HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sct2m@Virginia.EDU (Sean Christopher Timm)
Newsgroups: alt.pcnews,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Can't buy me SIMM's - no no no, no (Again!)
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:34:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

I have some 256K X 9 SIMMS which I took out when I upgraded my
system from 2M to 4M.  I anyone is looking for some I will sell
mine to them.  I have 8 SIMMS.
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Re: Mass Hallucination?
Organization: SCTC
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:14:02 GMT

pm3w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul M Mcelwee) writes:

>DANTE:   Problem...capitalism...

>Perhaps it is time for a social revolution, but this cannot occur
>without the elimination of capitalism....will this happen anytime soon? 
>Will the environment be able to sustain capitalism forever?

Capitalism and the environment will live in symbiosis forever.  Many
people will die. Nature will find a new equilibrium between
manufactured poisons and previously existing biochemical reactions
(life, for example).  The remaining people will continue to work for
their own food and trade with their neighbors for other goods.

What's the alternative? That some Big, Benevloent Government runs
things for the Common Good? Yeah, talk about a contradiction in terms.
How many people died for for Lenin and Stalin's great vision of the
future? What good did their fetish for sooty industrial cities do for
the environment? Not that we've done better, of course. How many died
for Manifest Destiny (look in your history books)?  Big bureaucracies
aren't any more benevolent in government than in the private sector.

If you take away totalitarianism, you're left with capitalism. Walk
the streets of Moscow and Prague, even the backwaters of China or the
Third World. Some people say that our big, abusive corporations only
exist because the government passes laws to their benefit, sticking it
to the small farmer and the neighborhood grocer.

In its essentials, capitalism isn't good or bad, it's just how things
work. Even in so-called socialist societies people still "trade," it's
just that there's the overhead of the Big Benevloent Government as
well. 

Now, it could be that this whole discussion is just using capitalism
is just a fashionable metaphor for something else. But that just makes
the discussion sound exclusionist and off-base.

Ramble, ramble, back to work.
Organization: Sophomore, Architecture, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: lynnf@techbook.com (Lynn Falkow)
Subject: A resource for material/textures
Summary: New resource for computer graphics info and material/textures
Keywords: bitmaps computer graphics CAD
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Distribution: alt.architecture
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:57:04 GMT

  I was looking around here, and thought I'd share a potential resorce for
  people looking for high quality, photo-realistic material texture files
  for use with CAD programs.  Vertech Design, a Portland, Oregon based 
  computer graphics company has recently come online with a BBS called
  Vertech's GRAPHIC CONNECTION.  The BBS specializes in material/texture
  files, custom bitmap design, computer graphics and conversion utilities,
  a wide assortment of other utilities, and truly world class technical
  assistance.  Shortly there will also be topic specific message bases
  in a variety or graphics related areas.  The material/texture catalog
  is available for download.

  The system supports V.32bis/V.42bis MNP, and standard settings of 8N1.

  modem  503-591-8412
  voice  503-591-0134
  fax    503-244-0919

  I hope this resource will be of use to some of you.  For more information
  you may also E-Mail me.

						     ---Lynn


-- 
lynnf@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: randolph@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: On meaning and Ornament
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:46:43 GMT
	<8eyKgHq00WBNQ3kpxe@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<1992Nov5.220232.27351@sctc.com>
	<oeyW9Pm00WBO0_onVw@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: St. Dismas Infirmary for the Incurably Informed
NNTP-Posting-Host: cognito.ebay.sun.com
In-reply-to: Paul M Mcelwee's message of Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:44:27-0500

At the risk of repeating myself, Christopher Alexander et al have
extended the idea of univeral symbols into a theory embracing the
whole of design.  The place to read about their ideas are the books
*The Timeless Way of Building* (the theoretical book) and *A Pattern
Language* (the symbology).  I am surprised that no-one else has
mentioned them.

Next post: the mechanical contractor's view of architects.

__Randolph Fritz  sun!cognito.ebay!randolph || randolph@ebay.sun.com
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
From: dwharper@eos.ncsu.edu (DANTE WILLIAM HARPER)
Subject: Alarming? Sophomoric...
Originator: dwharper@c00093-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: dwharper@eos.ncsu.edu (DANTE WILLIAM HARPER)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:40:43 GMT


	The point that Paul M Mcelwee <pm3w+@andrew.cmu.edu> made a few posts
back about capitalism and architecture was a valid point; we exist
in a time when any possiblility of social revolution is dead and therefore,
any possibility of re-establishing an ideologic system after the fatal reft
of the industrial age (see Mercae Eliade's (sp?) :The Sacred and the Profane:
fora good definition of the dilemma I'm assuming we all (sic) face.  So are we
all depressed with post-ideologic architecture?  Or are we depressed with what
we have announced to ourselves and the world as post-ideologic architecture (po-
mo, deconstructionist,etc, arch.). It is obvious that society as a whole is VERY
enmeshed in an ideologic system, one that is less systematized than any since
christianity took the west: we as TECHNICIANS have experienced a removal of
self from architecture; systematized architecture reflects perfectly our
systematized, reductionist capitalist/western faith of techno-culture...perhaps
our dissatisfaction is with something larger than building style...perhaps
social revolution is what it takes?  Perhaps I'm raving.
Wait.  I am raving.  Excuse me.







