Ornamentation

SimpleSam06

I was just thinking there the last day, one of the things we are really missing out on these days is a bit of ornamentation. Take for example the buildings of the pre-1940s going all the way back through history, carved with ornate scrollwork, mosaic-laden, and elegantly laid out, for the most part. Compare it with the modern day utilitarianism you see in architecture, or even worse the ghastly horrors of buildings like GMIT in Galway, which I call the "the roof slipped off, say nothing and build around the arse of it" style.

Its not just buildings though, its everything. Clothing, tools, even utensils in the kitchen, all are missing that unique flavour of ornamentation which can only be called culture. Every single culture down through the ages had their own unique way of doing it; we managed to miss all of that and jump straight into consumerism and the disposable lifestyle. Not that almost everyone else isn't doing it now, of course.

Still, I can't help but get a feeling of loss when I look back at the elaborate works of ironmongery that people would call a gate in former times, polished brass and walnut bindings on books, beautiful engravings on even the simplest of tools and toys.

I mean this is Ireland, we should be expressing our rich culture in every way possible; where is the knotwork or the Kells-style illumination? Have we replaced the artisans who created the Ardagh chalice (and who knows what else) with tired, sad old jades who copy the works of other cultures from the seventies, or modern artists striving for a new way that somehow looks boringly like the old way? These are not part of our culture, they don't strike any note with me.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

if you want that kinda stuff... buy it, talk to your friends and convince them to buy it...
give the people who are still out there making it a market, and then other people will train to learn those skills.

Archeron

Sadly, most people now want cheap and functional over the more expensive and decorative options, so thats probably a lot to do with it.
I agree with you though, in particular with architecture. Looking at some of the buildings around the IFSC in Dublin is depressing. There should be less of that, and more of this:

Fabergé eggs for all!!!

simu

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Still, I can't help but get a feeling of loss when I look back at the elaborate works of ironmongery that people would call a gate in former times, polished brass and walnut bindings on books, beautiful engravings on even the simplest of tools and toys.

The rich had all this stuff. Most of the population lived in squalor.

They still do all this fancy stuff today tbh - go visit the Avoca shop or any of the many other lifestyle emporia we have around the place.

Archeron

simu wrote: »

The rich had all this stuff. Most of the population lived in squalor.

They still do all this fancy stuff today tbh - go visit the Avoca shop or any of the many other lifestyle emporia we have around the place.

Now though, I believe we have, as a society (in this small piece of the world yes, but stilll), the choice as to whether or not we want the more exquisite things. We could afford to do things of beauty or wonder if only the country managed its money properly. Instead we have a pile of 5 storey effboxes that have "CELTIC TIGER" stamped on them.
Ireland could offer the world things of unique beauty as our heritage can contest, and in this day and age most of Irelands people can enjoy participation in the creation of great and beautiful things. Sadly we are stuck in a place whereby the decision will favour the lowest bidder, and rarely will they provide things we will tell our great grand children about.
In the words of the illustrious ken Brockman, "i've said it beofre and sI'll say it again, Democacracy does not work"
The new U2 tower is cool and in world terms fairly insigificant, but already, there are groups opposed to it. BOOOO!!! This could be the beginnning of the change in attitude of a city that more that really needs desperately to invest in high rise, high density structures. This is a bloody good start.

Archeron

I've said before and I'll say again, in relation to Dublins spire; I like it, and had we not built it, we would have spent the equivalent cost on a study as to why we DIDN'T build it. Bollix. We have it now, love it, hate it, its a Dublin landmark.

dr_manhattan

My only problem with the spire is that it's 1/3 of it's proposed size. It would be so much better, bigger.

As regards this topic: well it's a 2 sided knife.

I straddle this aesthetic divide: to me, it's not remotely about ornamentation, as any housing estate from the 80s onwards will show you: covered in fake tudor beams, plaster mouldings, even fake lead glass windows, ireland is alive with ornamentation. I could show you a council flat in north dublin central where the owners, presumably unhappy with the geometric brick finish of their new home, bought a fake georgian *fireplace* and tacked it around the door. Ornamentation.

You go to B&Q and there's endless fiddly lighting pieces, from fake georgian to a bastardised style generally referred to as 'contemporary' fluted brushed steel and twiddly wires. Ornamentation.

Indeed, on a genuine piece of modern arcitecture, you can get in close and see incredible detail, flush fitting glass supports, crazy structural work to support improbable planes of the building. Ornamentation.

These days you hear all about "shaker" kitchens: all that seems to mean now is "wooden", but originally the shakers banned any adornment. Every piece of carpentry they made was as aimple as possible, and a striving toward a mathematical perfection that they believed was pleasing to god. Hidden in every backboard and invisible cross section was the measure of the object, a "hymn to god". Ornamentation of another kind.

