" 'of our time' just means a building designed and built in the time we live, with the materials, methods, financing, scheduling, etc., available in our time. it's not trying to be something else."
This describes literally every building I have ever done. In order to violate this definition, I would have to transport materials, craftsmen, financiers and schedulers from the past to the present in a time machine. No need at all - I have it all right here in the "continuous now".
I suspect what you really mean is that buildings need to LOOK as though they reflect an aesthetic that seems "of our time".
I put very little stock in the idea of a zeitgeist. I am much more interested in what we share with human beings across the centuries than how we are different from them.
"Nothing ages faster than yesterday's vision of the future" - Witold Rybczynski
By that definition, curt, all buildings not clad in ETFE today are not of their time.
How passé. Fullerenes and graphene are the materials of our time tomorrow. Why work in the past?
So what architecture is of our time? What music is of our time, what literature is of our time, what narrow cultural stream would those who insist on this definition like us to believe is the appropriate cultural expression of out time? I'd love to hear the answer as well.
Simple: whatever sells, or more critically, whatever is sold.
emmexxthree Why should architecture be of its time?
I don't actually think thats a sincere question emmexxthree and the position of sincerity you assume renders it doubly insincere - it would have been more sincere of you to read people's arguments here wherein answers have already been given or suggested. One cannot just go back to drag everyone back to square one when there's already an archive. its disrespectful; people have already expended effort on this. Regardless, the answer is contained within the question. Architecture -and everything else- cannot be defined outside time.
Why should history stop for architecture at a certain epoque, a certain style? But then more 'on the ground' and more interestingly, who gives someone the authority to dictate this cessation, how would you enforce it, by what right would you enfoce it?
Either you need consensus for that to happen - you don't have it, obviously. And it seems the more this topic is held to scrutiny, the more tattered it becomes, the less meaning terms such as "traditional" have.
Or you need to create a form of traditionalist architecture police to enforce this circumscription preventing anyone from practicing their right (which you might deem not to be a right) to expand upon architecture.
Again, history is its own proof. its displays both change and development., if the Ancient Greek, Roman, Gothic, Renaissance, ...etc eras were dependent on people like Thayer and co, there simply would never have been civilizations. their prespective is fundamentally anti-civilizational behind a civilizationally fundamentalist guise.
reminds me of our problem with fundamentalist so called Islamists (and indeed ultra orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians) who have a very fucked up idea of history and a very fucked up idea of the origin of their purported ideas.
"Or you need to create a form of traditionalist architecture police to enforce this circumscription preventing anyone from practicing their right (which you might deem not to be a right) to expand upon architecture."
This is preposterous. The Modernist design police have been running the academies and the press for 80 years. Who's really the fundamentalists here?
I like your definition Miles. I also subscribe to EKE's definition. Ironically, Curtkram's definition is a relic of the past. He's entitled to work within whatever constraints he'd like to impose on himself, but to indoctrinate young architects is why so many architects are incapable of designing passable work within a traditional context. I don't know what an i-phone design has to do with the vuilt wncironment, But if one sees no "value" in harmony, then I'm not sure what to tell you. It takes practice, and school is the place to start.
Nov 15, 13 10:02 am ·
·
"Face the facts, you're all old-fashioned!"
This is almost correct. Actually, you are all fashionistas, weather you are old or new is irrelevance.
You all bemoan the rish & powerful but do you ever ask, what is the source of their power? Maybe it is a star, maybe all the stars, maybe the ritual blood sacrifices, and meybe even their ceremonial architectture itself which remains consistent & universal?
You believe that you exercise free will by chasing the fashion. But you misunderstand. Architect is often described as archi + tect from some old words meaning masterbuilder. but this interpretation plays to your vanity, self-worship just like your false "education" does. Better off flipping the interpretation and understanding it as building + mastery or, more directly, building for masters. you know you build crap, but why? what is the plan?
Handsum, how people like you and the OP of the topic manage to cross a street without walking in front of a bus is some form of sorcery.
I swear, if only my retirement planner had told me to invest in tin-foil... that shit's going to be worth more than Apple soon with all this free flowing nonsense. oops, should I arbitrarily bold and italicize words to make my ramble look authentic?
the origin of the word architect translates to master builder, but architects of today are master designers, master schemers, we make markings. Although I AM tiling my bathroom my damn self and it looks good, and feels good to get into the material. I feel like a sculptor.
