Trips example of housing before modernism was built in the 30s, after modernism started. It is not housing, it is a hostel a guy built after taking a trip to europe with the boy scouts. His picture of new social housing is probably fairly accurate for many regions, though brad pitt's foundation, along with a local developer and government grants/tax incentives are renovating an old school into low income housing fairly close to me.
My view of modernism is to be aware of the material, methods, tools, techniques, and anything else available in the time you're designing in. I can learn from bramate or vitruvius, but I can also learn from gropius or rem or frank gehry. I don't have to stop my education at some point in history. It's my lack of a dogma thatgives me the flexibility to not glue fake composite columns on a perfectly fine victorian house.
That's interesting that the home that the charity home that later became the headquarters of Hostels International was built in the 1930s as you claim. It's architect died in 1895. I think you were probably looking at a date that wasn't actually the built date.
oh, i was mistaken. thanks trip, my googling was not very thorough.
so the hostel didn't move into that building until 1990. i was wondering how that guy was able to afford such a big building, but more than likely he started out a fair bit smaller.
It sounds like was an excellent institution for the people it served, and i commend Society for the Relief of Indigent Respectable Females for being able to offer that service to those who needed it.
sounds like they wanted to tear it down when medicaid came in, as this facility was no longer able to provide the standard of living acceptable to their patients, right? the city of new york had to buy it when it was essentially abandoned. i guess some buildings grow old gracefully, and other need pretty significant intervention to prevent them from being bulldozed. this building is doing fairly well with new life as a hostel?
No worries, Curt. I wasn't trying to call you out. Sorry if that's the effect it had.
Some good questions regarding the Richard Morris Hunt building on Amsterdam Ave. If I'm not mistaken, today it acts more as an office building to Hostels International. Not sure on how it was financed in its day, though the investment seemed to be sound in that the building, after some possible retrofit, is still in good use today. I do think that all designers confronting a low-income housing program today can take notice that this can be done in a manner that is dignified to both the people dwelling within and the passerby on the street.
as if all corbusier ever did was build Pruitt igoe (which the tv tells me the residents loved)
Fair enogh, but that's why I said "take the good while leaving the bad." I happen to like Corbusier's studio buildings in Paris. I also like Ronchamp and a few other things.
I can learn from bramate or vitruvius, but I can also learn from gropius or rem or frank gehry. I don't have to stop my education at some point in history.
Learn from who you like, what you like. It sounds like we are on the same page. I don't mind if you want to do straight glass boxes, it's you who seem to be stuck on someone plastering fake columns on buildings. When the modernists do it like Mies, it's expressive, but when traditionalists do it, it's phony. You just can't get over that one.
My view of modernism is to be aware of the material, methods, tools, techniques, and anything else available in the time you're designing in.
Great, then you'd be aware of the materials, methods, tools, techniques available to the contrectors building strip malls and McMansions. How would anyone explore new techniques if they stuck to what's available? What if what's available is just what the industry told you was available becasue they flooded the market with their product? These criteria you keep throwing up are simply arbitrary. You don't need justificatoin for what you do beyond how well it performs and how much it's liked, asuming it's in the public realm.
The aesthetics of traditional ornament (as seen in the example) is not invented but is pulled directly from nature, from the forms of plants and animals.
Beauty doesn't come from an intellectual exercise inside of curtkram's brain, it comes from nature, from the physical world, from reality. And that is why the public largely rejects modernism in favor of the traditional, because it's essentially more real.
If you don't like the topic pete, you needn't keep reading it. I have kept to my topic, despite the temptations to wander off into some of your other threads.
Suri writes - "Beauty doesn't come from an intellectual exercise inside of curtkram's brain, it comes from nature, from the physical world, from reality. And that is why the public largely rejects modernism in favor of the traditional, because it's essentially more real."
This perhaps the least thought-out statement I've read in a while that exhibits a narrow and shallow understanding of beauty especially as it relates to art and architecture.
Suri..the very examples you point to in your link are abstractions and inventions of the human imagination inspired by what they see in nature and what is/was part of their cultural mythology and cosmos. The invention of ornament is an example of humans inventing a visual language to reflect the physical world they inhabit and to reflect the cosmos they are a part of and believe(d) in, as well as the imaginative aspects of the human mind.