ps. careful? call me "care-impared".
-- 
+][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][+

"Did it seem that long ago?                           Dante W Harper
It was when you still thought                         dwharper@eos.ncsu.edu
you thought, and still believed                       429-a S Boylan Ave
that part of you still managed                        Raleigh, NC 27603
to believe."  -bright                                 919 856 9250

      (in hopes that some sharp might get a laugh out of my credit history)

+][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][+
   
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
From: Dwayne Sandall <sandall@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: Looking for journal
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A725A5B05A0110D2@cc-k-box10.cc.umanitoba.ca>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 10 Nov 92 00:45:20 GMT
Organization: Faculty of Architecture, U of Manitoba
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:43:42 GMT

	Hello,
I am looking for information regarding the journal Interchange published
by CalPoly at Ponoma. I am looking to get a few copies of issue #4, the
one on computers in the design education process.
If you know who the people to contact there are, a note would be
appreciated.
Also, if you know of any other good articles that discuss the role of the
computer as a design tool, a brief bibliography would be greatly
appreciated.

Thanks for your time,
Dwayne.
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
From: Todd Sandrock <@bnr.ca>
Subject: Re: architecture is not art (!)
X-Xxdate: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:55:31 GMT
Organization: Northern Telecom
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 21:46:57 GMT

In article <8eyKgHq00WBNQ3kpxe@andrew.cmu.edu> Paul M Mcelwee,
pm3w+@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
>   Like damn near anything else in today's society, architecture has
>largely come under the control of the forces of global capitalism. 
>"Modern" in architecture came to be associated with industry and hence
>efficiency ("economy" and "purity" were two design qualities that Le
>Corbusier recognized as being important in the next century).  To make a
>long story short, architecture reflects the values of the contemporary
>age:  Capitalism.
>   
 welcome!

I agree with this, but maybe not in the way you'd imagine...

I used to think that the most perfect capitalists in the world were drug
dealers. They usually come from nothing, and, using what society has
given them, claw their ways into obscene wealth. I now know I was wrong.
There is a better scam. The most perfect capitalists are those architects
who are the principals or owners of firms. They have at their beck and
call a whole unwashed mass of third-world style piecework labourers (read
"architects in training", or "AIT") who will work for ridiculously low
wages and ridiculously long hours.

The AIT think that

1) "Someday, I will be that principal."

2) "Architecture is some high mystic art or religion that requires this
self-sacrifice"

The thing that the principals know, that the poor AIT dont is that,
unfortunately,

1) Architecture is not a religion. Architecture is capitalism. If you
don't make money, you will starve.

2) "If I can continue to pay these guys $9 / hour without overtime pay,
it will be, um..., 650 years before they could possibly have enough
capital to buy even an associate partnership. We couldn't have too much
of that profit-sharing, now could we?"

3) "If I had to pay these guys what they're actually worth, I don't think
I could make any money at this. And I'd certainly have to sell the Jag."

4) Migrant labourers who are working for next to nothing can be kept in
fear by the threat of a call to the immigration authorities. AIT who are
working for next to nothing can be kept in fear by the threat of these
words spoken by the guy signing your book / professor / etc.: "I don't
think you've got what it takes to be an architect".

5) "The professional association will back me on this one, 'cause most of
them are principals too..."

Architecture has indeed been mortally wounded by capitalism, but
architects aren't the victims, they (principals and partners) are the
perpetrators.

Todd Sandrock MArch
Northern Telecom Limited
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA

"what a scam..."
From: brad@buck.viewlogic.com (Bradford Kellogg)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: architecture is not art (!)
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:04:59 GMT
Organization: Viewlogic Systems, Inc.
Originator: brad@buck


In Webster's:

1. The art or science of building; specif: the art or practice of designing
and building structures and esp. habitable ones 
2. formation or construction as or as if as the result of concious act

This does not specify the application of the creative imagination (in this
sense "art" is defined as the application of "skill") but neither is it 
ruled out. I would suggest that architecture can be the result of science 
and practice alone, without regard to any aesthetic considerations, such
as the former Pan Am building in NY. However, underneath that wretched
eyesore is Grand Central Station, which gave aesthetic considerations
very high regard indeed. 

