If we're going by the "historical standard," modern would include everything from around 1600 onward. However, many 'ancient' building styles were heavily duplicated and copied in the "modern era."
So, that's where it gets a little murky. Is Roman architecture modern? Is Persian Islamic architecture or Moorish architecture modern as well? What about the architecture of the East and Far East— India and Japan are two examples of where architecture was frequently duplicated from previous eras?
If we accept that ancient architecture is modern due to duplication and accept the 1600 date mark, I would have to say I like architecture from the "modern era" more than I do ancient architecture.
Most architects are conditioned to prefer 'modern' (e.g., Corbusier-onwards) architecture - it's in the education system at most schools. However, one of the better experiences I remember having was going on a tour through some decidedly 'ancient' architecture and people pointing out how it could be successful as architecture through 'modernist' eyes.
If 'favorite' is more like 'successful': different cultures, different standards - and the past is a foreign country (don't remember who said that, but the first to remember wins a prize!)
If we need to have a more clear definition between 'ancient' and 'modern', I recommend a hard date (January 1, 1419?) as the dividing line between ancient and modern. Everything built before that date, everywhere, is 'ancient'. Everything built afterwards is 'modern'. Anything that was in some weird 'in-between' state (under construction? Under renovation? Has been renovated since?) during this time doesn't fit into this model, and should be demolished as soon as possible.
I think you need one more classification; Classical, which is in between ancient and modern. Looking at it that way, I would think that ancient would be original structures, before they were copied by classical architecture. Modern architecture is always hard to define, logically it should be anything built "today" or with in this century, but there is no consistency in defining what a "modern" building is; Corbusier and Gehery are both modern architects but their buildings are very different.
I like the thinking process of ancient architecture where everything was rationalized and the buildings were monumental focal points. Sometimes I feel that Modern architecture is to random and lets the computer figure out to much. Ancient architecture is impressive because it was all man made, and man designed. However, I do still like how most modern architecture looks.
"I like the thinking process of ancient architecture where everything was rationalized and the buildings were monumental focal points"
Only a tiny portion of ancient architecture survives to today. Almost all of them being monuments. Ancient Romans did not live in the pantheon. Most of their everyday architecture was quite plain. Just like today.
@MixmasterFestus: It's the opening sentence from Hartley's "The Go-Between", isn't it? What's the prize?
I think Rusty's point is quite important: what we see as ancient architecture is just what survived all these centuries. Notwithstanding that there are some great remnants, but all the built crap is gone and forgotten.
I think the most crucial thing is that architecture should match it's era. If I were to build a swimming pool, for instance, I'd be a complete tool if I blatantly copied the Baths of Caracalla . However, if I'd analysed the strengths and transformed them into a design that is more adjusted to todays culture, building methods and style - then it starts to make sense. To only copy the image of ancient architecture because those temple fronts would look damn good on a public building is just (arguably) pretty wallpaper.
Close inspection might prove that there's more ancient architecture in modern/modernist buildings than in most of the retro-architecture...
Ancient Atchitecture and Modern Architecture
What do you like more?
Share your views...
Awesome thread.
How are we defining ancient and modern?
If we're going by the "historical standard," modern would include everything from around 1600 onward. However, many 'ancient' building styles were heavily duplicated and copied in the "modern era."
So, that's where it gets a little murky. Is Roman architecture modern? Is Persian Islamic architecture or Moorish architecture modern as well? What about the architecture of the East and Far East— India and Japan are two examples of where architecture was frequently duplicated from previous eras?
If we accept that ancient architecture is modern due to duplication and accept the 1600 date mark, I would have to say I like architecture from the "modern era" more than I do ancient architecture.
Most architects are conditioned to prefer 'modern' (e.g., Corbusier-onwards) architecture - it's in the education system at most schools. However, one of the better experiences I remember having was going on a tour through some decidedly 'ancient' architecture and people pointing out how it could be successful as architecture through 'modernist' eyes.
If 'favorite' is more like 'successful': different cultures, different standards - and the past is a foreign country (don't remember who said that, but the first to remember wins a prize!)
If we need to have a more clear definition between 'ancient' and 'modern', I recommend a hard date (January 1, 1419?) as the dividing line between ancient and modern. Everything built before that date, everywhere, is 'ancient'. Everything built afterwards is 'modern'. Anything that was in some weird 'in-between' state (under construction? Under renovation? Has been renovated since?) during this time doesn't fit into this model, and should be demolished as soon as possible.
ancient architecture is bad-ass.
modern architecture is *just* ass. mostly.
I think you need one more classification; Classical, which is in between ancient and modern. Looking at it that way, I would think that ancient would be original structures, before they were copied by classical architecture. Modern architecture is always hard to define, logically it should be anything built "today" or with in this century, but there is no consistency in defining what a "modern" building is; Corbusier and Gehery are both modern architects but their buildings are very different.
I like the thinking process of ancient architecture where everything was rationalized and the buildings were monumental focal points. Sometimes I feel that Modern architecture is to random and lets the computer figure out to much. Ancient architecture is impressive because it was all man made, and man designed. However, I do still like how most modern architecture looks.
"I like the thinking process of ancient architecture where everything was rationalized and the buildings were monumental focal points"
Only a tiny portion of ancient architecture survives to today. Almost all of them being monuments. Ancient Romans did not live in the pantheon. Most of their everyday architecture was quite plain. Just like today.
@MixmasterFestus: It's the opening sentence from Hartley's "The Go-Between", isn't it? What's the prize?
I think Rusty's point is quite important: what we see as ancient architecture is just what survived all these centuries. Notwithstanding that there are some great remnants, but all the built crap is gone and forgotten.
I think the most crucial thing is that architecture should match it's era. If I were to build a swimming pool, for instance, I'd be a complete tool if I blatantly copied the Baths of Caracalla . However, if I'd analysed the strengths and transformed them into a design that is more adjusted to todays culture, building methods and style - then it starts to make sense. To only copy the image of ancient architecture because those temple fronts would look damn good on a public building is just (arguably) pretty wallpaper.
Close inspection might prove that there's more ancient architecture in modern/modernist buildings than in most of the retro-architecture...
it's a really clever book about debates of this sort. Highly recommended reading for anyone who enjoys this conversation topic.
Any building that's been around for a couple thousand years is okay in my book.
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.