Theories and Sembreak Reading

Theories and Sembreak Reading

I don’t like “Theories of Modern Art.”

There are no theories in it, just a dragging trail of art critique backed up with the artists’ biography and memoirs. I don’t know why I even expected the level of Butterfly Effect of the Chaos Theory or Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning Theory to be used in the analysis of art. It’s stupid on my part, I know, but the title did say “theories.”

Saying I find these psychological, scientific and even economic theories interesting would not suffice in encapsulating my zest in reading about them. I like how they attempt to methodically explain the gray areas of life. I like how they seem more realistic than the established scientific laws we have. I like the fact that they can’t really be proven with mere experimentation and still, one can’t deny the possibility of their truth and existence.

I like them enough that I think I’d probably end up using them as the foundation of my architectural concepts in the future; much like how I used Figure-Ground Theory as a zoning concept during our Design Plate. (And it was a good thing that I ditched the Geometric Collision concept; that was way too heavy for a private mountain resort project.)

Anyway, I did spend 200 pesos on it so I’ll eventually have get over my petty qualms and just finish the goddamn book.

EDIT: The book is good. I’m an idiot for having claimed otherwise.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s