I think we will always be post-modern, even though the term conjures up horrible images in my mind of primary colours and neo-classical features pasted onto buildings.
I know that's not that it's all about, I just automatically think of these things whenever I hear the word
Postmodern architecture did not replace modern, only offered an alternative. Modern is alive and well. It doesn't always look like Mies, and it has become somewhat more responsive, but it's still here.
No, after post-modernism, famous designers will license their work to Design Within Reach, who will mass-produce it and sell it to nouveau riche, fresh-out-of-law-or-business-school tools who have money to spare after buying their first Porsche Cayenne.
Are these categories actually useful? I would suggest that they aren't, except for provoking arguments about inclusion and which regime is currently in power.
Janosh, you get the prize for most lucid comment of the week! I take encouragement that you are in LA, contributing a little sanity to the craziness here. (Witness all the recent slobbering over Thom Mayne.)
These categories may be useful, but only to _begin_ conversations about buildings and architecture--no further. Beyond that, they are part of the marketing strategy for books and "journalism" by critics in the architectural press. I remember a symposium years ago at UCLA, Gehry was there, Charles Jenks, and others I can't recall right now. Each participant had five or ten minutes to briefly speak/present. Jenks was hilarious: trying to race through a 20-minute paper on why this was modern, that was post-modern, and over there was late modern. He was rushing so furiously to keep these categories propped up (coincidentally, the subject of his latest book at the time... Hmmm) that it was embarrassing. Gehry very good-naturedly offered old Charlie five minutes of his time.
It was a very potent illustration of Janosh's point: these categories are artificial, malleable, of very limited usefulness. This goes for newer work as well, kids.
from a previous comment on this thread, Jencks categorizes, whereas Sola-Morales finds no real use for this type of "grounding" in the contemporary situation.
I believe there will be a great shift into a combination of styles merging into on giant super style, similar to voltron. This new style will be the awesome POST-NEOREALCRAPISM. It has already begun. I figure I started my professional career in an office that did real crap, then I interned in an office that also did crap but it was more edgy thus it was neo-realcrap. Now I have graduated and am climbing the ladder in a firm that does some really progressive things that I enjoy, but they also do some other things to pay the bills, thus post-neorealcrap.
So when I move from this office to the next I will continue to add prefix's and suffix's to post-neorealcrapism until it is a word so big and powerful that people will drop to their knees in awe if it.
i think we're in a phase of pluralism...or could it just be non-consensus?
i'm really not sure if architecture will ever attain the solidarity of a singular movement that modernism had. there is too much on the table now, too many issues, too much information. that is where we are. one could probably argue that supermodernism is a result of it, and critical regionalism is a reaction against it.
Again, categories are described after the fact, and oversimplify. "Modernism" may have had good PR, but it was never unified. Despite the descriptions by historirans of hopes for an International Style of universal applicability, the history of twentieth century architecture is the history of various architects pushing and pulling at conventions and expectations.
It is always flattering to ourselves to think that our generation is the first to recognize complexity and the way the world REALLY is or should be. "Modern" architects were there doing their various things fifty years ago, just as the Beaux Arts classicists were duking it out with the pre-modern engineer-architects a century ago.
my comment isn't aimed at a kind of 'masturbation' with regard to the way we view our own generation in the context of others. of course modernists, in a great many ways varied their own philosophies and interpretations of the modern condition [compare the socialistic tendancies of vesnin and lissitzky to frank lloyd wright's notion of an 'architecture of democracy'] and we can discuss them in terms of everything from philosophy to form, even in how practices were organized [look at fordism's effect on albert kahn]. everyone interpreted the idea of modernism differently in terms of identity, politics, form, etc etc etc. but the one thing they were unified on was that they were living in a condition of modernity, and that in some way their architecture would be a critical reflection of that condition, as interpreted by the architect. i'm not sure what you mean by 'categories are described after the fact.' is it an architects job to join the ranks of an 'ism' to justify their work in some way? let the historians categorize our work later on. i think part of the downfall of modernism is that it became vastly stylized [especially after it was filtered through phillip johnson's exhibition?] and was no longer a critical reflection upon the role of architecture in the modern condition. people began replicating forms across the globe without any critical sensitivity to those places, or even just the general notion of architectural form itself. i would propose that when people consciously begin designing according to the canons of an 'ism,' those canons are inevitably misinterpreted as a style, rather than a critical reflection upon the role of our practice, and what architecture can do. thus, supermodernism and critical regionalism are probably already stylized, and thus dead. if you don't believe me, check out some of the work that is being done in the southwestern US right now.