Scroll through and anyone can see the examples of "natural" elements (like the flowers, trees & animals) are figurative not literal representations. I suspect you understand the difference but in attempt to defend your aesthetic preferences for anything not modern you can't see the difference.
Every example is an embellished, interpretive abstractive representation of nature. Some of those "traditional" elements of decoration and ornament are pure abstractions and fantastical inventions of the human mind. I can't recall the last time I saw a real dragon, griffon or Pan in the natural world (Comic Con attendees notwithstanding).
Your delineation between "traditional" vs. "modernism" is arbitrary and capricious and reflects a very narrow aesthetic framework. That is fine but it doesn't invalidate the aesthetics of modern/contemporary art any more than it validates representative or realism in art either. To consistently insist your opinion is "right" is supported by nothing but supposition and opinion. That you think the public rejects modernism in favor of the traditional "because it's essentially more real" illustrates a reaching on your part. It's also a very narrow perception and framing of what is "real" without proving anything. If anything, the proof you've linked to invalidates your argument that traditional is more real than modern.
lol....I'm going to put 600 frozen turkeys on the Elevation of my next project because they come from Nature...ya right. Your really cutting to the quick on man and intellectualism. Go piss in a cup and if it is yellow all buildings should be yellow....I don't think so.
thanks boy in a well, i hadn't heard of that, an enjoyable read. I have to say it entrenches me even further on just how ridiculous ideas of truth and austerity in architecture are.
"Scroll through and anyone can see the examples of "natural" elements (like the flowers, trees & animals) are figurative not literal representations. I suspect you understand the difference but in attempt to defend your aesthetic preferences for anything not modern you can't see the difference."
Regardless on how figurative or literal they are, the 'beauty' of them is what has been translated from nature. The proportions, curves, balance, patterns, variations and repetitions, those come directly from nature and are physical manifestations of beauty as revealed to us by the natural world. This beauty combined with the symbolism and additional meaning imbued by culture and tradition, gives us traditional ornament.
yup....a turd in a toilet is beautiful....with perfect color and form not to mention smell. Not all nature is beautiful as you would want to have us believe. Man can be with Nature but he is not Nature. Traditional Ornament is not nature.....it was some fricking draftsman like Frank lw... being pushed by Sully Boy....to ship up or ship out.....which he did. ta da da...
It's amazing how such an innocuous subject like "what is beauty" should rile so many. If you think suri is an idiot for believing what many people believe, why not lump him in with the masses you so easily dismiss? But this and other reactions on this site to similar posts speaks volumes as to how insecure this counter argument is. Would a preist get up in arms over an athiest's claims? I think someone needs a refersher course in modernist theology to buck up thier faith.
" That is fine but it doesn't invalidate the aesthetics of modern/contemporary art any more than it validates representative or realism in art either. To consistently insist your opinion is "right" is supported by nothing but supposition and opinion."
Neither opinion is right per say, he's simply wondering... if most people understand the level of abstraction employed in traditional ornament vs. the level of abstraction employed by most modernists, why don't architects design in the language that is most readable to most people, especially in the public realm? This dosen't disqualify the abstract minimalists any more than it does in other arts, but the object of symbolism like the spoken language is to communicate. The Vietnam memorial certainly communicates to me and many other shlubs, but does that level of abstraction work in an everyday office building, repeated up and down our main streets? Of course not, becasue a memorial is poetic by nature, it's the whole purpose, where a school building for example serves other purposes.
"The invention of ornament is an example of humans inventing a visual language to reflect the physical world they inhabit and to reflect the cosmos they are a part of and believe(d) in, as well as the imaginative aspects of the human mind."
Exactly right, and why do you thing they invented this visual language? To communicate to others with-in society. This is suri's whole point if you'd bother to approach this as intellectuals looking for understanding rather than school yard bullies laughing a kid down who might not be as articulate as he could be. All levels of abstract language, which is what ornaments are, communicate to various people. Assuming your the kind of reformed modernist that even condones the idea of ornament, why spend time slamming someone else's approach to "speaking" to the public when you are doing the same with-in your own chosen vocabulary of ornament?
