Epcot, and It's Cluttered Walkways

[wm49rs]

One DVC booth per park is all they should get. Because, after all, if DVC is really "Disney's best kept secret" then they should keep it that way.....

 

[jakeman]

Maybe it would be better to suggest they share certain design elements, and not aesthetic ones? That way the philosophical meanings for each won't be compared to one another. Just a suggestion....:shrug:

I agree, but even that would be limited.

Besides the fact the WWII and LaL are both symmetrical and made out of stone, I'm not sure what else they have in common.

Neither the WWII Memorial or the Vietnam Memorial serve as an entrance to the National Mall.

They really simply don't have that much in common. :shrug:

 

[wm49rs]

I agree, but even that would be limited.

Besides the fact the WWII and LaL are both symmetrical and made out of stone, I'm not sure what else they have in common.

Neither the WWII Memorial or the Vietnam Memorial serve as an entrance to the National Mall.

They really simply don't have that much in common. :shrug:

I agree, and I understand the sentiment. Just trying to change the direction, if you will.....

 

[Future Guy]

One DVC booth per park is all they should get. Because, after all, if DVC is really "Disney's best kept secret" then they should keep it that way.....

Yeah, how can it be such a secret if they won't shut up about it?

 

[wm49rs]

Yeah, how can it be such a secret if they won't shut up about it?

I'm more than willing to do my part to keep it a secret if it would mean the booths and kiosks would be reduced....

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Get rid of the pie eaters and the spoiled 10 year olds in their Nimitz class strollers, and while were at it get rid of school kids, theres no pirates or fairies so what possible interest can there be in Epcot for them.

 

[xtina72]

Get rid of the pie eaters and the spoiled 10 year olds in their Nimitz class strollers, and while were at it get rid of school kids, theres no pirates or fairies so what possible interest can there be in Epcot for them.

Hmmm as wonderful as that all sounds, I would just be happy with DVC booths. :lol:

 

[Krack2]

I agree, but even that would be limited.

Besides the fact the WWII and LaL are both symmetrical and made out of stone, I'm not sure what else they have in common.

Neither the WWII Memorial or the Vietnam Memorial serve as an entrance to the National Mall.

They really simply don't have that much in common. :shrug:

Okay, I take it back ... there's absolutely no reason why the Leave a Legacy tombstones would remind anyone aesthetically of a famous War Memorial. Further, neither the World War II Memorial or the Leave a Legacy tombstones were placed, after the fact, into large open, relatively uncluttered areas.

There are no similarities, particularly in aesthetic changes to the original sites, whatsoever.

Leave a Legacy Tombstone or Vietnam Memorial Wall? You decide --------> :brick:

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

--------> :brick:

Ones in front of a ball the others in front of a

 

[the-reason14]

I actually don't mind the walkways in epcot. I like how it is now compared to years ago. I guess because I wasn't old enough or interested enough to take much notice back In the 90s.

 

[unkadug]

Ones in front of a ball the others in front of a .

:ROFLOL:

That caught me completely off guard!

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

I don't remember any war memorials in Epcot.

I certainly wouldn't think that you would be tasteless enough to compare anything in Epcot to the sacrifice that millions of Americans made in World War II and their long overdue memorial in Washington.

In meaning? Heck no. In look, 100% yes.

My Mother, who is not privy to my opinions on EPCOT at all called them exactly that, when we were there. And it seems that it's a popular opinion, too.

Well, then you'd think incorrectly, because that's exactly what I'm doing. The Leave a Legacy tombstones look like an ugly, out of place version of the Vietnam War Memorial. I will leave it to others to decide whether this comparison is "tasteless" or not; it doesn't make it any less accurate.

For the record, I think the WWII Memorial is an excellent addition to Washington DC, both because it was overdue and because it fits in perfectly with the surrounding aesthetics.

Agreed on all accounts.

Just because it is in the title doesn't make the comparision any less disrespectful.

As someone who has stood at both the WWII memorial and the Epcot entrance I can assure you, your comparision is tasteless. One envokes emotions of gratefulness and sorrow. The other is an obstacle to getting a Fastpass.

How is this tasteless? He's comparing looks and aesthetics, not deeper meaning.

