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 April 27th, 2013, 02:44 PM   #441
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1924

It's wrong to say modernism has failed because there's still definitely a place for modernism. some buildings, such as airport terminals, for example, work far better as modernist structures than they would if built "traditionally".

If it's failed then its failure was in setting itself up as the replacement for traditional thinking, rather than being an alternative to it.

That sort of thinking led to the idea of the complete modernist city, where the past would be "swept away" to create a modernist utopia. Those ideas have, I think, failed.
__________________

erbse, City Cityzen, doguorsi2 liked this post
Rev Stickleback no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 26th, 2014, 01:32 PM   #442
HURZ
Registered User
 
HURZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 33
Likes (Received): 62

The problem with modernism is that it sees itself as the only way of architecture, it doesnt accept anything that is different than itself, if someone was to build a historicist building, a modernist will just entitle it as kitsch and disney-land-like, now i agree that many of those attempts are bad, but this is due to modernism, since universities dont teach traditional ways of building like the classicistic style. It has has also banalized art. Ever went to museum of modern art and wondered how such crap is considered art?? I mean literally theres a "artist" that sold a piece of shit for 200.000$ if i remember correctly.
As far as i know art is something that takes talent and skill, years of learning, and these modern "artists" just throw something together randomly out of anything they find and that is considered, I cant understand how or why, as art! And this banalisation is a logical consequence of modernism.
__________________

doguorsi2 liked this post
HURZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2014, 04:03 PM   #443
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,495

First off, modern art is characterized by its messages and themes, and its use of form, light and material. Often the more absurd pieces are in the Dadaist style, which is an important an art style as any other. Modern art is not based on small individual details like with old classical paintings, which are technically accurate, but have little meaning behind them. There is always a meaning, even if the meaning is the lack of a meaning. You just have to be open-minded, not be lazy, and find the meaning for yourself.

Second, you can't just say that all modernists will automatically hate on a classical-style building for not being modernist. I like modernism and I only call a neoclassical building kitsch if it uses bad proportion, materials and mismatching details simply for the sake of being detailed. Doesn't matter if it strains the eyes to look at. Often there is no attention paid to use of form or space in the design, and the architects only put whatever "details" they can think of, simply to not be "boring". That is what is kitsch.

Last edited by ThatOneGuy; March 26th, 2014 at 04:14 PM.
ThatOneGuy está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2014, 07:57 PM   #444
HURZ
Registered User
 
HURZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 33
Likes (Received): 62

So you're saying, that old classical paintings often didn't have a meaning?? Thats completely wrong: have you ever heard of symbolism? Here the meanings were hidden with symbols that did not destroy the beauty of the painting.
Now to specify my problem with modernism: what I find absurd is that for example I could lay a pencil that I bought for a few cents on the floor and say that it is art and that it shows how bad and stupid the world is and nobody could deny it, even though I cant even paint or form a sculpture and havent had any education in art. No real effort was put into the pencil (exept the production of it, buying it and laying it on the floor) and still I have a perfect piece of modern art.
In old art I would have a good piece of art if it would be generally percieved as beautiful and if it had a meaning that you could find by combining symbols. To incorporate these aspects into a painting you would need to have learned the ways of painting.
That is not he case with modern art. You don't need to have skills to be an artist nowadays and the aspect of beauty has been completely lost.
HURZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2014, 10:36 PM   #445
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,495

That's the thing, though. The beauty is that you can use anything, to convey anything, in modern art. Even with the most simple of forms. It's kind of like punk rock - powerful even though it only uses 3-4 simple chords. And to be honest, not many people can even pull simplicity off.

I know many old paintings have symbolism, as does modern art. But they are shown in completely different ways. The former often uses it quite literally. Also, a lot of old masterpieces were landscapes and portraits but while they were nice and picture-perfect, sometimes they didn't have much else to it.
Really, when discussing art, comparing old paintings to modernism is comparing apples to oranges, it's unfair to judge them as the same thing.
ThatOneGuy está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2014, 03:03 AM   #446
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1924

Perhaps part of the problem is that modernist architects see their buildings as "modern art" first, and buildings second*.

There's too much thought about "the vision" and not enough on how well it'll work for the people that use it, or about how it'll look in 15-20 years time.

* although this is a complete change from the sort of modernism in the 50s/60s, where functionalism was everything.
Rev Stickleback no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2014, 03:21 AM   #447
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,495

Actually, functionalism wasn't everything in the 50s and 60s. Architects also liked clean lines back then. That's why Mies said "less is more." Ornaments break those smooth clean forms. Functionalism was just a good side effect, and they were marketed for being functional, instead of for having clean geometric forms.

As for how a building looks in 20 years, the same thing happened to every building era. As Victorian buildings were approaching 20-30 years old, they were seen as ugly and cheap ripoffs of the buildings of the old past. They weren't old enough to be valuable, but not new enough to be groundbreaking. 10 years ago, hatred of mid-century modernism was at its highest, but in the next decade, as it reaches past 50 and 60 years old, it will be regarded as historic (it's already happening) and then the hate will move to postmodernism of the 80s and 90s.
ThatOneGuy está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2014, 03:30 AM   #448
agus_southMVD
Registered User
 
agus_southMVD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Montevideo, Lund
Posts: 1,813
Likes (Received): 1135

The way I see it, what failed was not modernist architecture but modernist urbanism. Mid century urbanists failed terribly in understanding human nature and that was reflected in their harmful views about how a city should be (the Athens Charter is the paradigm of this).
__________________

doguorsi2 liked this post
agus_southMVD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2014, 03:35 AM   #449
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by agus_southMVD View Post
The way I see it, what failed was not modernist architecture but modernist urbanism. Mid century urbanists failed terribly in understanding human nature and that was reflected in their harmful views about how a city should be (the Athens Charter is the paradigm of this).
I don't think it WAS a failure - at the time. What much of it failed to do was be adaptable to changes in culture or their environment. Particularly in the US, at the time most people had an optimistic view of the future, much of that unfortunately based on conformity and certain element of class society. But in time people started looking backwards rather than forwards, things which represented that view of a utopian future developed a rather sinister overtone, and the industrial business-centric type of architecture that followed competed with, rather than complemented, the old modernist structures.

