Are we forcing ourselves into thinking modernism is superior?

[the urban politician]

I ask forumers here to please not take offense.

I am not an architect/architecture student. I respect you in your profession, and I have grown to appreciate modern architecture over the years, largely due to my love of cities and from the input of people like you all.

But somehow something strikes me as wrong about an architectural community which largely sets a tone of rejecting previous forms to seek out newer, cleaner, more 'modern' ones. It makes one wonder if architecture is really more of an aesthetically-inclined yet 'practical' field, as opposed to a pure 'art' such as fashion designing, where often pushing the envelope for newer styles and forms seems to preoccupy the general thrust of the community involved.

I say all this because, at the end of the day, when I walk down the street and look up at a building, the sheer beauty of one of those heavily ornamented gilded era structures comes naturally to me. It just looks beautiful; in fact, I don't think I've ever seen one that I would consider ugly. People just knew how to build things that looked appealing to the eye back then, and they did this using techniques that had evolved over millennia.

When I look at modern structures I definitely appreciate what I'm seeing, but somehow it feels more forced. I have to know something about the style, or what it represents. I have to tell myself "this is great architecture". It just doesn't come across as obviously a beautiful work of art. And often I wonder if what I'm really appreciating is the beauty or simplicity of the structure itself, or rather the fact that it contrasts so greatly its prewar predecessors around it?

After all this, I find myself asking, "why does the architectural community find it taboo to reproduce these older forms in our cities and towns, and to do so as a serious undertaking?"

I'm not suggesting we go back in time. Sure, lets keep building with different materials, using different designs. But architects who try to recreate older forms just seem to arouse a lot of spite around here. People give various reasons such as, "they're using concrete instead of stone" or "it's dumbing-down of architecture" but in the end I think these are excuses that cover up a generally deeper resentment. Look at Chicago's Harold Washington Library (built in the 1990's)--a beautiful building that uses all the right materials and proportions, yet architects HATE it!

We are allowed to lavish praise on these older structures but we're not allowed to replicate them? Getting back to my original point, there is something very forced about this.

[ue]

In a sense, sometimes the modern architecture does seem a bit 'forced' but I can't explain it. I personally quite like Mid 1900s Modern/Brutalist/1970s architecture very much. It was very bold for the time, but nowadays many people find it ugly and disgusting. I also quite like the old Pre War buildings, beautiful beautiful. But modern structures, like the Shangri La in Vancouver, I don't know, I too have to say"it looks good". Modern structures like Colours in Calgary, I just like automatically.

I don't quite get what you're saying about replicating buildigs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you say we should try to replicate them, then go to say sure use modern designs and that most replicates look ugly and don't match the original. It's true, here in Edmonton, or in many North American cities in the suburbs, the buildings try to take on an old design. Here in Edmonton there is one street just west of downtown, 112 st, and it is home to a very perculiar building called the Venetian. Very ugly. Disgusting colours and poor materials choice from what I've seen/heard and it's supposed to look like Venice. Yikes! My note is every 10-15 years a new architecture style is born, then that is the design cities follow for that period of time, over 100 years it makes architectural diversity.

Now I don't really know what to say, sorry, I think I kind of lost my point.

[the urban politician]

^ I guess a derivation of my point is that we are stuck with a lot of dull, cookie cutter buildings going up nowadays because all of the truly 'talented' architects are more interested in building highly modern, cutting edge structures. Thus, to hire a 'real' architect one is likely to get something of the sort, and not every developer is interested in building something at the very cutting edge.

If one wants to build a traditionally-styled structure with the help of a trained architect (as opposed to going it alone, which often has pretty bad results) he should have the option; however, all of the talent has been 'drained', if you will, into modernism. No self-respecting architecture student is going to sit there and learn how to design Greek columns, Sullivan facades, ornamentation, etc etc because, as I said in my previous post, the architecture profession as we know it has completely divorced itself from such things.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I ask forumers here to please not take offense.

I am not an architect/architecture student. I respect you in your profession, and I have grown to appreciate modern architecture over the years, largely due to my love of cities and from the input of people like you all.

