Modernism – Critical Regionalism – International Style - Contemporary
Whatever you want to call it.
The Japanese have done the best job of bending it to be something they can call their own – but has it not now become at its core a celebration and symbol of Western dominance over other races and cultures. Before WWII it sought to reflect egalitarian social revolution in Europe, but why do we like it so much today? Who likes it and for what reasons? Have cultural and racial components in Modernism decreased or increased in the last 80 years? What does it REALLY stand for in the mind of the user?
Maybe we like it because it is the only way of working which:
-has the potential to reflect the best of what we can do now instead of recall what we could do better before.
-has the potential (not often realized) to push beyond style to something representing a true exploration and discovery of 'new'.
-has the potential to stand as a critique of the mistakes of the past and, in the case of urban design, correct or knit together prior planning botches.
-can communicate an idea, an intention, and serve as the product of an exploration in new ways of making, not just designing.
-has the potential to avoid nostalgic recreation of an imagined past in favor of the proposal of a possible future.
-became possibly more 'international' in nature when abandoned by European and US professionals and academics in favor of postmodern explorations in the '70s/'80s. Moroccan, Chinese, Korean, South African, Japanese, and other non US/European architecture of the last three decades is notably more modern than our own.
Another opinion, similar, but not quite in line with my own:
"Modernism is tradition – while 'traditionalism' is hypocrisy. 'It's just so annoying that people want to build old-fashioned houses so they can live the dream of a life that never was.' – Gwen Briggs (subject) and Marc Kristal (author), from Dwell, March 2003."
(I take exception to this mainly because I think in too many cases modernism, or 'modern style', is also used as a form of traditionalism seeking to recover an ideal past.)
That's what you've been taught to think by elitist educators and jaded theorists. "nostalgic recreation of an imagined past" defines what a client says to others in a project.
When you go to Las Vegas - what is said to you by the "style" of the MGM Grand as it relates to the other "themes" on the strip? When I think of the MGM, I don't think "what a great critique of the mistakes of the past" - I think something like "corporation, unveiled"
When a Hispanic comes to you and asks for Tuscan columns - do you wonder how you will abstract those columns into "white guy does something new and cool with Mediterranean Style" Have you ever thought that he might just want a style that says "Proud Authentic Mediterranean Lives Here (and screw you if you don't like it)"
Here is what I see in Modernism - today
Commercial: "nostalgic recreation of an imagined past" does not suit corporations that have become culture-neutral.
Residential: "nostalgic recreation of an imagined past" does not suit a white guy in the desert because his people built log houses in the woods.
Note that I always said modernism 'has the potential to...'. It's true that too often commercial interests adopt a modern style in order to be culture neutral, as you say. While we very seldom rise to the potential that working in a modern way would allow, the potential still exists and always will.
Co-opting of the styles of the past without some analysis and reinterpretation often precludes this potential. If a client does 'just want a style that says "Proud Authentic Mediterranean Lives Here"', I propose that the simple use of Tuscan columns is a confused message that offers no insight into our clients' pride and provides no benefit beyond that of a dumb sign. When Mediterranean culture offers such a breadth of types, climate strategies and formal traditions, why would we reduce this culture of design to columns which stand for 'culture' instead of exploring what that culture means to our Hispanic (Spanish?) client?
In order to make a meaningful architecture we must invest the time and energy to give more than is requested of us. Just because I am a white guy does not make an analysis of Mediterranean architecture, and an attempt to design based on that analysis, into some sort of cultural superiority exercise. Stuff the stabs at race indictments. As a professional I will work for any race and I will learn to work within the cultural as well as environmental context. Is your implication that white guys should only work for white people? Or that we should only listen and transcribe directions from our non-white clients, foregoing any questioning and value-added suggestions, so as not to offend their cultural values?
What a 'client says to others' is important, I agree. I hope that what a project my clients and I produce says to others is that this structure was the product of full consideration of all the dimensions of what architecture can do and can communicate. He can buy those Tuscan columns from Fypon. Presumably I was hired to do more than that.
