JohnJ_7_i
So if you haven't hear by now there is this thing going around in the architecture department. Its called sustainability. Ya its that thing that made your building what it is.
I have rejected joining the sustainability movement and after reading this chapter I know exactly why.
Has anyone seen Al Gore's movie the Inconceivable Truth? It was by far one of the downer movies I've ever seen. His story of the end of the world is near, is repeated over and over by some may lecturers, professors, and environmentalist. I don't want to be told over and over again that by the time that I am 40 that we will have no food, no water, not be able to walk ten feet without running into a natural disaster.
What they should have sold to me are the positives.
The preservations to leave a site untouched except right where the building will be, the way any architect conceives a building in the first place. The use to get natural light into a building, because we all love working under florescent lights all day. The ability to not have to change a light bulb every 2 months but only once every 5 years. The better air quality of the air instead of the photos of lung cancer. or not the last ... The better looking products of wood instead of metal or plastic laminate.
We as architects also have a problem of explaining why we choose to make decisions we do, and its from storytelling that we need to find a way.
Labels: Architecture, JJ, Sustainability
posted by Unknown @ 9:08 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I think Al Gore made the mistake to use the same approach as Moore (see Chad's Post)
It may have been a downer, but at least you had a choice to watch it. Imagine being forced to watch it in school.
>>>>>>
In July, a judge ruled that the British government's decision to send Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth documentary to 3,500 English secondary schools did not constitute political indoctrination of children. British citizen and fun-name owner Stewart Dimmock disagrees, and is suing his government to quash the dastardly distribution. Dimmock claims the "irredeemable" film contains "serious inaccuracies" and "misrepresentations"; that "the majority of the arguments are false, or falsely exaggerated"; that the movie is aimed at "scaring children into a particular point of view"; and that, by his calculations, An Inconvenient Truth is "just over half scientific material, 30 percent pure politics and about 20 percent sentimental mush." All of which we heartily pooh-pooh -- except maybe the mush part.
I think the makers of that doc were going for shock value. They were trying to really force people to pay attention to the fact that a problem exists.
Clearly, it hasn't worked for everyone. I haven't even seen it.
I've seen this one as well and I totally agree that they were going for shock value. It seemed to me that they were basically trying to scare everyone into caring more about the environment. As to whether or not it worked, I don't know. It definitely would've been nice to see what is happening that is good when it comes to the environment.
Post a Comment
<< Home