Tammuz, you can't even hear your own bigotry. I've called for a widening of differing view points while you are the one claiming some shouldn't be allowed by putting up straw man arguments. "Why should history stop? Who should enforce it's cessation? By what authority?" Dude, what planet are you living on? It's telling you should bring up fundamentalism , because that's exactly what I've been arguing against. Like EKE has pointed out that his practice has a modernist side and a classical side. No one's denying people the right to practice as they'd like more than your kind. Mind you, if the shoe where on the other foot, I have no doubt that modernists would be calling for inclusiveness, despite their tabula rasa mantra from the early days.
Suri, can you tell me more about how you design? I understand you are a software designer, is that right? I am reading about software design theory during my morning coffee/necting.
I'd like to know. It could be a good thing if he pioneered another planet. He could be the dictator of both architectural education and architectural design as he sees fit, which sometimes seems convoluted because we really can't tell what he likes and dislikes through his complaints.
so eke, you design and build buildings, as requested by your clients, in the context of the time you live, with the materials and methods and contractors and tools that are most appropriate for the time you live in. then what's the point of attaching forms and/or ornaments that are symbolic of a context that is not the time and place you're designing for? in the debate between 'traditional v. modern,' it would seem your making a lot of modern choices, and only choosing the few 'traditional' pieces that suit your aesthetic. those symbols were developed when designing and building buildings with a different set of tools, different context, etc.
if that's what your client wants, then i'm glad you can provide it in a way that is historically sensitive and doesn't suck. i'm not saying there is anything wrong with what you're doing, and i'm not indoctrinating or saying you should stop and design what i like. if the reason you like traditional design is because that's what you get paid for, then i think that's a great reason. i just don't think there is any sort of spiritual or super-human meaning behind symbols of the past. they're just symbols of the past.
for those of you that like to pretend your a victim of some elaborate conspiracy to undermine 'traditional' design, or if you think your a martyr for a cause greater than yourself, i honestly believe you're wrong. there is no conspiracy. people who teach modern design do so because they want to, and because that's their job. the same can be said for people who teach architectural history. you guys are paranoid to the point where you're reading things into what i'm saying, and sometimes what other people are saying, and you're making baseless assumptions as to the intent of what i'm saying, and sometimes what others are saying. pretending like i'm out to get you so you can play a victim and troll the internet as the poor helpless 'traditionalist' is not a becoming character trait. whenever you're ready to grow up and participate in adult conversations, you can read what is written, do your best to understand it, and respond to it without cherry picking the parts that suit your desire to be a martyr, and without creating false assumptions that change the meaning of what is being said to suit your feelings of being the helpless victim.
I understand that the modernists in this debate use the Greek Temple and its construction as an archetype for the obsolescence of traditional architecture, but what about the other methods of construction in traditional architecture? Wood Framing, Loadbearing Masonry, and (don't forget the romans) concrete: Those systems are very much alive and in practice today, not lease because they're included in our building codes! Heck, even if we've largely replaced loadbearing brick with CMU, I have no doubt that a designer with skill in traditional architecture shouldn't be able to design up with something successful with Masonry Block. The architects of the past made it work with stone block of various sizes, so the dimensions of masonry block souldn't be an impediment.
Donna,
I don't believe that architecture should be categorized in the same camp as other "designed objects", because my observation is that humans have a different relationship with their tools than they do with their dwellings. This appears to be the case despite what le Corbusier and his contemporaries have said about architecture as a "machine for living" (machines are, after all, just tools with some degree of automation). It would certainly explain the countless people who live in traditional homes and enjoy modern technology simultaneously.
To elaborate on the distinction between tools and dwellings: It's obvious to every human that our tools go through a cycle of usefulness before they're rendered obsolete by successive ones that are more efficient. All of our tools go through a life cycle of usefulness and extinction. And I think we can all agree that no human, including those who love traditional architecture, would ever depend daily on an obsolete and less efficient tool for the purposes of nostalgia. Dwellings, on the other hand, have always had very different kind of life cycle. Humans have an innate attraction to buildings which present a strength and persistence through time, and then they love and care for those buildings for as long as possible. That particular behavior is way too widespread to be dismissed as anachronistic or uneducated.
