What is postmodernism?

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Huh?



I'd would be if you said that THIS work of art was terrible.

Let's just say I don't want to ever put a foot into that building.

[vxt22]

The problem is that it's not architecture. Maybe it's a sculpture, even if a computer algorithm created it, but it isn't architecture. Architecture is about satisfying the client who commissioned, about meeting their needs.
Gehry just makes money off of his mindless, bland, one time shock value buildings. His buildings don't make sense, take a boatload of money to maintain, and cause lots of problems. They are not practical in any sense and thus fail to solve the problems that architecture must solve; that is, meet the needs of the client while encouraging interaction on a human level within and without.

Koolhaas.. and before any of you start criticizing what I have to say, I must point out that I walk through his building literally every day, and I live across the street..
Koolhaas was enough of a prick to require IIT to meet certain standards, in that they can't change anything of importance about the MTCC, or he'll charge them fines. What kind of architect disrespects his client by making them sign a contract like this, just so the building that has his name on it - HIS name, not his client's, according to him - will always look the exact same way he intended it. He puts his name ahead of his clients. Any architect that does that does not deserve the title he owns.
Not to mention the incredible waste of space that building is. There's nothing there. Walk in it.. there are a few offices and meeting rooms, mostly empty, and an auditorium, always empty.. all it is is a place to walk through on your way somewhere else. Why would you pay a self-serving starchitect to design a warm hallway???

It draws more students though.. I guess that's good.

[zilfondel]

^ Yeah but that describes the needs and whims of modern society better than almost anything else. Well, I mean modern capitalist, balls-to-the-wall tech boom style stuff that people love to soak up (not that I'm any different - if I could afford an iPod, iPhone, iMac, and iCar I'd be all over it).

Gehry's buildings resonate with people in a truer fashion than many other architects' do. Part of that is that modern society in the States has largely divested itself of the past. Specifically LA & the SunBelt states that, for better or worse, set the bar for culture on this continent. These places have gone from 0-60 in about 20 years - I don't know of many Southern Californians who really give a shit about history and context... its all about flashy gizmos, money, and sexy boob-enhanced blondes riding in Ferraris. Dare to argue with me?

I think Gehry's buildings WILL age horribly, however. Not only with their leaky roofs, but in a cultural context. But that's because he never gave much thought to it - you should read some of his interviews. They're great - he just got old and decided he wanted to have some fun... which, ironically, is something that Architecture badly needed.

After all, he saved us from Post-Modernism.


photo courtesy of abcnews via AP

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Huh?



I'd would be if you said that THIS work of art was terrible.

Yes, it is definitely a great work of art. However, is this a great building? In some aspects - maybe, but in others it almost downright fails. Besides, Gehry's Bilbao museum was genius, but then he started cloning that masterpiece and eventually took it to the level of a cheap gimmick. No self-respecting artist would do that, let alone architect, who has to know how to adjust to individual clients and site/cultural conditions.

It is ironic how Gehry's fluid and dynamic curves have become such a static gimmick.

But then again, for a landmark building I'll take Gehry over standard Postmodernism any day.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Let's just say I don't want to ever put a foot into that building.

Well then i'm assuming you probably won't want to step foot in Grand Avenue Project either!.

[slide_rule]

this is a good thread. i've read through the preceding posts, and would like to add my $0.02.

postmodernism means different things in different fields. although there are tenuous links between them, postmodernism in art, architecture, urban planning, philosophy all mean different things.

postmodern architecture SHOULD refer to the buildings that contain obvious references to the past. in general, buildings built with the proportions, and construction methods of late 20th century modernist buildings containing historicist flourishes should be considered postmodern. good examples of this would include mid 80s - late 90s works by high profile architects. mind you, postmodernism isn't always a BAD thing. just like any other type of architecture, good proportions, careful workmanship, decent materials, etc. will elevate aesthetics.

i disagree with the contention that everything built after the modernist era is by definition postmodern. other isms, such as modernism, deconstructivism, blob-ism, and brutalism exist, and will continue to exist. michael graves' oversized dolphins, calatrava's exercises in structural expressionism, zaha hadid's exploding bowling balls, frank gehry's crushed cola cans, richard meier's all-white 90 degree angles, robert a.m stern's neoclassicism, etc. SHOULD NOT be seen as part of the same genre. strangely, the most ardent proponents of an all-encompassing postmodern definition do NOT see neoclassical buildings as postmodernist. leon krier, duany, prince charles, and the various high powered developers present historicist styles (e.g. celebration in orlando and cornell in toronto) as the real thing, and not part of the postmodernist era. i'm not sure i agree with their claims of being sincerely historicist, but that argument is beyond the scope of this thread.