Didn't 'architecture' once mean 'he who makes the king's tomb' - or something? Let's go back to making tombstones in a politically correct effort toward "Sustainable-ism". That should do the trick, yes?
come gather round people wherever you roam
and admit that the waters around you have grown
and accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone
if your time to you is worth savin
then you better start swimmin or you'll sink like a stone
for the times they are a changin'
anti-architecture which attempts to either deny its existence, or argues the irrelevance or obsolenscence of architecture or architects under new contemporary conditions.
shaq went to the police academy. and he is a real police officer, who is involved in a program to educate children against the dangers of sexual predators.
what's after post-modernism?
in terms of architecture, what after post-modernism?
please describe/explain.
and examples (buildings, architects, etc)?
super-modernism!
Su-Mo!
or if I may humbly siggest, FOG-Lite
nanoarchitecture
a neo-Kantian Aesthetic Law based upon pure number as the a priori Absolute: in other words, for once, a water-tight theory of design
PoPoMo
I think we will always be post-modern, even though the term conjures up horrible images in my mind of primary colours and neo-classical features pasted onto buildings.
I know that's not that it's all about, I just automatically think of these things whenever I hear the word
Once we get to Post-Contemporary, THEN we're screwed
Postmodern architecture did not replace modern, only offered an alternative. Modern is alive and well. It doesn't always look like Mies, and it has become somewhat more responsive, but it's still here.
to be a bit more specific, chronologically, movements proceed:
modern, post-modern, and i guess contemporary (aka NOW)
agreed that modernists & post-modenists(ism) is still alive and in action.
PM is a response/alternative to M, so what is the response to PM in Contemporary Architecture? Or is it too soon for any of us to discern this?
neo-rationalism
Crypto-blobbery?
No, after post-modernism, famous designers will license their work to Design Within Reach, who will mass-produce it and sell it to nouveau riche, fresh-out-of-law-or-business-school tools who have money to spare after buying their first Porsche Cayenne.
Are these categories actually useful? I would suggest that they aren't, except for provoking arguments about inclusion and which regime is currently in power.
I'm hoping for Sustainable-ism
Janosh, you get the prize for most lucid comment of the week! I take encouragement that you are in LA, contributing a little sanity to the craziness here. (Witness all the recent slobbering over Thom Mayne.)
These categories may be useful, but only to _begin_ conversations about buildings and architecture--no further. Beyond that, they are part of the marketing strategy for books and "journalism" by critics in the architectural press. I remember a symposium years ago at UCLA, Gehry was there, Charles Jenks, and others I can't recall right now. Each participant had five or ten minutes to briefly speak/present. Jenks was hilarious: trying to race through a 20-minute paper on why this was modern, that was post-modern, and over there was late modern. He was rushing so furiously to keep these categories propped up (coincidentally, the subject of his latest book at the time... Hmmm) that it was embarrassing. Gehry very good-naturedly offered old Charlie five minutes of his time.
It was a very potent illustration of Janosh's point: these categories are artificial, malleable, of very limited usefulness. This goes for newer work as well, kids.
i am more for mini definitions;
'fender bender style'
'flat top bob'
'igloo on ice'
'best o pritzker'
'zen minimal'
'man minimal'
'glass cow'
'balloon'
'pinto pad'
'weisenhoff jr.'
'per.per.per.'
'custard cut'
'cheeso mieso'
'la demodern'
'white melaphant'
and,
'jesus bond'
and,
'godsinretail'
modernism, post-modernism, ...capitalism?
CATIA-clysm
so what's post-urbanism???
New Suburbanism
Re: church and synagogue
my 1st 3D CAD model of a Mosque
that's a good one ross, as chilling as the term is!
pragmatism
I think our buddy frampton might have something to say about this...
and Sola-morales has a retort for frampton, which brings us to his answer to this question...
Weak Architecture (a great read if you haven't already)
charles jencks has already exhausted this...
sorry, not familiar, expand?
from a previous comment on this thread, Jencks categorizes, whereas Sola-Morales finds no real use for this type of "grounding" in the contemporary situation.
neo-Mannerism
huh?