I may be one of those 'elitist educators and jaded theorists', though that implies a cynicism that I don't think is my M.O. 'Elitist' in a lazy label that dumb politicians use when they don't want to take the time to listen to what is being said. If you don't know me or how I operate, I don't know how my list of the possible benefits of a critical modern design approach could communicate my elitism. I think of my job as one in which I attempt to help people in their effort to live up to their potential through improvement of both the public and private realms in which they live. Your reaction to my admittedly idealistic list of 'potential' values of modernism sounds much more cynical and jaded.
maybe the perceived "superiority complex" of architects working in a truly modern (=progressive) way is the habit of active re-interpretation of locality, customs and cultures from the standpoint of a western school of thought; almost always aimed at doing it "better" than the original. Helping people to realize their potential OUR WAY, molding them in the process fitting objects for our world. Helping workers live in a sanitary environment, and at the same time taking control of their lives in a more complete way than before, for an example.
It is also the death of discussion and thought to revert back to what was before, assuming it a better model because of the nostalgia and sentimental value whatever old acquires.
the answer to the riddle may just be a good self consciousness - an honest and unflinching view of ones own profession and actions.
All styles of architecture have cultural associations in the minds of the public - it is unavoidable.
As a style - the hard line architect "thing" (whatever you want to call it) has cultural associations as well - but we often overlook, deny, or falsely assume what the true associations are.
If we were to listen a little harder to what the architecture is saying and say a little less ourselves, I think we might be surprised to find that something quite different is going on.
I don't necessarily agree that "In order to make a meaningful architecture we must invest the time and energy to give more than is requested of us"
"more than is requested" implies deception and miscommunication. I would argue that meaningful architecture has everything to do with clarity and transparency of "will", even though the architecture itself can be as mysterious as that "will" would dictate.
If you don't give more than is requested, you're just a short-order cook. What is your client gaining by having enlisted your help? A technician? A project facilitator?
If you don't give more than is requested, does that mean that you're completely selfless and are giving nothing to the project and therefore getting nothing back? Not a good way to sustain yourself throughout a career.
'More than is requested' implies a simple shaded arcade that recalls my current client's upbringing in New Orleans and her memory of a life of open windows and verandahs. Something I wasn't asked for, but about which she's delighted. (No Doric columns necessary. She made the connection without the signs.) 'More than is requested' implies built mock-ups of something the client didn't understand so that, before building, they can know what they're going to get - and why it's going to prove more useful than what they thought they wanted. Why is 'more than is requested' deceptive or miscommunicative? My clients are in on the whole process and are frequently surprised by what I learn about them and translate into a design proposal that is beyond what they thought they could have. 'More than is requested' does not have to be set in opposition to 'clarity and transparency of will' if you let the clients take the journey with you.
If you don't give more than is requested, does that mean that you're completely selfless and are giving nothing to the project and therefore getting nothing back?
___?
A client comes to me and wants a marketable product that does a little more than all the other marketable products out there, I do what is requested.
A client comes to me and wants a dream home that reflects them personally and they don't quite know how to express it but they want it to be the best house that has ever been created, I do what is requested.
There is no dishonor in doing what is requested of you. Listen to the request - if you don't like it, don't take it.
Your next clients will see that you offer 'more than is requested' and expect and request exactly that - then what do you do? 'more than more than is requested'?
To quantify it in the contract, maybe you should write something in like "Architect will do more than is expected, but will Hand Hold as compensation for the purpose of easing the mind of the Owner for as long as is reasonably required proportional to the uncertainty created thereby (modernism is extra)"
Your "___?" indicates that maybe you expect no personal satisfaction out of doing the most you can do with a given challenge. For some of us that is as important (or almost) as the compensation. There is no dishonor in doing what is requested, but why do you propose that there is dishonor or that it is somehow disingenuous to exceed expectations?
