Is there a role for neoclassisicm in today's world?

[the urban politician]

I've observed that most people on this website are die-hard modernists. I certainly hear a lot of criticism for historic-looking architecture.

Part of that may be because of poor use of materials, bad designs, or what not, but it seems to me that most of the people here have simply rejected classical styles entirely when it comes to newly constructed buildings.

Being that is so, are the old motifs thus to be thrown to the wind? Should we do away with statues, columns, carved designs, etc etc with all future buildings? Is there no role for these things in the future of the built world?

[Boris2k7]

With a general lack of skilled (stone) craftsmen nowadays, yes, it is a thing of the past and should remain so. Nowadays these historicist buildings have nothginbut a brick veneer and cornices made out of wood or foam.

Besides the materials, the design just isn't reflective of where we are today. It also devalues the actual heritage that may be left behind, by trying to recreate history. This poses the danger of old buildings simply being knocked down because, hey, we can just build a new one that sortof looks like the real thing, right?

Historicism is more or less a Disney-esque gesture.

[edluva]

historicism is denial of progress. I tend to think decoration is architectural dead-end nowadays, as architecture is taking a sharp turn toward functionality instead. classical/neoclassical architectural motif's have not evolved since wwII simply because they are not economically/environmentally feasible. today's architecture reflects a completely different human context which cannot be compared with the past, and so it makes no sense importing historic elements to modern architecture. would you as an artist credibly paint in the baroque style in the year 2007? that's why i sort of like guys like neil denari, guys who challenge conventions spatially instead of ornamentally. their work addresses functionality in concert with aesthetics, without the undue emphasis of egotism in their work. less "egotechture". they're past the vanity of decorating sheds being that they're too busy addressing spatial challenges as a solution to public needs, not their egotistical needs.

[mhays]

I like many modern buildings, but on the average I'd take classic over modern.

Architects hate that the general public thinks this way. Their reasons are generally ones that make sense to architects but not the rest of us. We don't care what a building "says about today". We want it to look good.

It's interesting that the AIA's own poll showed vastly different opinions than you see on this board, or probably any other -- the general public likes classic buildings and doesn't particularly like modern buildings. This board doesn't show this because we non-architects avoid these discussions. We don't speak the language, and we have a hard time answering theoretical arguments. We just want buildings to look good, and we know when we like one building over another.

[Boris2k7]

^ At least in the parts of the forum I've seen, there is a strong dislike for classic architecture. There ARE a lot of architects, planners, and would-be planners such as myself on this board as well. I tend to agree with edluva that functionality is most important, though I acknowledge that aesthetics are too.

[edluva]

Here's my little schpiel on where I see form and function fitting in the scope of design and architecture. It probably sounds like i'm taking sides in the old form vs function debate, but i don't think it should ever have been as cut and dry as this duality has been played out...in the end, our aesthetic value of an ordinary object such as a building or car is a direct reflection of our appreciation of its intended physical purpose (for driving, for shelter, etc). In other words aesthetic value is given an existential birth. Think of Animism, only replaced by aesthetic spirituality. The sinuous curves of the car fender for example, an otherwise inconspicuously utilitarian wheel covering, is simultaneously iconic through it's representation of automotive functionality, and in so doing, takes on spiritual or aesthetic value in its representation. The fender, by way of the it's engineering, creates a twin birth of both form and function.

Okay, nobody tells it better than neitzsche... go read the birth of tragedy.

[Boris2k7]

All very good points (though I've never quite agreed with the concept of spirituality, it seems rather abstract and meaningless in a rational, scientific world).

But I think you hit on it in what you just said.

"... our aesthetic value of an ordinary object such as a building or car is a direct reflection of our appreciation of its physical purpose... But for aesthetic value to exist, the object does first have to be recognized for what it is..."

So we have some kind of physical manifestation of a purpose. But first, far before aesthetics even come into play, it has to satisfy functional requirements. Environmental, social, or economic. If these conditions are not meant than there is no reason to create. The function could be simply psychological, like for self-esteem or self-discovery. Aesthetics, I think, are just another function, though one that is more important in the architectural field than, say, engineering.

What I mean to imply here is that there is no form-function duality, nor a heirarchy. There is, IMHO, only a debate between different functions, and the relative values placed on them depending on a building's purpose. The reason why Neoclassical Architecture is no longer valued has much to do with the higher value placed on an economic function than an aesthetic function. However, one thing that most people don't see is that each of these functions is interdependent in one way or another. A good-looking building has a higher economic and social value (this sense of "value" being in terms of economic or cultural capital) even if a building that performs a functional value may not maintain a good aesthetic (except perhaps in the sense of maintenance).

