From Our House to Bauhaus

Antoni Gaudi is a great architect — one of the best in my view. He is the Frank Lloyd Wright of Spain. Like Frank Lloyd Wright, Gaudi’s style was distinctive. Also like Wright, he preserved some of the past while making his designs new. But I believe Gaudi is the better architect. You can see why I say that by visiting both architects’ buildings. Gaudi’s are more beautiful, more innovative, more structurally sound, and more durable.

When judging an architect’s work, this is what you look for:

  • Beauty inside and out. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But there is a reason that classical and neoclassical buildings are still thought to be beautiful by millions of people while some modern buildings – particularly those built by communists and urban planners of the 1970s — are simply ugly.
  • Creativity. If all the architect is doing is following suit, he is not a great architect. The great ones are innovative, both in terms of aesthetics and structure.
  • Respect for tradition. Innovation without a respect for tradition is arrogance.
  • Structural soundness. The building has to be able to support itself. This seems obvious but many modern architects don’t do a good job of it. Some, in fact, design buildings that can’t even be built. And they get awards for them! Many architects today lack useful knowledge of engineering and construction. Their designs always have to be altered to be able to be built practically and within budget.
  • Functionality. The building needs to be functional. If it is a music hall, it not only needs to be the right size to accommodate the musicians and the audience, it must have good acoustics. If it is a house, it must be a place where a family can comfortably go about their daily activities.
  • Durability. Since the 1950s, most buildings have been built to disintegrate within 50 years. Many of them start falling apart almost as soon as they are occupied. Good architecture should last.
  • Holistic approach. The great architects of the past, and particularly those who were designing buildings toward the end of the 19th century, took a holistic approach. In addition to designing the building itself, they designed the interior décor, including such details as banisters, doorknobs, and furniture. This makes sense.
  • Projects completed. Great architects do more than simply draw plans. They complete projects. And not just ordinary projects – great ones.
  • Commercial viability. The final criterion is just as important as the others. Great architects are commercial tradesmen. They must design buildings that sell.

Recommended reading: Tom Wolfe’s From Bauhaus to Our House

Continue Reading

Snake Venom

About five years ago my son told me about a guy he knew who had an odd pastime — injecting himself with snake venom. When I met him a year later I was surprised by how smart and normal he was. When he told me his age I almost couldn’t believe it. He attributes his youthful looks and the fact that he doesn’t get sick to his snake venom regime. National Geographic is doing a show with him. Here’s the trailer:

 

Continue Reading

Common Sense

There is a widespread idea about liberals – held by liberals – that they are smarter than conservatives. Studies show that this is not the case. People who identify themselves as liberals tend to have more schooling and they may, as a result, have some higher academic skills. But there is no evidence that they think more accurately or effectively than conservatives.

One of the most obvious examples of poor thinking among liberals is in the area of macroeconomics. Liberals want bigger government and more debt because they believe that a small group of people who think as they do can regulate something as complex and organic as the economy.

Common sense tells you that debt is bad. And common experience tells you that it is nearly impossible to regulate a single household of six people, let alone a nation of 300 million.

Continue Reading

How to Become What You Want to Be

“If you want to be a writer, you have to write.”

I was 16 years old when my father said those kind-and-cruel words to me. I never forgot them.

The first time I can remember wanting to be a writer, I was 11 or 12 years old. I’d written a poem for Sister Mary Something at school. My rhyming quatrain (AABB) was titled, pretentiously, “How Do I Know the World Is Real?”

I was at the kitchen table when my father started reading it over my shoulder. I felt anxious. My father was a credentialed writer, an award-winning playwright, a Shakespearean scholar, and a teacher of literature, including poetry. I’d seen him, on Saturday mornings, hunched over student essays, muttering and occasionally reading out loud passages to my mother that sounded perfectly good to me but elicited derisive laughter from them.

My father understood the secret-to-me clues of good writing. I didn’t feel at all comfortable having my fragile young poem exposed to the awesome danger of his critical mind. So there I sat, hoping he would go away. But he didn’t. I felt his hand on my shoulder, gentle and warm. “You may have a talent for writing,” he said.

I wrote lots of poetry in the months that followed, and began to think of myself as a writer. I liked that feeling. But soon other interests – touch football, the Junior Police Club, girls – crowded themselves into my life. Gradually, I wrote less and less. I still yearned to be a writer and so I began to feel guilty about not writing.

To assuage my guilt, I promised myself that my other activities were “life experience,” and that I needed life experience to become the good writer I wanted to be. In developing this excuse for not writing, I was building a structure of self-deception that many people live inside when they abandon their dreams. From the outside, it looks like you are doing nothing. But from the inside, you know that you are in the process of becoming, which, you convince yourself, is the next best thing to being.
That was the shape of my delusion when my father said, “If you want to be a writer, you have to write. A writer is someone who writes.”

So many people live their lives failing to become what they want to be because they can’t find the time to get started. How many times have you heard someone say that, one day, they will do what they always wanted to do – travel the world or paint paintings or write a book? And when you hear sentiments like those, what do you feel? Happy because you are confident that one day they will accomplish their long-held goal? Or sort of sad for them because you are pretty sure they never will?

And what about you? What is it that you want to be but haven’t become? What goal or project or task do you keep talking about accomplishing yet never do?

When my father told me that “writers write,” he was saying two things:

  • I had lost the right to call myself a writer when I stopped writing.
  • I could regain the title the moment I started writing again.

If you spend a while ruminating on this, you may find it both disturbing and liberating.

Continue Reading

“Welcome Gauntlet”

Every business consultant these days talks about developing “relationships” with customers. They say, quite correctly, that this will lead to more sales, fewer problems, and greater profits.

When you get a new customer, you have the potential to double or triple his lifetime value. By lifetime value, I mean the net dollars he will eventually send you. It starts with the very first experiences the customer has with you. These experiences are crucial. They make an impression that will last forever.

My colleague Dan Kennedy encourages his clients to send what he calls a “stick letter” to new customers. A good stick letter, Kennedy says, reduces refunds by restating the promises and benefits made in the sales letter and then giving them a bonus.

But I think you should do more than that. My recommendation is to create a “welcome gauntlet” – a series of communications that go beyond delivering what the customer is expecting.

A welcome gauntlet should be so good that it not only satisfies the customer, it surprises and delights him. By doing that, you are showing him how much you care about him… and laying the foundation for a strong, mutually beneficial relationship.

Continue Reading

Gullible

The mainstream media is amazing. The stuff they publish. The way they manipulate facts to promote their viewpoints.

The New York Times is a good example. Recently, the Times ran an editorial noting that investors are running from stocks and buying bonds. The reason for this, says the Times, is that the stock market has become untrustworthy because it isn’t regulated.

They don’t know what they are talking about. They ignore the fact that people went into the market when it was unregulated – precisely because it was unregulated. And the Times apparently never stopped to consider that exiting the market right now just might be a good thing.

Fox News is another good example. They are always featuring “news” events that are nothing more than silly little stories that pander to the prejudices of conservatives.

This raises the question: Why do so many people believe this crap? And I think the answer is that most people are not capable of rational analysis. Our educational system does not include – as it should – basic courses in logic, discourse, and reasoning. These are considered “elective” subjects for college students. Yet they should be part of every grammar school curriculum.

Lacking the ability to reason, people need to make decisions nonetheless. So they rely on prejudices they learned as children. And they look to the media to reinforce their prejudices and, thus, justify their decisions.

Continue Reading