Modernism killed culture in architecture; classicism delivered the first blow. However, I would love to see an authentic, contemporary African American or Islamic architecture emerge as an antidote to the corporate dregs of most practice today.
Sep 14, 17 10:52 am ·
·
ecnal
won and done williams gets it.
Sep 15, 17 6:19 am ·
·
tduds
"A new culture killed the old culture (which I liked better)"
Sep 15, 17 2:19 pm ·
·
won and done williams
tduds, no, that's not at all what I'm saying. Modernism and classicism are both hegemonic styles that try to suppress cultural expression.
I'd disagree with the argument that modernism killed culture. Arguably
early modernism made those older bits valuable (especially given early that modern styled architecture was for "the people."). I recall correctly, this is when manifestoes referring to classical architecture as "our nature" start to pop up as counters to the modernist manifestoes. But yes, even beyond this the history of ignoring building practices by groups that are not seen as important is limiting if not troubling.
Sep 16, 17 11:40 am ·
·
won and done williams
Modern architecture, the International Style, at its most idealistic, was an attempt to find a vocabulary of architecture that transcended political and cultural boundaries. Too often, however, it became a subversion of those cultures, essentially a colonialist architecture, and eventually just became a banal expression of corporate power and identity. There are exceptions of course (India, Brazil, and Mexico come to mind), but by and large this has been the trajectory of modern architecture. (Why do I feel like I've been duped into writing the OP's history term paper?)
That the question could seriously be asked is staggering, but when you have 'the world's most famous architect' plopping down a museum building in Spain with absolutely no reference to the city's history, heritage, background, climate, or anything else, and one that is loathed by the artists, curators, neighbors, and citizens of the town that have to interact with it, you realize just how badly the profession has trashed itself.
Wait architects design buildings? I thought it was painters and artists designing, then they pay the architects to do the details and the permitting and such.
I think its up to you to create deeper meaning in work and culture is but one of them areas. Use whatever you need to convince clients and win projects. Too bad most these days know how to function at the surface level only and can't go beyond shape and form.
It's whoever gets the most attention these days that dominates. Also, part of the cultural experience is also the process of being eaten by other cultures.
But you selected that item specifically because it's a signifier and not just a thing. That's how the fast and tacky or well-seasoned residential designer sees it too - as a signifier. It's an ethos or system with a whole lot of meaning that you're either trying to reinforce, leverage, counter, or disrupt. The column? It's just the branding package...
culture in architectural design
how important is culture in architectural design nowadays.
it depends.
somewhat
Critically important.
Very
They have machines for it now. Cultivators! Get yourself one.
Culture is not effectively taught or talked about in most architecture schools, so I don't see it come up to much in practice today.
thisisnotmyname...
How can culture be taught?
Taught is maybe too strong a word. It can be discussed and you c an expose students to it.
Modernism killed culture in architecture; classicism delivered the first blow. However, I would love to see an authentic, contemporary African American or Islamic architecture emerge as an antidote to the corporate dregs of most practice today.
won and done williams gets it.
"A new culture killed the old culture (which I liked better)"
tduds, no, that's not at all what I'm saying. Modernism and classicism are both hegemonic styles that try to suppress cultural expression.
One man's culture is another man's hegemony.
I'd disagree with the argument that modernism killed culture. Arguably early modernism made those older bits valuable (especially given early that modern styled architecture was for "the people."). I recall correctly, this is when manifestoes referring to classical architecture as "our nature" start to pop up as counters to the modernist manifestoes. But yes, even beyond this the history of ignoring building practices by groups that are not seen as important is limiting if not troubling.
Modern architecture, the International Style, at its most idealistic, was an attempt to find a vocabulary of architecture that transcended political and cultural boundaries. Too often, however, it became a subversion of those cultures, essentially a colonialist architecture, and eventually just became a banal expression of corporate power and identity. There are exceptions of course (India, Brazil, and Mexico come to mind), but by and large this has been the trajectory of modern architecture. (Why do I feel like I've been duped into writing the OP's history term paper?)
That the question could seriously be asked is staggering, but when you have 'the world's most famous architect' plopping down a museum building in Spain with absolutely no reference to the city's history, heritage, background, climate, or anything else, and one that is loathed by the artists, curators, neighbors, and citizens of the town that have to interact with it, you realize just how badly the profession has trashed itself.
Just move on already, that's 20 years ago!
I think its up to you to create deeper meaning in work and culture is but one of them areas. Use whatever you need to convince clients and win projects. Too bad most these days know how to function at the surface level only and can't go beyond shape and form.
It's whoever gets the most attention these days that dominates. Also, part of the cultural experience is also the process of being eaten by other cultures.
Sorry man, gotta call you out a little.
Why did you use a column like this if culture doesn't matter?
But you selected that item specifically because it's a signifier and not just a thing. That's how the fast and tacky or well-seasoned residential designer sees it too - as a signifier. It's an ethos or system with a whole lot of meaning that you're either trying to reinforce, leverage, counter, or disrupt. The column? It's just the branding package...
1- make the same image with a lally column AND the same gravitas. 2- yes, normal is often a burden .
no worries. Everyone has their own superpower.
Waiting on it!
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.