I'm not the one calling people names. I've simply, very calmly stated my position on this all along. I'm anything but an internet troll, and I'm certainly not a victim - never said that.
I understand your position. I know that most modern architects and artists have so invested in the idea of a zeitgeist, and a "ladder of progress" culminating in a superior "architecture of today" that they can't understand that other people may not view that as a valid model. Based on that wordview, anyone who believes that an aesthetic approach that was employed by people in the past could be valid today must me in the grips of a sad, romantic nostalgia.
Nostalgia has absolutely nothing to do with why I love classical architecture. It has everything to do with my belief that there are universal truths about human nature and the world around us that have not changed over the centuries. As I have said, we are not our technology, and I have no interest in obsessing on it. If you do, go for it.
To add my two cents here, another reason for why "we" architects won't design what "you" the public want, is because we care about our environment- little gambrel roofs sprinkled with some ionic columns and paved driveways is reminiscent of planning that is unsustainable! It reminds me of suburbia and Toll Brothers! ...and Toll Brothers is not a developer I'd like to work for... ever! Just look at the image on the main page- http://www.tollbrothers.com/?cmpid=G2113&gclid=CNPMvbmh57oCFQ7xOgodc3UAEA
I guess the OP likes Toll Brothers, at least their aesthetic...
BulgarBlogger, I will add my two cents to your last comment. I have done several projects for Toll Brothers. One was a clubhouse for one of their communities that they never used. I liked my design and thought it would be a good match, but maybe it looked too traditional, and not McMansion-y enough. I did another clubhouse for them, and they added clunky dormers and made some other changes after the fact (i.e., that were not on the permit or construction drawings!) that really soured it for me. They are an example, to me, of the lack of understanding of traditional design today that gives it a bad name. And yes, they have architects on their staff who were trained in modernist schools and don't really understand traditional architecture.
the latest comments can be summarized as falling on one of the various sides of the "what does it mean to be of the/our/its time" and how does it apply to architecture and the built environment.
Bulgar, considering that the public is interested in traditional design, what would you say to this?
“Because of [architects’] complete lack of interest in traditional design, we’re kind of responsible for McMansions.” --Gary L. Brewer, AIA, a partner at Robert A.M Stern Architects
"Suri, can you tell me more about how you design? I understand you are a software designer, is that right? I am reading about software design theory during my morning coffee/necting." Is it offensive to you that the public has an interest in architecture?
"I didn't know someone wrote an Ornament and Crime For Dummies. Such a shame the way that text gets garbled." So if you have a problem with it, point out where I miss represented the text. http://www.gwu.edu/~art/Temporary_SL/177/pdfs/Loos.pdf
suri, you've again failed to remember that your narrow views on architecture are not respective of the public. If you stepped away from obsessively masturbating at the replies of this tread, you may see it.
“Because of [architects’] complete lack of interest in traditional design, we’re kind of responsible for McMansions.” --Gary L. Brewer, AIA, a partner at Robert A.M Stern Architects
I think that is total bullshit. Have you ever heard the phrase, "If it ain't broke don't fix it?"
That is the mentality of every client. Some of the rich clients that live in suburbia have millions of dollars and don't know shit about class... They are classless people who feed their sense of taste from what their neighbor did. Its a culture of regurgitation. I am sure there are many architects who are INTERESTED in traditional design, but their clients just want exactly what their neighbor has next door... and that is... a 3 car parking garage, ionic columns, and and some manicured lawn. The rest is for the housewife interior design wannabe to figure out.
Is it offensive to you that the public has an interest in architecture? No, why do you ask? I was reading about top down and bottom up processing (for other reasons) and I was curious and did some searching and saw that it is something common in software design circles. That is what sparked my interest. Made me think of you and this discussion.
"then what's the point of attaching forms and/or ornaments that are symbolic of a context that is not the time and place you're designing for? "
If you don't get this you won't ever get anything about people's psychology. Every ornament has a past. Is the modernist style of northern Europe 100 years ago appropriate for the modern world? According to you it wouldn't, yet no one would question someone's personal preference. Even you admitted to that being valid in one of your more lucid moments.
"That is the mentality of every client. Some of the rich clients that live in suburbia have millions of dollars and don't know shit about class... They are classless people who feed their sense of taste from what their neighbor did. Its a culture of regurgitation. I am sure there are many architects who are INTERESTED in traditional design, but their clients just want exactly what their neighbor has next door... and that is... a 3 car parking garage, ionic columns, and and some manicured lawn. The rest is for the housewife interior design wannabe to figure out."