Clearly, this kind of 1200+ comment furor dosen't happen without many people thinking there's more at stake than one person's vision of ornament over anothers. Imagine musicians spending half the time architects do defending thier unique vision of how to communicate to the public and attacking other visions. They'd be laughed off the stage if they where ever good enough to begin with, becasue all the energy poured into this debate isn't free. It comes from time better spent practicing ones craft. Then again, music comes and goes through speakers, while a building is an everyday part of all of our lives. Intellectually though, the idea stands. Why is someone who calles for a stronger connection with society through the built visual language such a threat?
i think it would be hard to say that this is a valid topic due to the number of posts or pages. many of these posts talk about circumcision and hitler and things like that. i'm still convinced there is no debate regarding 'tradtional' v. 'modern' architecture, due to the fairly obvious fact there isn't consensus on what the difference is, and if we did choose to define those terms, it would likely become apparent that it's a pretty dumb thing to discuss.
what there is, is a few of people who for whatever reason want to feel like they are some kind of downtrodden minority, fighting goliath to save their fair cities. of course that's a ridiculous notions, but if you want to pretend like i'm your arch nemesis 'the modernist with a manifesto' so you can pretend to be the superhero, knock yourself out.
Miles, I think many of the comments, while sometimes snarky and sarcastic represent strongly held beliefs, not merely trolls. And curtkram, I'I love your nonchalance towards this whole thread when you've been on the front lines belitteling anyone who should stick fake columns on a building. If you are still convinced about there being no debate, you have a wierd way of expressing that. But if you really think that, then I think we've made some progress. There is no right way to express yourself artistically in architecture, there are simply ways that seem to communicate to more or less people.
"But if you really think that, then I think we've made some progress."
Yeah, not to patronize anyone or anything. That couldn't possibly be the reason people keep getting angry, could it? A patronizing, know-it-all, over-the-top demeaning tone always works for me!
thayer, just so we're clear then, you are no longer an advocate for 'traditional' design. you are now an advocate for 'to each his own.' suri's suggestion, which is what this thread is about, is to design and build buildings that are 80 years old instead of 'to each his own.' so, am i right in stating that you withdraw your defense of his proposal?
You are absolutly right about one thing curtkram. The reason I come off as a traditionalist is becasue modernists splash the color red on anyone who looks sympathetically to non modernist work. I've learned that it's ridiculous to try and enforce a code of aesthetics since we all have our own way of looking at things. What I work for is getting acceptance for non-modernist work in both the press and academia since there's very little accpetance of work that dosen't fit the accepted mold. To each his own means treating differing differing views with respect, despite the differences. If you'd not been reading through ideologically tinted glasses you would have known that I like many non traditional buildings and have designed some myself, which I like. You are wrong though to think I withdraw my defense of suri's position. His question was simply, Why won't you design what we (the public) want? To which we've all been debating, even if it sometimes leads down seemingly irrelevant places. I think it mostly has to do with our training in archtiecture school, others might disagree. But I defend his position becasue I actually believe in science, meaning the surveys that you've tried to dismiss are real. The realestate prices are real, the endless quotes proffered here are real, and on and on. If suri wants to ban modernism, I wouldn't be for that, but he simply asked why architects don't deliver more of what the public patently wants. Can that be answered by not patronizing or belittling the people who want something other than modernism?
There has hardly been any discussion or debate of "Why won't you design what we (the public) want?". This has just been one long thread of subjective arguments based on stylistic preconceptions without any real discussion into the role of the public and little understanding of the design process from the OP.
This is not a discussion of betterment or discovery, the whole premise of this thread is "I am not one of you, I represent the entire public, I declare that you are not part of the public, I place the entire design results on your shoulders, and you are wrong while I am right". This thread is inflammatory to meet whatever desires for argument the OP has, while neglecting the diversity of communities, people, and cultures.
Sneaky Pete, by your standards, any opinion is patronizing.
the whole premise of this thread is "I am not one of you, I represent the entire public, I declare that you are not part of the public, I place the entire design results on your shoulders, and you are wrong while I am right".
Again, reading more into the actual question of ...
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
dosen't actually make it so. Like me defending traditionalists dosen't mean I hate modernism. I simply don't buy into the dogma that many still seem to attach to it and which I think goes directly to the question proffered by suri.
