Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA13546 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:16:46 GMT From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:10:14 +0100 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Darwinian Processes and Memes in Architecture Message-ID: <3C150896.5508.23C7F1@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>not to overreach, and I am not certain what we can do to keep the
I think it is important to get more statistical data and prove.
When the authors of this architecture article claim that modernist
art raises no emotions by the viewer they 'prove' this with some
ominous brain structure explanation. Actually the best way for
proving this would be to ask a broad enough number of people
(ideally in different cultures and societies) what they feel or think
when they are exposed to a certain piece of art or architecture in
Instead of explaining why a certain style is good or bad an
analysation of the actual taste-distribution in a culture/society
would be an adequate means of memetics research.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 18:25:35 GMT