You see, I love georgian buildings with a passion, but I hate fake georgian tat. I have seen many, many bizarrely proportioned and insane looking modern glass and concrete structures and loved them even more: but rarely in this country.

Because what has disappeared is not ornamentation, or the will to decorate, or even - as some would say - pride in work as a journeyman (which is a separate point about skills).

What has disappeared is true understanding of buildings.

We are churning out architects these days, and many of them are less educated than graphic design graduates. If a graphics guy ****s up, we get a crap poster or magazine, no problem move on. If an architect ****s up we live in it, no turning back.

And all development is being made as a profit - this is also very important. We cannot expect to build an entire country in 20 years by cuttingt costs and wind up with decent architecture. And we haven't: we have *really* screwed the pooch here, left ourselves with an *awful* mess to clean up.

But it's not a mess cos it's not "decorated", it's a mess cos it's fundementally clueless.

I think that it is futile and wasteful to steal directly from the past in order to fix this. There are many fake georgian developments that are just as disgusting as the glass ones, if not more so. I don't think it's an issue of dressing up crap cheap homes, as we already do that.

It's a question of where our priorities lie as a society.

See, capitalism is a huge problem to civic development. It's easy to look at the great georgian squares and say "amazing" but what enabled these to be built was the fact that - as nasty as that society was in other ways - it was seen as a *duty* of wealthy families to organise the town space and build from their own pockets.

These days, the wealthy try - publicly - to get *out* of their obligations in this regard. Developers worth millions try and scam public funding to make themselves even richer and nobody seems to think any less of them, or the mindless junk that they build - and force their competitors to build, too.

The problems that you list as a topic are not simply cured by "doing it again" vis a vis celtic art or traditonal building styles. Otherwise how do we progress? And do we accomodate everyone in crannogs? When do we decide that "our own" styles are "traditional"? Does the whole world adopt georgian decoration, cos in fairness, the whole world was colonised by europeans?

Lots of questions I suppose. But you are right in one thing: contemporary irish architectural design is seriously low in quality, vision and general survivability. If these buildings don't turn into slums in 20 years, then that's luck - but they will look dated, busted up, and tacky as hell.

It's a shame that, no matter what, we have to copy all of the UK's mistakes in order to find out that they're not the thing to do. We saw canary wharf in the 80s... and then just when that whole corrupt system of development was showing london how badly it had messed the place up... we got a loada dosh and built our own. And continue to do so. Hell, I've seen two developments that have been built and knocked and rebuilt again since 1990....!

anyways, rant done with ;-)

simu

Good points there, Dr. Manhatten.

It's not about ornamentation really, but good design. Unfortunately, most Irish people are visually illiterate and the education system does nothing much to address this and then, the government doesn't think beyond the next election and FF are practically the developers' party so you're not going to see any Hausmannian-type initiatives from them.

Archeron

dr_manhattan wrote: »

It's a shame that, no matter what, we have to copy all of the UK's mistakes in order to find out that they're not the thing to do. We saw canary wharf in the 80s... and then just when that whole corrupt system of development was showing london how badly it had messed the place up... we got a loada dosh and built our own. And continue to do so. Hell, I've seen two developments that have been built and knocked and rebuilt again since 1990....!

anyways, rant done with ;-)

Futuristic Irish architecture is a young thing and with the right guiding could go in many directions, and as you point out, can begin to express to the world in a vehemently way the culture and beauty that is contained within Irish and Celtic culture. While this new tower as above is generic, its a start. The people of Ireland have simply GOT to change their opinion of large buildings before anything definitive can happen.

SimpleSam06

simu wrote: »

The rich had all this stuff. Most of the population lived in squalor.

They still do all this fancy stuff today tbh - go visit the Avoca shop or any of the many other lifestyle emporia we have around the place.

Yes, but I would make the point that even the poorest today has access to things commonly that the greatest kings of yore could only dream of. Manufacture these days is like cooking - its almost as easy to do it right as wrong.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

I could show you a council flat in north dublin central where the owners, presumably unhappy with the geometric brick finish of their new home, bought a fake georgian *fireplace* and tacked it around the door. Ornamentation.

You see, I love georgian buildings with a passion, but I hate fake georgian tat. I have seen many, many bizarrely proportioned and insane looking modern glass and concrete structures and loved them even more: but rarely in this country.

Well the problem I have is not with Georgian work specifically, its that Georgian is not Irish. I greatly admire the the embellishments and artisanship of the ancient Egyptians as well, but it wouldn't make me happier to see it widespread in Ireland. We are unique, and should be expressing that uniqueness.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

We are churning out architects these days, and many of them are less educated than graphic design graduates.

