|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
sg999
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 6
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject: Modernism? hmmm... |
    |
|
What's your opinion on this one?
Introduction
Modernism first emerged in the early 20th Century as a movement which sought to elevate the world of Architecture to greater heights which were more befitting of the Zeitgeist of a newly enlightened and rapidly advancing civilisation. While the movement was at first highly criticised, even the harshest sceptics can not deny the worldwide influence exerted over the remainder of the century of its inception. With each passing decade, Modernism gained a momentum which today is seemingly unstoppable. Soon the movement and its propagators not only had the respect of public and private institutions throughout the world, but also a level of authority which today makes it almost entirely impossible to realistically challenge the validity or success of any of its elements.
Unintimidated by the general silence and powerlessness of critics today, this brief paper ambitiously suggests that the perceived success of Modernism thus far is perhaps more due to its wise and forward-thinking compatibility with an ever-more industrialised and economically-driven society, than to any of its asserted qualities as a new and evolved expression of art.
Rather than blindly rejecting Modernism in its entirety, it is suggested that it could be best regarded as the early beginnings of a sincere and logical search for a new style; ‘a new development in its primitive stage.’ The Modern movement as is studied and practiced today, and has been practiced until the present, is in urgent need of refinement and a truer source of inspiration before it can be proudly presented as that beautiful conclusive solution which it already boasts to be.
Industrially-inspired Function,
Functionally-driven Aesthetics
In its economically and socially downtrodden breeding-grounds, modernist thought was forcedly moulded and nurtured by what was at the time and arguably still today, one of the very few functional and promising elements of a moribund society; Industrialisation.
- “A house is a machine for living in.”
Le Corbusier
It is for this reason that so many of the fundamental theories and resultant forms of Modern Architecture are admittedly so intimately associated with the purely functional machine, which itself, as a matter of interest, never relied on its aesthetic characteristics. It was the charm of mechanical perfection, the awe of witnessing unseen degrees of sophisticated mass-production, the sense of the superiority of modern man over all previous generations, which inspired countless artists of the time, many of the most influential modernists included.
- “Form follows function.”
Louis Henri Sullivan
The Compromise of the Bauhaus
It should be mentioned that the Bauhaus, in its early days, had goals in mind which formed a radical contrast to the aforementioned trend. Not only were its founders strongly opposed against the Industrial forces dominating the West, recognising the imminent dangers Industrialisation presented for artists and craftsmen, but they went so far as to actively push traditional notions which were on the verge of extinction.
The Bauhaus was formed in Weimar by Walter Gropius through the fusion of the Academy of Fine Arts (ARTS) with the School of Applied Arts. (CRAFTS) In brief, Gropius believed that the essence of the new style largely depended on the harmonious collaboration of all artists and craftsmen directed towards a single whole artwork, the building. The outcome of this would constitute the style or image of the day.
Following Morris’s teachings, Gropius at this early stage strongly clung to the value of the craftsman as the only basis of true quality for production. All Bauhaus students, therefore, had to learn certain practical handicrafts which could later serve to enhance the building. The artworks produced by the students at this time naturally reflected their despair of the ‘mechanised war’.
Under the influence of Nagy, the new teacher of the Vorkurs, the foundation course, Gropius became increasingly more accepting of the machine, until, in 1923 the Bauhaus reformulated its orientation to include the machine as a modern medium of design with which the school and its students needed to come to terms. The main theme of the school, its reason for existing was strictly upheld: the unity and synthesis of different arts into the total work of art; a building. This synthesis would be symbolic of the general trends of the new world as envisaged by Gropius.
In 1928 Gropius left the Bauhaus in the hands of Hannes Meyer, whose beliefs completely excluded all formalism and humanism. Forms became plainer than ever, as Meyer completely rejected all stylistic input. As a by-product, the enforcement of absolutely plain forms in itself constituted a new, even more extreme rudimentary and economical style and could be easily identified as such.
Mies van der Rohe took over the school for a short while before its closure in 1933. While the Bauhaus had only lived a very short life, the emigration of its heads to the United States ensured that its influence did not cease but on the contrary would just enter a new and significant chapter in the history of the global development of modernism.
The gradual shift in the stylistic attitudes of the Bauhaus was absolutely indispensable to its continued survival. But, is it not far more likely that this shift was the result of subtle commercial pressures rather than a spontaneous heartfelt inclination towards exaggerated plainness?