But somehow something strikes me as wrong about an architectural community which largely sets a tone of rejecting previous forms to seek out newer, cleaner, more 'modern' ones. It makes one wonder if architecture is really more of an aesthetically-inclined yet 'practical' field, as opposed to a pure 'art' such as fashion designing, where often pushing the envelope for newer styles and forms seems to preoccupy the general thrust of the community involved.

Architecture is not an 'artistic' field. Gilded age architecture is an architecture based on the artistic application of ornament to an otherwise uninteresting building. At face value, modernism would appear to be simply a rejection of this philosophy. At one level, it is, but modern architecture concerns itself with a vast number of other issues, the least of which is ornamentation. Today modern architecture is about, quite literally form follows function, but again, not simply in an ornamental sense. Issues of structure, infrastructure, ventilation, lighting, shadows, program, circulation, wind, zoning etc. all need to be resolved before aesthetic. Modern architects praise buildings that many see as bland or boring or cold not because they are simply a rejection of classical form, but because their function bears a beautiful space; or to say, the beauty of the space is dictated by a marriage of programmatic and structural systems which more often that not comes across as a subliminal beauty to an uninformed user.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I say all this because, at the end of the day, when I walk down the street and look up at a building, the sheer beauty of one of those heavily ornamented gilded era structures comes naturally to me. It just looks beautiful; in fact, I don't think I've ever seen one that I would consider ugly. People just knew how to build things that looked appealing to the eye back then, and they did this using techniques that had evolved over millennia.

They were not techniques mastered over millenia. The most damning aspect of classical ornamentation, in my opinion, is that it dubiously pretended to be something it is not. The classical orders first mastered by the Greeks were applied initially to stone (even though they were designed for use in timber, ironically). It is easy for one to think that the form of a classical column is an arbitrary, artistic statement but the truth is that even the sculptural characteristics of it are defined and 'sculpted' by the material properties of the marble or stone used to create it. It's form is dictated by its function. When I see a column made out of concrete it makes me sad, not only because the architect could not fathom a creative way to address ornament but also because the material beauty of the column is lost. When we built 100 floor skyscrapers in the Doric style we impose upon the structure a set of aesthetic criteria for it to fill, instead of letting the brick and steel and concrete assume its own form. Each material has its own capabilities and when we restrain it to looking like a big neoclassical column we inhibit artistic progress that could be made. When you say we have mastered techniques over millenia you are kidding yourself; the quality of stone crafting has been at a steady decline since Gothic times, even 19th century masonry looks like shit when compared to the sophisticated articulation of stone construction of Medeival cathedrals. When you see how different construction techniques employed in buildings across time affected their sculptural form you'll begin to understand why throwing Roman or Gothic arches over a steel framed skyscraper begins to look silly.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

When I look at modern structures I definitely appreciate what I'm seeing, but somehow it feels more forced.

Then you clearly do not understand the building. You are looking at it only from an artistic standpoint, and not a programmatic one.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

After all this, I find myself asking, "why does the architectural community find it taboo to reproduce these older forms in our cities and towns, and to do so as a serious undertaking?"

Because it's been two thousand years and it's time we moved on. I'm not condemning ornament, necessarily, but come on, I'm sick of Beaux-Arts. If we are going to ornament, let's start exploring the materiality of what we are building with.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I'm not suggesting we go back in time. Sure, lets keep building with different materials, using different designs. But architects who try to recreate older forms just seem to arouse a lot of spite around here. People give various reasons such as, "they're using concrete instead of stone" or "it's dumbing-down of architecture" but in the end I think these are excuses that cover up a generally deeper resentment. Look at Chicago's Harold Washington Library (built in the 1990's)--a beautiful building that uses all the right materials and proportions, yet architects HATE it!

We are allowed to lavish praise on these older structures but we're not allowed to replicate them? Getting back to my original point, there is something very forced about this.

