Could it be that we actually want the answer to “Why does it look that way?” to be, “Because I wanted it to.”?

In some ways, that’s an easier thing to grasp than understanding the complexities of scripting, etc…Because, you know what?  Despite all of the explanations and the sine curve this and wind data that, I still think it’s mostly aesthetic–you rig the experiment to come up with what you want and tweak it to make it hot.  If someone just said, “I want it to look like this,”  then at least they’d be speaking the truth.  

One of the problems in all of this is that of the singular “taste”-maker.  What happens when an architecture needs to be produced by a group of people?  A network of people?  At that point, you move away from correct taste and into group taste–a place where the results are far from certain and to me, much more interesting.  Do you create a model where anyone can change the variables?  A place where control is not centralized but distributed? 

Beware, it might not end up sexy.  As evidenced by the painting above, public taste cannot necessarily be trusted.  But I like the idea of a place where taste is allowed and encouraged but it must fight the democratic fight.  Too often, a designer gets their way through force of personality (being louder, being meaner).  In a no-holds-barred battle to the death, “taste” would become just another ”idea” jockeying for position.  Actually, I think the better metaphor is gambling.  Gambling is cooler, leaner, more flexible.  Could we place bets on certain aesthetic determinants and see what wins?  It’s not a new idea–the faux Hollywood Stock Exchange has been operating for years–betting on buzz.  And that’s what taste is, really.  Buzz.  Who’s got it?  Who’s lost it?