That is quite the cartoon notion you have. Did you learn that from weeds, jersey shore, mtv or was it one of those other hard hitting documentaries on american life?
Obviously that was a stereotype, but 70% of stereotypes are true...
Regardless, here's another related question... What is the fanciest restaurant in Hicksville? I bet you it is some grille or burger place... if it isn't, it probably has a burger on the menu anyway. Food is one of the many indicators of class (and no pun intended- taste), and I contend that many people out there just don't have a developed sense for that... again- they regurgitate what they see. They want to "fit in".
Suri, what if you only had one or the other, just top-down or just bottom up thinking? That is the foolishness of your approach to architecture. Why be so one-sided?
In regards to food, the great chefs of the world aren't all in lock step creating some kind of minimalist practically raw japanese style of cuisine as they are in architecture. Regardless of if the average person like cheeseburgers, they still appreciate the creations of a master chef, and the world is a better place for those creations.
I get it there is no there, you want to me say bottom up so you can use that little line on the bahaus you stumbled across in the Wikipedia article, not interested in playing.
No, actually I was thinking that the best modern designers (not modernist) use both bottom up and top down thinking and that this duality is "of the times". Are you are just as irrelevant as those you love to hate?
It is really fair to be judgmental to the "low culture" populace? Both low-culture and high-culture peoples have something to offer society. And by and large, an equal percentage of each group lives in kitsch houses.
Gruen, people are increasingly semanding and paying for traditional design. Academia will have to follow the market and make sure enough architects can provide it.
fame. they are not. no one wants to own a traditional building. they suck tons of resources, are a bit*h to maintain and can't meet building code. on top of that, many of the types of buildings we build today would never fit in anything 'traditional" without looking like a cartoon.
what they want is something that looks traditional. which is lame.
gruen, no I was not asking for cheeseburgers, not even close. I was asking why all we get are cheeseburgers (cheap poorly designed traditional architecture) because whenever something of style and quality is designed it ends up being modernist (some raw japanese health food that we don't even enjoy) And if they do try to make a traditional dish of quality, the underlying principles of raw japanese health food are still apparent and spoiling the whole dish.
You really don't know what I am trying to say? After this many pages it isn't clear, I am THAT inarticulate? The public wants french and Italian inspired dishes, complex traditional dishes rich with sauces and flavours, I use Japanese as the example being it seems pretty minimalist and raw, I thought that was obvious. Why do you keep feigning to misunderstand? It doesn't help your case to plug your ears and chant la de la.
I am John Ruskin, true arbiter of taste and most knowledgable in all things aesthetic.
ONLY MY OPINION MATTERS!!!
I know what is right and what is simply terrible. I am also omnipotent and know what the public wants - past, present and future.
The answer is GOTHIC and only GOTHIC. Classical is wrong. So all of you are wrong. Only Gothic is in true harmony with man, nature and God. Yes.
And none of this BS using modern tools and such nonsense to fake it - only the old way is the right way. Build it taller till it falls. Then build it again.
"John," you say, "How can I possibly conduct my super modern life in a Gothic building? It just isn't compatible!" Well, can't I buy my Starbucks in the narthex, take my conference call is the confessional and present my Powerpoint slides on the altar screen? Of course I can! All by the unassailable beauty of candlelight. None of you have presented any arguments to counter this. So there you go.
Y'all are wrong wrong wrong.
JOHN RUSKIN HAS SPOKEN!!!!!!!
I will now get back in my time traveling bell tower and deliver my message to the idiots of the 22nd century. Thank you.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
" 'of our time' just means a building designed and built in the time we live, with the materials, methods, financing, scheduling, etc., available in our time. it's not trying to be something else."
This describes literally every building I have ever done. In order to violate this definition, I would have to transport materials, craftsmen, financiers and schedulers from the past to the present in a time machine. No need at all - I have it all right here in the "continuous now".
I suspect what you really mean is that buildings need to LOOK as though they reflect an aesthetic that seems "of our time".
I put very little stock in the idea of a zeitgeist. I am much more interested in what we share with human beings across the centuries than how we are different from them.
"Nothing ages faster than yesterday's vision of the future" - Witold Rybczynski
By that definition, curt, all buildings not clad in ETFE today are not of their time.