Today large open areas are viewed negatively, any semblance of mans work is seen as old fashioned and evil whereas historic character is seen as the wave of the green future. "Modern" itself is a kind of ironic term meaning something from our past.

I think in time this will change as well. the new generation coming up never really knew modernism in it's fullest. to them modernism IS a historic style, and I think they are starting to have a bit of a nostalgic feel for that culture. Not every modern building or work of art was successful, and it will take time for good stuff to shine. But I think it will slowly work its way into the landscape, and become accepted again.
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2014, 04:38 AM   #450
Hed_Kandi
Registered Usurper
 
Hed_Kandi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,281
Likes (Received): 12593

Good Modernism?











http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg
__________________

HURZ liked this post
Hed_Kandi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2014, 04:40 AM   #451
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,495

Maybe some nice neoclassical then:
ThatOneGuy está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2014, 02:16 PM   #452
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,280
Likes (Received): 57983

Modernist ideology of the 60s brought down a gem in the heart of Tokyo.

Now we got this pretty welcome and pleasant 2009 reconstruction, surrounded by an endless ocean of repetivite, modernist style buildings:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobus View Post
Couldn't agree more. So-called modern architecture in Australia couldn't be more passé.

Of course Europe can reject tradition... they have well preserved historical architecture on every corner. They can afford to balance it out with modernism. There's nothing wrong with building something in a heritage style here though, in our cities dominated by often uniform and bland high rises. It's done in Japan, too. For example, this building in Tokyo was destroyed in the 60s and re-built in the 2000s and you wouldn't even know. It's a welcome distraction/break from Tokyo's monolithic towers that infiltrate the city. You would not guess it was built in 2009.



I'm so tired of the dull modern apartments being erected in our cities. They should go down Japan's route and build something that looks like it existed 70-100 years ago.

__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 05:12 PM   #453
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,280
Likes (Received): 57983

Classical is the base we build upon.
Something to contemplate for once. Just breathe it in.

"The symbolic hard currency of architecture is classical,...
It's gold in the bank. The other stuff is leveraged buy-outs and soybean futures."

- Jaquelin T. Robertson

“The thing of first importance in architecture is beauty.”
- Zivkovich-Connolly


Buildings of 10 years of Driehaus Prize winners arranged in one picture, painted 2013.
Oil on canvas by Carl Laubin. Source.



Architects, elevate our architecture further.
But always be aware where we come from and what makes a place a good place to live and stay around!
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥

Chimer liked this post
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 06:39 PM   #454
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,280
Likes (Received): 57983

While a considerable portion of "architecture" of the past 6 decades levitates somewhere around this level:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flor!an View Post
This was recently finished btw. Unmistakably local, simplistically beautiful and timeless!
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 08:22 PM   #455
FNNG
Registered User
 
FNNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 2,873
Likes (Received): 2694

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
Modernist ideology of the 60s brought down a gem in the heart of Tokyo.

Now we got this pretty welcome and pleasant 2009 reconstruction, surrounded by an endless ocean of repetivite, modernist style buildings:
so this building was just build?
FNNG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 09:50 PM   #456
TRTL
TRTL
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Lausanne
Posts: 851

Erbse : I am interested in your point of you about Jugendstil (Art nouveau in english?). I do remember it does not follow classical architecture. It did a break.

And also : Do you reject the main rules of modernism or the esthetic? I don't understand your point of view. (Sorry if I don't express myself correctly in english)
TRTL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2014, 03:01 PM   #457
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,280
Likes (Received): 57983

^ As I explained before, Art Nouveau, Art Deco, Expressionism and the likes didn't really cause a break, but built on classical architecture principles. I like them very much. In contrast to down-to-the-core minimalist modernism, that negates it all. It can be beautiful, but in the sheer masses it came along it destroyed a lot of cities around the globe beyond recognition.

Thus I voted for "yes, modernism failed". Not in total, but with a portion of 90%+ imho it's still a huge fail.

@FNNG: Yes, it was built in 2009.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2014, 03:03 PM   #458
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,280
Likes (Received): 57983

A caricature by architect, planner and theorist Léon Krier:

Real estate demand of the people - versus - contemporary architecture education.


reference / hires
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2014, 10:19 PM   #459
Don Q
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 192
Likes (Received): 32

Modernism hasn't failed. Politics failed, authorities failed when they allowed beautiful buildings wreck and tear them down with no effort to save them. Modernism, is just a movement, a school of thought, but people on the other hand are the ones to blame.
__________________
Mejor pedir perdon que pedir permiso...

alexandru.mircea liked this post
Don Q no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2014, 02:52 AM   #460
AmoreUrbs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 661
Likes (Received): 4322

An equilibrium of the two styles obviously is the answer
Going back to a 100% classical style for every project wouldn't work and would also be considered boring, on the other hand the current modernist way in any construction is even more boring and in determinate contexts just ruins the surrounding areas ; also, modernism must be of good quality and brutalism must not be repeated absolutely (some parts of it can be kept but not repeated) with possible even more creativity and new approaches; equally, "classical architecture" must not be pastiche like some of the things I've seen in the new Dresden &c.
AmoreUrbs 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 09:01 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