Eh, I wasn't aware of any particular changing of the standards required to become an architect. Maybe you are referring to their grasp of aesthetics?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

And all development is being made as a profit - this is also very important. We cannot expect to build an entire country in 20 years by cuttingt costs and wind up with decent architecture. And we haven't: we have *really* screwed the pooch here, left ourselves with an *awful* mess to clean up.

You could combat this by setting up tax breaks for construction which incorporates a certain amount of Irish cultural content. There are plenty of people out there trained in doing just that, you could set up consultancy groups and training workshops to give an advantage to developers who promote the local culture.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

I think that it is futile and wasteful to steal directly from the past in order to fix this.

But you see, no one has "stolen" from our past, no one has attempted to do what I am talking about. "Stealing" from Georgian designs is "stealing" from a culture which is not our own, cross seeding bedamned.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

These days, the wealthy try - publicly - to get *out* of their obligations in this regard.

Reduced taxation and different planning regulations, as I said.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

The problems that you list as a topic are not simply cured by "doing it again" vis a vis celtic art or traditonal building styles. Otherwise how do we progress?

But its not doing it again, its never been done before. We can't progress until we try it and experiment with it, and its a direction which has never before been taken. Otherwise we're stuck mimicking the work of architects who, while talented, are not Irish. Thats not progress. We need to be influencing them, not the other way around.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

And do we accomodate everyone in crannogs? When do we decide that "our own" styles are "traditional"?

You cannot deny that there are significant differences between what I am talking about and what is currently or has ever existed. Yes there is a fine line to walk between the cultural and the kitsch, but I am fully confident that with the right management, we can stay easily on track.

simu

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Yes, but I would make the point that even the poorest today has access to things commonly that the greatest kings of yore could only dream of. Manufacture these days is like cooking - its almost as easy to do it right as wrong.

True.

Well the problem I have is not with Georgian work specifically, its that Georgian is not Irish. I greatly admire the the embellishments and artisanship of the ancient Egyptians as well, but it wouldn't make me happier to see it widespread in Ireland. We are unique, and should be expressing that uniqueness.

WEll, like it or not, it's part of our history. The English had a tad more of an influence on our past than the Egyptians!

I don't know why you're bringing nationalism into this. I agree with you that we need to improve design standards in Ireland but the "the knotwork or the Kells-style illumination" are things of the past. Certainly, a contemporary architect might incorporate influences from that past into their design but I don't think their doing so is necessary. Irish architects today have an international outlook - you can hardly expect them to cut themselves off from outside influences - and being international is part of Irish culture these days. It's better for architects to create their own visions from wherever they find inspiration than try to represent "Irishness" in their work tbh.

Celtic culture wasn't exclusive to Ireland either. Irish culture never existed in a vacuum, cut off from the outside world.

SimpleSam06

simu wrote: »

WEll, like it or not, it's part of our history. The English had a tad more of an influence on our past than the Egyptians!

Yes, but whether or not it is part of our future is our own decision to make.

simu wrote: »

I don't know why you're bringing nationalism into this.

Nationalism has gotten a bit of a bad rep recently, what with terrorist activities and all. That doesn't mean that someone seeking to promote Irish culture is neccessarily supporting terrorists, however, although they might be accused of being nationalist. My point being that that's not always a bad thing.

simu wrote: »

I agree with you that we need to improve design standards in Ireland but the "the knotwork or the Kells-style illumination" are things of the past.

They are as much a thing of the past as we let them be.

simu wrote: »

Irish architects today have an international outlook - you can hardly expect them to cut themselves off from outside influences - and being international is part of Irish culture these days.

What you are referring to is a mind-numbing grey sameness that globalisation brings with it, which usually boils down to mimicking the Americans or whatever the flavour du jour is. We can do better than that, surely, drawing upon the work of our ancestors?

simu wrote: »

Celtic culture wasn't exclusive to Ireland either. Irish culture never existed in a vacuum, cut off from the outside world.

I'm not sure what your point is here; what I am referring to are those works that identify Ireland uniquely, much as certain building styles identified the Greeks and Romans uniquely, and certain ornamentation can be immediately recognised as ancient Egyptian in nature.

Victor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I was just thinking there the last day, one of the things we are really missing out on these days is a bit of ornamentation. Take for example the buildings of the pre-1940s going all the way back through history, carved with ornate scrollwork, mosaic-laden, and elegantly laid out, for the most part. Compare it with the modern day utilitarianism you see in architecture, or even worse the ghastly horrors of buildings like GMIT in Galway, which I call the "the roof slipped off, say nothing and build around the arse of it" style.

This is slightly Darwinian. The good old buildings are kept and the bad ones demolished. This leaves the impression that old = good.

dr_manhattan

Victor that's a really good point.