How passé. Fullerenes and graphene are the materials of our time tomorrow. Why work in the past?
So what architecture is of our time? What music is of our time, what literature is of our time, what narrow cultural stream would those who insist on this definition like us to believe is the appropriate cultural expression of out time? I'd love to hear the answer as well.
Simple: whatever sells, or more critically, whatever is sold.
emmexxthree Why should architecture be of its time?
I don't actually think thats a sincere question emmexxthree and the position of sincerity you assume renders it doubly insincere - it would have been more sincere of you to read people's arguments here wherein answers have already been given or suggested. One cannot just go back to drag everyone back to square one when there's already an archive. its disrespectful; people have already expended effort on this. Regardless, the answer is contained within the question. Architecture -and everything else- cannot be defined outside time.
Why should history stop for architecture at a certain epoque, a certain style? But then more 'on the ground' and more interestingly, who gives someone the authority to dictate this cessation, how would you enforce it, by what right would you enfoce it?
Either you need consensus for that to happen - you don't have it, obviously. And it seems the more this topic is held to scrutiny, the more tattered it becomes, the less meaning terms such as "traditional" have.
Or you need to create a form of traditionalist architecture police to enforce this circumscription preventing anyone from practicing their right (which you might deem not to be a right) to expand upon architecture.
Again, history is its own proof. its displays both change and development., if the Ancient Greek, Roman, Gothic, Renaissance, ...etc eras were dependent on people like Thayer and co, there simply would never have been civilizations. their prespective is fundamentally anti-civilizational behind a civilizationally fundamentalist guise.
reminds me of our problem with fundamentalist so called Islamists (and indeed ultra orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians) who have a very fucked up idea of history and a very fucked up idea of the origin of their purported ideas.
"Or you need to create a form of traditionalist architecture police to enforce this circumscription preventing anyone from practicing their right (which you might deem not to be a right) to expand upon architecture."
This is preposterous. The Modernist design police have been running the academies and the press for 80 years. Who's really the fundamentalists here?
I like your definition Miles. I also subscribe to EKE's definition. Ironically, Curtkram's definition is a relic of the past. He's entitled to work within whatever constraints he'd like to impose on himself, but to indoctrinate young architects is why so many architects are incapable of designing passable work within a traditional context. I don't know what an i-phone design has to do with the vuilt wncironment, But if one sees no "value" in harmony, then I'm not sure what to tell you. It takes practice, and school is the place to start.
"Face the facts, you're all old-fashioned!"
This is almost correct. Actually, you are all fashionistas, weather you are old or new is irrelevance.
You all bemoan the rish & powerful but do you ever ask, what is the source of their power? Maybe it is a star, maybe all the stars, maybe the ritual blood sacrifices, and meybe even their ceremonial architectture itself which remains consistent & universal?
You believe that you exercise free will by chasing the fashion. But you misunderstand. Architect is often described as archi + tect from some old words meaning master builder. but this interpretation plays to your vanity, self-worship just like your false "education" does. Better off flipping the interpretation and understanding it as building + mastery or, more directly, building for masters. you know you build crap, but why? what is the plan?
Trees know more than you.
trees can't run away if I approach one with my axe. I refute it thus.
Exactly! Rather than learn, you cut & kill. You damn fucking fool.
Handsum, how people like you and the OP of the topic manage to cross a street without walking in front of a bus is some form of sorcery.
I swear, if only my retirement planner had told me to invest in tin-foil... that shit's going to be worth more than Apple soon with all this free flowing nonsense. oops, should I arbitrarily bold and italicize words to make my ramble look authentic?
the origin of the word architect translates to master builder, but architects of today are master designers, master schemers, we make markings. Although I AM tiling my bathroom my damn self and it looks good, and feels good to get into the material. I feel like a sculptor.
master debaters.
des maîtres de battre
Tammuz, you can't even hear your own bigotry. I've called for a widening of differing view points while you are the one claiming some shouldn't be allowed by putting up straw man arguments. "Why should history stop? Who should enforce it's cessation? By what authority?" Dude, what planet are you living on? It's telling you should bring up fundamentalism , because that's exactly what I've been arguing against. Like EKE has pointed out that his practice has a modernist side and a classical side. No one's denying people the right to practice as they'd like more than your kind. Mind you, if the shoe where on the other foot, I have no doubt that modernists would be calling for inclusiveness, despite their tabula rasa mantra from the early days.
