This should be fun for you. These three relatively short chapters- just read and then generate questions. Post bulleted lists of questions that were revealed to you as you read. Include the specific text/passage (include chapter # and page) that influenced your thinking. Essentially I am asking you to make your questions that come up clear to the reader, and your thinking behind those questions visible. No minimums or maximums, but a close read will certainly elicit some questions in each chapter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Reading these chapters I had a hard time figuring out what questions to ask. After thinking about it all I could come up with was why is he writing this section. To me I feel that he is blaming the new technology for a people not being great thinkers which I don't agree with (this is a slipper slope argument). Not everyone is going to be a gifted thinker. That is just an inevitable fact and something that you cannot blame on technology.
If you are blaming people's thinking on the present technology couldn't you argue that same thing for current technology of the past take the printing press as an example. Orr arguees that at a point that the internet is an overwhelming amount of information in which you could not separate what is relevant from un-relevent information. Well I am sure that is the same way a person felt when the entered a library for the first time once the printing press was invented . It just bothers me that he thinks the problem which our current "poor thinking" society could be cause of the internet. I think he just hasn't found the right crowd of thinkers.
The people who think well are the people that are remembered. There were millions of people who were not brilliant thinkers living during the time of Plato and Socrates yet that period of time is known for great thinking. I feel that Orr needs to realize that not everyone is the next Plato or Socrates and is not going to come up with a new way of thinking or theory.
-In Chapter 6, Orr declares that "industrial societies are long on means but short on ends" (63). Can this statement be applied to architecture in general?
I don't know why this question came up for me as I read, but I was intrigued by means and ends in terms of buildings. My first instinct was to quickly say that yes, the phrase "long on means but short on ends" could apply to architecture. As I thought about it more, though, I came to the conclusion that it both can and cannot be applied. I think that sometimes designers, or just people in general, tend to focus more on how something can be done rather than its future effects. In the case of architecture, I think that humans have an amazing array of materials and means for buildings. It seems that practically anything one could want to use probably could be used in some capacity or other. However, no matter how many different means we might have to create, we sometimes overlook the end results, whether those results mean the effect a building will have on a community or city, or the effect it has on nature surrounding it. Although the statement sometimes can be applied, the part of my mind that likes to disagree with myself argues that designers do consider the end effect of a building and its design. Orr says that humans sometimes don't have the strength "to question what it is we should do" (63), but I think designers have to determine what should be done. They have to move beyond merely the possibilities and what could be done.
-What is the relationship between information, knowledge, and wisdom (a question asked on page 62)?
To me, the relationship between information, knowledge, and wisdom is complex. The obvious connection is that the gathering of information leads to more knowledge which in turn leads to greater wisdom. I do think this is true, though I think these three things are also dependent on each other in a non-linear way. I think wisdom is key in gathering information and knowing how to process that information and turn it into some form of useful knowledge. I think it also takes knowledge and wisdom to determine what should or should not be done with the wisdom that humans acquire over time. Their relationship can be so interconnected that it's almost hard to have one without the other.
-Is "high modernism" right or wrong, good or bad (70)?
What caught my attention as Orr discussed high modernism was his assertion that people try to "maximize efficiency, control, and economic expansion" (70). At first, these didn't seem like such horrible things to wish to achieve. But Orr describes the effects as "excluding qualitative and subtle aspects" of places, people, and natural systems (70). When I first read this, I kind of skipped over it, but when I examined it again, I realized that maybe this is not a price that is worth paying for greater control or efficiency. I can understand how easy it is to overlook the subtle aspects of a given situation (I fear I do it all too often myself), but I also understand how critical it is not to neglect the things that may not seem obvious. Especially when it comes to something like nature, the lesser obvious things can be equally as important as something that stares you right in the face. As to whether high modernism is right or wrong or good or bad, it's hard to say. It depends on the side you argue for. If you are a fervent protector of ecology and the environment, you're likely to say high modernism is bad. But if you're a technical savant and ardent supporter of furthering technology, you're more likely to want better efficiency, more control, and greater economic expansion.
-Should a goal of architecture be "to revolutionize a sense of time from the short term to the long term" (72)?