To answer one question put to me:

"Eh, I wasn't aware of any particular changing of the standards required to become an architect. Maybe you are referring to their grasp of aesthetics?"

What I mean is that artists and designers and architects and generally creative people in Ireland are not being properly informed of what their job is and where their 'creative duties' lie. Designers are being told they're some kind of media rockstar, and architects are under the impression their job is to facilitate the fantasies of the greedy.

I'm a bit old school and believe that the architect, creative etc have a duty to serve the ergonomic needs of their people while creating a coherent environment for them. In non ponsy speak: make livable places and flavour them with an idea - or set of ideas - that makes sense, on a large scale.

As regards the question of georgian not being irish... well I'd first have to point out that we are all speaking english, and very few of us could lay any claim to being any more 'irish' than the other. Especially on the east coast we are a mongrel people just like our mongrel neighbours, and we have to have the cultural confidence to realise they are a part of our heritage.

Much as many irish people seem to want to, there is no way to isolate what is 'irish' from what is imported. We cannot turn back the clocks to a society that lived as warlords in crannogs an raths either, for two reasons:

1. These people were probably not 'indigenous irish' anyway, having blown in from somewhere else on the ice sheets

2. 800 year old societies do not have the aesthetic means to directly give us clues to how we should look or dress or act now. Hell, even the irish language itself betrays a wealth of evidence of previous languages spoken in ireland that it has incorporated into itself: hell there's traces of words all the way from mesopotmia and lebanon in irish.

So what I mean is: you cannot make up what 'irish' is, based on your idea of what it would be like if the brits never came etc (LOL chances are it would just have meant that the spanish, french or germans did... same deal, different language) - and the main reason for this is that every irish person has different strong ideas of what 'irish' means.

To some, it's riverdance and clannad, to others it's shane mcgowan or luke kelly, to still others its some mishmash of pretentious suburban spiral artwork, whatever: but you cannot simply appoint a comitee and decide what "irish content" is and give money on that basis: that just leads to crap gouger ideas being covered in a few le tain knots and a mural or brian boru, and presto, massive taxt rebate.

I mean, is that what Ireland is?

My opinion is that Ireland's position as a mongrel coastal nation and one of few EU members that have not had entirely imperialist pasts is unique and challenging. We're a messy fusion culture and we always have been: it's just we're getting to grips with having the money to express our identity in public architecture (hell we're still getting over our inability to *use* public architecture, other than urinating on it, that is...).

We have to learn how to create our own school of design again. We have always been a country that repared everyone else's castoffs and used them, and our only sense of 'interior decorating' was gloss paint and woodchip wallpaper to cover all the joins and mildew.

The sad fact is that if a type off architecture exists that is truly a 'living language', and native to ireland, it would be the style of the 80s Rathmines bedsit: cobbled together old pub ashtrays and baby bellings, with hendrix posters over bat tecture wallpaper. Or the 'rural vernacular' of spanish arches and bungalows that dot our roadsides since the 70s.

We just have to learn that when we spend money on large pieces of real estate, we have to consider factors other than personal profit: there are large scale questions of infestructure and usability, and we have to develop a means of addressing them all, instead of the patchwork systems we now use: glass for office buildings like new york and london, pine floors for residential, and if you get a site on a city corner, then put a roundy thing on top of it that looks like a control tower ;-)

Growing pains of a once-banana republic I suppose. But trying to define what's 'irish culture' and give tax breaks based on it? I just don't think that could in any way be workable.

We have some impressive examples of colonial architecture to learn about scale and infrastructure though, and we have the successes and failures of other european capitals to teach us lessons though: I really don't see why we should mindlessly repeat their mistakes so that eventually the ugly suburbs of dublin end at the cliffs of moher shopping centre, 359th roundabout after red cow, or get there on the beige luas....!

dr_manhattan

Also:

"I'm not sure what your point is here; what I am referring to are those works that identify Ireland uniquely, much as certain building styles identified the Greeks and Romans uniquely, and certain ornamentation can be immediately recognised as ancient Egyptian in nature"

If you could be more specific about the actual building styles you're talking about here (stone huts, crannogs, castles, cottages....?) then it would be easier to discuss. But in my opinion, any uniquely irish building style would have existed so long ago that it is simply not capable of providing any kind of real input into a modern - urban or rural - situation.

Back when these systems existed, land was not under private ownership, there were no cities and no centralised sanitation or power considerations. These buildings were heavy, lacked foundations and would not have been tremendously complex in structure.

And don't get me wrong: I do in a way agree that any postcolonial culture such as ours, having lost contact with our i supposed 'indigenous' customs, language and building styles, should prioritise the study of and return to its own cultural heritage in order to sustain itself.