In a strictly artistic context the building receives applause for its tasteful use of materials and proportion but from an architectural standpoint it receives scorn because its form retards the capability of its plan, and that there were superior entries in the competition that better and more creatively addressed the needs of the program.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

If one wants to build a traditionally-styled structure with the help of a trained architect (as opposed to going it alone, which often has pretty bad results) he should have the option; however, all of the talent has been 'drained', if you will, into modernism. No self-respecting architecture student is going to sit there and learn how to design Greek columns, Sullivan facades, ornamentation, etc etc because, as I said in my previous post, the architecture profession as we know it has completely divorced itself from such things.

When you start replicating somebody else's ideas you are no longer an artist, you are a plagiarist. Statements like this exhibit a profound lack of understanding of the trade.

[You Need A Thneed]

A quality building (from any era) will always be a quality building, whereas a poor quality building will always be so.

Also, architecture is so more more than what the building looks like from the outside. In fact, I would say that is one of the items of lesser importance. Firstly, it's about how the building works for the people who use it. Recreating older looks on the outside generally does not meet this goal, as the amount of structure required for older buildings limited the amount of windows (and other things) that could be put in. Now, we don't have those limitations.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by CGII

When you start replicating somebody else's ideas you are no longer an artist, you are a plagiarist. Statements like this exhibit a profound lack of understanding of the trade.

^ CGII, thank you for your very thoughtful response. I think you have argued your point quite convincingly, however I have to dispute this last part as quoted above.

I guess that's my point--is it 'plagiarism' to paint in the Impressionist style? Is it 'plagiarism' to build a 3 story building with an ornate entrance and a sculpted cornice? Why is that 'plagiarism'? Why is it unacceptable for an architect to be versed in older techniques?

If architects are exclusively to be seen as artists on the cutting edge, how do they make themselves relevant? We live in a world of buildings--LOTS of buildings, and most of them aren't being built with a massive budget. If every architect insists on being an 'artiste' then who the hell can afford to hire them? That's why post-war America is stuck with so many crappy buildings.

[RLS_rls]

^There were lots of crappy buildings built up to and during WWII. It's only because of the radical growth that came after the war and the out-with-the-old attitude that you see more of the crappy new buildings than their older counterparts. If anything cheap buildings today are superior to anything done before the war thanks to better building codes and a higher standard of living.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I guess a derivation of my point is that we are stuck with a lot of dull, cookie cutter buildings going up nowadays because all of the truly 'talented' architects are more interested in building highly modern, cutting edge structures. Thus, to hire a 'real' architect one is likely to get something of the sort, and not every developer is interested in building something at the very cutting edge.

If one wants to build a traditionally-styled structure with the help of a trained architect (as opposed to going it alone, which often has pretty bad results) he should have the option; however, all of the talent has been 'drained', if you will, into modernism. No self-respecting architecture student is going to sit there and learn how to design Greek columns, Sullivan facades, ornamentation, etc etc because, as I said in my previous post, the architecture profession as we know it has completely divorced itself from such things.

If you have time, look at the architecture schools of Notre Dame or the University of Miami (which Notre Dame's program is derived from). Miami's school was founded by the same people behind most of New Urbanism, and they stress a classical education. Students at these schools do in fact sit and draw columns, capitals, and entablatures. Not all architects have divorced themselves from classical forms.

I will, however, say that there's something dishonest about dropping Greek or Roman classicism down in any environment you please. Environmental conditions and cultures vary widely across the planet. Why is Classicism an appropriate solution in all of these places? Buildings need to respond to their environment - the climate, the weather, the soil conditions, and the topography; and their inhabitants - their lifestyles, their activities, and their habits.

For example - a prominent motif in Classicism is the acanthus leaf. Why is that appropriate for anywhere in America, where the acanthus plant is not native and has not been imported in significant quantity?

[JBoston]

I would like to begin by giving a kudos to CGII for his articulate response to the question of modernism (although you do sound sort of brainwashed by the modernists ). I'm assuming you're an architect/architecture student. Only we use the term "program," which is actually the real answer to the overall question...

... but anyway.

Modernism began as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution. The building itself became a manifestation of man's growing obsession with the machine. Le Corbusier's Villa Savoy is actually referred to by the man himself as a "machine for living." In this sense, modern architecture is a result of its time and of new construction techniques derived from the prevalence of new materials such as steel and concrete. One of the modern movement's core principles is the rejection of the Beaux-Arts (which is what we are actually referring to when we say "classical").

