th century, judgement of architectural matters had been turned on its head by then-prevailing dogma. Many architects were intentionally designing things like the art museum plaza, and were intentionally avoiding simple nice places (like the small benches and trees) (for example, by sneering at students in architecture school, especially women students, who did projects of this kind).
The same architects, in order to protect the then-prevailing view of architecture, had gone to a great deal of trouble to erect a false system of values in which living and not-living no longer had any meaning. This had been accomplished by an architectural culture in which some architects openly sneered at the idea of deeper meaning, and did their best to pervert commonsense understanding of these issues in order to shore up the artificial values then current.
To me this shows two parallels to software: (1) We have a similar culture in which cleverness is seen as more prestigious than doing the simple thing that gets the job done and can be easily understood and (2) we also dismay people who are not trying to be clever and default to the simple and comprehensible thing, which I also believe is a huge component of why our industry is so toxic to certain minorities.
(Masculine = competitive vs. feminine = cooperative)?
#book/The Nature of Order/1 The Phenomenon of Life/9 Beyond Descartes: A new form of scientific observation#