This is a response to a post by Andrew Leavitt about his obsession. In my mind, this is just a mess. There’s great substance about our obsessions. You get a good look at the passion we have for our subjects. But the presentation is all over the place. I jump around and a cohesive thought process is not shown. If I were to rewrite it, it would look something like this:
I understand people getting annoyed with your obsession. I keep mine on the down-low because people don’t really care. People don’t seem to get how intensely I love buildings. I stare for long periods of time at ceilings and walls. I look up floor plans to learn more about the buildings. I take photos of the buildings that catch my eye. I doodle houses on any piece of paper I get my hands on. People seem to forget that they also have an obsession. Unless you share the same love, you won’t ever see that object or idea or building like they do. Like you with cars. I don’t really care about cars. However I think it’s interesting that you love cars. You don't just love the bits that make up the car or the models. You like driving, too. It makes me feel like you are obsessed with cars in every way you can be. I wish I could be more hands-on with my obsession, but architecture is something so massive and complex that there isn't really a tangible way to enjoy it. With cars, you can touch them, you can build them, you can drive in them. That’s one of the main reasons I want to be an architectural engineer.
No comments:
Post a Comment