Modernism has evolved over the past decades into what we all think of when someone says "modern" which is actually known as high modernism. This period includes brutalism, which is something I know you all just LOVE here on SSP. The thing is up until that point program, tectonic expression and functionalism were the driving forces behind form. Then Venturi wrote that blasted book about Las Vegas and Postmodernism was born. This is what has shoved form over function in recent times and unfortunately this is what the common folk think of when they see a "modern" building. This is not modernism, this is formalism. In any case, there is no F'ing way any self respecting architect is going to make a Beux-Arts style, neo-classical building. IT JUST WILL NOT HAPPEN. If you would like to know why, read The Fountainhead.

[John Martin]

I agree with your opinions on old architecture. I too adore old masterpieces. I'm going into the architectural field myself, along with my older brother, after our grandfather did. We're all "modern" people mainly because we just like the style. However, I very much appreciate the ornamentation, craftsmanship, handywork, and effort that went into old buildings. Complex designs are often very beautiful, so beautiful that I wouldn't dare recreate them. You see, construction isn't the same today as it was a hundred years ago, or even a few decades ago. It would be careless of me to expect a modern-day builder to accomplish a masterpiece, like those of old. The kind of quality and effort that went into buildings back then just can't be found today. That's my practical reason for going with modern architecture. I still adore old chateaus, mansions, monuments, palaces, walk-ups, and skyscrapers, but I don't think it would be right of me to try and purposely make something to look like those styles. It would either be fake or unoriginal. I'm always looking for ways to put my own style into my ideas, I just don't want to copy someone else's details or ornamentation in my design.

Part of why modern design has become so popular is because, back in the day, those lavish and complex designs were also very popular. People get tired of the same style over and over again, especially when it seems so wasteful and unnecessary. That's why all the "less is more" and simple ideas came into play. In my opinion, they've been overused to become nothing more than just another trendy style. As an architect, it will be one of my main goals to come up with something that will go against the current trends, without trying to look like someone else's work.

[DigitalUrbanity]

Originally Posted by ardecila

If you have time, look at the architecture schools of Notre Dame or the University of Miami (which Notre Dame's program is derived from). Miami's school was founded by the same people behind most of New Urbanism, and they stress a classical education. Students at these schools do in fact sit and draw columns, capitals, and entablatures. Not all architects have divorced themselves from classical forms.

I will, however, say that there's something dishonest about dropping Greek or Roman classicism down in any environment you please. Environmental conditions and cultures vary widely across the planet. Why is Classicism an appropriate solution in all of these places? Buildings need to respond to their environment - the climate, the weather, the soil conditions, and the topography; and their inhabitants - their lifestyles, their activities, and their habits.

For example - a prominent motif in Classicism is the acanthus leaf. Why is that appropriate for anywhere in America, where the acanthus plant is not native and has not been imported in significant quantity?

As someone who is applying to masters programs at both those schools I figured I drop in...
I definately agree with all of conditions impacting building design above, but none of them invalidate classicism as a design approach, which is the core of it. It's not a style defined by detailing or load bearing masonry construction. Think of the progression from the Greeks to Vitruvius, Bramante, Alberti, Bernini, Labrouste, Berhens, Mies, Edward Durell Stone, Saarinen, Kahn, Calatrava....All of these people were classical architects or worked in the classical mode for at least some of their careers, even if the style had little resemblance to the doric, ionic, or corinthian. In terms of adaptability, there is nothing inherently rooted about it, witness the creation of vernacular colonial architecture around the world based on classical european architecture...the Palladian New England colonial, the southern shotgun, spanish colonial architecture, and endless other examples...all having to deal with climate and the materials at hand. Most of them are pretty austere, unless the person building it had money to apply improvised detailing, such as georgian houses in the connecticut river valley with corinthian pilasters adorned with tobacco leaves. Alternatively its possible to have the organic visual richness of classical detailing with high tech modern construction techniques, such as in Michael Hopkins' work http://www.hopkins.co.uk/projects/_5,65/ which is about as fundamentally ruskinian as you can get.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ CGII, thank you for your very thoughtful response. I think you have argued your point quite convincingly, however I have to dispute this last part as quoted above.