It must be understood that revered architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright were not only talented designers, but highly social beings, who were most gifted with their choice of words. They were masters of justifying and theorising. Perhaps it is due to these qualities and the perceived enthusiasm with which they conditioned themselves and others, that the above obvious and involuntary shift has thus far remained camouflaged, undetected and instead interpreted as creativity at its peak. Nevertheless, observe and interpret the following subtle yet unmistakeable confession:
- “Art for art's sake is a philosophy of the well-fed.”
Frank Lloyd Wright
The repercussions of the compromise of the initial noble values of the Bauhaus as well as other pioneers, in an attempt to adapt to the exigencies of the industrial world, largely continue to affect present-day design-trends. Today, architects throughout the world are justifiably limited by economic factors but often unjustifiably limited by their inability to find new and creative solutions which nonetheless still fall within the parameters of monetary feasibility. Certainly not all, but the bulk of today’s practicing architects are merely blindly imitating a past style instead of innovating it.
- “We should have a system of economics that is structure;
that is organic tools. We do not have it. We are all hanging
by our eyebrows from skyhooks economically,
just as we are architecturally.”
Frank Lloyd Wright
Creative Stagnancy
Unfathomable technological advances have been made in the last century, even in recent decades, yet the same can scarcely be said of the level of innovation and creativity with which these unprecedented new materials should have by now been assembled.
The vast majority of the forms which have so far been realised with reinforced concrete, for example, can only be compared with the unimaginative and unchallenging plain brick wall. Where are the present-day equivalents of stone arches, of fine craftsmanship and sculpture, of complex stained glass windows and flying buttresses?
In proportion to the vast progress we have made as a humanity in the past century, a progress which is epitomised by the almost literal merging of an unconnected planet into a single country, where can we find the relative equivalent to the geometric perfection and unequalled symbolic depth of what was achieved in the Parthenon some two thousand five hundred years ago? The fact of the matter is this: It is likely that much of the organisation of today’s so called “sophisticated” architecture, especially its aesthetic presentation, would be considered humorously shallow and painfully unsightly in the eyes of the Ancient Greek, while of course the constituent materials themselves would be no less than absolutely mind-blowing.
With all this recognition of the spirit of the age which, when put into its correct historical perspective, has so suddenly come upon an otherwise very slowly progressing humanity, it is proposed that the changes which have taken place in the world of architecture were on the one hand revolutionary, but absolutely inadequate on the other. While vast progress has been made in terms of the functionality of buildings, their aesthetic presentation has become significantly more regressive and primitive – A primitiveness of which modernists are strangely proud! - And which today’s architects feel is unnecessary to be questioned, let alone improved on.
Regionalism and Regionalisms
It is encouraging to witness the occasional regional influences of culturally significant arts and crafts on modern buildings – to see that the International Style was not recklessly and inorganically imposed on unreceptive populations. Obvious examples of this phenomenon can for example be witnessed in Brazil.
- “True ornament is not a matter of prettifying externals.
It is organic with the structure it adorns, whether
a person, a building, or a park.”
Frank Lloyd Wright
It can be easily argued, however, that much of the regional influences have thus far taken on a role much the same as that of the finishing paintjob of a car. In other words, the form of the product has remained more or less unchanged, apart from its outer packaging which strategically facilitates international marketing and numbs international resistance. In other words, while Modern solutions were not arrogantly and recklessly imposed on “under-developed” and “primitive” societies, they can be seen to have been carefully imposed on them, yet imposed nevertheless. It would be far more encouraging to see the more essential building forms more dramatically affected by regional influences.
On this same note it must be acknowledged that many modern cities of the new millennium are significantly more multicultural than the cities of the mid-20th century. Therefore, at least as far as these diverse cities are concerned, they bring with them an additional challenge: Not only is there one regional influence, but architects must be sensitive to the eclectic preferences of sometimes dozens of cultures. This phenomenon becomes particularly evident when observing selection processes of significant public buildings such as the towers which are to replace the World Trade Centre in New York. It is unreasonable to believe that a design solution can be found which appeals to each resident and visitor of New York City. However, it would be just as ridiculous to consider a proposal which is acceptable in the eyes of a very narrow demographic while rejecting one which appeals to a far greater demographic, assuming all factors of economic feasibility are constant.