Suri, can you tell me more about how you design? I understand you are a software designer, is that right? I am reading about software design theory during my morning coffee/necting.
Dude, what planet are you living on?
I'd like to know. It could be a good thing if he pioneered another planet. He could be the dictator of both architectural education and architectural design as he sees fit, which sometimes seems convoluted because we really can't tell what he likes and dislikes through his complaints.
so eke, you design and build buildings, as requested by your clients, in the context of the time you live, with the materials and methods and contractors and tools that are most appropriate for the time you live in. then what's the point of attaching forms and/or ornaments that are symbolic of a context that is not the time and place you're designing for? in the debate between 'traditional v. modern,' it would seem your making a lot of modern choices, and only choosing the few 'traditional' pieces that suit your aesthetic. those symbols were developed when designing and building buildings with a different set of tools, different context, etc.
if that's what your client wants, then i'm glad you can provide it in a way that is historically sensitive and doesn't suck. i'm not saying there is anything wrong with what you're doing, and i'm not indoctrinating or saying you should stop and design what i like. if the reason you like traditional design is because that's what you get paid for, then i think that's a great reason. i just don't think there is any sort of spiritual or super-human meaning behind symbols of the past. they're just symbols of the past.
for those of you that like to pretend your a victim of some elaborate conspiracy to undermine 'traditional' design, or if you think your a martyr for a cause greater than yourself, i honestly believe you're wrong. there is no conspiracy. people who teach modern design do so because they want to, and because that's their job. the same can be said for people who teach architectural history. you guys are paranoid to the point where you're reading things into what i'm saying, and sometimes what other people are saying, and you're making baseless assumptions as to the intent of what i'm saying, and sometimes what others are saying. pretending like i'm out to get you so you can play a victim and troll the internet as the poor helpless 'traditionalist' is not a becoming character trait. whenever you're ready to grow up and participate in adult conversations, you can read what is written, do your best to understand it, and respond to it without cherry picking the parts that suit your desire to be a martyr, and without creating false assumptions that change the meaning of what is being said to suit your feelings of being the helpless victim.
curt, that's what they want you to say. See, it's all one big plan.
I understand that the modernists in this debate use the Greek Temple and its construction as an archetype for the obsolescence of traditional architecture, but what about the other methods of construction in traditional architecture? Wood Framing, Loadbearing Masonry, and (don't forget the romans) concrete: Those systems are very much alive and in practice today, not lease because they're included in our building codes! Heck, even if we've largely replaced loadbearing brick with CMU, I have no doubt that a designer with skill in traditional architecture shouldn't be able to design up with something successful with Masonry Block. The architects of the past made it work with stone block of various sizes, so the dimensions of masonry block souldn't be an impediment.
Donna,
I don't believe that architecture should be categorized in the same camp as other "designed objects", because my observation is that humans have a different relationship with their tools than they do with their dwellings. This appears to be the case despite what le Corbusier and his contemporaries have said about architecture as a "machine for living" (machines are, after all, just tools with some degree of automation). It would certainly explain the countless people who live in traditional homes and enjoy modern technology simultaneously.
To elaborate on the distinction between tools and dwellings: It's obvious to every human that our tools go through a cycle of usefulness before they're rendered obsolete by successive ones that are more efficient. All of our tools go through a life cycle of usefulness and extinction. And I think we can all agree that no human, including those who love traditional architecture, would ever depend daily on an obsolete and less efficient tool for the purposes of nostalgia. Dwellings, on the other hand, have always had very different kind of life cycle. Humans have an innate attraction to buildings which present a strength and persistence through time, and then they love and care for those buildings for as long as possible. That particular behavior is way too widespread to be dismissed as anachronistic or uneducated.
Curt-
I'm not the one calling people names. I've simply, very calmly stated my position on this all along. I'm anything but an internet troll, and I'm certainly not a victim - never said that.
I understand your position. I know that most modern architects and artists have so invested in the idea of a zeitgeist, and a "ladder of progress" culminating in a superior "architecture of today" that they can't understand that other people may not view that as a valid model. Based on that wordview, anyone who believes that an aesthetic approach that was employed by people in the past could be valid today must me in the grips of a sad, romantic nostalgia.