The DVC kiosk between the (African) Refreshment Outpost and Germany has been removed. That seemed out of place anyways.

I want the one in FWEast gone, too.

 

[jakeman]

Okay, I take it back ... there's absolutely no reason why the Leave a Legacy tombstones would remind anyone aesthetically of a famous War Memorial. Further, neither the World War II Memorial or the Leave a Legacy tombstones were placed, after the fact, into large open, relatively uncluttered areas.

There are no similarities, particularly in aesthetic changes to the original sites, whatsoever.

Leave a Legacy Tombstone or Vietnam Memorial Wall? You decide --------> :brick:

aesthetic

especially Brit., is-/ [es-thet-ik or, especially Brit., ees-]

–adjective

1. pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the science of aesthetics.
2. having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty.
3. pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality.

There is the definition of the word you keep throwing around. Especially look at #3. If you are discussing the aesthetics of LaL to war memorials, you are completely and tastelessly off base.

If you want to discuss the physical similarities, which there are very few, go right ahead, but there is nothing aesthetically similar between these sites.

You can't compare the difference in feeling that these two place invoke. If you can then you need to either read more books on history or stop thinking so much about Epcot.

How is this tasteless? He's comparing looks and aesthetics, not deeper meaning.

Aesthetics is the deeper meaning Evan.

 

[Krack2]

aesthetic

especially Brit., is-/ [es-thet-ik or, especially Brit., ees-]

–adjective

1. pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the science of aesthetics.
2. having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty.
3. pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality.

There is the definition of the word you keep throwing around. Especially look at #3. If you are discussing the aesthetics of LaL to war memorials, you are completely and tastelessly off base.

If you want to discuss the physical similarities, which there are very few, go right ahead, but there is nothing aesthetically similar between these sites.

You can't compare the difference in feeling that these two place invoke. If you can then you need to either read more books on history or stop thinking so much about Epcot.

Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and tast, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty. It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.
--- Wikipedia

Interestingly, you provided the definition of the adjective "aesthetic" - I, of course, used the word as a noun, so let's take a look at that definition ...

1 plural but sing or plural in constr : a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty
2 : a particular theory or conception of beauty or art : a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially sight <modernist aesthetics> <staging new ballets which reflected the aesthetic of the new nation — Mary Clarke & Clement Crisp>
3 plural : a pleasing appearance or effect : beauty <appreciated the aesthetics of the gemstones>

Specifically, I was using definition #2, "a particular theory or conception of beauty or art," saying that the World War II Memorial fits in perfectly with the monuments in the surrounding area, such as the Lincoln Memorial and and the Jefferson Memorial, amongst others. To further clarify, they all appear to be carved out of similar white construction material and contain pillars and arches.

We can contrast this with the effect the Leave a Legacy had on Epcot's entrance. I believe it's original "approach to what [was] pleasing to the senses and especially sight" was an open, unencumbered, mostly white or beige concrete construction, punctuated with a handful of modernist-style pavilions on it's perimeter. The tarps, pinwheels and whirlygigs have cluttered Future World and added color, constantly taking the emphasis away from the Pavilion buildings. The Leave a Legacy tombstones have added a series of large dark granite (at least I think it's granite) walls with what appears to be etched gray steel tiles on their face. Not only do they stick out like a sore thumb, because they don't look like the surrounding architecture ... they remind many of the large dark etched walls of the Vietnam Memorial. Or, alternatively, they remind people of the dark etched stone used in many tombstones or grave markers. Most people would agree that the original EPCOT Center Future World architecture was designed to evoke a sense of "optimism towards the future"; both the Vietnam Memorial, and tombstones in general, clearly evoke a sense of "sadness" for most people. The two feelings couldn't be more opposed.

And that is why the Leave a Legacy tombstones suck - aesthetically speaking. I have a pretty good sense of what aesthetics (the word I was "throwing around" once) means ... and it expresses exactly the concept I desired to express when I used it the first time.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

aesthetic

especially Brit., is-/ [es-thet-ik or, especially Brit., ees-]

–adjective

1. pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the science of aesthetics.
2. having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty.
3. pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality.