I guess that's my point--is it 'plagiarism' to paint in the Impressionist style? Is it 'plagiarism' to build a 3 story building with an ornate entrance and a sculpted cornice? Why is that 'plagiarism'? Why is it unacceptable for an architect to be versed in older techniques?

It's plagiarism when you are trying to replicate the work of a single architect (learning how to do a Sullivan facade). I don't have a problem with an architect recreating a space in the vein of Sullivan but I want that space to be the result of an original investigation into the form the building should take, not a purposeful move to recreate the work of somebody else, which is what your implication was.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

If architects are exclusively to be seen as artists on the cutting edge, how do they make themselves relevant? We live in a world of buildings--LOTS of buildings, and most of them aren't being built with a massive budget. If every architect insists on being an 'artiste' then who the hell can afford to hire them? That's why post-war America is stuck with so many crappy buildings.

I was not the one suggesting architects become artists. I think this was actually one of your main points.

Originally Posted by JBoston

Modernism began as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution. The building itself became a manifestation of man's growing obsession with the machine. Le Corbusier's Villa Savoy is actually referred to by the man himself as a "machine for living." In this sense, modern architecture is a result of its time and of new construction techniques derived from the prevalence of new materials such as steel and concrete. One of the modern movement's core principles is the rejection of the Beaux-Arts (which is what we are actually referring to when we say "classical").

This is all on target but I need to add that this is merely the European modernist movement, we often forget that architects like Frank Lloyd Wright pioneered the modernist movement in America in a much different vein. Wright's modernism was a very soulful modernism; while it still very much was driven by 'form follows function' his buildings were very much artistic works designed to move the soul. Meanwhile, in Europe, people like Le Corbusier were building 'machines for living' on the basis of philosophy and not emotion. I criticize European modernism for this negligence, though praise it for its breakthroughs in other areas.

[WilliamTheArtist]

Form indeed does follow function. But isnt beauty a function? How the building feels to those using it? Walking past it? Living in it? How something looks and feels is a very important function imo. Most building design throughout history wasnt purely just something that reflected the materials and its use to keep the weather out or hold up a plumbing and electrical system.

If Michaelangelo had the materials of today, would his design for St Peters Basilica have been any less ornate? I contend that it would have been even more grandiose and breathtaking. Imagine what he would have done if he had the materials, lighting techniques and such that we have today. He would have used the different materials to enhance his vision. The style would have been the same no matter what the materials.

Ornamentation isnt dependant upon materials. A building using contemporary materials can be as ornate as you want, and that ornamentation can be completely modern and not a copy of any style that has come before. Conversely, a building using nothing but stone and wood can be very contemporary and simple. A square stone column is just as functional as an ornate one.

A building doesnt have to be ornate to be beautiful, and enjoyable to be in or walk past. Enjoyable beauty can be found in simple shapes, forms, and spaces, but they dont just happen, you have to put effort and intent into it and have the talent for it.

I would say that if you simply design a building that does its job perfectly, in every way, but without an equal attention to its appearance, to how people feel when they are in it, walk past it, LIVE with it,,, well thats being lazy or copping out. Or it just shows the architect does not have the talent do do so. They can do all the equations to make it stand up, but not make it beautiful. And because they are lacking in that skill or ability, they of course, out of insecurity, rail against any notion of beauty being any "real" function. Its not taking that extra step to ensure the building does its best to exceed in ALL its functions.