Not far away from there, you can look at the Guggenheim Museum, designed
specifically to house what is unabashedly billed as ART. But it is not 
limited to science and practice. The Guggenheim clearly is a work of art 
itself. Whether you call it good art is another question, but I don't 
believe anyone could have designed such a shape or space without employing 
the creative imagination. It is, rather than ornamented architecture, an 
ornament itself, and yet it is architecture. Drawings were made, engineers 
and contractors followed them, and we now have architecture which is also 
art and ornament and the result of science and the creative imagination
all at the same time.

Architecture does not have to be art, but it can be. To me, it should be.
When art is left out of it, it becomes boring, it becomes oppressive.
When there is no art, there is no delight. Since any architect worthy of
the moniker subscribes to the credo "firmness, commodity, delight", all
good architecture has to be art, IMAO (in my arrogant opinion). :-)
From: randolph@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: On meaning and Ornament
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:00:46 GMT
	<8eyKgHq00WBNQ3kpxe@andrew.cmu.edu> <1992Nov6.092115.20927@eng.ufl.edu>
	<churayj-061192194848@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu>
Followup-To: alt.architecture
Organization: St. Dismas Infirmary for the Incurably Informed
NNTP-Posting-Host: cognito.ebay.sun.com
In-reply-to: churayj@yalevm.edu's message of Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:14:12 GMT

Brief note--structure and space can communicate emotion by shaping
*motion*--the ways people move through structures.  Anyone know if
that's been researched at all?

__Randolph Fritz  sun!cognito.ebay!randolph || randolph@ebay.sun.com
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Re: On meaning and Ornament
Organization: SCTC
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:02:32 GMT

Paul M Mcelwee <pm3w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>   Like damn near anything else in today's society, architecture has
>largely come under the control of the forces of global capitalism. 
>"Modern" in architecture came to be associated with industry and hence
>efficiency ("economy" and "purity" were two design qualities that Le
>Corbusier recognized as being important in the next century).  To make a
>long story short, architecture reflects the values of the contemporary
>age:  Capitalism.

>-- It would seem then that there is much less money to be made by
>carving ornate Corinthian capitals then in creating 5000 s.f. of flex
>office space...

Most of the works I've seen that discuss the history of the modern
style indicate that the plainness was intended as an anti-capitalist
statement, and was adopted by capitalists for their building simply
because it became "fashionable." Certainly the earliest constructions
in the new, spare style were government supported projects in Europe.

>.. so in this sense I would have to agree that these financial and
>technological barriers make ornamentation difficult, but there are
>other, more profound reasons for the destruction of
>ornamentation--although these are also the results of capitalism. 

I don't see any evidence to associate the death of ornament with its
cost, nor with its relevance to capitalism as a concept. I've heard
anecdotes to indicate that the high cost of traditional ornament today
is because most practitioners left the business as the new, plain
style began to dominate the building industry. Given the change in
prevailing styles, the movement of workers away from the construction
of ornament and towards other trades would be independent of the
underlying economic system: in a socialist system the government would
have directed their movement, in a capitalist system the marketplace
would do the directing.

>    In any case, I agree that in spite of (or maybye in acccordance
>with?) modern media, a universal basis of symbols must be found.

Back to architecture. Why must there be a universal basis of symbols?
I admit that we're moving towards it due to the effects of global
media, but I think this actually increases the value and significance
of community and ethnic symbols, particularly since they are
incorporated into buildings that exist in a community.

Rick.
smith@sctc.com    arden hills, minnesota
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
From: barber@ravl.rice.edu (Alexander Keith Barber)
Subject: ENOUGH! Autos 'n' Architecture
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:41:17 GMT

I will not say "I don't mean to complain but..." because I DO intend t' com-
plain.  Is there any chance that we can drop this continuing thread of cars and
the world of architecture?  I know that the argument can be made to link the 
design sensibilities common to both, but I had hoped that this group might not
follow the path of other groups on the net and spin off into subjects that
detract from the meat of the group.  I know, I know, flame away all you auto-
motive apologists, but I would like t' see some more dialogue here about
arhcitecture.  Architecture.  Take a look at the group name...

Alex Barber

and (in spirit)

Micah Rosen    ******      Univ. of Virginia B.S. Architecture 1990 "Go Hoos"
               *|   |_     Rice University M. Arch. 1993 "Go Owls"
               *|   | |
                |   |_|    "I've gone from being a Hoo to being a Hoot...       
                |___|
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Re: Alarming? Sophomoric...
Organization: SCTC
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:45:43 GMT

dwharper@eos.ncsu.edu (DANTE WILLIAM HARPER) writes:

>	The point that Paul M Mcelwee <pm3w+@andrew.cmu.edu> made a few posts
>back about capitalism and architecture was a valid point; we exist
>in a time when any possiblility of social revolution is dead and therefore,

Dead? Dead? Clearly this refers to activities on a different planet.
The clash and cross polination of diverse cultures is pushing through
a social revolution far more profound than anything Marx might have
imagined. Right under our noses and most people don't see it.