How is design quantifiable? Why would we even attempt to quantify good design in a contract? If we were merely a service industry, this might be desirable. Or if the best we could do is provide an inventory of things that can be purchased and installed - like the list the real estate agent uses: Huge Eat-In Kitchen withTwo Dishwashers! (check) One Bedroom, Three and a Half Bath, each bath with Oversized Toilet! (check, check) Gourmet Viking Grill on Trex Deck! (check) Three Car Garage! (Not Four?!)
A contract protects us and the client, ensuring them that we will provide at least an acceptable, competent level of service under certain guidelines over a period of time for a certain compensation. It does not quantify the quality or creativity of our service - only the hours it takes or the percentage of construction cost. I think that it is assumed that we will exceed the lowest-common-denominator requirements of the contract.
We are a service industry. We are also a profession. We are participating in a creative pursuit. We have a responsibility to the general public as well as the client. We are not simply taking orders and getting paid.
Cynicism seems to be getting in the way of you thinking about what our role is as architects. You obviously don't believe in our potential to take what's given and make more of it. In fact, you don't seem to like us. Are you not an architect? If you are, is there some sort of self-loathing or guilt at work here? Or do you just dislike all OTHER architects? I can't figure out where you're coming from.
..i think 'more than requested' is getting confused with 'to the best of your ability'...
just the reality of architectural contracts, liability, and common sense dictates you do what is specified to the best of your ability. with most architects that is a widely sliding scale...
if you do 'more than requested' without getting recompensed for your services, what worth do your services end up having? everyone has to make a living doing and getting paid for what they do\provide. my best contractor will do anything to get a job done in the most excellent manner possible, but would it be right to expect him to frame out more square feet because he just feels compelled to give me more than i expected?
i have no problem with cliches such as 'go the extra mile', 'do your level best' etc... but don't devalue your worth as a professional, and by thus devalue all us colleagues in the process. if you want to do more, specify it up front and get paid for the extra scope of services, because clients will go for the extra services if it is explained how a project can be investigated more thouroughly, thoughtfully, end up with a better project, more efficient, etc. if you can just add a little extra development time/scope of service.
but if you're giving a client 'more than they requested' just to give them 'more than they requested', it means you're spending time on something they 'never requested' ..a disservice to yourself , your profession and the client.
Yes, I am an architect. I believe whole heartedly in our role as architects to make the most of projects. My original question was aimed at what "most" is. A lot of architects gravitate toward an architectural "style" that they saw in a magazine or learned in school. They talk clients into it because they somehow were talked into it themselves.
Are they leaders or followers? Are they really taking things to the "next" level for their clients or for the "public at large" (if that term is more expedient to their purpose)? If you tell someone how great a thing is and charge them enough money to get it - they will come to appreciate it - after a fashion. It is utterly perverse how malleable the human mind is.
Architecture is a vehicle toward human self understanding and human self understanding is a vehicle toward God experiencing itself. In this context, questioning the status quo is healthy. That is exactly what I am doing and where I am coming from.
D&C - I'm with you now. Well said. I'd only worry that you'd lump all of us into one group, like we've all fallen under the spell of some mass brainwashing. Certainly there are those of us who tout the line that we absorbed in school. Hopefully there are also many among us who learned analysis, critical thinking, and open inquiry as well.
Now about what o+ said...(Really I think we'd all agree on a lot in person over beer. The tone and implication is always a little off in these text discussions.)
I do think there is some misunderstanding of what I mean by 'more than is requested'. I merely mean that we as architects have a unique training which allows us to consider big picture and detail together. I feel that it is much better to approach a project by examining the assumptions in the beginning rather than launching immediately into checking off boxes on our checklist from meeting minutes. This isn't selling ourselves short and may not require more time. It's critical thinking and it offers the chance at finding opportunities that may not have been seen at the outset.
Dec 1, 04 8:19 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Critical Hegemonism
Modernism – Critical Regionalism – International Style - Contemporary
Whatever you want to call it.
