fair enough. So, in that case, if it's not immediately popular, does that mean that something later defined as "great architecture" (I'm taking it that you think that popular is a necessary but not sufficient condition for "great architecture") doesn't become great until it becomes popular?
I would say that if a piece of architecture is ever great, then it is always great. (This admittedly presumes that it doesn't change; if it's repaired badly, rebuilt in line with changing fashions, or simply falls down, then it might cease to be great architecture, although one might argue that the actual architecture is the design of the building and its greatness is independent of the state of repair of its physical instantiation. Rebuilding in line with changing fashions would therefore constitute a separate work of architecture which could be great or not independently of the original work.)
On that principle, if popularity at some point is a prerequisite for greatness (which I'm unconvinced that I agree with, but for the sake of argument), then a piece of architecture built now which won't be popular until 2250 can still be great architecture now (though it may not be, since popularity certainly isn't a sufficient condition for greatness even if we accept it as a necessary one). It's just that we won't be able to know it's great architecture until 2250.
Re: *when* must it be popular
Date: 2004-04-28 06:08 am (UTC)Re: *when* must it be popular
Date: 2004-04-28 06:15 am (UTC)On that principle, if popularity at some point is a prerequisite for greatness (which I'm unconvinced that I agree with, but for the sake of argument), then a piece of architecture built now which won't be popular until 2250 can still be great architecture now (though it may not be, since popularity certainly isn't a sufficient condition for greatness even if we accept it as a necessary one). It's just that we won't be able to know it's great architecture until 2250.