I believe there will be a great shift into a combination of styles merging into on giant super style, similar to voltron. This new style will be the awesome POST-NEOREALCRAPISM. It has already begun. I figure I started my professional career in an office that did real crap, then I interned in an office that also did crap but it was more edgy thus it was neo-realcrap. Now I have graduated and am climbing the ladder in a firm that does some really progressive things that I enjoy, but they also do some other things to pay the bills, thus post-neorealcrap.
So when I move from this office to the next I will continue to add prefix's and suffix's to post-neorealcrapism until it is a word so big and powerful that people will drop to their knees in awe if it.
le post-modernism!
i think we're in a phase of pluralism...or could it just be non-consensus?
i'm really not sure if architecture will ever attain the solidarity of a singular movement that modernism had. there is too much on the table now, too many issues, too much information. that is where we are. one could probably argue that supermodernism is a result of it, and critical regionalism is a reaction against it.
Again, categories are described after the fact, and oversimplify. "Modernism" may have had good PR, but it was never unified. Despite the descriptions by historirans of hopes for an International Style of universal applicability, the history of twentieth century architecture is the history of various architects pushing and pulling at conventions and expectations.
It is always flattering to ourselves to think that our generation is the first to recognize complexity and the way the world REALLY is or should be. "Modern" architects were there doing their various things fifty years ago, just as the Beaux Arts classicists were duking it out with the pre-modern engineer-architects a century ago.
modernism, post-modernism, materialism
my comment isn't aimed at a kind of 'masturbation' with regard to the way we view our own generation in the context of others. of course modernists, in a great many ways varied their own philosophies and interpretations of the modern condition [compare the socialistic tendancies of vesnin and lissitzky to frank lloyd wright's notion of an 'architecture of democracy'] and we can discuss them in terms of everything from philosophy to form, even in how practices were organized [look at fordism's effect on albert kahn]. everyone interpreted the idea of modernism differently in terms of identity, politics, form, etc etc etc. but the one thing they were unified on was that they were living in a condition of modernity, and that in some way their architecture would be a critical reflection of that condition, as interpreted by the architect. i'm not sure what you mean by 'categories are described after the fact.' is it an architects job to join the ranks of an 'ism' to justify their work in some way? let the historians categorize our work later on. i think part of the downfall of modernism is that it became vastly stylized [especially after it was filtered through phillip johnson's exhibition?] and was no longer a critical reflection upon the role of architecture in the modern condition. people began replicating forms across the globe without any critical sensitivity to those places, or even just the general notion of architectural form itself. i would propose that when people consciously begin designing according to the canons of an 'ism,' those canons are inevitably misinterpreted as a style, rather than a critical reflection upon the role of our practice, and what architecture can do. thus, supermodernism and critical regionalism are probably already stylized, and thus dead. if you don't believe me, check out some of the work that is being done in the southwestern US right now.
poo-mo: post-organic modernism
AKA post blob.
ps: you heard it here first.
Hah - good one BOTS - best answer yet
Didn't 'architecture' once mean 'he who makes the king's tomb' - or something? Let's go back to making tombstones in a politically correct effort toward "Sustainable-ism". That should do the trick, yes?
come gather round people wherever you roam
and admit that the waters around you have grown
and accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone
if your time to you is worth savin
then you better start swimmin or you'll sink like a stone
for the times they are a changin'
vadoretroism
anti-architecture which attempts to either deny its existence, or argues the irrelevance or obsolenscence of architecture or architects under new contemporary conditions.
dear mr. dazed and confused
you are a douchebag
"I want to go to the Police Academy. I want to actually go out and make a couple of arrests and I want to go undercover"
Shaquille O'Neal
shaq went to the police academy. and he is a real police officer, who is involved in a program to educate children against the dangers of sexual predators.
Nurbanism (c)2005
or NURBanism
Metro Modernism - alike Metrosexuals
An urban architecture with a strong aesthetic sense and form that spends a great deal of time and money on their appearance.
http://www.wordspy.com/words/metrosexual.asp
Metro Modernism: That's almost redundant. Why not just call it Blue State architecture?
vadoretroism, very good vada, very retro
how about just "architecture" ?
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.