The Japanese have done the best job of bending it to be something they can call their own – but has it not now become at its core a celebration and symbol of Western dominance over other races and cultures. Before WWII it sought to reflect egalitarian social revolution in Europe, but why do we like it so much today? Who likes it and for what reasons? Have cultural and racial components in Modernism decreased or increased in the last 80 years? What does it REALLY stand for in the mind of the user?
Maybe we like it because it is the only way of working which:
-has the potential to reflect the best of what we can do now instead of recall what we could do better before.
-has the potential (not often realized) to push beyond style to something representing a true exploration and discovery of 'new'.
-has the potential to stand as a critique of the mistakes of the past and, in the case of urban design, correct or knit together prior planning botches.
-can communicate an idea, an intention, and serve as the product of an exploration in new ways of making, not just designing.
-has the potential to avoid nostalgic recreation of an imagined past in favor of the proposal of a possible future.
-became possibly more 'international' in nature when abandoned by European and US professionals and academics in favor of postmodern explorations in the '70s/'80s. Moroccan, Chinese, Korean, South African, Japanese, and other non US/European architecture of the last three decades is notably more modern than our own.
Another opinion, similar, but not quite in line with my own:
"Modernism is tradition – while 'traditionalism' is hypocrisy. 'It's just so annoying that people want to build old-fashioned houses so they can live the dream of a life that never was.' – Gwen Briggs (subject) and Marc Kristal (author), from Dwell, March 2003."
(I take exception to this mainly because I think in too many cases modernism, or 'modern style', is also used as a form of traditionalism seeking to recover an ideal past.)
That's what you've been taught to think by elitist educators and jaded theorists. "nostalgic recreation of an imagined past" defines what a client says to others in a project.
When you go to Las Vegas - what is said to you by the "style" of the MGM Grand as it relates to the other "themes" on the strip? When I think of the MGM, I don't think "what a great critique of the mistakes of the past" - I think something like "corporation, unveiled"
When a Hispanic comes to you and asks for Tuscan columns - do you wonder how you will abstract those columns into "white guy does something new and cool with Mediterranean Style" Have you ever thought that he might just want a style that says "Proud Authentic Mediterranean Lives Here (and screw you if you don't like it)"
Here is what I see in Modernism - today
Commercial: "nostalgic recreation of an imagined past" does not suit corporations that have become culture-neutral.
Residential: "nostalgic recreation of an imagined past" does not suit a white guy in the desert because his people built log houses in the woods.
Note that I always said modernism 'has the potential to...'. It's true that too often commercial interests adopt a modern style in order to be culture neutral, as you say. While we very seldom rise to the potential that working in a modern way would allow, the potential still exists and always will.
Co-opting of the styles of the past without some analysis and reinterpretation often precludes this potential. If a client does 'just want a style that says "Proud Authentic Mediterranean Lives Here"', I propose that the simple use of Tuscan columns is a confused message that offers no insight into our clients' pride and provides no benefit beyond that of a dumb sign. When Mediterranean culture offers such a breadth of types, climate strategies and formal traditions, why would we reduce this culture of design to columns which stand for 'culture' instead of exploring what that culture means to our Hispanic (Spanish?) client?
In order to make a meaningful architecture we must invest the time and energy to give more than is requested of us. Just because I am a white guy does not make an analysis of Mediterranean architecture, and an attempt to design based on that analysis, into some sort of cultural superiority exercise. Stuff the stabs at race indictments. As a professional I will work for any race and I will learn to work within the cultural as well as environmental context. Is your implication that white guys should only work for white people? Or that we should only listen and transcribe directions from our non-white clients, foregoing any questioning and value-added suggestions, so as not to offend their cultural values?
What a 'client says to others' is important, I agree. I hope that what a project my clients and I produce says to others is that this structure was the product of full consideration of all the dimensions of what architecture can do and can communicate. He can buy those Tuscan columns from Fypon. Presumably I was hired to do more than that.