True Beauty
The perception of beauty is a most complex and intangible subject and can not be dealt with in depth in this paper. What is being presented is not the miraculous solution, but rather an appeal for an increased consciousness of its desperate, longstanding need.
Suffice to say, at least in terms of aesthetics, not function; modernist architects have perhaps been preoccupied in satisfying their own needs and the wishes of their clients. They seem to have often been innocently inconsiderate to, or just oblivious of the stylistic preferences of the vast majority of human beings, who “…are neither very modern nor very extreme in their tastes…”. It seems only logical that a in order to receive the title of a beautiful building, a building must democratically be considered beautiful, meaning that the majority of its viewers and users should independently consider the building as being pleasing, uplifting and so forth. There are certain forms to which all, if not most human beings can intimately relate, and one of these is unfortunately not the white box, as interesting as it may be.
The measure of the success of a building, as unanimously agreed by architects, ancient and modern alike, is directly tied to its ability to relate to, and to an extent, positively influence the emotions of the individual. Which building erected in the present day can a simple and un-preconditioned person experience and walk away from with a memory which will last more than a few moments, let alone any longer? It is proposed that what is in fact being successfully achieved these days, and has been since the beginning of the modernist movement, is a trend of highly functional and extraordinary buildings which are often quite interesting to the eyes of the user, but simply fail to achieve that level of emotional upliftment which is the ideal result of any form of art. Once again, the debate of what is considered truly beautiful and what is not, has not been and was not intended to be deeply discussed in this report.
Conclusions
These paragraphs by no means claim to constitute the solution, but should rather be considered as the voicing of a few concerns and the listing of a few of the many elements which could be considered if a new style is to emerge or if modernism is to be modernised.
As the Modern movement was built on the foundation of progress and cultural bearing, no doubt it was never the intention of its great authors that their creation should hypocritically remain a stagnant and stubborn formula. It only logically follows that the movement within itself should be as dynamic and responsive to the ever-changing needs of the times as were the initial driving forces behind it.
- “Every great architect is necessarily a great poet.
He must be a great original interpreter of
his time, his day, his age.”
Frank Lloyd Wright
Rather than blindly adopting and imitating the early findings of so potentially staggering a movement, present day architects should consider themselves privileged to be in the position of having the opportunity to individually and originally contribute their time, energy, creativity and wisdom to the continued advancement of the modern style. We must strive towards even more functional and even more beautiful buildings, to the birth of a more universally considerate, more timeless, new and evolved expression of art.
References
Wolfe T. (1981) From Bauhaus to Our House. New York
Benton T. a. C., D. Sharp, ed. (1975) Form and Function: A source book for the History of Architecture and Design 1890-1939. London
Heinisch T., G. Peschken, ed. (1977) Architekturlehre: Grundlagen, Theorie und Kritik, Beziehung zu den anderen Künsten und der Gesellschaft (Architekturlehre aus der Sicht eines sozialistischen Architekten). Hamburg/Westberlin
Curtis, W. (1986) Towards an Authentic Regionalism, Mimar 19, Jan-Mar
Hitchcock H.-R., P. Johnson. (1932) The International Style: Architecture since 1922. New York
Alexander, C. (1979) The Timeless Way of Building, New York: Oxford University Press |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is difficult to find arguments that do not support the conclution, but in that conclution I miss a few important points.
Bauhaus did not die with the industrial refinement of the movement but today's designers stand with a very simular oppoment ,just realising where the innovation got lost , how it can be 30 years of architectural dead-end refining, enslaving the new digital options into just doing the same old boxes with the same cold attitude ---- now that would have been a challance for the old hero's wouldn't it ?
Shuldn't anyone be able to emagine computers to be more than just doing the rendered display just to sell the thing , well most architects rather use it for that ,most engineers rather use it the Lego way to ensure structures that realy is not a picture of what most would agrea computers shuld offer. Left for the architect is just the outside expression that to often lead to an interiour with the same expression as the outside cold surfaces. The real Le.Corb and Van der Rhoe would never stand a chance in today's visionless Icon race.
Another argument in the paper is very important, proberly more important today than ever --- the importance of social skills ; no real visionary would get a chance just caused by the dictatorship of industrie, then how would anyone who known the real artists, ever belive an artist to be able to fit into today's rigid process of manufactoring Icons , in those terms Bauhaus are vanished, even you follow the lead and educate within tradisional crafts ,then academics decades ago killed the last spirit. Sadly they didn't have further visions about how to create beauty and master the tools either.