This is something that is highly debatable. I feel that architecture has an increasingly shorter "lifespan," so to speak, than it used to. The Empire State Building was built to last more than just a few years, obviously, but it has only been around since the 1930s. When I compare it to something like the Roman Coliseum or the Parthenon in Athens, I find it hard to imagine the Empire State Building existing as long. I think that modern designers don't seem to focus on longevity as much as they did ages ago. Maybe part of it is that buildings like the Parthenon were built as temples, which the ancient Greeks would have wanted to last forever as a tribute to their chosen gods and goddesses. Also, I think that part of the modern mentality is that anything can be replaced. Today, a building that had gotten run down would probably just be replaced by something bigger and better, whether or not preservation would have been a smarter step. Honestly, when I think about modern New York City, it's hard for me to imagine any buildings still around in another 500 years. I see it all replaced by buildings that keep up with the times. However, I do think it would be nice if humanity could try to bring some longevity back into its work. I"d like to think that in several hundred, even a thousand years, there'd still be some tangible evidence of the existence of New York City as I know it today.
-How can we encourage and create "learning organizations" (78,81)?
I thought a lot about this question, and, honestly, I couldn't think of anything that made sense. I think there is just something in human nature that inhibits and would prevent an organization like this from ever coming to fruition.
--Samantha H.
Questions inspired by chapters 6-8
• Am I (you) a “technological fundamentalist? Chapter 6 p. 63
• Do you find the means or the end more important in designing? Chapter 6 p. 63
• Orr mentions not wanting to seem pre-modern to his peers as a reason for accepting useless technology. What are some other reasons why useless technologies have come about and what can we do to inhibit this? Chapter 6 p. 63-4
• Orr wonders what our decedents will think of our need to rapidly spread information. Will this problem still exist years from now when we have our own families and new generations? How can we stop it? Is worrying about our future generations a good motivation when considering technology? Chapter 6 p. 65
• What comes next? Chap 6 p. 67
• P. 68 Intro to Chapter 7: As a humankind becomes stupider and lazier, is it because of a lack of comprehension or a lack of imagination? What a great quote! What role does technology play in the diminishing of creativity as well as comprehension?
• What role does money have in technology and making faster forms of transferring information? P. 69
• What makes an idea good? Chapter 7
• Whose job is it to teach us and the next generations to come how to change problems? Do we teach ourselves? Should it be taught in schools by teachers? In the workplace? In the household? Chapter 8
Nora
Questions.
- How did Orr finally manage to create a metaphor and describe a technological crisis without thoroughly infuriating me?
- There is some good discussion about problems present: technology that supersedes its original purpose and becomes ultimately deleterious. However, what is a solution to this problem? Should we destroy the information superhighway? should we abolish leaf blowers? Try to reconcile the crippled broom industry? Perhaps encouraging efficient design by advertising the lack of excess technology in a product would help people understand the effects of their purchases. Or maybe people love their super-neat-unnecessary-shiny-big-fancy-stuff too much.
- Again I don't agree with / understand Orr's consistent discussion of 'learning' and needing to re-shape our intellectual priorities. However, idealogical conflict aside, would this change be possible? Say I shut my mouth - and so did the other angry dissenters out there - and tried to create a transition of knowledge by restructuring learning and creating an emphasis on efficiency, would it work? would farmer Joe really stop crop-dusting because of the harmful chemical effects if he knew about them? (or would he continue to do it because it's most financially convenient). Would CEO Jane re-write company policy about harmful emission dumping if she was aware of the effects despite it's convenience? (this is a more definiteive 'no' because CEO Jane already does know, most likely).
To close it out I would like to make a food analogy(I was inspired by Orr). (THEORETICAL ALERT) Tomorrow everyone will be told what food they have to eat for the rest of their lives to live a healthy life, loose weight, and get stronger. This meal is rice and guacamole. Will they put down their cheese steaks in Philly? will McDonald's go out of business? Will the earth stop loving grease in it's many comforting forms?