I may be one of those 'elitist educators and jaded theorists', though that implies a cynicism that I don't think is my M.O. 'Elitist' in a lazy label that dumb politicians use when they don't want to take the time to listen to what is being said. If you don't know me or how I operate, I don't know how my list of the possible benefits of a critical modern design approach could communicate my elitism. I think of my job as one in which I attempt to help people in their effort to live up to their potential through improvement of both the public and private realms in which they live. Your reaction to my admittedly idealistic list of 'potential' values of modernism sounds much more cynical and jaded.
maybe the perceived "superiority complex" of architects working in a truly modern (=progressive) way is the habit of active re-interpretation of locality, customs and cultures from the standpoint of a western school of thought; almost always aimed at doing it "better" than the original. Helping people to realize their potential OUR WAY, molding them in the process fitting objects for our world. Helping workers live in a sanitary environment, and at the same time taking control of their lives in a more complete way than before, for an example.
It is also the death of discussion and thought to revert back to what was before, assuming it a better model because of the nostalgia and sentimental value whatever old acquires.
the answer to the riddle may just be a good self consciousness - an honest and unflinching view of ones own profession and actions.
All styles of architecture have cultural associations in the minds of the public - it is unavoidable.
As a style - the hard line architect "thing" (whatever you want to call it) has cultural associations as well - but we often overlook, deny, or falsely assume what the true associations are.
If we were to listen a little harder to what the architecture is saying and say a little less ourselves, I think we might be surprised to find that something quite different is going on.
I don't necessarily agree that "In order to make a meaningful architecture we must invest the time and energy to give more than is requested of us"
"more than is requested" implies deception and miscommunication. I would argue that meaningful architecture has everything to do with clarity and transparency of "will", even though the architecture itself can be as mysterious as that "will" would dictate.
If you don't give more than is requested, you're just a short-order cook. What is your client gaining by having enlisted your help? A technician? A project facilitator?
If you don't give more than is requested, does that mean that you're completely selfless and are giving nothing to the project and therefore getting nothing back? Not a good way to sustain yourself throughout a career.
'More than is requested' implies a simple shaded arcade that recalls my current client's upbringing in New Orleans and her memory of a life of open windows and verandahs. Something I wasn't asked for, but about which she's delighted. (No Doric columns necessary. She made the connection without the signs.) 'More than is requested' implies built mock-ups of something the client didn't understand so that, before building, they can know what they're going to get - and why it's going to prove more useful than what they thought they wanted. Why is 'more than is requested' deceptive or miscommunicative? My clients are in on the whole process and are frequently surprised by what I learn about them and translate into a design proposal that is beyond what they thought they could have. 'More than is requested' does not have to be set in opposition to 'clarity and transparency of will' if you let the clients take the journey with you.
If you don't give more than is requested, does that mean that you're completely selfless and are giving nothing to the project and therefore getting nothing back?
___?
A client comes to me and wants a marketable product that does a little more than all the other marketable products out there, I do what is requested.
A client comes to me and wants a dream home that reflects them personally and they don't quite know how to express it but they want it to be the best house that has ever been created, I do what is requested.
There is no dishonor in doing what is requested of you. Listen to the request - if you don't like it, don't take it.
Your next clients will see that you offer 'more than is requested' and expect and request exactly that - then what do you do? 'more than more than is requested'?
To quantify it in the contract, maybe you should write something in like "Architect will do more than is expected, but will Hand Hold as compensation for the purpose of easing the mind of the Owner for as long as is reasonably required proportional to the uncertainty created thereby (modernism is extra)"
D&C-
Your "___?" indicates that maybe you expect no personal satisfaction out of doing the most you can do with a given challenge. For some of us that is as important (or almost) as the compensation. There is no dishonor in doing what is requested, but why do you propose that there is dishonor or that it is somehow disingenuous to exceed expectations?