But my question is simply, what exactly do we have that we can go back to that gives us real, usable information?

The order of the evolution of language is that two languages beside each other create first a pidgin language, with no grammar. The first genration of children will give a grammatical system to it, and it becomes a patois, which will then mature into a Creole with successive generations.

I believe Ireland's pidgin was the repaired colonial buildings and gloss paint bedsit era. I believe now we have a patois of styles robbed from other cities: I think it will be for the better if our economy becomes more stable and we have a chance to develop a style or language of architecture that we can develop a creole or a full blooded dialect ;-)

Sorry about the smug artsy metaphor LOL

SimpleSam06

Victor wrote: »

This is slightly Darwinian. The good old buildings are kept and the bad ones demolished. This leaves the impression that old = good.

Eh you missed my point there, somewhat. I didn't say that all old buildings were good. The point I was making was that we need a new style based on our own culture.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

architects are under the impression their job is to facilitate the fantasies of the greedy.

And where did you get this impression from?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

As regards the question of georgian not being irish... well I'd first have to point out that we are all speaking english, and very few of us could lay any claim to being any more 'irish' than the other.

I believe I already addressed this point in a previous post. While Georgian architecture may have been a part of our past, we get to decide whether or not it will be part of our future. I'll have to go with "not", there.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Especially on the east coast we are a mongrel people just like our mongrel neighbours, and we have to have the cultural confidence to realise they are a part of our heritage.

Sigh. Where does breeding come into this? We're talking about culture here. You sound like an aristocrat. And being part of our history doesn't make things part of our heritage, realise that.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Much as many irish people seem to want to, there is no way to isolate what is 'irish' from what is imported.

Entirely wrong. Ironically, I can say this purely because of our colonial past; the occupiers made every effort to distance themselves from Irish culture, and not mix it with their own.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

We cannot turn back the clocks to a society that lived as warlords in crannogs an raths either

Who was talking about that? You can't just misrepresent a persons position and then knock down your misrepresentation, that is called a "straw man".

dr_manhattan wrote: »

1. These people were probably not 'indigenous irish' anyway, having blown in from somewhere else on the ice sheets

Again you are mixing culture with race. Why do you do that?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

2. 800 year old societies do not have the aesthetic means to directly give us clues to how we should look or dress or act now.

This sentence makes no sense whatsoever, you do realise that.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Hell, even the irish language itself betrays a wealth of evidence of previous languages spoken in ireland that it has incorporated into itself: hell there's traces of words all the way from mesopotmia and lebanon in irish.

Aaand your follow-up has no bearing on the conversation.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

So what I mean is: you cannot make up what 'irish' is, based on your idea of what it would be like if the brits never came etc

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't most or all of culture "made up"? I mean don't get me wrong, crowds of people rarely spontaneously come up with a new artistic endeavour, but at some stage, someone sat down and doodled something, and said, "hey, thats pretty, I'll put that on me t-shirt". Is that not what we are talking about here also?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

To some, it's riverdance and clannad, to others it's shane mcgowan or luke kelly, to still others its some mishmash of pretentious suburban spiral artwork, whatever:

Okay, let me put it to you like this, to make it nice and simple for you. Show your average international citizen a picture of Shane McGowan, they'll say "vagrant". Show them some of the spiral carvings at Newgrange and they will say "Irish". On a related note, I wonder did the creators of newgrange (I believe it was built before or around the same time as the pyramids, there) ever imagine that some individual with a poor grasp of what he is talking about would someday call their work "pretentious suburban spiral artwork". I'd like to think they would have laughed.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

but you cannot simply appoint a comitee and decide what "irish content" is and give money on that basis: that just leads to crap gouger ideas being covered in a few le tain knots and a mural or brian boru, and presto, massive taxt rebate.

But hold on a second, if its so plainly a crap gouger idea, why the hell are they getting a tax rebate? And there is more to that kind of artwork than murals and knots.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

My opinion is that Ireland's position as a mongrel coastal nation

Okay just hold on there with your "mongrel nation". What do you think a "purebred nation" would be like, in your world?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

The sad fact is that if a type off architecture exists that is truly a 'living language', and native to ireland, it would be the style of the 80s Rathmines bedsit: cobbled together old pub ashtrays and baby bellings, with hendrix posters over bat tecture wallpaper. Or the 'rural vernacular' of spanish arches and bungalows that dot our roadsides since the 70s.... it's just we're getting to grips with having the money to express our identity in public architecture... We have to learn how to create our own school of design again.

And perhaps this conversation is a part of that process...

dr_manhattan wrote: »

(hell we're still getting over our inability to *use* public architecture, other than urinating on it, that is...).

