i completely agree with the author..

i think this blobitecture will subside to a microscopic level..
craftmanship will return.. we will design original objects in computers and then machines will produce them.. so, learn rhino.. :)
some will be structural/decorative, and some decorative...

whenever new technology arrives, people get really excited and start making bunch of poo poo.. few gems survive for future generations, but most is trashed..

"First there were the normal people -- students and alumni alike -- who tended to be quite supportive of my critique. Then there were the architects."

Catesby doesn't want our opinion.

i am sorry you ego was hurt..

didn't mean to sound mean, you know what i mean?

but that was an emotional response to a thought provoking article..

Thought-provoking, maybe. But not respectful of differing opinions, any more than hardcore modernists are.

"This gentleman has my deepest sympathy. He's spent his professional life thinking about architecture, and he's reached the conclusion a building should be designed according to the same criteria as your kitchen toaster."

This is not sympathetic - it's sarcastic and dismissive.

The suggestion that form 'follows function' is still a precept of contemporary modernism is simplistic and disingenuous. But then the author makes sure that the contemporary alternative is not mistaken for a valid path either. "...the weird structural eructations produced by the likes of Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhass[sic], Thom Mayne, and Steven Holl (whose new dormitory at M.I.T. was inspired by a sponge) cannot serve as the basis of a generalized approach to design. They are both very expensive to build and explicitly 'exceptionalist,' a sort of viral reaction to the dismal mainstream architectural culture 'form follows function' generated. The starchitects thus acknowledge that modernism failed in its crucial mission of providing a new architectural canon that would make man at home in his brave new world."

Thus, because someone has to do something first and it is therefore expensive, no more progressive approach is worth pursuing, and we must fall back on known models of the 1500's, presumably.

"But more to the point, modernists believe architecture's formal vocabulary, not just the practical purposes it serves, must be determined by its immediate cultural context, whether that context be global, national, or regional. That context, in turn, entails some combination or other of the reigning cosmology, religion (or lack thereof), political ideology, and technological and ecological conditions. This is cultural realism. But of course divining the significance of the age is a completely subjective business. The same goes for divining the way architecture should reflect it. The 'authenticity' cultural realism extols, therefore, inevitably lies inside the architect's (or the critic's) head. Far from serving as an objective basis for architectural design, it serves as a codeword for inflicting the rarified, ephemeral sensibilities of a tiny elite on the public realm."

Who said anything about 'objective'? Architecture, whether modern or inspired by traditional, is not objective. We're in the business of raising lowest-common-denominator building construction to a level more accommodating of human life: sustainable, healthy, and (maybe) inspiring. Neither modernism or traditional has a lock on these qualities; there are wretched and beautiful examples of both. The argument at Princeton was about the preference among benefactors, students, and administration. Someone came out ahead. This doesn't mean that there was an objective right or wrong.

"It is...unabashedly idealistic, and firmly grounded in human instinct..." So the 'Great Tradition' takes up the objective argument? If based on instinct, how did we transition from Classical to Gothic? Was this not a 'modern' way of building? Was it instinctive?

If Classicism doesn't rely on theory, why is Geoffrey Scott's writing one of the primary pieces of evidence? The author claims that Classicism is grounded in empirical processes, but then denies it constitutes a 'scientific' approach to design. There is an attempt to build an argument by claiming both sides and leaving no room for response.

The entire approach is anti-logical, insular and circular reasoning. Of course the reasoning isn't the point. The point is to slip in as many pejorative and emotional adjectives about modernism as possible, while also celebrating tradition with lofty, 'humanist' descriptives.

I'm no evangelist for modernism and, on occasion, I've compromised my own ideals to align a project with those of its client, public, etc. This is necessary sometimes on a project by project basis. There will be those who prefer modern, those who prefer not-modern, those who prefer traditional exteriors with modern interiors. So be it.

But this author's blaming of everything from the builder house to the loss of skilled trades on the development of modernism (rather than on a laissez-faire 'market-driven' economy) just pisses me off.

It may be that architects' opinions are different because we think too much about buildings and what they have the potential to be. We're interested in a discipline which can make positive change. If we are to merely recycle the motifs of the past, fewer will find the field of architecture to be compelling, interesting, challenging, etc. and we'll have a profession of technically savvy copyists producing under-considered, stale, complacent shells into which we can put all of the new beautifully-designed (often 'modern'! like a toaster!) stuff that we love to accrue.