Now not every building has to be beautiful, nor would every client have a need for it to be. A client wanting an inexpensive, plain, steel, warehouse or factory building, in an industrial area, can get just that. The architect can do a smashing job of giving the client the most solid structure for the best price. An honorable achievement. But I dont think this is the scenario we are talking about here and I think there are places in our cities, in our lives where the desire for; pleasing, enjoyable, beautiful, interesting forms is important, whether simple or ornate. But here we get to differences in personal tastes and even to the debates of who has say so with private property and how it intersects the community space. We can destroy our walkable, pedestrian friendly spaces by building streets lined with blank, monolithic walls if we choose, right? The only function I the client wanted was a building that efficiently, most cost effectively, houses my workers, I dont care about the street or what other people think. What can the architect do in that instance? But if the architect is given a budget, a description of what the clients needs are. He could then presumably, with creativity and talent, meet all the stated basic needs, and also make the building and its spaces, beautiful and interesting. He should also seek to guide the client to build a building that is best suited for its location. As in, if its a pedestrian friendly street, the architect shouldnt want to destroy that, but maintain or even enhance it with how the building meets the street. Shouldnt that be another function of a building in that instance, to maintain the pedestrian nature of the street? Unless there was an expressed desire to not to, or to do something differently intentionally, fine.

We just had a new ballpark designed for downtown Tulsa. It was going in an area that we expressly wanted to become more pedestrian friendly. We wanted something unique for Tulsa and specifically that would compliment the area it was going in. The first designs we got from the architects seemed as if they didnt give a damn about the street, the designs or style of structure we would have wanted, etc. It was a nice, "functional" ballpark done in a contemporary style. But it didnt meet any other desires or requirements. It was as if they didnt listen at all. And they certainly didnt LEAD with a design that could have improved the area in any way. Even if we hadnt had mentioned that we wanted this area to be pedestrian friendly, they SHOULD have imo, seen that it would have been beneficial to the area to do so. It was if they only cared about the building as a ballpark only, and it being contemporary, but nothing else. Finally after several revisions and people complaining up and down, they got the picture. They were also able to finally create something that was contemporary, but had brick to compliment the buildings around it, and for it to have deco elements which Tulsans always want lol. I see so many examples of the same thing. In OKC an architect recently designed a new building. Was contemporary and looked nice in the pics, but it again had no concern for their desire to help create a pedestrian friendly environment. It was set way back, had parking in an awkward spot further breaking up the streetscape, was not a building to walk beside, but look at from a distance and look nice on paper. People complained and threw a fit. Why does this happen so often? And why on earth should it have to? The opposite should be happening. The architects who SHOULD know better, should be leading the way with good urban design appropriate to the areas they are in. Especially when they are public buildings being paid for by public dollars. The public HAS a say, they are the client the architects should be listening to and creatively accommodating for that is part of the architects job as well.

[JBoston]

Originally Posted by CGII

This is all on target but I need to add that this is merely the European modernist movement, we often forget that architects like Frank Lloyd Wright pioneered the modernist movement in America in a much different vein. Wright's modernism was a very soulful modernism; while it still very much was driven by 'form follows function' his buildings were very much artistic works designed to move the soul. Meanwhile, in Europe, people like Le Corbusier were building 'machines for living' on the basis of philosophy and not emotion. I criticize European modernism for this negligence, though praise it for its breakthroughs in other areas.

Point taken.

Although you must not forget that Wright was part of the Arts and Crafts movement of the late 19th century, so his sensibilities were slightly skewed relative to people like Corbusier or Mies. In fact modernism in America didn't take hold until the 1950's as a result of the Chicago World's Fair and its giant Beaux Arts centerpiece which virtually killed the modernist movement in the states until the start of the Second World War.

[samoen313]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But somehow something strikes me as wrong about an architectural community which largely sets a tone of rejecting previous forms to seek out newer, cleaner, more 'modern' ones. It makes one wonder if architecture is really more of an aesthetically-inclined yet 'practical' field, as opposed to a pure 'art' such as fashion designing, where often pushing the envelope for newer styles and forms seems to preoccupy the general thrust of the community involved.

I say all this because, at the end of the day, when I walk down the street and look up at a building, the sheer beauty of one of those heavily ornamented gilded era structures comes naturally to me. It just looks beautiful; in fact, I don't think I've ever seen one that I would consider ugly. People just knew how to build things that looked appealing to the eye back then, and they did this using techniques that had evolved over millennia.

