Me: “That’s another myth. Most casinos I visit are very nice.”
Cuntactor: “I’ve been inside most of the ones here and they’re either downmarket-tacky or faux-opulent. Definitely not inviting.”
I have no idea what he or she just said, definately sounds negative though. This isn’t the first time I heard someone describe casino aesthetics in a negative way.
Personally, I’m totally fascinated the way many casinos are constructed and decorated (except the excessive use of the color brown). I guess I am missing something. It’s appearing that with some people, casinos are examples of bad architecture. Why? What are some examples of good architecture then? I’m from the midwest, everything is boring out here, I guess I have not been exposed to such.
The other person, regardless of who said it was referring to a taste and class difference that applies to lots of different things. The basic idea is that unsophisticated people like things that are shiny and gaudy because they think it represents class and money. Other people, often people who are truly wealthy, really dislike the the idea of shiny, gaudy, and fake things because they attract the first kind of people. The comments weren’t really based on architecture or design. That is a wholly different discussion. They were based on people’s innate desire to self-segregate.
I have no idea what the other thread was about, but along the same lines of what Shagnasty stated, it’s the difference between openly flaunting what you have (or want people to think you have) by decorating in an over the top, tacky manner vs. being more understated.
But I suppose there’s no such thing as “good” or “bad” as taste is in the eye of the beholder.
Being from the midwest shouldn’t factor into whether one knows “good” interior design or not either.
Frank Lloyd Wright designed many beautiful buidlings, and many of his homes seem unlivable, and his public buildings dysfunctional. They leak, require constant heavy maintenance, etc.
I used to work in the East Wing of the National Gallery of Art, a noted architectural achievement of IM Pei. None of the offices (and I mean none) have walls at right angles to each other, so you can’t do simple things like put a desk in a corner.
I’m sure there are beautiful examples of architecture that are equally as functional. One example I can think of is the Guggenheim Museum in NYC, oddly enough another Wright design. IMO it’s a brillliant spiral design ideally suited for the purpose of viewing art. But I have no idea if if suffers from physical plant issues as so many others of Wright’s do.
Take over-the-top elements like chandeliers and mirrors, mix in a bunch of stuff from different time periods and styles, make everything out of scale to each other, and combine it with practical features like a dropped ceiling and you have your basic train wreck of design.
One of the worst things I’ve seen was a horizontal beam (is that redundant?) covered with fake brick. Bricks don’t work that way, it’d fall down almost immediately if it were real.
To me, good design takes practical constraints from the environment, building materials, and structural concerns and makes them look natural, harmonious, and beautiful.
Narrow brick town house, cob houses, adobe structures, Prarie/Ranch-style houses, glass curtain skyscrapers, all reflect the reality of the time and place they were built.
This isn’t the first time I heard someone describe casino aesthetics in a negative way.