Nostalgia has absolutely nothing to do with why I love classical architecture. It has everything to do with my belief that there are universal truths about human nature and the world around us that have not changed over the centuries. As I have said, we are not our technology, and I have no interest in obsessing on it. If you do, go for it.
To add my two cents here, another reason for why "we" architects won't design what "you" the public want, is because we care about our environment- little gambrel roofs sprinkled with some ionic columns and paved driveways is reminiscent of planning that is unsustainable! It reminds me of suburbia and Toll Brothers! ...and Toll Brothers is not a developer I'd like to work for... ever! Just look at the image on the main page- http://www.tollbrothers.com/?cmpid=G2113&gclid=CNPMvbmh57oCFQ7xOgodc3UAEA
I guess the OP likes Toll Brothers, at least their aesthetic...
Thayer and co, always the victims
Phew! so much to catch up on here. Maybe I can over the weekend, but not sure, too busy at the moment!
Is anyone saying anything new, or are we all making the same arguments multiple times? I would like to see more graphic examples and fewer words . . .
BulgarBlogger, I will add my two cents to your last comment. I have done several projects for Toll Brothers. One was a clubhouse for one of their communities that they never used. I liked my design and thought it would be a good match, but maybe it looked too traditional, and not McMansion-y enough. I did another clubhouse for them, and they added clunky dormers and made some other changes after the fact (i.e., that were not on the permit or construction drawings!) that really soured it for me. They are an example, to me, of the lack of understanding of traditional design today that gives it a bad name. And yes, they have architects on their staff who were trained in modernist schools and don't really understand traditional architecture.
the latest comments can be summarized as falling on one of the various sides of the "what does it mean to be of the/our/its time" and how does it apply to architecture and the built environment.
Bulgar, considering that the public is interested in traditional design, what would you say to this?
“Because of [architects’] complete lack of interest in traditional design, we’re kind of responsible for McMansions.” --Gary L. Brewer, AIA, a partner at Robert A.M Stern Architects
"Suri, can you tell me more about how you design? I understand you are a software designer, is that right? I am reading about software design theory during my morning coffee/necting." Is it offensive to you that the public has an interest in architecture?
"I didn't know someone wrote an Ornament and Crime For Dummies. Such a shame the way that text gets garbled." So if you have a problem with it, point out where I miss represented the text. http://www.gwu.edu/~art/Temporary_SL/177/pdfs/Loos.pdf
suri, you've again failed to remember that your narrow views on architecture are not respective of the public. If you stepped away from obsessively masturbating at the replies of this tread, you may see it.
your disgusting.
“Because of [architects’] complete lack of interest in traditional design, we’re kind of responsible for McMansions.” --Gary L. Brewer, AIA, a partner at Robert A.M Stern Architects
I think that is total bullshit. Have you ever heard the phrase, "If it ain't broke don't fix it?"
That is the mentality of every client. Some of the rich clients that live in suburbia have millions of dollars and don't know shit about class... They are classless people who feed their sense of taste from what their neighbor did. Its a culture of regurgitation. I am sure there are many architects who are INTERESTED in traditional design, but their clients just want exactly what their neighbor has next door... and that is... a 3 car parking garage, ionic columns, and and some manicured lawn. The rest is for the housewife interior design wannabe to figure out.
Is it offensive to you that the public has an interest in architecture? No, why do you ask? I was reading about top down and bottom up processing (for other reasons) and I was curious and did some searching and saw that it is something common in software design circles. That is what sparked my interest. Made me think of you and this discussion.
sure, maybe start a topic on that.
curtkram,
"then what's the point of attaching forms and/or ornaments that are symbolic of a context that is not the time and place you're designing for? "
If you don't get this you won't ever get anything about people's psychology. Every ornament has a past. Is the modernist style of northern Europe 100 years ago appropriate for the modern world? According to you it wouldn't, yet no one would question someone's personal preference. Even you admitted to that being valid in one of your more lucid moments.
"That is the mentality of every client. Some of the rich clients that live in suburbia have millions of dollars and don't know shit about class... They are classless people who feed their sense of taste from what their neighbor did. Its a culture of regurgitation. I am sure there are many architects who are INTERESTED in traditional design, but their clients just want exactly what their neighbor has next door... and that is... a 3 car parking garage, ionic columns, and and some manicured lawn. The rest is for the housewife interior design wannabe to figure out."