When I look at modern structures I definitely appreciate what I'm seeing, but somehow it feels more forced. I have to know something about the style, or what it represents. I have to tell myself "this is great architecture". It just doesn't come across as obviously a beautiful work of art. And often I wonder if what I'm really appreciating is the beauty or simplicity of the structure itself, or rather the fact that it contrasts so greatly its prewar predecessors around it?

After all this, I find myself asking, "why does the architectural community find it taboo to reproduce these older forms in our cities and towns, and to do so as a serious undertaking?"

Architecture is, like any field of art or science, progressive and dynamic. It benefits from research and development just like any other profession. To simply say that we've learned all we can about architecture in the past few millenniums and we shouldn't be constantly trying to push forward the contemporary understanding of Architecture is unfair. I know where you're coming from on this because it can be difficult to sit a modernist masterpiece next to a Beaux-Arts one and say why the former may be better than the latter or vice versa. The reality is, however, that based on the technology and economy of today, modernist, simplified buildings make much more sense. They're cheaper, easier to modify, and better consider environmental and mechanical conditions.

I also don't want to mitigate the mistakes modernist architects have made. But you said it well; classical methods and understandings of architecture were tried and perfected over many centuries whereas modernist ideals were purely speculative. Some worked, and some didn't. We learn from mistakes though, and with time modernist architecture continues to get better aesthetically and functionally.

You're right, we shouldn't necessarily have to know something about the style or intention of a building to appreciate it. Approach modernist and contemporary Architecture with an open mind. Pay attention to the humane features of the building as they're often more revealing of the quality of the building. Some fairly unattractive, modern buildings sit right on the street and are perfectly-suited to human use. Many are quite the opposite: they look great on paper but ultimately fail when built. Regardless, appreciation can be based on pure aesthetics, but often times a building's value can be better determined from the experience and interface with its occupants and the urban environment.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by CGII

When you start replicating somebody else's ideas you are no longer an artist, you are a plagiarist.

Poi s'ascose nel foco che gli affina
Quando fiam ceu chelidon—O swallow swallow
Le Prince d'Aquitaine à la tour abolie
These fragments I have shored against my ruin.



(not sure about this)

[zeno3333333]

...and that being the general inclusion in society of "pride" and "honor". This "pride" and "honor" ended up showing itself in the buildings that were built back then. Take away the pride and honor from the society and the resulting embellishments are also taken away. The stone carvings in old buildings and fancy marble lobbies reflected the society that built them. Change the society and the buildings end up changing also.
Stepping off of soap box.

[kool maudit]

i think this honor thing is getting into the territory of the too-general "kids today"-type complaint.

[Steely Dan]

i have not read through the whole thread yet (i know, i know), so if someone else has mentioned this already, i apologize.

one of the reasons why so many of today's buildings are less embellished on their exteriors is because we now spend a shit ton of money on all of the very complex and highly technical systems that go into the inside of a building - electrical, plumbing, HVAC, fire protection, low-voltage systems, green technologies, etc. by the time all of this extra work gets engineered and built into the structure, there's just less money left over to pay some stone worker to carve several dozen neat little gargoyles to stick on the cornice. today's building are no longer just 4 walls and a roof enclosing space, they are extremely complicated and highly developed machines because we want them to perform better for us.

this is of course just one of many reasons, but i thought it would be worth mentioning in case it hasn't been brought up.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by WilliamTheArtist

Form indeed does follow function. But isnt beauty a function? How the building feels to those using it? Walking past it? Living in it? How something looks and feels is a very important function imo. Most building design throughout history wasnt purely just something that reflected the materials and its use to keep the weather out or hold up a plumbing and electrical system.

If Michaelangelo had the materials of today, would his design for St Peters Basilica have been any less ornate? I contend that it would have been even more grandiose and breathtaking. Imagine what he would have done if he had the materials, lighting techniques and such that we have today. He would have used the different materials to enhance his vision. The style would have been the same no matter what the materials.

Ornamentation isnt dependant upon materials. A building using contemporary materials can be as ornate as you want, and that ornamentation can be completely modern and not a copy of any style that has come before. Conversely, a building using nothing but stone and wood can be very contemporary and simple. A square stone column is just as functional as an ornate one.

