daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Has architectural modernism failed?
Yes 190 45.13%
No 231 54.87%
Voters: 421. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 26th, 2012, 06:43 PM   #401
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,040
Likes (Received): 3596

Ok, so you're not interested in putting back aesthetic in architecture. Fine. Completely XX century reasoning. But the problem is that there is really no other way in finding a way out these architectural muds BUT thru aesthetics. There is a strong demand of beauty, today, and architecture should be considering that option too. Creativity is not an useless tool to be frustrated...we are human, we are creative, we like to decorate, and we're fine with that. If they purchase us stilish minimal design houses without decoration, is just because they want to build cheap houses and sell us as they were great mansions. But they're not. Modern architecture, XX century architecture is mainly based on Acquired Taste, history will show us this fact...
Time to move on, really. Repeating again and again XX century architecture is just a loss of time and energy that can actually be much more useful developping new arts and pushing creativity further.
tommolo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 26th, 2012, 07:47 PM   #402
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommolo View Post
Ok, so you're not interested in putting back aesthetic in architecture. Fine. Completely XX century reasoning...
And where did I say this?

I will repeat what I said so far:

Quote:
I think it is obvious that architecture is BOTH art and engineering. Architecture as it has evolved through time cannot be one without the other.
And:

Quote:
Before there was art in architecture, there was engineering. This is expected, as the primary purpose initially was for habitation.

But you can't talk of architecture as pure art. There is no such thing, unless you want to build something out of nothing.

Architecture is NOT pure art. But as it has evolved over time, an aesthetic component has developed.

So I repeat: where did I say that I am "not interested in putting back aesthetic in architecture"?

Sloppy, narrow-minded thinking will simply not do here.

Last edited by tpe; March 26th, 2012 at 07:53 PM.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 08:13 PM   #403
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,040
Likes (Received): 3596

I still can't understand how can an opinion be more acceptable or more reasonable when expressed with bold letters and colourful adjectives.

Architechture, according my very own weltanschauung, it is a pure art made of drawing,
the art of create liveable and beautiful buildings according Vitruvius' Three Principles: Firmitas, Utilitas et Venustas. Of course, in these principles, you see words like Firmitas and Utilitas, so there must be a control about decoration, costs and the safety of the building, without a doubt. We all don't want back the 1700 rococò style that empereors used to demonstrate their luxury while the people were starving. We want back just some degree of very tasty and very essential decoration, just to demonstrate that buildings are not methapisical objects, but very human buildings, soulful elements.

That said, I would kindly ask you to logically demonstrate your assumption that architecture is not pure art. How would define "pure art"?

As for the part "Ok, so you're not interested in putting back aesthetic in architecture.", I was referring to the historical fact, demonstrated by many art historian like for example Argan in the 60s, that modern architecture in XX century was ideated by (amongst others) the great architect Mies Van Der Rohe who proposed -to cope with the increasing demand of cheap houses in the first part of the century- to simply put aside the decoration and focus on cheap building design. He did not created an his own aesthetic, he knew very well he was proposing to stop building "classical" beautiful building to resolve an emergency. An emergency that, by the way, ceased almost 50 years ago.
So the question is: why do we still build how Mies Van Der Rohe proposed us to build while the emergency is very over? So we propose to get back to the aesthetic, because the aesthetic itself, according the creators itself of modern architecture, was not implemented or substituted by another aesthetic. It just was temporally put aside in favour of functionality.

Now we've seen the limits of functionalism in the 80s and in the 90s, we should get back to a modern decorativism that can perfectly fit our future, that we all deserve to be more human and personalized
tommolo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 08:23 PM   #404
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

You ask for a demonstration.

A column is first a means to support a roof line. That is Engineering. It can be a plain wooden trunk of a tree, or it can be an ionic column in pentelic marble -- that is a matter of aesthetics.

A squinch is to support a dome on a square or n-tagonal base. Whatever depth or shallowness or ornamentation added to a squinch does not mean that it's primary purpose is NOT to support the lateral thrust of the dome.