How is design quantifiable? Why would we even attempt to quantify good design in a contract? If we were merely a service industry, this might be desirable. Or if the best we could do is provide an inventory of things that can be purchased and installed - like the list the real estate agent uses: Huge Eat-In Kitchen withTwo Dishwashers! (check) One Bedroom, Three and a Half Bath, each bath with Oversized Toilet! (check, check) Gourmet Viking Grill on Trex Deck! (check) Three Car Garage! (Not Four?!)
A contract protects us and the client, ensuring them that we will provide at least an acceptable, competent level of service under certain guidelines over a period of time for a certain compensation. It does not quantify the quality or creativity of our service - only the hours it takes or the percentage of construction cost. I think that it is assumed that we will exceed the lowest-common-denominator requirements of the contract.
We are a service industry. We are also a profession. We are participating in a creative pursuit. We have a responsibility to the general public as well as the client. We are not simply taking orders and getting paid.
Cynicism seems to be getting in the way of you thinking about what our role is as architects. You obviously don't believe in our potential to take what's given and make more of it. In fact, you don't seem to like us. Are you not an architect? If you are, is there some sort of self-loathing or guilt at work here? Or do you just dislike all OTHER architects? I can't figure out where you're coming from.
a bit more off topic....
..i think 'more than requested' is getting confused with 'to the best of your ability'...
just the reality of architectural contracts, liability, and common sense dictates you do what is specified to the best of your ability. with most architects that is a widely sliding scale...
if you do 'more than requested' without getting recompensed for your services, what worth do your services end up having? everyone has to make a living doing and getting paid for what they do\provide. my best contractor will do anything to get a job done in the most excellent manner possible, but would it be right to expect him to frame out more square feet because he just feels compelled to give me more than i expected?
i have no problem with cliches such as 'go the extra mile', 'do your level best' etc... but don't devalue your worth as a professional, and by thus devalue all us colleagues in the process. if you want to do more, specify it up front and get paid for the extra scope of services, because clients will go for the extra services if it is explained how a project can be investigated more thouroughly, thoughtfully, end up with a better project, more efficient, etc. if you can just add a little extra development time/scope of service.
but if you're giving a client 'more than they requested' just to give them 'more than they requested', it means you're spending time on something they 'never requested' ..a disservice to yourself , your profession and the client.
officially off soapbox
Yes, I am an architect. I believe whole heartedly in our role as architects to make the most of projects. My original question was aimed at what "most" is. A lot of architects gravitate toward an architectural "style" that they saw in a magazine or learned in school. They talk clients into it because they somehow were talked into it themselves.
Are they leaders or followers? Are they really taking things to the "next" level for their clients or for the "public at large" (if that term is more expedient to their purpose)? If you tell someone how great a thing is and charge them enough money to get it - they will come to appreciate it - after a fashion. It is utterly perverse how malleable the human mind is.
Architecture is a vehicle toward human self understanding and human self understanding is a vehicle toward God experiencing itself. In this context, questioning the status quo is healthy. That is exactly what I am doing and where I am coming from.
Believe me, developers do quantify architecture. They have all the ratios to make your mind swim. Some even think they can quantify aesthetics.
D&C - I'm with you now. Well said. I'd only worry that you'd lump all of us into one group, like we've all fallen under the spell of some mass brainwashing. Certainly there are those of us who tout the line that we absorbed in school. Hopefully there are also many among us who learned analysis, critical thinking, and open inquiry as well.
Now about what o+ said...(Really I think we'd all agree on a lot in person over beer. The tone and implication is always a little off in these text discussions.)
I do think there is some misunderstanding of what I mean by 'more than is requested'. I merely mean that we as architects have a unique training which allows us to consider big picture and detail together. I feel that it is much better to approach a project by examining the assumptions in the beginning rather than launching immediately into checking off boxes on our checklist from meeting minutes. This isn't selling ourselves short and may not require more time. It's critical thinking and it offers the chance at finding opportunities that may not have been seen at the outset.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.