Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Ghopper1924, post: 262980, member: 5170&quot;]Ha!<img src="styles/default/xenforo/smilies/smile.png" class="mceSmilie" alt=":)" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Actually, what I was remembering was the aesthetic arguments that modernism made to justify it&#039;s poverty of imagination in ornament and detail. They stole Louis Sullivan&#039;s old dictum, &quot;form follows function&quot; until it became an unspoken and misunderstood law of design. And let&#039;s not forget Mies van de Rohe&#039;s &quot;Less is More.&quot; What simplicity of form most often equals is &quot;cheap.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>But now, in an effort to get around the stale modernism which still rules the roost, we get fake Victorian squiggles of copper tubing masquerading as functional (with an artistic twist, of course) and old (truly) functional Victorian bathrooms cast aside. </p><p><br /></p><p>Such design ironies are everywhere. But, as an aside, I don&#039;t really see it as male/function vs. female/form, but rather just straightforward vs. not so much. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie13" alt=":angelic:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie58" alt=":joyful:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie58" alt=":joyful:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in