You're starting to turn pig ignorant there, my windy friend.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

But trying to define what's 'irish culture' and give tax breaks based on it? I just don't think that could in any way be workable.

Its fairly clear you haven't thought about it much, if at all, in fairness.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

But in my opinion, any uniquely irish building style would have existed so long ago that it is simply not capable of providing any kind of real input into a modern - urban or rural - situation.

Yes, but then again you think that most architects are less educated than graphic designers, who for some reason are low on your spectrum of the educated, so I'll be taking that with a pinch of salt.

You need to use your imagination, get the feeling of these old buildings, the designs worked into them, listen to the music of our native land, and picture something coming from that. You know, culture. If you are saying we should start building round forts in Meath (ho ho!), you have missed the point.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Back when these systems existed, land was not under private ownership,

What?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

The order of the evolution of language is that two languages beside each other create first a pidgin language, with no grammar. The first genration of children will give a grammatical system to it, and it becomes a patois, which will then mature into a Creole with successive generations.

Because of course, architecture and culture exactly mimic undisturbed language patterns. But of course the Irish never had an "architectural language" in your terms anyway, so really that analogy doesn't hold a drop of water by default. Do feel free to try again though, this is great fun.

MoominPapa

Is it just me or is there something a bit Barad-Dur about this?
Maybe during Saurons pimp phase...

dr_manhattan

So I'm wrong, wrong and wrong again.

I notice you've not actually mentioned specifically what you're referring to in terms of "irishness" and architecture, apart from to say:

"You need to use your imagination, get the feeling of these old buildings, the designs worked into them, listen to the music of our native land, and picture something coming from that. You know, culture."

That's very enlightening. What old buildings are you talking about please? What music?

"If you are saying we should start building round forts in Meath (ho ho!), you have missed the point."

Actually I'm not "saying" anything - I'm "asking" you where and what it is you are talking about when you restrict "irish" culture to what you call "irish" - you are the one acting like you know what it is or isn't.

You said we have to use irish buildings. You never said which ones: so I made a guess. Care to enlighten me?

All I know of as regards precolonial irish architecture is round forts and passage graves, and the odd cottage or wayhouse. I have asked you about 5 times to specifiy what you mean: any chance?

As regards the rest of what you say, you're missing my point at every turn:

"the occupiers made every effort to distance themselves from Irish culture, and not mix it with their own."

So we're speaking irish now, are we? The english language was kept separate from us, was it? Our cultures are also separate? Oh wait, you seem to think that language and culture have no connection, my bad.

So our irish culture remains intact, but in english? Okaaaaay....

Irish and english culture - like it or not - are irrevocably fused: unless you can have this conversation in irish, then you have to accept my point. Even if you can, I can't - and I'm just as irish as you are.

"Sigh. Where does breeding come into this? We're talking about culture here."

Where did I mention breeding? My use of the term "mongrel" means a fusion culture. Cultures come from people, you realise that, yes?

Aran sweater patterns originate in Egyptian coptic patternage. Le tain spiral decoration has roots in Iran and mesopotamia. As I have said *already* irish shares words with a dozen european and arabic languages. Triskeles are not uniquely irish either. Hell, even the term "celtic" is a bull**** concoction of late 91th century romantics...

So I ask again, what is irish to you, what do you mean, and what are you talking about? Again, please specify which decorations, which buildings, and which music: it's very simple - you say what you're talking about, and then it can be discussed.

"Because of course, architecture and culture exactly mimic undisturbed language patterns."

Again I never said that (it's funny you are good enough to explain the term "staw man" to me....) - but they do reflect each other. Language, architecture and music all even borrow terminology from each other.

Can you explain please what an "undisturbed" language pattern is?

And I didn't say Ireland didn't have a language, I said Ireland has a limited vernacular: that's still a language it's just a very crude one.

Nor indeed did I say:

"I wonder did the creators of newgrange (I believe it was built before or around the same time as the pyramids, there) ever imagine that some individual with a poor grasp of what he is talking about would someday call their work "pretentious suburban spiral artwork". I'd like to think they would have laughed."

1. Newgrange predates the egyptian pyramids by 1.500-2,000 years. You don't know your subject very well do you?

2. I described mindless copying of spiral motifs as "pretentious suburban spiral artwork". It is. When you copy the spirals at newgrange, they are no longer "the spirals at newgrange" they are a **** copy hanging on your wall or decorating your kilkenny design diary.

When you copt the book of kells it is no longer the book of kells it is your **** copy, decorating a pub grub menu or whatever. These designs were for gospels and tombs respectively. They are not for modern use.

Perhaps now you can understand the sentence:

"800 year old societies do not have the aesthetic means to directly give us clues to how we should look or dress or act now."

