[LostInTheZone]

^it really is a matter of taste, which is why the achitecture community should stop giving it a moralist dimension. I for one like both; the most important things in architecture are proportion, scale, and attention to detail- whether that detail is a butter-smooth polished concrete wall that conforms perfectly to phi, or a series of gargoyles over window arches.

I think the reason that so many architects are drawn to modernism is that, the more you learn about architecture, the more you start seeing a building for its essential elements. But I think schools should be teaching form, scale, and massing, rather than stressing innovation uber alles. Not everyone is a transcendant genius, and what we've really lost is the ability to turn out common, vernacular structures. Most city buildings by their nature are going to be simple boxes, butting up against simple boxes, so they beg for decoration.

I've made the analogy that modernism goes for the spare, barren beauty of the desert, while a lot of traditional architecture goes for the lush beauty of the forest. Both are indeed beautiful, but one is much more amenible to life. I live in a house full of interesting clutter, which at first seems chaotic but on further study is actually pretty ordered and complex. Modernist-decorated apartments always seem too highly ordered, fussy and sterile, even if my first impression on walking in is "wow! this place is gorgeous!", it never feels fully lived in.

As has been said before, architecture is not art, it's space for people, and people are messy, chaotic, and drawn toward adorning ourselves and the things around us. Modernism is a refined taste, and there's nothing wrong with it. But architects need to stop fighting the rest of us.