Frippery,....., how important is it to us?

grahamg

Old codger
Frippery

Dictionary definition:
"showy or unnecessary ornament in architecture, dress, or language."

How important is this to us?

To some extent we are all guilty of liking designer labels, (even I am occasionally, on clothes picked up at charity shops of course!).

Maybe we like those who are a bit showy too?

Who knows hey, human foibles
 

That is something I always wondered about. We erect huge structures, then cover every inch with decoration. It's a human thing. For God's sake, we were plastering the walls of caves, just after we learned to walk on two legs. The Egyptians plastered every inch of their temples with hieroglyphics. You can't find a 14 the Century Catholic church that isn't plastered in cherubs. What is this need to cover up a blank wall with flippery. I love the elegant, simplistic, bare Japanese sense of style. I hate the styles that say there never is enough decoration.
 
I'm thinking frippery may pertain to certain websites as well. You finally get used to them, and programmers have to come along and add bells and whistles or start all over from scratch, and now you have to re-learn the new to do the exact same thing with the old.
 
Maybe it's a natural born built in human desire to make everything just a little bit better and everyone's idea of better is different, some to the extent of bizarre.

For public buildings, post offices and train stations are great examples of changes in building tastes over the years.
 
Maybe it's a natural born built in human desire to make everything just a little bit better and everyone's idea of better is different, some to the extent of bizarre.
For public buildings, post offices and train stations are great examples of changes in building tastes over the years.
Years ago, Prince Charles made an infamous remark about an extension on The National Gallery. He likened it to a monstrous carbuncle on the face of an old friend. He immediately made himself very unpopular with The Royal Society of Architects. Decades on he attempted to reconcile his remarks by saying sorry for his infamous "monstrous carbuncle" attack on plans for an extension to the national Gallery made at Riba's (Royal Institute of British Architects) 150th anniversary.

"I am sorry if I somehow left the faintest impression that I wished to kick-start some kind of style war' between classicists and modernists; or that I somehow wanted to drag the world back to the 18th century," said the Prince, adding: "All I asked was for room to be given to traditional approaches to architecture and urbanism."

The attempt at conciliation appeared to appease some of the architects in the audience. An article in Building Design magazine stated: "It was low-key, polite and amusing at times. He seemed to say that 25 years ago, he was only saying there should be some room to do traditional architecture rather than saying everything should be traditional, so it's good that he corrected that."

But other architects like Will Alsop, who had called for a boycott of last night's speech, said: "He did start a style war, which is the most facile of architectural conversations. He missed the point entirely. He successfully stopped the National Gallery extension and the careers of the architects have never really recovered. He needs to think about that." So what Alsop seems to be saying is that there is no right for dissent.

Sorry Will, I'm no Royalist, but for once I think that the idiot boy got it right.
 
Years ago, Prince Charles made an infamous remark about an extension on The National Gallery. He likened it to a monstrous carbuncle on the face of an old friend. He immediately made himself very unpopular with The Royal Society of Architects. Decades on he attempted to reconcile his remarks by saying sorry for his infamous "monstrous carbuncle" attack on plans for an extension to the national Gallery made at Riba's (Royal Institute of British Architects) 150th anniversary.

"I am sorry if I somehow left the faintest impression that I wished to kick-start some kind of style war' between classicists and modernists; or that I somehow wanted to drag the world back to the 18th century," said the Prince, adding: "All I asked was for room to be given to traditional approaches to architecture and urbanism."

The attempt at conciliation appeared to appease some of the architects in the audience. An article in Building Design magazine stated: "It was low-key, polite and amusing at times. He seemed to say that 25 years ago, he was only saying there should be some room to do traditional architecture rather than saying everything should be traditional, so it's good that he corrected that."

But other architects like Will Alsop, who had called for a boycott of last night's speech, said: "He did start a style war, which is the most facile of architectural conversations. He missed the point entirely. He successfully stopped the National Gallery extension and the careers of the architects have never really recovered. He needs to think about that." So what Alsop seems to be saying is that there is no right for dissent.

Sorry Will, I'm no Royalist, but for once I think that the idiot boy got it right.
If Prince Charles is any kind of idiot boy I'd be very happy to join him, and have just some of his abilities and wisdom, and the proposed building he objected to and stopped getting erected was worth the careers of those architects, if that was what happened to them, (I can see though, paying homage to older styles of architecture all the time can become boring or too twee!).
 
Maybe calling the heir to the throne an idiot boy would have got me beheaded centuries ago. The reason that I used that term is because when he was married to Diana he went on national TV and actually confessed to committing adultery on the night before his wedding. I mean, not the wisest thing to say. His remark is why, if you have ever heard it, his wife, then his lover, is still referred to as the King's whore.
 
Maybe calling the heir to the throne an idiot boy would have got me beheaded centuries ago. The reason that I used that term is because when he was married to Diana he went on national TV and actually confessed to committing adultery on the night before his wedding. I mean, not the wisest thing to say. His remark is why, if you have ever heard it, his wife, then his lover, is still referred to as the King's whore.
His affair with Camilla Parker Bowles is and maybe always was well documented, though I don't happen to remember the details just as you've described them.
Whatever Camilla may be called now in some circles, I used to live close-ish to her home in Wiltshire, where she lived during all those years of castigation she faced with great fortitude, and discovered she was respected by the locals who knew her personally, and her son from her first marriage has gone on yo distinguish himself with a career as a tv chef, if that shines any light upon the woman.
 


Back
Top