Which makes perferct sense: you cannot take the 100 or so pieces of technology in use 800 years ago and use them to decoate the 50000 or so in use today. To do so is a retarded act of hubris, based on YOUR idea of what things should look like, not anything else.

And finally:

"Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't most or all of culture "made up"? I mean don't get me wrong, crowds of people rarely spontaneously come up with a new artistic endeavour, but at some stage, someone sat down and doodled something, and said, "hey, thats pretty, I'll put that on me t-shirt". Is that not what we are talking about here also?"

You are completely wrong, and should stand corrected. The fact that you obviously think the spirals at newgrange were "doodled" and someone went "oh that's pretty" shows why you are naive enough to make the rdiculous and uninformed statements you are making about irish architecture and design, and why you seem to think that culture, language and architecture are separate issues.

Now, I'm expecting a reply in fluent irish, seeing as your culture is separate from all others. In it I hope to see:

1. a list of the building you think should be used as your template for irish architecture

2. a list of irish artefacts (e.g. aran patterns etc) that are and are not irish, and why they are and are not irish according to you.

3. an explanation of how - with 60% of irish people unable to converse in the language or even interested in it - irish culture is intact and separate from colonial culture.

4. an explanation of how irish traditional music so strongly resembles many other musical styles from Iraq to the catskills mountains, some of them *younger* than irish traditional music yet still incorporated in it after their birth.

From the above, we can have a better idea of whatever it is you're talking about when you say "irish" and then I can reply to your sarky, snide asides and generally act like an internet wiseguy. According to you, it's enjoyable so I'd like a go.

Can I call you "pig ignorant" too? Or accompany your explanation of "straw man" with one of the term "ad hominem"?

dr_manhattan

Oh and btw:

"Back when these systems existed, land was not under private ownership"

To which you reply "what?"

Can you not read?

The normans brought the feudal system to Ireland. It is not exactly private ownership, but it's a precursor to the system we now use.

Before that, land rights were tribal and disputes were frequent. You could take your neighbours land and as long as you had the strength or guile to keep it, it was yours.

Thus: land was not under private ownership.

No gridded field systems, no boroughs, no rates, no tax, no tenancy schemes, no centralised currency, no property laws.

Does this really have to be explained to you?

SimpleSam06

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Oh and btw:

"Back when these systems existed, land was not under private ownership"

To which you reply "what?"

Can you not read?

Just when I thought you couldn't get any wronger, you outdo yourself. Colour me impressed.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

The normans brought the feudal system to Ireland. It is not exactly private ownership, but it's a precursor to the system we now use.

Before that, land rights were tribal and disputes were frequent. You could take your neighbours land and as long as you had the strength or guile to keep it, it was yours.

Thus: land was not under private ownership.

No gridded field systems, no boroughs, no rates, no tax, no tenancy schemes, no centralised currency, no property laws.

Does this really have to be explained to you?

Oh yes, I stand in awe of your wisdom and knowledge, I mean its not like the Brehon laws had anything to say about property and land, now is it? You have heard of the Brehon laws, haven't you? Surely someone with such a vast and comprehensive understanding of early Irish culture would know:

1. The Tribe or Clan chief held a portion of mensal land for as long as he or she held office. In this case, mensal land means property set aside to support the additional responsibilities of rulership.
2. The portion of land held by the individual clan member or tuath.

3. A portion of individual clan member holdings assigned to a tenant. Such assignments were usually under a seven-year contract and could be sub-let to another tenant. However, the original tenant retained responsibility to the original holder. Fees were paid for such tenancy were usually in cattle, hogs and/or a share of crops grown.

4. The larger part of arable tribal territory was held in general trust. It belonged to the people in general and was normally allotted into sub-divisions for the various septs and families. None of this was considered "private property," but was occupied by free members of the sept on more or less permanent basis. Every freeman had a right to a share. Land so held was not assigned for a fixed term, as it remained liable to occasional reassignment, usually every three or four years. It was also subject to gabhalaichean (Anglicized to gavelkind), a method whereby land held by a deceased tenant was redistributed. While these provisions may seem rather tenuous, individual rights were guaranteed. An individual could not be removed from his holdings until time of gaveling. Even then, each individual kept his crops and was compensated for unexhausted improvements. While the person might lose one farm, it was always replaced by another.

5. Non-arable or wastelands, such as bog, forest or mountain, was considered common land. It was not appropriated by individuals, but was available to all free citizens for grazing, hunting, procuring food and firewood etc. There was no need or desire to subdivide or fence the common land. All cattle grazed at will without distinction.