Is this clear enough? Every architect should know this.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 08:32 PM   #405
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,040
Likes (Received): 3596

Yes, as you said, that is engineering. An architect would decide wheter a column should be Ionic, doric or corinthian, the proportion of the dome and the height of columns to guarantee an harmonical and beautiful coherent complex pleasing the eye like a melody by beethoven does with ears

That is not a secondary question because it is what differentiate the parthenon and the starbucks around the block. They probably both have columns, one of concrete and the other of marble, and unluckily they almost have the same numbers of visiting people, but that is another issue

Usually, an architect draws beautiful things and then an engineer calculates how to let things stand up
Harmony and the related beauty is really the most complicated thing to achieve. There is a plenty of mausoleum in the world, but only one
can become the Taj Mahal, and it is all about proportion and the scale of decoration
tommolo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 08:43 PM   #406
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

An architect's duty is also to know that his designs do not violate the safety coefficients or that a plan can be realized with the available materials. That is what restricted architects for centuries in designing very large vaults, for example.

Every architect has been educated about the laws of kinetics and statics since Antiquity.

The medieval master builder is strictly speaking NOT an architect.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 08:59 PM   #407
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,040
Likes (Received): 3596

Yes, you are right. I agree with you now.

In middle ages there were no planning at all and building procedures were kind of improvisated. This fact produced many human losses in building great structures.
So the best way to both conceiving both beauty and safety was to provide calculus tools to architect. Then math became too complicated, and the professions splitted: one side architecture, other side civil engineering. The problem with today's scenario is that architecture tries to imitate engineeristical point of view ignoring its peculiarity. This is mailny due to the fact that engineeristical point of view is very easy to schedule and to be programmed, while architecture seems to be so much creative and hard to program. In a pragmatical paradigma like the one we're living in, is obvious that an engineer is far more attractive to economy than an architect, who is often seen as an additional cost.

This is without a doubt true.

But is it the description of today's world. I was talking about possible future outcomes for this situation that is no longer sustainable as the world is asking actually more room to creativity, originality, and to reduce the dogma of schedules and programmes.

In sinthesis: has modernism failed? I voted no, it prefectly fitted its time&age. But are we in the same society we were decades ago? Sincerely I cannot say I'm sure of this.
We shall therefore move over modernism, since building today a modernist building may (already now!) starting being a failure. Time will tell...
tommolo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2012, 09:12 PM   #408
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Well, what you say is more than reasonable.

As for Modernism itself, I guess the aesthetic part is certainly subjective. In terms of function, I would suppose that we have moved beyond the initial concerns of Modernism, and it's only natural that we should do so. It is, I believe, a time of synthesis.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2012, 01:00 AM   #409
CanadianDemon
Registered User
 
CanadianDemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sudbury
Posts: 1,240
Likes (Received): 378

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
What is your definition of "function"?
What do you think? It's what function is supposed to mean. Cutting the most expenses long term while looking as decent as possible under a budget.

Now, as for those of you calling me out on those engineer/architects BS. You obviously don't know what an Architect does.

1. Architect's don't sit in an office all day drawing stupid little "what-if" pictures. There's a reason they have to be math and computer proficient.

2. Architects and Engineers are THE SAME DAMN THING! In fact an Architect IS AN Engineer. There's no difference. You people act like Engineering is a specific field, it's not. It's a very BROAD field. Architect which is one.

3. Architects job: Designing stuff under a budget. Engineer's job: Same thing.

4. Therefore, as I said, you've failed as an Architect if you put form over function. An Architect is there to research, design and blueprint. If the owner wanted "form" they'd give the Architect a higher budget.