That is quite the cartoon notion you have. Did you learn that from weeds, jersey shore, mtv or was it one of those other hard hitting documentaries on american life?
Obviously that was a stereotype, but 70% of stereotypes are true...
Regardless, here's another related question... What is the fanciest restaurant in Hicksville? I bet you it is some grille or burger place... if it isn't, it probably has a burger on the menu anyway. Food is one of the many indicators of class (and no pun intended- taste), and I contend that many people out there just don't have a developed sense for that... again- they regurgitate what they see. They want to "fit in".
Suri, what if you only had one or the other, just top-down or just bottom up thinking? That is the foolishness of your approach to architecture. Why be so one-sided?
In regards to food, the great chefs of the world aren't all in lock step creating some kind of minimalist practically raw japanese style of cuisine as they are in architecture. Regardless of if the average person like cheeseburgers, they still appreciate the creations of a master chef, and the world is a better place for those creations.
I get it there is no there, you want to me say bottom up so you can use that little line on the bahaus you stumbled across in the Wikipedia article, not interested in playing.
Yeah, but what you basically said was:
"why don't you CHEFS cook what WE THE PUBLIC want, cheeseburgers?"
As if all architects design hyper modern structures.
I will make this simple so you can understand it:
a) Most architects do not get to design hyper modern structures
b) No one is paying for traditional design
c) We design what our clients want, and often cringe about it too.
No, actually I was thinking that the best modern designers (not modernist) use both bottom up and top down thinking and that this duality is "of the times". Are you are just as irrelevant as those you love to hate?
It is really fair to be judgmental to the "low culture" populace? Both low-culture and high-culture peoples have something to offer society. And by and large, an equal percentage of each group lives in kitsch houses.
fame. they are not. no one wants to own a traditional building. they suck tons of resources, are a bit*h to maintain and can't meet building code. on top of that, many of the types of buildings we build today would never fit in anything 'traditional" without looking like a cartoon.
what they want is something that looks traditional. which is lame.
gruen, no I was not asking for cheeseburgers, not even close. I was asking why all we get are cheeseburgers (cheap poorly designed traditional architecture) because whenever something of style and quality is designed it ends up being modernist (some raw japanese health food that we don't even enjoy) And if they do try to make a traditional dish of quality, the underlying principles of raw japanese health food are still apparent and spoiling the whole dish.
as if you eat gourmet for every meal.
and what's wrong with Japanese food? Nothing. It's fun, tasty, good for you. the Japanese eat it every day. What's wrong with that?
Are you saying that modern design is un-american? What are you trying to say, Suri?
Gruen- I don't know about you, but I don't eat anything but organic food...
organic is bullshit anyways
I only eat orgasmic Japanese food. Frikkin Suri says:
"Why doesn't everyone eat Doritos and Mountain Dew?"
Second lesson of architecture: Takes all kinds to make the world go 'round
You really don't know what I am trying to say? After this many pages it isn't clear, I am THAT inarticulate? The public wants french and Italian inspired dishes, complex traditional dishes rich with sauces and flavours, I use Japanese as the example being it seems pretty minimalist and raw, I thought that was obvious. Why do you keep feigning to misunderstand? It doesn't help your case to plug your ears and chant la de la.
Good day.
I am John Ruskin, true arbiter of taste and most knowledgable in all things aesthetic.
ONLY MY OPINION MATTERS!!!
I know what is right and what is simply terrible. I am also omnipotent and know what the public wants - past, present and future.
The answer is GOTHIC and only GOTHIC. Classical is wrong. So all of you are wrong. Only Gothic is in true harmony with man, nature and God. Yes.
And none of this BS using modern tools and such nonsense to fake it - only the old way is the right way. Build it taller till it falls. Then build it again.
"John," you say, "How can I possibly conduct my super modern life in a Gothic building? It just isn't compatible!" Well, can't I buy my Starbucks in the narthex, take my conference call is the confessional and present my Powerpoint slides on the altar screen? Of course I can! All by the unassailable beauty of candlelight. None of you have presented any arguments to counter this. So there you go.
Y'all are wrong wrong wrong.
JOHN RUSKIN HAS SPOKEN!!!!!!!
I will now get back in my time traveling bell tower and deliver my message to the idiots of the 22nd century. Thank you.
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.