postmodernism vis-a-vis modernism in urban planning is something else. modernist urban planners aspired to a holistic, all-emcompassing utopian goal which elevated practicality over everything else. unfortunately, modernist urban planning gained a bad name from its reliance on cars and its often inept, nefarious and egotistical planners who disproportionately targeted the politically and socially dispossessed neighborhoods in botched 'redevelopment' schemes. postmodern urban planning is not nearly as ambitious, and allows for a more anarchistic development model.

as for postmodernism in philosophy and its connection with postmodern architecture and urban planning; a few principles can be applied. postmodernist thought usually assumes that there are no axiomatic truths. value can change according to its branding and labeling. thus postmodernist architecture and urban planning can have more 'freedom' to be risky, and accept inconsistency and imperfection. furthermore, the modernist constraints of utilitarianism are devalued. since 'branding' can affect peoples' perceptions of worth, it is no wonder that the various starchitects (i include the tweed-wearing, blue blood classicists along with the all-black avant garde ones) can make egregious commissions off the most outrageous, meretricious designs. if consumers are persuaded to pay extra for bottled water and designer jeans, the same consumers will pay a premium for some celeb architect's design.

[honte]

^

Originally Posted by slide_rule

postmodernism vis-a-vis modernism in urban planning is something else. modernist urban planners aspired to a holistic, all-emcompassing utopian goal which elevated practicality over everything else. unfortunately, modernist urban planning gained a bad name from its reliance on cars and its often inept, nefarious and egotistical planners who disproportionately targeted the politically and socially dispossessed neighborhoods in botched 'redevelopment' schemes.

Exactly. Very well said.

[holladay]

Originally Posted by vxt22

Architecture is about satisfying the client who commissioned, about meeting their needs.

That's only a small part of architecture. And if that was all architects did then pretty much every building built today would be mind-numbingly boring because clients generally don't care about the appearance of things, unless it's their house. Regardless of whether it's an office, or a school, or a civic project the architect usually gets a lot of freedom simply because the client doesn't get too involved.

Originally Posted by vxt22

What kind of architect disrespects his client by making them sign a contract like this, just so the building that has his name on it - HIS name, not his client's, according to him - will always look the exact same way he intended it.

Koolhaas designed that building with a number of intentions, all of which are apparently lost on you. The McCormick center is designed as a funnel and center of exchange for the students as well as a foil to Mies' perfect campus. Whereas each of Mies' buildings on campus exhibits a sort of spatial neutrality and purity, Koolhaas has chosen a spatial web wherein different parts of the program collide with one another and overlap. The passageways you talk about are the essence of the architecture; they are the spaces of exchange. As you move through the building think of the number of different spaces you encounter : reading spaces, computer clusters, a coffee bar, a cafeteria, a sunken meeting hall, classrooms. Koolhaas sees modern culture as a culture of motion and transit. People don't stay in one place too long because they're too busy. By slamming all these disjointed spaces together in one building it heightens the experience of relatively mundane tasks that people do each day : get a coffee, read a book, check email, buy some food, etc.

Originally Posted by vxt22

all it is is a place to walk through on your way somewhere else. Why would you pay a self-serving starchitect to design a warm hallway???

Well you sorta get it, but then not.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by realm0854

That's only a small part of architecture. And if that was all architects did then pretty much every building built today would be mind-numbingly boring because clients generally don't care about the appearance of things, unless it's their house. Regardless of whether it's an office, or a school, or a civic project the architect usually gets a lot of freedom simply because the client doesn't get too involved.

Pretty much every building built today is mind-numbingly boring. Either that, or ugly, or if a developer really wants to mix it up, boring and ugly. Best of both worlds. But, that's more a hallmark of modernism than it is of postmodernism. Many, many, many architects and developers have yet to get that memo yet unfortunately.