Yes, "social revolution" is no longer an apologist for totalitarianism,
neither in politics nor in architecture.

>any possibility of re-establishing an ideologic system after the fatal reft
>of the industrial age (see Mercae Eliade's (sp?) :The Sacred and the Profane:
>fora good definition of the dilemma I'm assuming we all (sic) face.  So are we
>all depressed with post-ideologic architecture?  Or are we depressed with what
>we have announced to ourselves and the world as post-ideologic architecture

I was never a great fan of the directions that "Machine Art" took in
the early decaces of the century. Too bad the Russian Constructivists
failed to wield more influence. Constructivist poster art presented
the most compelling collages of mechanical and natural forms I've ever
seen. Incredible stuff.

However, I've never been believer in the rhetoric of the Modern
Movement, nor even of the constructivists. They all sounded too naive,
too narrow in their understanding of the place of ornament in life.

> It is obvious that society as a whole is VERY
>enmeshed in an ideologic system, one that is less systematized than any since
>christianity took the west: we as TECHNICIANS have experienced a removal of
>self from architecture; systematized architecture reflects perfectly our
>systematized, reductionist capitalist/western faith of techno-culture

Again, I must be on a different planet. There are strains of such
actions, but they clash with others. Uniformity is the one thing I
DON'T see.  What of ecological movements?  Historic preservation
activities?  Animal rights? Restoration of Native American ritual and
tribal power? Playing piano in the parlor with the TV silent and dead?

>Wait.  I am raving.  Excuse me.

Yeah, it gets contagious sometimes. Sorry.
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
From: pirone@milton.u.washington.edu (cocteau)
Subject: Re: automotive design and architecture
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:35:12 GMT

In article <churayj-011192145205@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> churayj@yalevm.edu (raymond Chung) writes:

}I'm afraid my last post didn't read as I intended.  Maybe I shouldn't have
}worded it positively.  I wasn't really making a point about how
}architecture should be done ( = style), but rather posing a question as to
}why architecture, a functional art, is NOT like car design.  

It's hard to give a comparitive answer.  It seems to me that an object's
design is limited by it's function and use. In general, automobiles have
a very specific function, that being transportation from
point A to B. A rather straight forward purpose. On the other hand, buildings
have (other than the Basic function of Shelter) a wide variety of possible
functions. Does a suburban home have the same function as a theater, or
school building?  Of course not, yet each of these uses are dealt with 
by architects. A rich landscape of possibilities needs a rich langauge to
describe it. Although there definitly is a 'car culture' in the U.S.,
i don't know if the use of the auto has outgrown its original function
for a majority of users. Though, as noted in an earlier posting on the subject
('suprised to see some mobile homes'), when there is added complexity to 
the function of the auto (ie. mobile home), we immediatly begin to see
design changes to suit these new uses (yes even weather vanes).

}own function and taken on the power of ornament: association of other ideas
}through symbology.  My question (reworded, and not meant to be read
}negatively) is: why humans do this to their buildings?

I suppose the full question is 
    Why do humans allow the association of ideas through symbology
    in architecture and not in car design (and hammer and cooking ware
    disign for that matter)?
Part of the answer might be that all 'humans' do not do this.  Only in
industrialized nations is there a strict seperation between art and craft.
Most non-industrialized  cohesive cultures apply
their ontology to every aspect of life, from landscape to architecture
to cooking pot. 
My guess is that here in the industrialized world we view architecture
as the creation of environment, which allows for a multitude of complexities
esoteric enough for the use of symbology; and we view a car as just another
tool.

					    j.fulton
					    dome@santafe.santafe.edu
From: pm3w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul M Mcelwee)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Organic Arch. and KEBYAR
Date: 8 Nov 92 04:56:47 GMT
	<1992Nov6.092115.20927@eng.ufl.edu>
Organization: Sophomore, Architecture, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


  Because a few of you have expressed intrest in furthering the cause
for organic architecture, I am posting the address for Friends of Kebyar:

    Friends of Kebyar
    7430 S.W. Canyon Drive
    Portland, OR 97225

Phone: (503) 292-2684
Annual Dues: $30 (checks payable to "Friends of Kebyar"

    If 30 bucks is kinda steep or you want to find out more first, check
out the article in the NY Times on Bart Prince (or ADtop 100) 8/20/92. 
or better yet, PA, June, 1992, has a cool article on Kebyar and organic
architecture in general.

I'm not really saying that myself or anyone else should totally sell out
to any architectural organization (archi-cult?).  But I think Kebyar may
be a good place to share alot of the architectural ideas that we've been
talking about.  Besides, many "organic architects" are themselves
iconoclasts by nature (Bart Prince).

Enjoy!

PAUL
Newsgroups: alt.architecture