Princeton lost it's "social justification" a long time before old school modernism did. Its funny that right where "technology and the free market meet" we find a grumpy little reactionary proclaiming the importance of the senile dottary of the inbred elite institutirons of the last century as the leaders of culture.

In all sympatiy, though, I hope those nice old fellows and thir idiot childern are able to keep their poncy little Oxbridge dress-up going untill the gleaming mechanized divisions of the unchained masses have advanced to their verry gates. Or at least untill my stypend runs out.

I wonder if the reaction against modernism is that there is something "inhuman" about its philosophy...no matter how noble its social agenda. Think about avant-garde musical movements of the same era such as 12-tone music. In the same way that modernism was 'scientific', 12-tone was 'mathematic'. But no one (yes there are exceptions) wants to listen to it.

modernism wanted to impose equality and machinery on unique and organic beings.

postmodernism is a reaction, organic and fractal.

neither 'modernism', 'postmodernism', nor any form of 'traditional' architecture WANT anything. they are not homogeneous. they do not have unanimous agendas, any more than you and i do. different designers participate in all of them, from locations around the world, for different clients, and with different ends in mind.

you're making generalized announcements - simplified to the point of meaninglessness - similar to some of those in the article.

Steven-
I like the way you think.
"This gentleman has my deepest sympathy. He's spent his professional life thinking about architecture, and he's reached the conclusion a building should be designed according to the same criteria as your kitchen toaster."
This is the sentence that gets me the most. Its like the author is celebrating his own ignorance. I think he understood exactly what the architect was saying. Something about Catesby's attitude,tone and logic is Bill-O-Reilly-esque.

the 2 great rules of design are:
1. there should be no features about a building which are not necessary for convenience, construction, or propriety.
2. all ornament should consist in the essential construction of the building. in pure architecture the smallest detail should have a meaning or a purpose.
thazz gothic revival children.

There is a pattern of thinking that exists in period of time that is prevalent. That pattern in our time is called post-modernism.

"they are not homogeneous. they do not have unanimous agendas, any more than you and i do. different designers participate in all of them, from locations around the world, for different clients, and with different ends in mind."

isn't the theme of that statement the word "fractal"?

in the 20's 30's.. the prevalent thought pattern was different..
"we must unite! workers unite, common people unite! equal land for everyone!"
anyone who stood against that rhetoric in USSR was killed..
so, there was no tolerance of different opinions, this "equality" was imposed for the benefit of mankind.

thousands of people were sterilized in US in the 30's because their reproduction would pollute the gene pool with diseases. hence hindering the progress of mankind.

I can perfectly understand where Catesby is coming from. Though his obsession with "the great tradition" is utterly absurd.

But he does have a point in saying that a lot of architecture these days feels inhuman. Too many architects focus on an esoteric academic discourse - which is interesting to the initiated, but exclusive to the rest.

Instead of going back to the history of architectural styles for inspiration we should go back to the basics of how people experience architecture. We should think about what it is that people respond to in a place, what it is that makes us like a building, and go from there.

He is actually not really saying anything in this article that is new.

Ok the modernist project has failed, but to dismiss architecture based on though/theory for the more intuitive kind of architecture is simply asinine.

And this kind of transition is happening in all aspects of culture, it's as natural of a process as nature itself. From the same logic it derives that we should equally rid ourselves of any interest in abstract art, good bye Pollock, Rothko, and to hell with the impressionists too, for a return to the innocent eye of the greek painting, maybe.

This guy is actually hilarious and well, it's obvious the article is futile except for his paycheck. That's what really is disturbing, he may be one of the "normal people" but got all excited about a comment and decided to teach us what architecture is.

modernism was far more debased of theory then classicism ever was..
the depths of classical theory is no longer taught or understood by majority.
that's why there is this falce perception that modernims was more scientific then classicism.. modernism was inspired by progress, but there was not much science in the theory itself.

classicism was supposed to be more restrictive, but looking at most modernist buildings people wonder if that is true.


so now we opted for chaos and fractal theory, which is no theory at all.

the myth of modernism was it was humane.
but, man's belief in himself doesn't die so easily, hence post-modernism.

the myth of post-modernism is that it is tolerant and accepting of other views. i am reading this thread where everyone is talking about how we are all different and do different things. but the criticism of catesby so far, can be summed up as emotional outbursts.
he is accused of being sarcastic, mean, and just basically a jackass.