In my opinion the answer is No. Orr may agree or disagree. Maybe if everyone could sit down and fully realize (or care about) the consequences of their actions, people would stop using leaf blowers and eating cheese steaks. But there is much more apathy in this world than many people are aware of (partially because a lot of people are too apathetic to care about apathy's abundance). I maintain that people love their HDtv, their escalators, their elevators, their cars, their blackberries, their everything-marginally-bad-you-can-think-of's too much to put them down. Why? because if they didn't, they would've already put them down.
Chapter 6 questions:
-How can you calculate efficiency in complex cases? p.62
-"What is the relationship between information, knowledge, and wisdom?" p.62
-How do our tools relate to our larger purposes? p.63
-Why do we generally assume things about technology, shouldn't we question its efficientcy, usefulness and the general pros and cons?
Chapter 7:
-Are we too bombarded by information? p.69
-Do we live in a world where fantasy is more relevant than reality?p.69
-Is it smart to produce goods at unbelieveable rates with "no plan, no control no brakes"? p.71
Chapter 8:
-How can we create companies who are responble and not just concerned about profits?
-Can we creat companies that learn?
The post above is mine, Dyllon "Gibbles and bits" Gibbs
• Does Orr truly think that technology is part of our foundation or rather a product of our success?
• Our class knows how Orr feels about the rate at which technology is being incorporated into our daily lives, but is it simply happening too fast?
• Could the spread of information ever become too rapid? Meaning too much info that it inhibits people from taking into account their own lives/responsibilities?
• Orr mentions that nations are in dire need of re-shaping their technological future, but is this as easy as it sounds? I think not.
• How will technological advances effect the youth collectively, will the next generation become a generation of couch potatoes?
• How will political influences effect the rate at which technological advanced occur? In particular, I’m thinking about the government prohibiting the production of energy conserving technologies because that would lead to the reduction of revenues collected by oil companies.
• What clarifies a “good/bad idea” because some “good ideas” are “bad ideas” for some?
JD-D
6:
-Why does Orr think the world is going to collapse and people are going to be shut-ins if they have easy ways to access information through the internet and computers as well as talk with people? (62) (and as to "when" he's brought this up before, he's mentioned it numerous times in the previous chapters).
-Why does Orr consider the fact that cars "destroyed" other slower means of transportation like walking and bicycling a valid point? Who would walk to New York to Boston? Who would bike there in the cold?-Hardly anyone, is it such a bad thing that we can get places faster? (66)
7:
-How does Orr suggest we filter or limit information to keep out "dangerous" ideas (69) - I think people should be able to filter the information themselves
-What is wrong with the nano second culture? (72) Very few people will live to hear the clock ring, and waiting each year to hear a tick seems pointless. I understand they are dramatizing our situation, but I think time and resources and the minds of people that will be spent to build this unnecessary clock could be better spent, solving actual problems that actually matter.
-What are areas that hold great financial promise (74)?
8:
-Aren't organizations made up of people? So as long as people learn organizations will learn? Why is there a distinction? (78)
-Can't students have a larger vision of self and life as well as being guided to a high paying career? (80)
Chapters 6, 7, 8 are three more filled with overstatements and exaggerations. Again, he refers to modern society and how things aren't like they used to be, etc. and so on. He suggests that much of the reason modern society has its downfalls is because of the existence of things that did not exist "back in the day". However, what he again fails to take in to account is that modern society has proportionally less problems than previous societies (proportional when compared to the amount of advances being made, things being accomplished and diversity of schools of thought). So, my first question is -- why does he hate modern society so much? Moreover, why does he overstate everything (which makes his book very hard to take seriously)? [All pages and chapters]
On page 70 in Chapter 7 when Orr talks about the (apparently poor) goals considered when designing most modern structures (efficiency, capacity, cost, environmental impact -- psh, who ever cared about those), he is quick to talk about the negative effects of them (they take all the attention away from important stylistic details or whatever he was saying). What does he want the world to be like??? Orr, apparently, would be thrilled if the WTC site became the new home of something resembling the Coliseum. A lot of productive work which effects hundreds of millions of lives would not get done as it would were a more appropriate building put in there, but there sure would be classic architectural style. Good choice!
Orr needs to realize that architecture would be useless if it all were about style. It is about meeting the demands of society in as clean, cost-effective, and productive way as possible. Appropriateness, not frivolousness, is elegance!
--Steve
Post a Comment