Oh My.

[museumgirl]

I am becoming very practical in my old age. At a lecture this evening, as soon as I heard someone referencing Habermas, my eyes rolled and my brain shut down, but not before thinking, "Oh how pedantic and pretentious

Comments

[vengeant]

I wouldn't say that those were boring questions, but I would say those were business questions. But I also suspect that your crowd was more composed of starry-eyed kids who didn't know much of anything, and that the presenter geared his presentation towards them.

And I wasn't aware that art and architecture were ever hostile towards each other. Sistine Chapel, anyone?

[museumgirl]

Yes, apparently the Evil Facsist Art World has decreed that architecture shalt only be presented in art museums in the form of architectural models, blueprints and drawings and that this is terribly limiting. Can't those mean ol' art curators see that architects wanna play just as much as artists? *pout*

[sinclair_furie]

Practicality is good.
And ideological, happy questions are actually annoying, sometimes. I shall second vengeant's thougts on art and architecture being hostile towards each other. They're often the same in my head.

[museumgirl]

I would definitely agree about the ideological, happy questions -- which is in part why I left after the talks before the q&a.

I once was attended a session at a conference in which art historians were bitching and moaning about how *marginalized* they were because the other academics in their universities didn't take them seriously. The best part about it was that in the audience were several Native American contemporary artists -- talk about people who are actually marginalized!!

So in some ways it was a little funny to hear the architects whining about the art world making them feel marginalized.