aren't you being intolerant in age of tolerance? isn't this a hypocricy?

interesting (pasha)

intolerant of intolerance, maybe.

intolerant of baseless comments like 'the myth of modernism was it was humane', yes. in pasha's last statement, i take issue with the use of the word 'myth', the general stereotyping of 'modernism', and the use of 'was' suggesting that the modern is not a continuing phenomenon. it's just sloppy thinking. i don't take issue with the view that there are a significant number of modern buildings which are not as considerate of human nature ('humane') as most pre-modern buildings.

chaos and fractal theory, while legitimate things to think about if you find them useful (therefore 'theory', in fact), are not part of MY thinking about architecture. who introduced these terms to the conversation? i don't think 'fractal' was the theme of any of my earlier comments - at least not intentionally. 'diversity', maybe. fractals impy abstraction and replication, diversity accommodates human nature.

gothic revival is not classicism.

for catesby, man's self realisation is attributed to science, instead of the renaissance, and his self determination given to the care of modernity. the failure of modernism is attributed to words, a popular slogan, sloppily paraded. start as you mean to go on huh?

"instead of a home for architecture"
what is this home? legitimacy. catesby dismisses heirs to the throne, who try to reconcile the new self with history and the world, as wasteful and illegitimate - as if the big architectures of old were never expensive or a pronouncement of a world view.

the triumph of classicism appeals to instinct, the unconcious, the fact that it was there first, and its *complete* subordination to esthetic aims. in a tremulous voice of self denial, legitimacy is finally accorded by an unspecified naturalness, judged by isolated physiological effects and classy visuals.

-

"For modernism is itself based on a mythology ... that man is the malleable byproduct of his historical circumstances."

"Tradition threatens the starchitect's "world," with ... the godlike creative "genius" ... at the center of an eminently subjective universe in which it is beholden to no higher reality than the self."

so by a perverse 2+2=5, man is the measure of all things, the new law, the new god, but he should not use his powers to change, he should stick to measuring his dick, over and over and over again.

the essay is about princeton architecture, which was primarily executed by ralph cram a devotee of pugin. pugin's theories on gothic architecture ie honest architecture were completely antithetical to classical architecture. please stop confusing the two or read some architectural history. that is all.

but the author only uses classical examples and cites geoffrey scot on classicism?...

vado, righteous fist is right. it's not a confusion on our part, but one fostered in the article. from the author's point-of-view it doesn't matter whether is classical or gothic (thus my problem with the 'natural'/'eternal' arguments) - as long as it's not modern.

the author made a point that modernims was fundamentally different from anything that was before..
modernism isn't based on nature..
its based on a machine.. its alienating to people, that's why average people don't like it..
the new buildings are "natural" in shape, but architects are still missing the point..

but architects shouldn't be blamed by that, they are, just like most other people are carried by the ever changing winds of thought..

the author makes a mistake in putting gothic revival in the same category as classicism. as i said before the philosophies are 180 degrees from one another. the real consideration here, however, is that the ideas of theorists like pugin,morris and ruskin promoted modern ideals.
for example, edward ford writes of pugin " an honest building is one in which the structural frame and the means of its connections are exposed, in which there is no distinction between structural materials and finish materials and in which these structural elements are for the most part monolithic. this ideal, to which architects as diverse as flw, mies,corbu and kahn subscribed, is in many ways ill suited to the systems of modern building as they have evolved in the 20th century."

for me the point really is, if one wants to emulate and celebrate those buildings one needs to look at the philosophy behind it rather than the actual look of the building. because to construct a building that resembles those designed by cram would be counter to the original spirit of the architecture.

some modernism is based on nature.
some modernism is not based on the machine.
if you disagree, make an argument, not just unfounded decrees.

if 'most other people are carried by the everchanging winds of thought', how does that correspond with the nature/instinct argument?

pre-modern architecture - whether it was romans' evolution from greek, gothic's evolution from romanesque, or rococo's from baroque -was often the most modern thing that could be conceived. not always: there were cycles of progress and cycles of looking back (neo-classicism, romanesque revival). sometimes looking forward and back happened simultaneously.

viollet-le-duc era gothic revival was an interesting example of using old forms for new ends - pushing structural limits available through new technology while adopting the soaring spirit of the gothic. it was certainly modern. you might say that calatrava springs from this tradition rather than that of the machine.