A building doesnt have to be ornate to be beautiful, and enjoyable to be in or walk past. Enjoyable beauty can be found in simple shapes, forms, and spaces, but they dont just happen, you have to put effort and intent into it and have the talent for it.

I would say that if you simply design a building that does its job perfectly, in every way, but without an equal attention to its appearance, to how people feel when they are in it, walk past it, LIVE with it,,, well thats being lazy or copping out. Or it just shows the architect does not have the talent do do so. They can do all the equations to make it stand up, but not make it beautiful. And because they are lacking in that skill or ability, they of course, out of insecurity, rail against any notion of beauty being any "real" function. Its not taking that extra step to ensure the building does its best to exceed in ALL its functions.

Now not every building has to be beautiful, nor would every client have a need for it to be. A client wanting an inexpensive, plain, steel, warehouse or factory building, in an industrial area, can get just that. The architect can do a smashing job of giving the client the most solid structure for the best price. An honorable achievement. But I dont think this is the scenario we are talking about here and I think there are places in our cities, in our lives where the desire for; pleasing, enjoyable, beautiful, interesting forms is important, whether simple or ornate. But here we get to differences in personal tastes and even to the debates of who has say so with private property and how it intersects the community space. We can destroy our walkable, pedestrian friendly spaces by building streets lined with blank, monolithic walls if we choose, right? The only function I the client wanted was a building that efficiently, most cost effectively, houses my workers, I dont care about the street or what other people think. What can the architect do in that instance? But if the architect is given a budget, a description of what the clients needs are. He could then presumably, with creativity and talent, meet all the stated basic needs, and also make the building and its spaces, beautiful and interesting. He should also seek to guide the client to build a building that is best suited for its location. As in, if its a pedestrian friendly street, the architect shouldnt want to destroy that, but maintain or even enhance it with how the building meets the street. Shouldnt that be another function of a building in that instance, to maintain the pedestrian nature of the street? Unless there was an exprerssed desire to not to, or to do something differently intentionally, fine.



We just had a new ballpark designed for downtown Tulsa. It was going in an area that we expressly wanted to become more pedestrian friendly. We wanted something unique for Tulsa and specifically that would compliment the area it was going in. The first designs we got from the architects seemed as if they didnt give a damn about the street, the designs or style of structure we would have wanted, etc. It was a nice, "functional" ballpark done in a contemporary style. But it didnt meet any other desires or requirements. It was as if they didnt listen at all. And they certainly didnt LEAD with a design that could have improved the area in any way. Even if we hadnt had mentioned that we wanted this area to be pedestrian friendly, they SHOULD have imo, seen that it would have been beneficial to the area to do so. It was if they only cared about the building as a ballpark only, and it being contemporary, but nothing else. Finally after several revisions and people complaining up and down, they got the picture. They were also able to finally create something that was contemporary, but had brick to compliment the buildings around it, and for it to have deco elements which Tulsans always want lol. I see so many examples of the same thing. In OKC an architect recently designed a new building. Was contemporary and looked nice in the pics, but it again had no concern for their desire to help create a pedestrian friendly environment. It was set way back, had parking in an awkward spot further breaking up the streetscape, was not a building to walk beside, but look at from a distance and look nice on paper. People complained and threw a fit. Why does this happen so often? And why on earth should it have to? The opposite should be happening. The architects who SHOULD know better, should be leading the way with good urban design appropriate to the areas they are in. Especially when they are public buildings being paid for by public dollars. The public HAS a say, they are the client the architects should be listening to and creatively accommodating for that is part of the architects job as well.

Methinks this is the real problem, that the architects aren't addressing the city and the city's needs. Occasionally plazas can be nice and useful, but a building needs to have a responsibility to its surroundings. In his Design of Cities, Bacon mentioned an Italian architect who was given a commission on one side of a square and had to make a choice about how to build: would he build his own style? or would he replicate the building on the other side? He chose to replicate, to build for the greater civic good rather than exercising his own style in the location. It strikes me that, although modernism has given us many good and beautiful buildings, it has lost the ability to connect with the civic identity--to build not for its own aggrandizement, but for the glory of the whole, and this is the problem with modernism.