Tenant Subsidies and Payment

Every Tribesman was required to pay subsidies to the Chief according to individual means. Those who held tribe land and used commons-land for grazing paid such subsidies. However, this was not considered land rent. A tribesman under the protection of a chief and used commons-land was called Ceíle. Some Ceíle had stock of their own, but most did not. Those that did not own stock could receive such stock from the chief, Nemedh or Aíre at a designated rate of payment. This custom of receiving and taking stock on hire was universal in Ireland and regulated in great detail by the Law.

Each tenant and tradesman was required to give the chief an annual or semi-annual tribute. Generally, this was in the form of foodstuffs such as cows, pigs, grain, honey, butter, etc. Tribute could also take the form of payment in goods produced by an artificer or craftsman in various form including weapons, ornaments, cloth and clothing, plates, or even services such as that of a master builder. Some tenants were required to give coinmed, that is the chief was privileged to travel with a retinue for one or more days to the house of the tenant, who was required to house and feed them for their stay. This system was copied by the Norman invaders, but great abuse of the system eventually resulted in prohibition by English Law.

Inheritance of Land

Land passed from one person to the next in three ways.
1. Privately held property was divided among the heirs at the holder's death or could be divided among them during life. The latter custom was often done, especially when the holder became aged. Generally, the land was divided so that the youngest heir held the original home-place and became responsible for care of the aging parents.

2. Land held as a mensal estate passed to the person succeeding as Chief and not to the heirs. This system is known as Tanistry.

3. When a land-holding tenant died, the farm did not go to the heirs. Rather, it was redivided or gaveled among all landholders of the sept, including the heirs of the deceased. Land excluded from this procedure were that held by the chief and privately held lands.

But sure of course all of us paddies were just raking muck with our mitts for fun before civilised cultures docked up and brought the smack of firm government. Isn't that right?

Oho yes, and before I forget, you actually outdid your previous wrongness score in the very same post. The oldest field systems on earth are in County Mayo.

Seriously, haven't you embarrassed yourself enough?

SimpleSam06

dr_manhattan wrote: »

So I'm wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Well, at least you managed to get that much right. What follows is what can be best described as as wild a concoction as has every hit the intertubes.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Can I call you "pig ignorant" too? Or accompany your explanation of "straw man" with one of the term "ad hominem"?

No, but I can clarify the use of the term "pig ignorant" for you as it pertains to the lack of use of public buildings by the Irish except as urinals for you, if you like.

As for the rest, I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond point by point to your rambling, incoherent, contempt-filled (for the achievements of the Irish people) mostly incorrect and entirely sourceless diatribe. Trying to disentangle actual points from it is at best an exercise in futility. The stinging pain I got behind my left eyeball from making the attempt indicates to me that yes, I just got stupider. My previous post is as close as I desire to get to what's going on inside your bone box.

So to summarise your ends of things: Ireland has no culture, had no culture, and is incapable of producing a culture. We, mongrels that we are, are however very capable of pissing up the side of buildings because we don't know what else to do with them. Oh yes, and the Irish language is barely a language, more of a collection of grunts. All this while in the same breath pointing out that we have astonishing buildings that predate the Egyptians by thousands of years, which takes some doing by the way.

We'll just couple this with a grasp of the concept of culture that could be charitably called ephemeral, a grasp of history that could reasonably be called non-existent, marinaded in ad hoc spaghetti grammar, and blatant falsehoods, and we have more or less all the signatures of a tired old west brit.

Do us a favour and increase the signal to noise ratio by going elsewhere.

dr_manhattan

Wow, how surprising. Not only can you not manage to explain your ideas of "irish architecture" but you think I - or anyone else - cares that you've given yourself a headache having a tantrum about my posts.

And then:

"tired old west brit"

So like most irish inferiority complex sufferers, you make up your own ideas of what's "irish", refuse to define them, and anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of "brit"

A boring man with boring opinions and boring insults... how unusual for this backward little island.

Archeron

MoominPapa wrote: »

Is it just me or is there something a bit Barad-Dur about this?
Maybe during Saurons pimp phase...

Hahaha. I didnt get the Baradur reference, and didnt see the rest of the text under your picture til now.
So is Bono Sauruman in this, or some sort of aspiring hobbit?

Nonetheless, I still like the building, even if it will unleash evil hoards on the world.

dr_manhattan

"So is Bono Sauruman in this, or some sort of aspiring hobbit?"

Ach, mixing your lord of the rings metaphors ;-)

Barad dur was the tower of sauron, no? Saruman was minas tirith... no, he was... Isengard, that's it.

But yeah, the old recording studio is a bit all seeing eye...

well they are called U2, right? Okay I'll get me coat...

MoominPapa

Archeron wrote: »

So is Bono Sauruman in this, or some sort of aspiring hobbit?

Evil Dwarf:D