What architecture need is a new form language, a new architecture that don't enslave the digital options must evolve , isn't it obvious when you realise that innovation is the only thing that will offer the new tools ,the only tools that can work within the new building industrie and again offer true visions and cheap safe houses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1221
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bauhaus died with the rise of the Nazi's and their election to office in 1933! Hitler thought that Modern Architecture was urban and Bolshevik. He preferred the traditional architecture of the countryside. Individuals like Mies saw the writing on the wall and left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1247
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Individuals like Mies saw the writing on the wall and left. |
I would hardly say that he saw the writing on the wall - he tried hard, very hard, to get commissions from the Nazis and failed.
However, the consideration of the architecture of totalitarianism, as modernism was (was ?) thought to be, is interesting. The Nazis did indeed move away from it because of its Bolshevik associations, but it was not a simple decision. Mies was in many ways the advocate of the movement to the Nazis.
Hitler may have liked the Volkisch architecture of the countryside but that was hardly the Nazi style.
It was Troost who alongside Peter Behrens and Walter Gropius had reacted to excessive ornamentation who went on to become Hitler's chosen architect. Spartan traditionalism with some modernist elements or "tremendous works in stone as monuments of true Germanic and Teutonic purity" (Adolf Hitler, tribute to Troost at Reichspartei meeting in 1935).
The later grandiose Nazi architecture shows how much of a loss Troost was. Some would say that Italian Fascist architecture was far more successful in evolving its own style and standard.
Personally I have always been baffled as to why there is the constant harping back to the ideas of Mies when the Italians seemed to have provided a much more interesting path to follow - however with today's politicians perhaps it is not design style, but the principle of 'Me Ne Frego' that is being remembered and will lead only to obedient design - Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" as Bush would say if he could pronounce it.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2450
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
The article was a bit to flowery and vague for my taste. The quotes used did not really support the points.
I would not agree that architects are simply copying what was done in the past. Architecture does not change over night, it evolves over a very long period of time. We are in a unique period because of technological advances beginning with the first iron framed buildings. We no longer use slaves and poorly paid people to construct our buildings. Our cities no longer pour tremendous amounts of resources into building one cathedral while its citizens live in extremly poor conditions.
"Which building erected in the present day can a simple and un-preconditioned person experience and walk away from with a memory which will last more than a few moments, let alone any longer?"
It would be an interesting survey.
I think we would find that many people will have had memorable and even uplifting experiences with modern buildings.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Architect
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 184
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Man you're really on shaky ground. That trite effort was neatly summed up by your uncorrupted ignorance of 'True Beauty'(?)... Hey sg999, there ain't no such thing as 'Beauty' nor 'Ugly'! Get past that shit, ok?
And about Frank... He was socially inept, and as a counterbalance he became the master of the 'spin'. He could coin a phrase with the best of them. F.Ll.W. was the greatest architectural chameleon in the history of architecture. For Frank, the measure of a building was who's work he could rip off and 'spin' as his own. (Most notably, Richard Neutra.)
sg999, you know those 'exalted' dendriform columns of his Johnson Wax building? They were all the rage a good 10 years before in Cologne Germany, Frank was very familiar with not only Bauhuas but all of Germany's thinkers. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone Bauhaus, nor all other 'Gestaltists'.
But what I enjoyed most about Frank, (beside the way he kissed the spam of the Hollywood elite...), was his keen sense of how and when to 'trade up' his women.
Well, good luck with your '-isms '... you'll be needing them all.
Take care... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1988
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
A very interesting essay indeed. Glad to read someone take an honest stab at the heartbeat of modernism, post-modernism, neo-modernism, whatever...and first I must qualify myself by admitting I am a fan (not quite fanatic) of THE modern movement. And I have always maintained that the greatest failure of modernism was NOT clarifying that it never did solve the problems of architecture forever, but was more about breaking with the past and all of its obsolete limitations. It's all predicated around technology and communications. Ie, concrete and magazines.
