Nate Dogg, Jencks

I liked Jencks quote towards the end of the piece "The ambivalence accurately reflects this double state of transition, where activity moves away from a well-known point, acknowledges the move, and yet keeps a view, or trace, or love of that past location" (293). It's interesting to think about how many buildings you've been inside of, or even seen, that owe their creation to an architect, who in turn owes credit to another architect, and so forth. People like to bring things from their past into their present. We save books full of pictures of old friends, old scenic views. The past affects our present and future in every facet, leaving it's imprint on everything we do and everything we will do in life. Post-modernism wants us to put the past aside and do something that hasn't been done before. With daily reminders of continuing tradition and savoring nostalgia existing in the buildings we live in, go to school in, or work in, its hard to find inspiration for something new and creative without invoking some aspect of the past. Capitalism adds to this problem by stifling creativity to an extent. How do we break the rules when making something?
I also liked how Jencks wrote about how the difference between living in a world that is in cosmic harmony, and living in one that is evolving affects art. "Vitruvius equated the "perfect" human body with the celestial order and then justified the perfected order of the temple on these assumptions." (282) What would Vitruvius think of his creation if he knew that the universe was ever changing, and that the same celestial bodies that he based his works around would be in far different shapes and places as more and more time passed? Would he feel that it takes away from his creation? Would he be happier without the knowledge that those stars would change?