But (and at the risk of retreading the discussion about value in music) why should such a building have any purpose for its appearance other than to attract customers? And if an architect sits down and asks himself, "How can I make this building attract customers?" then why is that any less of an intellectual challenge than any other building purpose? Similarly, in what sense does it look "shallow"? I'd have thought that if it makes sense to talk about shallowness in building design, you'd apply it to buildings that are unoriginal or that look like everything else. I'd say that this building had an original and unusual appearance. Whether it is an attractive appearance or not, or one that is compatible with the good functioning of what goes on inside, is another matter, but I don't really see what "shallowness" or "integrity" or "bimboness" have to do with it.

[Bm] Well, I don't think Btd is saying a building should have a better reason for its appearance, simply that if it doesn't, he doesn't think much of it. The intelligence of architecture, I would imagine, is in the way it interacts with the intelligence of the people that use it (rather than just whether it's a brain workout for the architect, otherwise a Temple Grandin abbatoir would be great architecture). Thus if all the Selfridge's building does is to drag you in and make you spend some money, then that's not a very intelligent way to be treated. If, on the other hand, it inspires you with thoughts biology or maths, that's rather more intelligent. If it manages to combine intellectual stimulation and its function, and make those two things interrelate, then I guess it's very clever indeed.

[Btd] All seems fair enough, although I must say, I've never worn high heels simply in order to comply with convention.

Projoy] Nearly there. I agree whole heartedly with your phrase "If it manages to combine intellectual stimulation and its function, and make those two things interrelate, then I guess it's very clever indeed."
Bread] I agree that an architect may if s/he wishes choose to design a building with the sole purpose of attracting customers. In this case they have and I am led to believe that they glory in that. My issue is that I (personally) find that approach unethical. Regarding shallowness - I did not say that it looked shallow. It doesn't, it looks interesting. The concept is shallow - one dimensional. If Joseph Beuys had piled lard on a chair to sell lard, it may have succeeded for a while but it would have been quickly forgotten. For me, the Selfridges building is just that, only more blingy. And with consumer culture responsible for so many of the environmental and social ills of our time, disposable 'environments' are a trend I would not wish to support.

[Chalky] Don't take me too seriously, my comment was made from that one image. I'm quite sure that if I happened to be in the area I'd duck in and have a look at the interior.
Still looks like a beached whale though. :-)

I learnt today that I didn't get the job I spent ages and ages preparing for. That'll teach me.

Awww - I didn't like to ask because I thought it might tempt fate ...

[Rab] but you still have the preparation. Surely it'll be useful the next time something comes up? But sorry to hear it anyway...

Kinda - next job will be in a totally different department with wildly different interests (might even be maths, rather than physics) and so a lot of the application and job talk will have to change accordingly.

At least I'll be a bit more prepared for the ridiculous questions they throw at you in the interview, though.

[Rosie] The drought has not broken, but it's most welcome - see here. I have been loath to say anything less I jinx the weather, but it seems to be clearing and I guess it's now safe to do so. Many farmers are rejoicing but others are forced to wait until they can get their machinery into the paddocks. As far as my local dams go, we'll have to see what run off finally arrives.
[rab] My sympathies, good sir.

(Duj) That's quite a splash, 150 mm in a week, and should be helpful. Back here the drought is slowly accumulating, the running 12-month total being just short of 600 mm instead of the normal 820 mm. And the two wettest months by far were last August and October. It's not desperate and no-one is going to die because of a hosepipe ban, even if a few plants do. But my raingauge needs some exercise, having got more in the way of seeds, dust and dead insects than water in it at the moment.