I like to call it Pop Architecture strictly because the essence of things that resonate with the public don't necessarily have to be so rationally perfect that it's the apex of mankind, but instead simply have to be "liked". It's simply another epoch of architectural Darwanism really...survival of the fittest design methodologies, technologies and assemblages. We all know the cliche: "the greatest form of flattery is being copied". The public likes "modern" buildings for simple reasons I think: it's cheap, it's voluminous, it's customizable, it's adaptable and ever-changing, and it's effecient. If it didn't work, no one would have ever bought into it. In fact I suspect the evident changes in the world revealed the obvious to the architects of the time, rather than the architects "invented" modern-ism. The great architects of the time simply acknowledged the reality of the world and put it in words. That's their legacy.
Now fast forward to today: we're in a state of constant hyper-media blitzkrieg and have great difficulty discerning greatness from garbage, since they're all packaged the same way. I disagree that there is no more innovation. I see innovation all the time but it's within the realm of the modern thinking...that all is possible and it begins with the essence of things. How can we possibly discard such a notion? It's futile to try and dismiss such a broad notion revealed to us by the evolution of modernist philosophy. Instead, what I think needs to be done is to somehow distinguish the early modern movement in contrast with its past (see K. Frampton for that) and charter the various interpretations of specific realms architects dare to investigate. The problem with modern-ism is that far too many architects rest their laurels on "it" instead of developing their own ideas and associating with like-minded designers...thus propelling new "movements". What has happened is that architecture has become a field of isolated ideas, grand ideas for sure, but lacking in support and therefore never growing any legs.
Take Gehry for example: after decades of working hard to create a successful career he strikes a chord with the Guggenheim and immediately falls into Pop Star status which comes with all the predictable social whistles and yells...(yes I said yells): aka, worship and criticism. Those who attempt to follow in his "style" have two problems...one, there is not enough dialogue about the rationality behind "blobbism" (although there is a lot more these days) and two, the newcomer is discarded as a cheap imitator of a "icon-ographer". And that's the ultimate faux-pas for the modernist hags who cry foul every time the "essence" of things is not well defined and agreed upon. The newcomers are isolated everytime. It's just like a social club where gossip reigns the runway...and its stifling creativity.
Then throw in the problem of technology. Dwindling resources, economic realities, environmental awareness, and very few construction innovative practices..at least I mean as revolutionary as concrete was. Glass and steel made huge gains, gypsum wallboard and electronics made meek attempts, and the future looks bleak. Unless science creates a new material that will spark a new revolution, I'm afraid we're stuck in the long shadow of modern-ism. The best we can do...we should do, is to seek to improve upon that what we have accepted and it means not worrying about what people say, write or yell about new ideas but rather that we start to pay attention more about one another and add to the general conversation. Enough with the soliloquies. And the fact that the written dialogues are what contribute to spreading the strongest of ideas, ultimately we all speak one language: the built environment. We have to build what we mean. But first we have to find meaning. And there will be a lot of babbling also, packaged to resemble the great ideas...so it's up to each one of us to figure it out ourselves. It begins with simply paying attention to one another....now I'm repeating myself...thats a sign to stop and get back to work.
mx2
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2450
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now that I look at it again most of the quotes where tied in well with the points being made in the article. Not bad writing overall. I thought the paragraph on true beauty was one of the better ones.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1988
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find the main point about "true Beauty" to be quite clear and it's not a new argument. The International Style was a collossal failure in terms of what its proponents goals were...it was an unprecedented success in terms of global influence and impact on mankind. But the bare-bones essence of place, traditions, local methods and materials...culture, required some of the adornment that was familiar to the real inhabitants of these spaces. It took a contemporary (metropolitan) inhabitant to appreciate *more* the quality of great modern buildings, whereas the majority of the world population still loved molding, column capitals, bas releifs, cornices, trellises, romanesque this, gothic that...to the point that if you truly examine the nature of housing in the US for example, you'll find these huge stretches of developments that build houses that resemble a clash between "modern" meets local architecture (Mediterranean, Key West, Eastern, "rural", etc). People simply are drawn to a minimum quantity of adornment in their homes. Modernist designers felt the spatial quality was the adornment...the textures, the play of space, the framed views, etc, etc...and it was. It was brilliant but still people want their crown molding and terra cotta tiles.
And worse, the imitators that followed didn;t understand the basic principles of real modernism and bastardized these stark buildings into something the general public began to reject en masse. Business and public buildings embraced it full force because of its economic advantages. Today I am sensing a sort of fusion between all of the above and aforementioned. It's a hodge-podge of "styles" where everyone is trying to re-invent every space, every project. The lack of cohesion and clear concept in most (not all) buildings/houses has lead to a general feeling of...of...