[edluva]

just playing semantics here but spirituality is used loosely to refer to the subjective experience of delight, or whatever else one feels when they get their aesthetic rush. The aesthetic is the component of design that occurs irrespective of the physical plane - and so it's not unlike the spiritual.

[GVNY]

There is a very important role in neoclassicism today, and that is to ground the oft stupid architectural garbage we throw up under the guise of 'progression.'

[Alliance]

There is a role for neoclasiccism, but the issue it it shouldn't be a repitition of the past, but a progression.

Most americans see a cloumn and instantly claim its great architecture. Often its just old rehash.

[POLA]

...functionality is most important

Wait, how can anyone think that modernism produces functional buildings? What's more functional then a square box with windows and and door in the middle?

Historicism is more or less a Disney-esque gesture

You mean Post Modernism?

[GVNY]

/\ Don't bother, POLA. Some people are too entrenched in modernist dogma.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by POLA

Wait, how can anyone think that modernism produces functional buildings? What's more functional then a square box with windows and and door in the middle?



You mean Post Modernism?

buildings that cantilever over streets in order to maximize space or sunlight aren't boxes, even if they're largely geometric. there is a definite functional and aesthetic element in that. It's not modernism in the classical sense though, and nor is it post-modernism, but the lack of emphasis on pure aesthetics and ornament brings it closer to modernism than post-modenism

[wrab]

The Parthenon and Mies van der Rohe's Crown Hall, eg, aren't really so very far apart - platonic, geometric forms - anyway, I love both classicism & modernism. And Georgian. And Greek Revival. Plus ca change...

But we build differently today than the Romans did. And, being someone who admires honest, straightforward things, I like to see this expressed in the buildings we build now.

BTW, the current epicenter of nouveau neoclassicism in the USA is the School of Architecture at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana - Alexander Stoddart, I think?

[Peanuthead]

Is there a role for neo-clasissssm in the 21st C, definately, especially in Briatin. Look at the works of architects like John Simpson, Quinlan Terry (been called Britain's "most controversial architect precisely because he is so uncontroversial"), Raymond Erith and you will see an attention to detail that many architects are simply lacking. Say what you want about the old-fashioness of the style it's certainly what the general public responses to. If only we had the skilled craftsman as were availible in the 18th and 19th century could we create the aestetic wonders like Bath and Edinburgh in the UK.

Functionallity and classicism can, if done correctly, work, IMO

Note: Despite the above I mostly like modern architecture but hate the almost snobberyness of many modernists to classisists.

[Atomic Glee]

I far prefer traditional, and modern-made traditional, architecture over modern stuff. That's why I stay quiet in most discussions around here, as most people who feel the way I do get shouted down rather quickly around here.

The people 'round these parts who want traditional styles buried and done away with scare me a little, to be honest.

[Peanuthead]

the arrogance of some modernists is unbearable

[Boris2k7]

Versus what, the childlike demeanor of most classicists who only want pretty, "old" buildings? It's a sad world that we live in when one sees an intellectual argument as snobbery, and also subjects everything to a lowest-common denominator "what the masses want" argument. People are so shallow.

[edluva]

new neo-classicism is a loss for ideas. classicism has been done and was appropriate for its time. it was created out of a particular sense of morality (mostly christian) which has lost favor to secularism. is it really snobbery to acknowledge that we live in the year 2007, a time with unique circumstances of its own? it's mostly arrogance to those of us who refuse to understand (and become ignorant of) how architecture should reflect change within a society, rather than a nostalgic yearning for the past.

and i'd argue that britian is among the last of places where neo-classicism would be appropriate given it's large inventory of genuinely classic architecture. if anything, LA or las vegas would "benefit" more from neo-classicism, and even then, the "controversy" would be alltogether different from that brought about by modernism for the fact that with classicism, the controversy has little to do with solutions for present and future challenges.

[Boris2k7]

Speaking of yearning for the past... the problem with classical architecture is that is the imposition of a small group's vision of the past. In the absence of real historic buildings, the average joe would be clueless about what buildings were really like, instead relying on a cheezy interpretation of a developer. It is very much an attempt to rewrite history.