[JDRCRASH]

^

Now that is just not true at all. Chicago Spire(Chicago), New WTC(NYC), ,Park Fifth(L.A.), Federation Tower(Moscow), and the 2 tallest buildings u/c in Canada are ALL great.

Dude, there's too many to count!

[JDRCRASH]

edit

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg
I found that video to be pretty humorous on many levels. The set, his clothing, his mannerisms, the whole thing was set up as self-congratulation for him and everyone in the audience. No matter how much he pretends to understand things outside the confines of western thought, he's still framing everything through western devices and laughing to the bank.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.


Brother, if these illiterate societies are so wondrous and pure and we're so evil why doesn't he go out and live with them permanently? There certainly have been plenty of people who have done so. He's just a neo-Gauguin who knows how to seduce the NPR set.


>as for postmodernism in philosophy and its connection with postmodern architecture and urban planning; a few principles can be applied. postmodernist thought usually assumes that there are no axiomatic truths. value can change according to its branding and labeling. thus postmodernist architecture and urban planning can have more 'freedom' to be risky, and accept inconsistency and imperfection. furthermore, the modernist constraints of utilitarianism are devalued. since 'branding' can affect peoples' perceptions of worth, it is no wonder that the various starchitects (i include the tweed-wearing, blue blood classicists along with the all-black avant garde ones) can make egregious commissions off the most outrageous


I don't think that postmodern architecture has in its most theoretical examples done anything more than quite clumsily tried to illustrate some of the ideas from postmodern cultural theory. And successful art is never simply illustrating an idea, no matter how good the idea.

Agreed, a big problem with so many starchitect creations is that the budgets are cut and quality materials and craftsmanship are replaced by prefab crap, ala the Guerry's medical research center in Cincinnati, which was originally to have been covered in the same titanium as the Guggenheim and Disney Concert Hall. But why the hell would a medical research buidling in Cincinnati, an art museum in an obscure Spanish city, and a concert hall for a second-tier symphony in a desert city all basically look the same despite their wildly differing functions and contexts?

Bottom line, the human soul values well-crafted materials, whether they're created by hand or by machines. I think though we will always place much greater value in the great works predating the industrial revolution and those first industrial wonders like the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building. Dubai has been designed on generic computer programs conceived elsewehre, built primarily by machines designed and built elsewhere, with heave-ho by a lot of unskilled labor courtesy underpaid and abused immigrants and so for those reasons I don't think we'll ever respect that place like we admire the European cathedrals and great works of late 19th and early 20th century ingenuity here in the United States.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

post modern to me is a return to classic forms from the 20's and 30's. After all skyscraper history isn't that large to fight over.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Bottom line, the human soul values well-crafted materials, whether they're created by hand or by machines. I think though we will always place much greater value in the great works predating the industrial revolution and those first industrial wonders like the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building. Dubai has been designed on generic computer programs conceived elsewehre, built primarily by machines designed and built elsewhere, with heave-ho by a lot of unskilled labor courtesy underpaid and abused immigrants and so for those reasons I don't think we'll ever respect that place like we admire the European cathedrals and great works of late 19th and early 20th century ingenuity here in the United States.

Right. On. The money!

[slide_rule]

it's been a long time since the last few posts. hopefully people will stay read this thread.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.


Brother, if these illiterate societies are so wondrous and pure and we're so evil why doesn't he go out and live with them permanently? There certainly have been plenty of people who have done so. He's just a neo-Gauguin who knows how to seduce the NPR set

you make an analogy between primitivism in art and its effects on modern architecture. i think your theories are anachronistic and i don't agree with you for a variety of reasons. more importantly, you fail to discuss postmodernism as it relates to architecture.

I think though we will always place much greater value in the great works predating the industrial revolution and those first industrial wonders like the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building. Dubai has been designed on generic computer programs conceived elsewehre, built primarily by machines designed and built elsewhere, with heave-ho by a lot of unskilled labor courtesy underpaid and abused immigrants and so for those reasons I don't think we'll ever respect that place like we admire the European cathedrals and great works of late 19th and early 20th century ingenuity here in the United States.

oh man.... where to begin with you? don't throw dubai into this argument. as bad as dubai's labor practices are, the golden age (1890s-1930s) of american architecture WASN'T some proletarian utopia. at least get your history straight. cheap, exploited labor was, and continues to be exploited by the construction industry.

