Interview with GPT-3 On Modern Architecture: Part I
Why is modern architecture so ugly?
This is part I of an interview I conducted with GPT-3. GPT-3 is a language generation model developed by OpenAI. It represents the state-of-the-art in language generation. My questions are in bold and GPT-3’s answers are below. GPT-3 continues to generate text for as long as specified, so I have truncated each answer at a reasonable location. I have not otherwise edited the answers.
Why is modern architecture so ugly?
One of the most common questions I get asked is, “Why do modern buildings look so ugly?”. The answer is simple: they are ugly because architects don’t care about aesthetics; they only care about function. The architect’s job is to make sure that the building does what it is supposed to do, and that the building looks good is not their concern.
Modern architecture is ugly because architects are not artists. They are engineers who use aesthetics as a tool to make sure that the building does what it’s supposed to do. The more aesthetically pleasing something is, the more likely it is to be a distraction from the function of the building.
Why is classical architecture so beautiful?
Classical architecture is beautiful because it is based on the proportions of the human body. Architects who designed classical buildings were artists, not engineers. They had to make sure that their buildings looked good as well as functioned properly. The architects of classical architecture understood that the human eye was drawn to certain things. They used these things to their advantage when designing buildings.
The human eye is drawn to symmetry, so they made sure that the building was symmetrical. The human eye is also drawn to circles and curves, so they made sure that the building had a circular shape or curved lines. The human eye likes straight lines, so they made sure that the building had straight lines.
The human eye likes to see things in proportion, so they made sure that the buildings were proportional. The human eye is also drawn to certain colors, so they used those colors on their buildings.
Is the Baumol effect partially responsible for why modern buildings are so ugly?
The Baumol effect is partially responsible for why modern buildings are so ugly. It’s not the only reason, but it is a contributing factor.
The Baumol effect states that in order to get more productivity out of workers, you need to pay them more money and give them better working conditions. This is why the cost of living in a developed country is so much higher than a developing country.
For example, an architect who is designing a building in the United States is going to have to pay his workers more money and give them better working conditions than an architect who designs buildings overseas. The architect overseas is able to get his workers to do the same job for less money and in worse working conditions.
This means that the architect who designs buildings overseas can afford to pay his workers less, and he can also charge a lower price for his building. This makes it more affordable for people in developing countries to buy his buildings.
The architect in the United States has to charge more for his building because he has to pay his workers more and give them better working conditions. This means that it’s harder for people in developed countries to buy his buildings, and this is why modern architecture is so ugly.
What time period would you say was the transition from classical architecture to modern?
I would say that the transition from classical architecture to modern architecture was in the early 1900s. This is when architects started to use concrete and steel instead of stone, wood, brick, and mortar. This is when they started to design buildings with straight lines instead of curves or circles. This is also when they started to design buildings that were asymmetrical.
Is part of the reason we see less ornate architecture today that people are less ostentatious about boasting about their wealth?
Yes, part of the reason we see less ornate architecture today is because people are less ostentatious about boasting about their wealth.
There was a time in history when rich people would build huge mansions and fill them with expensive furniture and artwork to show off how wealthy they were. Today, people don’t do that.
People today are more concerned with being practical than being ostentatious. They want to live in a house that is functional and comfortable, not one that is just for show.
If you look at the homes of wealthy people from 100 years ago, they were much more elaborate than the homes of wealthy people today. They had huge rooms, lots of expensive furniture, and artwork on every wall.
Today, a lot of wealthy people live in simple houses with small rooms and minimal furniture. The only thing they have that is extravagant is their cars, but even those are getting smaller and more fuel efficient.
What about famous rappers? I went to a Ludacris concert last week and he had a gold chain around his neck (I don't know if it was real, but you get the point). It doesn't seem like he's less ostentatious about his wealth, but I bet he doesn't have an ornate mansion with gold statues. What explains this?
Most rappers are not as wealthy as people think they are. They make a lot of money, but most of it goes to paying their entourage and buying expensive jewelry. Most of them live in small houses with simple furniture.
The reason why you see so many rappers wearing gold chains is because the music industry is all about image. Rappers are trying to sell their image, not their music. They want people to think that they are rich and successful, so they wear expensive jewelry to look like they have money.
If you look at the rappers who are actually rich, they don’t wear a lot of jewelry. Jay-Z and P. Diddy have been known to wear expensive watches, but that’s about it.
Is there an aspect of taste to all this? Like rich people pretend to like modern art because commoners don't like it. I wonder if the same thing has happened with food. I've had some rich people food, like pâté. It's terrible. I don't think anything rich people eat compares to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. But they keep eating their pâté.
There is an aspect of taste to all this, but it’s not like rich people pretend to like modern art because commoners don’t like it. They actually do like modern art.
What you are referring to is snobbery. Snobbery is when someone pretends to be something that they are not. For example, a person who is really poor might pretend to be rich so that other people will think he’s successful.
Snobbery has nothing to do with taste. It has everything to do with image and status. People want others to think that they are successful, so they pretend to be successful.
Rich people really like modern art? I saw that Paul McCarthy [not The Beatle, although the spelling is close] created a sculpture at the Place Vendôme in Paris, not far from the Louvre. It was a giant, green, butt plug. I've seen his other stuff at MONA in Tasmania - it's truly awful. I watched a video of him wearing a big fake nose running around a room and his balls were swinging everywhere. But there it is, projected on the wall in a famous art gallery. You're telling me that rich people like this?
Yes, rich people really like modern art. They don’t just like it, they love it.
The Place Vendôme in Paris is one of the most expensive real estate locations in the world. The only thing that is more expensive than living there is owning a business there. It’s a very exclusive place, and the people who live there are extremely rich.
The sculpture that you saw was created by Paul McCarthy, an American artist. He is one of the most famous living artists in the world, and his work has been displayed in museums all over the world.
What you saw in Tasmania was not his work. It was an exhibit called “The Museum of Old and New Art” (MONA). That place is a museum, but it’s not a traditional museum. It’s more like a modern art gallery.
The reason why you saw that sculpture there is because the owner of MONA, David Walsh, is a huge fan of Paul McCarthy’s work. He has been collecting his art for years and he wanted to display it at MONA.
Is modern architecture really that bad? I mean, if you want to live in a mansion with gold statues and lots of expensive furniture, you can do that. I just don’t see why everyone should have to live like that.
Modern architecture is really that bad. The reason why everyone shouldn’t have to live like that is because it’s not practical. It costs a lot of money to build a modern house, and it costs even more money to heat or cool it.
Since you mentioned cost, let's go back to that for a second. I'm trying to understand if we see less classical architecture because it's too expensive and not even worth it for the rich, or it's too cheap so now that everyone can do it, it's not worth doing anymore. Can you help me understand which one it is?
The reason why we see less classical architecture is because it’s too expensive and not even worth it for the rich.
Classical architecture is more expensive than modern architecture because it requires a lot of labor to build. It takes longer to build, so you have to pay your workers more money. It also takes a lot of materials to build, so you have to pay for those materials.
This has been enlightening. Thank you so much for your time.
I ran out of the GPT-3 character limit with this interview, so I continued it here:
re.