5. If anyone wishes to prove me wrong. Go ahead. Unless, you've taken an architecture course and know people who've done the same thing as well as do co-op for an Architecture Firm. Be my guess to make a rebuttal. Otherwise, put up or shut up.
__________________
I may not own a dog, but I'll be in the B in your itch any day. ;)
- Me
CanadianDemon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2012, 01:22 AM   #410
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,040
Likes (Received): 3596

The fact is that in nowadays architect and engineer are the same thing.
Ther problem is often that nowadays the architect and the engineer are the same thing.
Who cares about a more and more urging need and demand of beauty and humanization?
A good architect must deals also with psychology of buildings, not only budget...otherwise we will have not inhabitants in houses, but only frustrated ants
tommolo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2012, 03:53 AM   #411
svicious22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 34
Likes (Received): 0

CanadianDemon once again overstates and paints with the broadest of brushes. Sure there's overlap between engineering and architecture, but "the same damn thing", that's absurd. What other purported "engineering" discipline has an overwhelmingly important aesthetic component to it like architecture? Why are architecture schools traditionally separate from engineering schools within universities? What aesthetic considerations must a structural engineer be concerned with vs. an architect? The differences are myriad.

Architecture is its own discipline and it's art first and foremost. Otherwise you're just a draftsman, or a hack.
svicious22 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2012, 03:16 PM   #412
sebanaj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9
Likes (Received): 1

Rectangular buildings for everyone, with internal commodities, external gardens, and that's it. Cars all the same model according to family size. Hair style: short at the sides, no sideburns. Food: meat with eggs and tomato. The day will be divided in 7 hours for work, and 17 free hours. Simple way of living. I don't want to hear anything about ideologies. Fulfill your function and be happy. Everything we'll be given and predetermined.
Central comittee of planification.
sebanaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2012, 04:13 PM   #413
sebanaj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9
Likes (Received): 1

Now really, I dislike ornament. I only value function, use. I don't even see walls. To me is all the same as long as it serves me. To me that XIX century Rococo French Embassy is only valued by the functions its people obbey. It's the same to me if it is Rococo, a White rectangle, or a pre-fabricated house.
sebanaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2012, 04:39 PM   #414
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,040
Likes (Received): 3596

For the rococo I guess everyone here would agree: it is by far the heaviest style ever, difficult to accept and to be in love with...it is just too "imperial", not democratical at all, so far from classicism and its attempt to reach an enjoyable aequilibrium...too much pretentious trying to demonstrate something without being artistical at all. It is just decorativism paid by some rich men that wanted something good to demonstrate how many money he has spent on it. Tasteless, really.

But between rococo and modernism there must be an aequilibrium, some taste for decoration, but not being too exaggerated...
tommolo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2012, 06:37 PM   #415
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommolo View Post
For the rococo I guess everyone here would agree: it is by far the heaviest style ever, difficult to accept and to be in love with...it is just too "imperial", not democratical at all, so far from classicism and its attempt to reach an enjoyable aequilibrium...too much pretentious trying to demonstrate something without being artistical at all. It is just decorativism paid by some rich men that wanted something good to demonstrate how many money he has spent on it. Tasteless, really.

But between rococo and modernism there must be an aequilibrium, some taste for decoration, but not being too exaggerated...
Well, I don't know. Rococo is usually distinguished/differentiated from Baroque/High Baroque, and Rococo is much much lighter than High Baroque. In fact, Rococo was a reaction to the heaviness of High Baroque, and it sought to replace the heaviness with more delicate and playful lines.

Compared to Rococo, Neoclassicism can be very severe. And compared to High Baroque, Rococo is lighter and more graceful. It is Rococo which is on the minds of most people when they talk about the refinement of 18th century style.

Baroque:

image hosted on flickr

The baroque church of St Mary of the Snows (Sveta Marija Snježna) at Belec (1) by Polježičanin ~500k views~, on Flickr

Rococo:

image hosted on flickr

Getty Museum by rocor, on Flickr

18th Century French Neoclassical might look like Rococo to the untrained eye -- but it is more monumental and severe compared to Rococo. In this case, we see the use of monumental pilasters and the sobriety of line.

image hosted on flickr

The Salon Dore by jayselley, on Flickr
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2012, 10:31 PM   #416
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,040
Likes (Received): 3596

