<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Comment on the Nature of Architecture</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.designmyhome.com/2009/02/23/comment-on-the-nature-of-architecture/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.designmyhome.com/2009/02/23/comment-on-the-nature-of-architecture/</link>
	<description>random stuff about residential (and other) design from a couple of curmudgeonly architects</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:29:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: doug</title>
		<link>http://www.designmyhome.com/2009/02/23/comment-on-the-nature-of-architecture/comment-page-1/#comment-6397</link>
		<dc:creator>doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:45:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.designmyhome.com/?p=85#comment-6397</guid>
		<description>&quot;Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,&quot; right?  I actually think that their are some objective qualities of beauty that we refuse to acknowledge in the name of tolerance.  A tolerance that became necessary in the 1850&#039;s with they invention of the photograph and the subsequent chaos in the art world as artists attempted to redefine themselves.  As a result, &quot;art&quot; become something different and anything became universally accepted under that banner.  We are no longer taught what is beautiful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,&#8221; right?  I actually think that their are some objective qualities of beauty that we refuse to acknowledge in the name of tolerance.  A tolerance that became necessary in the 1850&#8242;s with they invention of the photograph and the subsequent chaos in the art world as artists attempted to redefine themselves.  As a result, &#8220;art&#8221; become something different and anything became universally accepted under that banner.  We are no longer taught what is beautiful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TJ Hirst</title>
		<link>http://www.designmyhome.com/2009/02/23/comment-on-the-nature-of-architecture/comment-page-1/#comment-6395</link>
		<dc:creator>TJ Hirst</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:13:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.designmyhome.com/?p=85#comment-6395</guid>
		<description>It could probably be both reasons, but I think the more interesting question might be which came first? My guess is that society does not value beauty because we no longer recognize it when we see it. Too many people calling good bad and bad good warps our understanding of what beauty is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It could probably be both reasons, but I think the more interesting question might be which came first? My guess is that society does not value beauty because we no longer recognize it when we see it. Too many people calling good bad and bad good warps our understanding of what beauty is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