There is the definition of the word you keep throwing around. Especially look at #3. If you are discussing the aesthetics of LaL to war memorials, you are completely and tastelessly off base.

If you want to discuss the physical similarities, which there are very few, go right ahead, but there is nothing aesthetically similar between these sites.

You can't compare the difference in feeling that these two place invoke. If you can then you need to either read more books on history or stop thinking so much about Epcot.

Aesthetics is the deeper meaning Evan.

I think the things I bolded goes quite against WWII or the 'Nam Wall. OPPOSED to intellect discounts the meaning in both memorials and in LaL.
With that, we are just looking at the "look" of the structures, and in that, I find them all similar. Like a War Memorial.

How is that disrespect?

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and tast, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty. It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.
--- Wikipedia

Interestingly, you provided the definition of the adjective "aesthetic" - I, of course, used the word as a noun, so let's take a look at that definition ...

1 plural but sing or plural in constr : a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty
2 : a particular theory or conception of beauty or art : a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially sight <modernist aesthetics> <staging new ballets which reflected the aesthetic of the new nation — Mary Clarke & Clement Crisp>
3 plural : a pleasing appearance or effect : beauty <appreciated the aesthetics of the gemstones>

Specifically, I was using definition #2, "a particular theory or conception of beauty or art," saying that the World War II Memorial fits in perfectly with the monuments in the surrounding area, such as the Lincoln Memorial and and the Jefferson Memorial, amongst others. To further clarify, they all appear to be carved out of similar white construction material and contain pillars and arches.

We can contrast this with the effect the Leave a Legacy had on Epcot's entrance. I believe it's original "approach to what [was] pleasing to the senses and especially sight" was an open, unencumbered, mostly white or beige concrete construction, punctuated with a handful of modernist-style pavilions on it's perimeter. The tarps, pinwheels and whirlygigs have cluttered Future World and added color, constantly taking the emphasis away from the Pavilion buildings. The Leave a Legacy tombstones have added a series of large dark granite (at least I think it's granite) walls with what appears to be etched gray steel tiles on their face. Not only do they stick out like a sore thumb, because they don't look like the surrounding architecture ... they remind many of the large dark etched walls of the Vietnam Memorial. Or, alternatively, they remind people of the dark etched stone used in many tombstones or grave markers. Most people would agree that the original EPCOT Center Future World architecture was designed to evoke a sense of "optimism towards the future"; both the Vietnam Memorial, and tombstones in general, clearly evoke a sense of "sadness" for most people. The two feelings couldn't be more opposed.

And that is why the Leave a Legacy tombstones suck - aesthetically speaking. I have a pretty good sense of what aesthetics (the word I was "throwing around" once) means ... and it expresses exactly the concept I desired to express when I used it the first time.

Well said.

 

[HMF]

ignore post.

 

[HMF]

lol!

 

[jakeman]

I think the things I bolded goes quite against WWII or the 'Nam Wall. OPPOSED to intellect discounts the meaning in both memorials and in LaL.
With that, we are just looking at the "look" of the structures, and in that, I find them all similar. Like a War Memorial.

How is that disrespect?

Because, in my opinion, comparing the purpose (which is what was done originally) of LaL to the War memorials elevates the status of LaL and Epcot as a whole to the same importance and symbolism as the Vietnam Memorial and WWII Memorial. That is disrespectful.

Sure they share similiar physical characteristics, that can't be denied, but when the analogy is made that Epcot is the National Mall and LaL=WWII or Vietnam Memorials that's where I have the problem.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Because, in my opinion, comparing the purpose (which is what was done originally) of LaL to the War memorials elevates the status of LaL and Epcot as a whole to the same importance and symbolism as the Vietnam Memorial and WWII Memorial. That is disrespectful.

Sure they share similiar physical characteristics, that can't be denied, but when the analogy is made that Epcot is the National Mall and LaL=WWII or Vietnam Memorials that's where I have the problem.

Ah, this explanation makes it much clearer. :lol: I don't think the OP ever said that though...It looks like the 'Nam Wall, and thus reminds him of it. That's a fair analogy. The purposes are VERY different, regardless.