...apathy. Kitchens and bathrooms seem ot be the last bastion for lack of tolerance. Homeowners will compromise everything except their kitchen and bathrooms. It could be the ugliest barn in the world with a gorgeous bathroom and kitchen and the owners are happy. And the designers think its a success when they don't get sued and the check clears. Speaking of which...time to make the donuts!
mx2
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2450
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure what the intent of the original poster is. Wether we should critique the article or just discuss modernism.
Soon the movement and its propagators not only had the respect of public and private institutions throughout the world, but also a level of authority which today makes it almost entirely impossible to realistically challenge the validity or success of any of its elements.
-Here in the opening paragraph it says the validity of any of its elements is almost impossible to challenge so you think the author is going to be defending modernism.
Unintimidated by the general silence and powerlessness of critics today,
-I don't see any point to this.
this brief paper ambitiously suggests that the perceived success of Modernism thus far is perhaps more due to its wise and forward-thinking compatibility with an ever-more industrialized and economically-driven society, than to any of its asserted qualities as a new and evolved expression of art."
-Now in the second paragraph of the introduction the author says the success of modernism is only "perceived" which would imply that modernism may not be truly successful which to me contradicts the first paragraph.
Rather than blindly rejecting Modernism in its entirety,
-Now out of no where the author says "rather than reject modernism in it's entirety" -who rejected it?
it is suggested that it could be best regarded as the early beginnings of a sincere and logical search for a new style; ‘a new development in its primitive stage.’
-again no one said that the modern movement was mature or complete.
-here finally is the central point of the paper. The first two paragraphs did not support this well.
The Modern movement as is studied and practiced today, and has been practiced until the present, is in urgent need of refinement and a truer source of inspiration before it can be proudly presented as that beautiful conclusive solution which it already boasts to be.
-what is the current source of inspiration?
-modernism can not boast to be anything because it is not a person.
The introduction should identify a problem, and then present the topic of the paper based on it.
I don't think many people would argue that modernism is fully developed.
And I don't think it is very ambitious to make a statement that everyone would agree with.
Then there are quotes by architects that I did not think where modernist. Where Sullivan or Wright modernist?
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1988
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
The author is expanding on age old issues about modern(ist) architecture. It's a very specific movement that began sometime around the 1920's/30's and was most famously expressed by LeCorbusier, among many other great and notable modernists of the time. Many other movements eventually followed after the decline of the movement, leading to many pseudo movements such as Neo-Classical architecture, as an anti-thesis (well, somewhat) of the pure modernist principles. The author was smart in not trying to re-define almost a century's worth of debate but rather was focused on contemporary work, today's "modernist" designs. The history of modernism outlines all of the questions you asked. I highly recommend Kenneth Frampton's "modern architecture". It's essentially the basic and standard reading for young architects. Although the original author of this thread does have some technical disconnects in the writing, the thesis is quite clear...to me at least. It's bold to take on such a grand topic and does rather well at proposing a positive goal. One thing that always bothered me, for example, was when "less is more" become a cliche, people never took the time to understand what was behind that statement and literally created "less" architecture. Mies actually added fake column wraps to enhance his minimalist nature, in his drive to remain a purist. But as I mentioned elsewhere, the human condition known as culture seems to have been the fall of modernism. People thought the cheap knockoffs were what it was all about. And that's the essence of the article, that modernism was unfairly condemned and is basically misunderstood, in its principles, by architects even and no one is talking about it.
mx2
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1221
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Is there any further point in proving we can critique an anonymous essay? The original poster of this thread is active elsewhere, but has not bothered to return here to explain why s/he wanted opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1988
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was just furthering the discussion...not sure why everyone wants to stick to one subject in one thread and never go off on tangents. I find the tangents to be far more interesting (sometimes) than the original question/comment/essay. I wasn't trying to critique the essay but rather explore and expand upon the content. Did I miss an orientation? Are we not allowed to deviate? Sorry...won't do it again. Well actually , I can't promise anything really. 
I thought you, lekizz, would have enjoyed this one...
mx2
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2450
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you are both right. Probably no reason to discuss the article any more and no reason we can't discuss modernism in general.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1988
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed.
mx2
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