Your pictures exactly show what I meant. Rococo is pure decoration, exterior embellishment full of gold. Every style has a referring art, for rococo it was stuccoes and decorations, while for baroque and high baroque it was frescoes. This fact obviously produced more interesting artistical outcomes in baroque than in rococo, since rococo is much more related to furniture and decorations than it was to painting. I mean, who was the main painter of Rococo era? Tiepolo? C'mon in the baroque era we had so much better and influential artists.
Baroque and overall high baroque are yet to be artistically and critically redescovered, and when they will be, you all will be shocked in awe by the triumph of art that baroque it has been. High baroque wasn't heavy. It just was beautiful. While rococo tried to shock the visitor not with artistical products but basically with gold and white, as needed by empereors trying to demonstrate how powerful they was.

Baroque was directed to people, the popular faith, the artists were describing the power of miracles through their painting, they weren't meant to demonstrate luxuries of golds. It produced Caravaggio, Carraci, Pussin, Borromini and Bernini. I can only tell you only Tiepolo for rococo, and it was a court painter in service for empereors. Here we go againg, demonstrate the power and the richness of the empire.

Generally talking, a Baroque artist would have seen trivial the use of white and gold embellishment by a rococo decorator. It would have lacked the depth of a baroque interior, really.

I know that today's art critics hasn't still accepted as much as they should the period of the Baroque, but I really say it was one of the finest period for arts in general, and crowned with a very tasty style.

I let the images talk for me:

Some average churches in Rome:

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


Some average rococo interior:



It might be very good, but I don't see as much "coherence" as a final result as in baroque. In Baroque it was oredered in an ascending spiral shape, while in rococo the main form was the little curve, everywhere curves, without a particular order...but still, I think it all depends on when/where: in Italy we had a lot of amazing baroque and very little rococo, while in the rest of europe there have been some degree of baroque and so much great rococo...

But that was just an opinion, please let's stick to the main topics: I was meaning that we shouldn't have an excess of decoration as much as we shouldn't have a total lack of it, in my very humble opinion

Last edited by tommolo; March 30th, 2012 at 12:11 AM.
tommolo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2012, 10:34 PM   #417
AnOldBlackMarble
read lightship chronicles
 
AnOldBlackMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 5757

This is such a stupid thread based on such a stupid question! As a result of the industrial revolution we now have new metals, alloys, and synthetic materials which gives us the ability to build things unimaginable before, like two hundred story glass and steel buildings. Also there was a population explosion from 1900 to 2000 from 1bil to 6bil and an increase in social awareness which required we "build" for all, and not just for the super rich elite. The super rich today still build highly ornate mega mansions, it is only the poor and middle class that live and work in more cubist style simple structures. It is nothing more than an adaptation to the time, and an evolution of architecture to fit our needs. To ask if it is a fail is like asking is my shin a failure against the knee since it doesn't bend. It is a stupid question. Each serves its function and purpose in its time.
__________________
Read my science fiction adventure Lightship Chronicles.com
AnOldBlackMarble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2012, 10:43 PM   #418
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,040
Likes (Received): 3596

It served well XX century very very well. But now we are in XXI.
It is still actual and still fitting or limits? I guess not.
Industrialization is changing because we understood it was too polluting, and so we had to change our minds.
Why we should just be pretending we are still in XX century anymore? It is over folks.
Therefore, it is not at all a dull question. It may have not failed, but would be failing if applied today? I guess so.
Let's talk, there are no dumb questions here!
tommolo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2012, 01:10 PM   #419
TheBrazilianTravaler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17
Likes (Received): 0

Both can be good in my opinion. Look this is the oldest University in Brazil (in Curitiba):




And this is one of the newests (right in Brasília):

TheBrazilianTravaler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2012, 01:28 PM   #420
tommolo
Registered User
 
tommolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milano
Posts: 5,040
Likes (Received): 3596

Ok, for example Brazilian traveler has a very reasonable position:
Depends on the case and the time we are considering. Obviously a cheap housing
requires modern technologies, but for example a monumental institution as a great university would require a more monumental architecture...
tommolo no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
architecture

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu