Are these the same people who spend their vacations traveling to European and South American cities to experience the "old towns" inside ancient city walls?
And stay in ancient former monistaries and convents that somehow have been converted to amazing small luxury hotels, in spit of being hundreds of years old. Those tasteless people?
Fine Suri, give us some tangible evidence that the "general public" wants every building to look like a giant gothic cathedral instead of making unfounded generalizations such as: "they will tell you that they haven't seen a building built in the last 80s years that truly inspires them or that they would care if it was torn down tomorrow and replaced"
Then maybe we will begin to buy into your argument.
are you talking about ancient architecture, 2,000 year old architecture, maybe renaissance architecture from around the 15th or 16th century, or as you originally claimed, the stuff from 1930, which is 80 years old? seems to me you have changed your position considerably, unless your education in architectural history actually has you believing the stylistic trend of what jesus was building is the same thing the greeks were doing at their height, which is the same as the romans were doing at their height, which is the same as the europeans were doing during the industrial revolution, which is the same as the house sears shipped via railroad.
2 millennia of human society did not agree that "traditional" architecture from 80 years ago (1930) was better than mid-centruy modern (around1950, inspired at least in part by bauhaus or the international style). the math just doesn't work. your ability to troll a forum has decreased considerably. you now seem to be suggesting that all of human history is preferable to the narrow period of time you happen to be living. when people say the grass is greener on the other side, the grass isn't really greener on the other side.
Do any architects take theory of aesthetics? I am the only one perhaps, I took it as an elective cause I was interested in what pleases people. The big take aways are 1. what is pleasing to people is shaped by personal experiences. and 2. realness is a big factor of aesthetics. In architecture, creating something real is of high importance, it is very very important to architects. Less important is an architecture that is pleasing by a personal experience (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). I'm already being overly didactic today, so to understand aesthetic, I find it helpful to think of the word anesthetic. The stuff you put on your paper cuts. It dulls the senses and produces numbness. So aesthetic means to please the senses. It is subjective. But you gotta make it real too because you don't want a phoney assaulting the senses!
having visited gropius' bauhaus in dessau i can say that it's *absolutely* clear that is was done by an architect educated in classical architecture. it's nothing if not a continuation of a living language of architecture. you can practically feel it when you stand in front of it.
curtkram, are you telling me that modernism did not diametrically appose every aspect of western-architecture point by point? That it was not in fact the anti western architecture.? That was the whole purpose, to throw away the language... It is not a progression of western architecture, it was year zero, and what we have now has nothing whatsoever to do with what came before. You might say, "but look at all these traditional elements, all these symbolic remnants of western architecture. clearly this is of the same progression" What has actually happened is that modernism was betrayed by its own progeny. in the spirit of "we are in fact the true enlightened generation", post modernism has tried to bastardize traditional architectural elements and symbolism into the modernist framework. A childish act of rebellion? of course, that spirit of rebellion is key to the whole movement, each generation rebels against its prior. This series of rebellions is not a progression at all, and even if it is, the initial introduction of moderism was not, we would have to return to before that point (that wiping of the slate) to consider now to be truly part of the legacy of western architecture.
Suri, I think, via your posts, that I am understanding what type of architecture you have come to love, neo-classical and neo-traditional. like the following examples:
So, yeah neo-classical at its height....
Now I invite you to a bit of a revelation as to why this style (amongst others) practically disappeared after 1945. (with some generalizations to not keep this too long)...
Ready? Good....
As I said previously, architecture, both traditionally and contemporary variants, is not just a product of a random vision. It is a social product, the styles reflect the attitudes, values and political/religious ideology (and symbols) or the time they are created. In short, architecture will tell you a lot about what a society holds as mores and norms. This is true for capital A architecture (public and monumental) and vernacular (such as residential) architecture. What you have been pointing us to as your desired resurrection is what is typified in Architecture of the periods you are longing for.
After 1918 there was a shift starting in architecture, this of course was due to the massive need to rebuild Europe following that little skirmish you may have forgotten about called World War 1. Many architects at the time felt that the costs of re-building true to the old form of the old structures was counter-productive. Technology and the way we live had changed since the renaissance, people wanted new more affordable housing. Styles came about to fulfill this need. Most housing of the era was simple, with mass produced decoration fitted to a basic square or rectangular layout, allowing for housing to be built that was not only more economically sound, but offered electrical (as older buildings often did not have electricity, or were retrofitted with gas fixtures) and heating improvements as well as offering health improvements such as windows for light and air and running water. So housing was evolving and people wanted what people were designing.
In America, returning soldiers wanted to move out of the cramped apartments and smog filled factory and downtown districts of the cities. Residential communities with single family homes sprouted up in droves to fill the demand, along with them came the pattern houses and basic homes that you have been longing for. To make a long story short, housing was designed to fill the demand, wood framing proliferated and masonry fell into disuse by the masses. The rich on the other-hand were able to afford the cost associated with the traditional techniques (as opposed to the ornamentation of the working class [imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right?] so they utilized the artisans and built beautiful homes like the Gamble house.
Ok, still with me....
Capital A Architecture, however, still tended toward neo-classicism, as it embodied the political ideal of the strong state (being representative and derived from the great empires of Rome and Greece). This idea in particular was snatched onto by an upstart political party in Germany who adopted the Neo-Classical style as its defacto style (coupled with a touch of art deco). This party? The National Socialist German Workers Party, in other words, the Nazis.
So I'm sure you remember what happened between 1933 and 1945, lots of atrocities, genocide, expulsions/refugees and war.
So again in 1945 Europe was faced with the prospect of rebuilding. They did however agree on one thing, the ideals of the Third Reich were ostracized, including the love of traditional styles. Governments the world over sought to distance themselves from the Nazis. Artist and architects of the day had been exploring architecture as an experience, defined not by traditional rules or ornamentation, but by the interplay of spaces (inside and out), expressing the qualities of the materials and opening up the spaces. Public architecture gobbled it up, it was so distinctily different from the traditional styles that it represented the fresh outlook toward the futre that governments were seeking to display.
This architectural intent trickled down to the masses via private buildings such as skyscrapers and office buildings. Eventually it came to the masses as modern, mid-century modern and then evolved to post-modern.
Now as to the average working man, he still could not afford that architect designed house, but opportunity knocks and along with some clever marketing and government subsidies (including specific GI loans) the modern suburb and cookie-cutter house came onto the scene around 1948, just in time for the baby boom! These houses offered safe communities that delivered you from the cramped inner-city communities of the 20's and gave you the single family home with white picket fence, large yard, garage and simple luxurious drive to work.
ffwd a few decades of this same pattern and we get to the late 1970's where people started to question modernism and its implications, especially the carte-blache destruction of old communities and old buildings that were torn down and replaced with modern and brutalist interpretations.
This resurgence of interest in the traditional led developer housing to swing back to a sudo-traditional feel. Houses were still boxes, but decoration could be added to make it have a certain look to comply with what 'the people' wanted.
What do the people want you ask? well that is easy, look at our society and you can see why housing is the way it is, we live in a mass-produced disposable society. Developers will happily sell you what you want, so we get today's McMansions with their lack of traditional feel.
So, now that I've told you a story, do you see what I am getting at?
-Architecture reflects the socio-political and economic attitudes of the day
-The housing you see around you IS what people want, whether they realize it or not, they feed the monster, if they truly did not want it it would change, simple supply and demand economics
-The influences that made neo-traditional movements go out of fashion are not simple causal relationships, architects did not wake up in 1945 and say I think I'll design 'crap' from now on according to what I think people want, it is SO MUCH DEEPER THAN THAT
Maybe you will read this and get a slight clue, maybe I've wasted 30 minutes typing my thoughts on this, who knows. You need to be educated in how the world works and why things are the way they are.
By the way the neo-classical architecture above is the vision of the Third Reich.
I appreciate traditional styles, I appreciate the craftsmanship and beauty of them. I have also learned to appreciate modernism and the movements flowing from it, why because I took the time to learn what the originators behind it were trying to convey and how to look at the originals and not the attempted copies.
Oh, and here is an example of a contemporary architect that does produce tasteful well crafted housing:
the world changed. the industrial revolution changed. the materials we used to build things changed. the nature of war changed. a lot really important things were happening in that area at that time. the modernism promoted by bauhaus reflected those changes. some of it was political and/or theoretical, but you should understand a lot of it was just accepting they had to work with what they had to work with. there were rebellions against modernism, such as the arts and crafts movement, but the thing that has made modernism stick is because it simply accepts the reality of it's time. that's why you're talking about modernism now instead of any of the anciallary movements like post-modernism or the high-tech movement or deconstruction. you should also understand that pretty much everyone involved in the original bauhaus school were trained by the older generation of architects. they didn't really create the architecture you don't like, that already happened a long time ago with people like peter behrens. the people you don't like are just the ones that got their names printed. they were building on the language that the previous generation wrote, which was building off the previous generation.
it's not the first time the world changed, and it's not the first time architecture changed.
you've gotten a pretty good education for free today. too bad you can't think through opinions outside your narrow focus.
I believe the Arts and Crafts movement to be a part of modernism, and a rebellion to the victorian movement. We can't view modernism as anti-craftmanship. There was a sect of modernism that rebelled against modernism...such as Elizabeth Gordon, as editor of House Beautiful magazine at mid century promoting her own (with Frank Lloyd Wright) definition of modernism, rebelling against the nternationalists.
marisco, I appreciate your points and understand that some of the reason we ended up this way is all of our faults (not just the acedemics) but those examples, that fascist architecture, is not neoclassicism, but is yet another branch of modern architecture. clearly.
Arts and crafts, was definitely a precursor movement to modernism. It was a reaction to the mass-production of industrialization, it was felt that the rise of the machine age was relegating the artisan to irrelevance. One designer could make millions of identical pieces, the designer then oses relevance as their skill is not needed to produce their product. A&C artists and architects wanted to recapture the relevance of their professions and therefore pushed against industrialization trying to highlight the skill of the artisan and the value they bring to projects. This is not unlike the struggle contemporary architects and designers face today.
It is but one of many movements that pushed against the status-quo and culminated in the modernist movement
You still can't answer the basic question: what do you live in and which architect did you hire, how much did you pay them and what was the per square foot cost of your home? I'm guessing you've never built anything except lousy software than no one uses. I mean, why don't you software weenies actually produce software we (the public) want to use and like? I mean, most of it is complete trash, looks stupid and barely works.
umm yes, those examples are neo-classicism, they follow the pattern of Vitruvian and Palladian ideals and are derived from Roman and Greek examples. Classicism was originally State (IMPERIAL) architecture. It is meant, in its form and proportions to relay the fact that the State is greater than the individual, the individual is small and insignificant in relation to the power of the State (or deity).
Gothic architecture (and Neo-gothic) also convey this idea. When you go into a Gothic Cathedral, pay attention to how it is built. The basic cathedral layout is derived from the Roman Basilica. The building is designed to convey the greatness of God and how small humans are in comparison. Everything is designed to draw your eyes up and the structure is designed to look lighter as you look up, referring to the glory and light emanating from God that we are trying to reach.
Both of these styles lend themselves well as an allegory for political control and hence State architecture. Hence why they have been adopted and used for centuries to convey the message of power and dominance over the individual.
You honestly don't think that Classicism and Gothic influences in early American architecture were because they looked 'pretty' do you?
You want to know what the average everyday man lived in? A hovel that was a box with little to no windows and few of the luxuries afforded to the rich who held the power and wanted to express that in their buildings. It is a shame the rich felt the working class/slaves/servants homes of old were worthless and only saved their monuments to themselves. Then maybe you would not long for an age where the true political and societal reasons behind what you desire reigned supreme.
You need to understand that what you are longing for is a dream, it is a romantic ideal, an imagining of what you think life was like back then, of what you think houses were and stood for. You are trying to grasp onto an idea that allows you to escape the realities of modern society that you disagree with. Maybe it stems from a nostalgic look on an event or place from your childhood or an imagined fantasy of the old world, I am not going to try to psycho-analyse you.
History unfortunately only shows us a skewed view of what really was.
Marisco...that is a good point, so far the examaple our good traditional friend has shown us are, one one the country's largest mansions, and a huge university building....those are her examples of what Architecture today should emulate.
But it kind of already does! Go to any community with McMansions, and all the bad traditional architectural cliche's are well represented. Drive a bit further...you have typical suburban neighborhoods also with some of the same thing, only a bit smaller...Most Americans want to be what they are not...they want their 4 bedroom home to look like the Mcmansions a few miles away, behind the gate..Drive closer to the city or in the city...Condos, with more typical traditional detailing trying to look like what it is not. Suri already has what she wants! She just does not want forward thinking design distracting her view of fake traditionalville.
There are plenty of architects that design classical houses that are in no way "McMansions".
They are built with traditional materials and built to last. in the early days of this country a lot of the homes were built from plan books and modified as needed and desired by the owners and builders. The idea that everyone either lived in Newport mansions or hovels is absurd.
Volunteer - I didn't mean to imply that there were only the two extremes, I was merely trying to get the point across that the average Joe (middle and lower class) did not live in the housing that typically has survived and been cataloged as traditional or historical during the last 2000 years that Suri has been referring to.
Specific to the late 19th and early 20th Century, I do recognize that many kit and pattern homes have survived and offer an interesting look at a movement to bring architecture to the masses at an affordable price. I also applaud the efforts of The Architects' Small Home Service Bureau in attempting to connect architects and the average citizen (even if they were shut down). Heck there were even Starcitects during the early 20c that tried to address the issue (Frank Lloyd Wright, etc.)
I think the bigger issue is whether architects have pulled away too much from the residential sector, instead tending to focus on certain sectors of the residential industry and leaving the bulk to developers and home builders. Herein lies the basis of Suri's misconceptions, the majority of current housing stock is builder/developer driven and therefore not reflective of the quality or detail that architects can and do provide (regardless of stylistic influence). Suri seems to think it is, and therefore that a return to what he/she deems traditional is warranted.
marisco, fascist architecture is not neoclassicism, it is modernist. And I am perfectly aware that it has classical elements, but it's clearly modernist, in every way. I may not have any formal training in architectural history but I am not a child whom you can pat on the head and feed complete b.s. expecting me to swallow it (regardless of if it seems so)
You are hung up on this idea of my presumed idealism. A traditional sense of aesthetics has nothing to do with idealism. There is nothing more natural than to be presented with A and B and be able to clearly see A as superior regardless of if the elite insist that its B. To recognize the superiority of 19th century architecture does not magically bring along the baggage of 19th century politics or quality of life, that is a ridiculous notion that you all keep making. Smog and night-soil trucks are not in fact going to start poring out of a traditionally built neighborhood. Idealism is in fact believing that a bunch of leftist whiz kids came along and corrected 2000 years of architectural 'folly' with a couple swoops of their drafting pen (because lets face it, a couple swoops is all that it takes to draft a modernist blueprint)
Kevin, as to flying buttresses and cornice, do you want designs I like which include them? If you are asking if I think slapping them onto something magically improves it, certainly not.
gruen, well we agree about software, tons of trash. That's why I became a programmer, the programs I wanted didn't exist. I actually believe that everyone would be well served to be a programmer/designer/builder, don't simply complain, do something about it. When I retire I plan to design and build my own house.
Here is a quote I read from an architect (Gary Brewer of Robert A.M. Stern) “Because of [architects’] complete lack of interest in traditional design, we’re kind of responsible for McMansions.” That sums it up.
Wouldn't the Houzz website be a place where you can chat with like minds about cornices, grand entrances, crown moulding, and other traditional jewelry? Of course you will have to deal with redwood decks on double-wides too, but I think they will give you the high fives you are desiring.
Way to move the goal posts in your favour with that quote, it demonstrates nothing but your inability to think logically. Stick with your computer games and leave the difficult topics to the grown ups.
There is nothing we can say that will make a difference. The blind and willful ignorance of the OP is astounding. I'm so glad my life is fulfilling enough that I don't have to spend my days going to forums for topics about which I know nothing and belittle everyone there so I can feel superior.
Is this really what the internet has turned us into? Pitiful.
Le Corbusier was a sympathizer of the Reicht in WWII. Some of his letters have recently come to the fore which leave little doubt. In fact the Swiss, who recently were going to name a park in his honor, have demurred. I am quite sure had the Germans succeeded Corb would have happily flattened Paris to build his "Radiant City".
This "high-tech neo-arts-and-craft post-post-modernism" style of contemporary architecture is total shit. Not only is it total shit, it's expensive shit with so many unnecessary flourishes that have zero functional purposes.
we gave you lots of good information to think about, yet you didn't take any time to think about it. you just have your bias, and refuse to let in any real life to influence that ideology. there is no point in engaging in a conversation if you refuse to try to understand the opposing arguments, especially when those opposing arguments happen to be from people who have spent a lot more time studying the issue and have considerable more resources available to them on the topic.
i couldn't help but notice you referred to us as "leftist." are you a tea-partier? is that why you want to return to rebuild hitler's germany? is that why you say "don't complain," but all you do is blame and complain, just like paul ryan is doing with his witch hunt against kathleen sebelius?
This is just so Hilarious. I am enjoying it immensely. I just went back to the "Couple of Swoops" bit. That is really killer.
"Couple of swoops."
Truth be told, as ALL architects know, it takes precisely seven (7) swoops to design a building. The first two are the pretty obvious ones. Y'know, "Duh". But to learn how to do the other five, it requires five to seven additional years of education. Gotsta git them swoops just right.
Hey did this clown ever tell us what kind of phone he has, or car he drives?
I was calling those who introduced modernism 100 years ago leftists, not you . And hitler's socialist party embraced their own brand of modern architecture, so enough with this 'why are you trying to rebuilt hitler's empire'. Are you so out of touch and entrenched in modernism that you see the fascist architecture as neoclassicism? Well the rest of the world does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_architecture Fascist styled architecture is a branch of modernist architecture which became popular in the early 20th century. The fascist style was also greatly influenced by the rationalist movement in Italy in the 1920s. Rationalist architecture, with the help of Italian government support, celebrated the new fascist age of culture and government in Italy.[8]
And are you really going to pull paul ryan and kathleen sebelius into this discussion?
Yes I did reply to you Menona, I said that I am dissatisfied with design in general, but architecture most of all being we are constantly seeing what it once was and what it could have been.
Neoclassical architecture was the preferred style by the leaders of the National Socialist movement in the Third Reich, especially admired by Adolf Hitler himself. Hitler commissioned his favourite architect, Albert Speer, to plan a re-design of Berlin as a city comprising imposing neoclassical structures, which would be renamed as Welthauptstadt Germania, the centrepiece of Hitler's Thousand Year Reich. These plans never came to fruition due to the eventual downfall of Nazi Germany and the suicide of its leader.[24]
Adolf Hitler was an admirer of imperial Rome and believed that some ancient Germans had, over time, become part of its social fabric and exerted influence on it. He considered the Romans an early Aryan empire, and emulated their architecture in an original style inspired by both neoclassicism and art deco
also, at the root of it i think any discussion of hitler is closely associated with paul ryan.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
I have bad taste? Well me along with 2 millennia of human society. It's a good thing you men have come along to set us all straight.
Much of society does, in my opinion, have bad taste.
And have for the last several thousand years?
Are these the same people who spend their vacations traveling to European and South American cities to experience the "old towns" inside ancient city walls? And stay in ancient former monistaries and convents that somehow have been converted to amazing small luxury hotels, in spit of being hundreds of years old. Those tasteless people?
Suri, sure...bad taste is not a new thing....although bad taste really peaked during the victorian era. Victorians are the poster child of bad taste.
So the script says.
Fine Suri, give us some tangible evidence that the "general public" wants every building to look like a giant gothic cathedral instead of making unfounded generalizations such as: "they will tell you that they haven't seen a building built in the last 80s years that truly inspires them or that they would care if it was torn down tomorrow and replaced"
Then maybe we will begin to buy into your argument.
Well, there is the Victorian-era Crystal Palace that seems to have presaged a certain movement. And this was well before the Bauhause - shocking!
Sure nice, look at the architecture in video games.
are you talking about ancient architecture, 2,000 year old architecture, maybe renaissance architecture from around the 15th or 16th century, or as you originally claimed, the stuff from 1930, which is 80 years old? seems to me you have changed your position considerably, unless your education in architectural history actually has you believing the stylistic trend of what jesus was building is the same thing the greeks were doing at their height, which is the same as the romans were doing at their height, which is the same as the europeans were doing during the industrial revolution, which is the same as the house sears shipped via railroad.
2 millennia of human society did not agree that "traditional" architecture from 80 years ago (1930) was better than mid-centruy modern (around1950, inspired at least in part by bauhaus or the international style). the math just doesn't work. your ability to troll a forum has decreased considerably. you now seem to be suggesting that all of human history is preferable to the narrow period of time you happen to be living. when people say the grass is greener on the other side, the grass isn't really greener on the other side.
Do any architects take theory of aesthetics? I am the only one perhaps, I took it as an elective cause I was interested in what pleases people. The big take aways are 1. what is pleasing to people is shaped by personal experiences. and 2. realness is a big factor of aesthetics. In architecture, creating something real is of high importance, it is very very important to architects. Less important is an architecture that is pleasing by a personal experience (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). I'm already being overly didactic today, so to understand aesthetic, I find it helpful to think of the word anesthetic. The stuff you put on your paper cuts. It dulls the senses and produces numbness. So aesthetic means to please the senses. It is subjective. But you gotta make it real too because you don't want a phoney assaulting the senses!
curtkram, western architecture has always been a living language, until modernism.
Society called, it said to stop putting words in its mouth.
lol. no, western architecture has always been a living language, including modernism.
real in what sense there is no there?
The realer the better, suri.
having visited gropius' bauhaus in dessau i can say that it's *absolutely* clear that is was done by an architect educated in classical architecture. it's nothing if not a continuation of a living language of architecture. you can practically feel it when you stand in front of it.
curtkram, are you telling me that modernism did not diametrically appose every aspect of western-architecture point by point? That it was not in fact the anti western architecture.? That was the whole purpose, to throw away the language... It is not a progression of western architecture, it was year zero, and what we have now has nothing whatsoever to do with what came before. You might say, "but look at all these traditional elements, all these symbolic remnants of western architecture. clearly this is of the same progression" What has actually happened is that modernism was betrayed by its own progeny. in the spirit of "we are in fact the true enlightened generation", post modernism has tried to bastardize traditional architectural elements and symbolism into the modernist framework. A childish act of rebellion? of course, that spirit of rebellion is key to the whole movement, each generation rebels against its prior. This series of rebellions is not a progression at all, and even if it is, the initial introduction of moderism was not, we would have to return to before that point (that wiping of the slate) to consider now to be truly part of the legacy of western architecture.
Suri, I think, via your posts, that I am understanding what type of architecture you have come to love, neo-classical and neo-traditional. like the following examples:
So, yeah neo-classical at its height....
Now I invite you to a bit of a revelation as to why this style (amongst others) practically disappeared after 1945. (with some generalizations to not keep this too long)...
Ready? Good....
As I said previously, architecture, both traditionally and contemporary variants, is not just a product of a random vision. It is a social product, the styles reflect the attitudes, values and political/religious ideology (and symbols) or the time they are created. In short, architecture will tell you a lot about what a society holds as mores and norms. This is true for capital A architecture (public and monumental) and vernacular (such as residential) architecture. What you have been pointing us to as your desired resurrection is what is typified in Architecture of the periods you are longing for.
After 1918 there was a shift starting in architecture, this of course was due to the massive need to rebuild Europe following that little skirmish you may have forgotten about called World War 1. Many architects at the time felt that the costs of re-building true to the old form of the old structures was counter-productive. Technology and the way we live had changed since the renaissance, people wanted new more affordable housing. Styles came about to fulfill this need. Most housing of the era was simple, with mass produced decoration fitted to a basic square or rectangular layout, allowing for housing to be built that was not only more economically sound, but offered electrical (as older buildings often did not have electricity, or were retrofitted with gas fixtures) and heating improvements as well as offering health improvements such as windows for light and air and running water. So housing was evolving and people wanted what people were designing.
In America, returning soldiers wanted to move out of the cramped apartments and smog filled factory and downtown districts of the cities. Residential communities with single family homes sprouted up in droves to fill the demand, along with them came the pattern houses and basic homes that you have been longing for. To make a long story short, housing was designed to fill the demand, wood framing proliferated and masonry fell into disuse by the masses. The rich on the other-hand were able to afford the cost associated with the traditional techniques (as opposed to the ornamentation of the working class [imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right?] so they utilized the artisans and built beautiful homes like the Gamble house.
Ok, still with me....
Capital A Architecture, however, still tended toward neo-classicism, as it embodied the political ideal of the strong state (being representative and derived from the great empires of Rome and Greece). This idea in particular was snatched onto by an upstart political party in Germany who adopted the Neo-Classical style as its defacto style (coupled with a touch of art deco). This party? The National Socialist German Workers Party, in other words, the Nazis.
So I'm sure you remember what happened between 1933 and 1945, lots of atrocities, genocide, expulsions/refugees and war.
So again in 1945 Europe was faced with the prospect of rebuilding. They did however agree on one thing, the ideals of the Third Reich were ostracized, including the love of traditional styles. Governments the world over sought to distance themselves from the Nazis. Artist and architects of the day had been exploring architecture as an experience, defined not by traditional rules or ornamentation, but by the interplay of spaces (inside and out), expressing the qualities of the materials and opening up the spaces. Public architecture gobbled it up, it was so distinctily different from the traditional styles that it represented the fresh outlook toward the futre that governments were seeking to display.
This architectural intent trickled down to the masses via private buildings such as skyscrapers and office buildings. Eventually it came to the masses as modern, mid-century modern and then evolved to post-modern.
Now as to the average working man, he still could not afford that architect designed house, but opportunity knocks and along with some clever marketing and government subsidies (including specific GI loans) the modern suburb and cookie-cutter house came onto the scene around 1948, just in time for the baby boom! These houses offered safe communities that delivered you from the cramped inner-city communities of the 20's and gave you the single family home with white picket fence, large yard, garage and simple luxurious drive to work.
ffwd a few decades of this same pattern and we get to the late 1970's where people started to question modernism and its implications, especially the carte-blache destruction of old communities and old buildings that were torn down and replaced with modern and brutalist interpretations.
This resurgence of interest in the traditional led developer housing to swing back to a sudo-traditional feel. Houses were still boxes, but decoration could be added to make it have a certain look to comply with what 'the people' wanted.
What do the people want you ask? well that is easy, look at our society and you can see why housing is the way it is, we live in a mass-produced disposable society. Developers will happily sell you what you want, so we get today's McMansions with their lack of traditional feel.
So, now that I've told you a story, do you see what I am getting at?
-Architecture reflects the socio-political and economic attitudes of the day
-The housing you see around you IS what people want, whether they realize it or not, they feed the monster, if they truly did not want it it would change, simple supply and demand economics
-The influences that made neo-traditional movements go out of fashion are not simple causal relationships, architects did not wake up in 1945 and say I think I'll design 'crap' from now on according to what I think people want, it is SO MUCH DEEPER THAN THAT
Maybe you will read this and get a slight clue, maybe I've wasted 30 minutes typing my thoughts on this, who knows. You need to be educated in how the world works and why things are the way they are.
By the way the neo-classical architecture above is the vision of the Third Reich.
I appreciate traditional styles, I appreciate the craftsmanship and beauty of them. I have also learned to appreciate modernism and the movements flowing from it, why because I took the time to learn what the originators behind it were trying to convey and how to look at the originals and not the attempted copies.
Oh, and here is an example of a contemporary architect that does produce tasteful well crafted housing:
the world changed. the industrial revolution changed. the materials we used to build things changed. the nature of war changed. a lot really important things were happening in that area at that time. the modernism promoted by bauhaus reflected those changes. some of it was political and/or theoretical, but you should understand a lot of it was just accepting they had to work with what they had to work with. there were rebellions against modernism, such as the arts and crafts movement, but the thing that has made modernism stick is because it simply accepts the reality of it's time. that's why you're talking about modernism now instead of any of the anciallary movements like post-modernism or the high-tech movement or deconstruction. you should also understand that pretty much everyone involved in the original bauhaus school were trained by the older generation of architects. they didn't really create the architecture you don't like, that already happened a long time ago with people like peter behrens. the people you don't like are just the ones that got their names printed. they were building on the language that the previous generation wrote, which was building off the previous generation.
it's not the first time the world changed, and it's not the first time architecture changed.
you've gotten a pretty good education for free today. too bad you can't think through opinions outside your narrow focus.
I believe the Arts and Crafts movement to be a part of modernism, and a rebellion to the victorian movement. We can't view modernism as anti-craftmanship. There was a sect of modernism that rebelled against modernism...such as Elizabeth Gordon, as editor of House Beautiful magazine at mid century promoting her own (with Frank Lloyd Wright) definition of modernism, rebelling against the nternationalists.
Suri.....Flying buttress....thumbs up or thumbs down?
marisco, I appreciate your points and understand that some of the reason we ended up this way is all of our faults (not just the acedemics) but those examples, that fascist architecture, is not neoclassicism, but is yet another branch of modern architecture. clearly.
Arts and crafts, was definitely a precursor movement to modernism. It was a reaction to the mass-production of industrialization, it was felt that the rise of the machine age was relegating the artisan to irrelevance. One designer could make millions of identical pieces, the designer then oses relevance as their skill is not needed to produce their product. A&C artists and architects wanted to recapture the relevance of their professions and therefore pushed against industrialization trying to highlight the skill of the artisan and the value they bring to projects. This is not unlike the struggle contemporary architects and designers face today.
It is but one of many movements that pushed against the status-quo and culminated in the modernist movement
umm yes, those examples are neo-classicism, they follow the pattern of Vitruvian and Palladian ideals and are derived from Roman and Greek examples. Classicism was originally State (IMPERIAL) architecture. It is meant, in its form and proportions to relay the fact that the State is greater than the individual, the individual is small and insignificant in relation to the power of the State (or deity).
Gothic architecture (and Neo-gothic) also convey this idea. When you go into a Gothic Cathedral, pay attention to how it is built. The basic cathedral layout is derived from the Roman Basilica. The building is designed to convey the greatness of God and how small humans are in comparison. Everything is designed to draw your eyes up and the structure is designed to look lighter as you look up, referring to the glory and light emanating from God that we are trying to reach.
Both of these styles lend themselves well as an allegory for political control and hence State architecture. Hence why they have been adopted and used for centuries to convey the message of power and dominance over the individual.
You honestly don't think that Classicism and Gothic influences in early American architecture were because they looked 'pretty' do you?
You want to know what the average everyday man lived in? A hovel that was a box with little to no windows and few of the luxuries afforded to the rich who held the power and wanted to express that in their buildings. It is a shame the rich felt the working class/slaves/servants homes of old were worthless and only saved their monuments to themselves. Then maybe you would not long for an age where the true political and societal reasons behind what you desire reigned supreme.
You need to understand that what you are longing for is a dream, it is a romantic ideal, an imagining of what you think life was like back then, of what you think houses were and stood for. You are trying to grasp onto an idea that allows you to escape the realities of modern society that you disagree with. Maybe it stems from a nostalgic look on an event or place from your childhood or an imagined fantasy of the old world, I am not going to try to psycho-analyse you.
History unfortunately only shows us a skewed view of what really was.
Suri...Foam cornices ...Yay or nay?
+++ SneakyPete
Marisco...that is a good point, so far the examaple our good traditional friend has shown us are, one one the country's largest mansions, and a huge university building....those are her examples of what Architecture today should emulate.
But it kind of already does! Go to any community with McMansions, and all the bad traditional architectural cliche's are well represented. Drive a bit further...you have typical suburban neighborhoods also with some of the same thing, only a bit smaller...Most Americans want to be what they are not...they want their 4 bedroom home to look like the Mcmansions a few miles away, behind the gate..Drive closer to the city or in the city...Condos, with more typical traditional detailing trying to look like what it is not. Suri already has what she wants! She just does not want forward thinking design distracting her view of fake traditionalville.
There are plenty of architects that design classical houses that are in no way "McMansions". They are built with traditional materials and built to last. in the early days of this country a lot of the homes were built from plan books and modified as needed and desired by the owners and builders. The idea that everyone either lived in Newport mansions or hovels is absurd.
Volunteer - I didn't mean to imply that there were only the two extremes, I was merely trying to get the point across that the average Joe (middle and lower class) did not live in the housing that typically has survived and been cataloged as traditional or historical during the last 2000 years that Suri has been referring to.
Specific to the late 19th and early 20th Century, I do recognize that many kit and pattern homes have survived and offer an interesting look at a movement to bring architecture to the masses at an affordable price. I also applaud the efforts of The Architects' Small Home Service Bureau in attempting to connect architects and the average citizen (even if they were shut down). Heck there were even Starcitects during the early 20c that tried to address the issue (Frank Lloyd Wright, etc.)
I think the bigger issue is whether architects have pulled away too much from the residential sector, instead tending to focus on certain sectors of the residential industry and leaving the bulk to developers and home builders. Herein lies the basis of Suri's misconceptions, the majority of current housing stock is builder/developer driven and therefore not reflective of the quality or detail that architects can and do provide (regardless of stylistic influence). Suri seems to think it is, and therefore that a return to what he/she deems traditional is warranted.
131 posts in one day, that must be a record. I assume the only reason the thread stopped is that suri's speedball wore off.
marisco, fascist architecture is not neoclassicism, it is modernist. And I am perfectly aware that it has classical elements, but it's clearly modernist, in every way. I may not have any formal training in architectural history but I am not a child whom you can pat on the head and feed complete b.s. expecting me to swallow it (regardless of if it seems so)
You are hung up on this idea of my presumed idealism. A traditional sense of aesthetics has nothing to do with idealism. There is nothing more natural than to be presented with A and B and be able to clearly see A as superior regardless of if the elite insist that its B. To recognize the superiority of 19th century architecture does not magically bring along the baggage of 19th century politics or quality of life, that is a ridiculous notion that you all keep making. Smog and night-soil trucks are not in fact going to start poring out of a traditionally built neighborhood. Idealism is in fact believing that a bunch of leftist whiz kids came along and corrected 2000 years of architectural 'folly' with a couple swoops of their drafting pen (because lets face it, a couple swoops is all that it takes to draft a modernist blueprint)
Kevin, as to flying buttresses and cornice, do you want designs I like which include them? If you are asking if I think slapping them onto something magically improves it, certainly not.
Suri, you must be fun at dinner parties. The depths of your ignorance knows no bounds. Irrelevant appeal to tradition much?
"You are hung up on this idea of my presumed..."
We're hung up on your presumptions. Full stop.
gruen, well we agree about software, tons of trash. That's why I became a programmer, the programs I wanted didn't exist. I actually believe that everyone would be well served to be a programmer/designer/builder, don't simply complain, do something about it. When I retire I plan to design and build my own house.
"don't simply complain"
Take your own advice. Not "When I retire". Now.
Or simply go away.
Here is a quote I read from an architect (Gary Brewer of Robert A.M. Stern) “Because of [architects’] complete lack of interest in traditional design, we’re kind of responsible for McMansions.” That sums it up.
Wouldn't the Houzz website be a place where you can chat with like minds about cornices, grand entrances, crown moulding, and other traditional jewelry? Of course you will have to deal with redwood decks on double-wides too, but I think they will give you the high fives you are desiring.
Way to move the goal posts in your favour with that quote, it demonstrates nothing but your inability to think logically. Stick with your computer games and leave the difficult topics to the grown ups.
There is nothing we can say that will make a difference. The blind and willful ignorance of the OP is astounding. I'm so glad my life is fulfilling enough that I don't have to spend my days going to forums for topics about which I know nothing and belittle everyone there so I can feel superior.
Is this really what the internet has turned us into? Pitiful.
Le Corbusier was a sympathizer of the Reicht in WWII. Some of his letters have recently come to the fore which leave little doubt. In fact the Swiss, who recently were going to name a park in his honor, have demurred. I am quite sure had the Germans succeeded Corb would have happily flattened Paris to build his "Radiant City".
I will sympathize with the OP only lightly:
This "high-tech neo-arts-and-craft post-post-modernism" style of contemporary architecture is total shit. Not only is it total shit, it's expensive shit with so many unnecessary flourishes that have zero functional purposes.
i'm kind of surprised the OP came back.
we gave you lots of good information to think about, yet you didn't take any time to think about it. you just have your bias, and refuse to let in any real life to influence that ideology. there is no point in engaging in a conversation if you refuse to try to understand the opposing arguments, especially when those opposing arguments happen to be from people who have spent a lot more time studying the issue and have considerable more resources available to them on the topic.
i couldn't help but notice you referred to us as "leftist." are you a tea-partier? is that why you want to return to rebuild hitler's germany? is that why you say "don't complain," but all you do is blame and complain, just like paul ryan is doing with his witch hunt against kathleen sebelius?
This is just so Hilarious. I am enjoying it immensely. I just went back to the "Couple of Swoops" bit. That is really killer.
"Couple of swoops."
Truth be told, as ALL architects know, it takes precisely seven (7) swoops to design a building. The first two are the pretty obvious ones. Y'know, "Duh". But to learn how to do the other five, it requires five to seven additional years of education. Gotsta git them swoops just right.
Hey did this clown ever tell us what kind of phone he has, or car he drives?
Back to swooping.
I was calling those who introduced modernism 100 years ago leftists, not you . And hitler's socialist party embraced their own brand of modern architecture, so enough with this 'why are you trying to rebuilt hitler's empire'. Are you so out of touch and entrenched in modernism that you see the fascist architecture as neoclassicism? Well the rest of the world does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_architecture Fascist styled architecture is a branch of modernist architecture which became popular in the early 20th century. The fascist style was also greatly influenced by the rationalist movement in Italy in the 1920s. Rationalist architecture, with the help of Italian government support, celebrated the new fascist age of culture and government in Italy.[8]
And are you really going to pull paul ryan and kathleen sebelius into this discussion?
Yes I did reply to you Menona, I said that I am dissatisfied with design in general, but architecture most of all being we are constantly seeing what it once was and what it could have been.
i have you trumped, because you only have wikipedia, but i have both wikipedia and an education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_architecture
The Third Reich
Main article: Nazi architecture
Neoclassical architecture was the preferred style by the leaders of the National Socialist movement in the Third Reich, especially admired by Adolf Hitler himself. Hitler commissioned his favourite architect, Albert Speer, to plan a re-design of Berlin as a city comprising imposing neoclassical structures, which would be renamed as Welthauptstadt Germania, the centrepiece of Hitler's Thousand Year Reich. These plans never came to fruition due to the eventual downfall of Nazi Germany and the suicide of its leader.[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_architecture
Adolf Hitler was an admirer of imperial Rome and believed that some ancient Germans had, over time, become part of its social fabric and exerted influence on it. He considered the Romans an early Aryan empire, and emulated their architecture in an original style inspired by both neoclassicism and art deco
also, at the root of it i think any discussion of hitler is closely associated with paul ryan.
Suri, have you ever opened an architectural history book? It would help.
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.