Quote:
Originally Posted by jetsetter
They are close minded in that they only accept "modern" designs, designs by others like them in universities like theirs. A "traditional" design would be out of question for them. Any new building has to be glass, steel, and geometric. There is little room for marble, stone, and brick in their world. To use any of the classical design elements would be unthinkable. That is a closed mind. Unwilling to think out of their little modernist box.
|
Not to be rude, but do you have a decent understanding of the history of modernism? You seem to be speaking in terms I don't think you understand.
for example:
Quote:
|
I like attention to detail. You can look at some "traditional" buildings and see details located high off the ground for nobody to see but the architect still took the time. I like to look at a building and be able to trace its design elements back thousands of years. To see the history of a civilization in a structure is something that appeals to me. I like materials with warmth, steel should be out sight and glass used primarily for small windows. I like context, to place a "modernist" structure among "traditional" structures shows a lack of thought and awareness of surroundings.
|
I'll use the building I basically live in, Crown Hall (1956), as an example.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30982458@N00/704429560/
http://www.dailyicon.net/2008/06/ico...-van-der-rohe/
There is a classical (Greek) temple element here. This modern building didn't arise from nothing, it has ancient roots. Look at the columns, the use of the golden ratio in the fenestration.
http://www.aiachicago.org/special_fe....asp?imgID=701
Here is the detail, the intricacies of the structure. There might not be gargoyles but materials and color can be very expressive.
There is more to modernism than probably meets the eye for you, but in the end it is a matter of personal taste.
Threaded Mode