art isn't the same thing as architecture. unfortunately for architects, all the theoretical bases are not enough to overwhelm access to wealthy patrons, budgets, and media exposure. the various 'starchitects' fame and their high profile projects are less reflective of a postmodern philosophical/artistic/architectural mindset, than they are a result of their access to wealth and media. find a celeb 'starchitect' interview, and i'll gag from sarcasm. none of them ever reveals anything other than (usually subtle) self-aggrandizement and (usually subtle) nods to his/her patron.

the media publicizes the latest creations of gehry or libeskind or hadid, but NEVER delves into anything more than the most facile analysis. the public at large is more interested in seeing something they haven't seen before, than they are interested in seeing architecture itself. most people don't care about architecture, period. but fashionable designs connected with effective marketing generates buzz. it's sad how everything from high budget ivy league buildings and museums, down to the latest flavor of the month subdivision tract, are sold via their imagery.

i also sense that many forumers have conflated everything built in the postwar era with a vague, nefarious definition of postmodernism. that's simply incorrect. to understand postmodernist architecture, we have to first delve into the origins of its precursor, modernist architecture.



modernist architecture began as a practical response to the changing dynamics of society. advances in construction and materials inspired the contemporary visionary architects to adapt architectural styles for more efficiency (mind you, de stijl, art deco, art moderne and streamline were all gradual developments). unfortunately most of these practical, early modernist buildings (namely in central europe) were bombed out in the war. several examples of 'good' modernism exist. miami beach and tel aviv come to my mind right now. strangely enough, modernism in america wasn't presented as a practical, more efficient use of materials and construction methods. instead, philip johnson used his heft to hail modernism as a new corporate aesthetic.

unfortunately modernism in the US coincided with the rise of two negative developments; automobile dependence, and the rise of media culture. unfortunately many people inextricably link modernism with endless freeways and urban decline. but correlation isn't the same as causation. how is a relatively high density, mixed use area of miami beach more car dependent than a lower density neocolonial development? similarly thanks to the influence of philip johnson, architectural tastes have become more dependent on the whims of marketers and yuppie poseurs than architectural professionals.

cue the rise of postmodernism. postmodernism was a revolt against the stifling, BORING utilitarianism of modernism. postmodernism initially meant grafting historicist elements onto modernist (in terms of construction and materials) buildings. then people got bored again, and wanted everything from stylized historicist styles, to gelatinous blobs, to exploding blobs, up to disney-fied replicas of previous eras.

thus i get a kick out of people conflating postmodernism with modernism. these two 'isms' are at opposite ends of the architectural spectrum.

[zeno3333333]

Originally Posted by GVNY

Mr. Downtown:

This is the basis for post-Modernism. It accepts the theory that there is no 'reality,' and that a diverse set of synthesized ideas is what is necessary to properly guide our urban form.

How does the Post-Modernest handle a traffic signal then??? Do they believe in the non-changing absolute idea in reality that red means stop and green means go??

That is the problem of Post-Modernism from the philosophical school aspect of it....one can not be a true practitioner of it and get through life with it, let alone a traffic signal. I love Post-Modern architecture, but the Post-modern Philosophical School of thought is non-sense.

[TANGELD_SLC]

um.... correct me if I am wrong, but....
Isn't "postmodern" a glaring, neon-flashing Oxymoron?

[ardecila]

^^ I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Modernism refers to a specific period of time that has now ended. Therefore, Post-Modernism is simply a rather uninspired name for architectural developments taking place afterwards. Of course, the practitioners of Post-Modernism loved contradiction, and the name may have been chosen for that reason.

The word "modern" with a lowercase m can refer to anything that is current. However, when you capitalize the M, you are referring to the specific movement in art/architecture that took place in the early to mid 20th century. Because of this possibly confusing situation, the word "contemporary" is often used to describe things that are current instead of "modern" (lowercase m).

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC

um.... correct me if I am wrong, but....
Isn't "postmodern" a glaring, neon-flashing Oxymoron?

Grammatically, yes, as it means after the most recent period in time, but architecurally, no, as in this context it means after the modernist school of architecture, a term that is hardly modern (it was coined at the beginning of the 20th century).

[TANGELD_SLC]

Thanks for clearing that up for me, ardecila and hammersklavier. I sort of thought as much, but wasn't sure