If you honestly think "There has hardly been any discussion or debate of "Why won't you design what we (the public) want?"." Then I'm not sure what paralell narrative you've been reading.
so your saying the survey from the baptist church is accurately representative of all opinions, and the wikipedia page that said people like old buildings but prefer buildings built after 1930 to be in a 'modern' style tells you that we should be building 80 year old buildings.
not all the quotes int this thread are real are they thayer? you've disagreed with a few i think. it's really only the ones that support your traditionalist opinion that are real, right? to me, it's pretty obvious that architects aren't designing what suri thinks people want, because that's not what very many people want. at least not the people who are in a position to actually influence the built environment, though you could look at trips' hostel example as a building where a community organization worked together to get the city to buy a dilapidated building and preserve it. in that example, the community was able to preserve and old building (which is obviously different than designing a new one).
because suri believeS "the people" want buildings built 80 years ago, are you saying we should be designing buildings 80 years old? or are you saying "to each his own?" those are mutually exclusive. either i design based on a survey that you get to pick, or i design based on what i prefer. it can't be both ways.
The discussion has been Thayer and Curt pouring a books worth of history and whatever reasoning into a certain view (which y'all are entitled to do), all the while Suri dropping in a few lines of text to egg you on while he sits back and says very little really concerning the topic relative to you two. Most other in the thread have given their two cents and avoided putting more energy into it, or have been stating that the thread needs to die and this is trolling 101.
The reality is, this discussion is far too generalized to offer anything substantial into what "the people" want. There are varying influences and varying types of people. Out of all the diversity of the world and within it's countries, it is just plain lazy to declare that everyone wants one type of thing and that architects are not doing it.
you got me curtkram, I'm a traditionalist that really wants to crush modernists, assuming we can agree on what that means, which you seem to think is impossible.
"either i design based on a survey that you get to pick, or i design based on what i prefer. it can't be both ways."
I just keep going back to my question. What's the fear of traditionalism about?
thayer, you've already defined traditionalism, to you, as buildings you like. what buildings you like is your opinion, and you're entitled to your opinion. there is nothing wrong with that. i'm not afraid of you liking any particular building at all.
as far as:
"either i design based on a survey that you get to pick, or i design based on what i prefer. it can't be both ways."
which one? you said "to each his own" and you also said you defend suri's position that we should be designing what the public wants, which is buildings that are 80 years old. that is based on a survey of his choosing or based on a question he asked his friends. i'm just trying to simplify your case, so i can understand what it is you're trying to defend. so far, you've kind of been all over the place, in a way that seems to me to accomplish nothing but illicit the 'woe is me, i'm such a poor victim' position. i also don't think you're a victim.
and i agree with ryu, that pretty much all of this thread is just trolling.
Maybe you should go ahead and make a statement relative to your opinion on Seaside, instead of attempting to lure me into an argument (e.g. trolling...)
My question, to perhaps frame it more clearly, is whether or not you consider the architecture, in general, of those towns to be faux "traditionalism" done by house builders/"designers" of which you claim to fear. If you don't feel like addressing the question, then by all means go ahead and label this as trolling.
If you want a statement, on the other hand, I would say that, like you and the OP, I too dislike faux traditional McMansions. Who doesn't? However, I would argue that there is a small but growing number of architects that do practice "real" and good quality traditional architecture today.
I like Seaside, it's major flaw is it fell victim to market forces and became too expensive and is now more of a vacation spot. I am biased though since I am a huge fan of DPZ, and there was much thought put into Seaside, like many of DPZ's projects as well as the implementation of form based code (I think that was implemented on that project). Stylistically, I like it a lot, especially for the South.
The fear is of faux "traditionalism" done by house builders/"designers"
So wouldn't allowing students to study traditional design rather than simply attending a history class go a long way to aleviating that problem? This is what modernists simply can't accept. Putting traditionalism on the same level as modernism. Somehow, modernism is thought to be superior, so they refuse to allow traditional work to be taught, mainly becasue they can't, but also becasue if they did, most of what they espouse would be worthless. Why would you kill you own market worth? This fear is rational, becasue it's about self preservation, especially those who see the world as black and white.
I like Seaside, it's major flaw is it fell victim to market forces and became too expensive and is now more of a vacation spot.
That's not a flaw, that's yet another piece of evidence that the public is clammoring for better traditional design. It's a matter of supply and demand, and the profession isn't supplying the demand, so others will. While we as a profession refuse to engage builders on an even playing field, we will continue to have this artificial separation between those who build and those who design. Architecture is about the art of building first and foremost. If it weren't so, we would not be having this discussion.
I haven't even made an argument for or against either modernism or "traditional" design, yet you are trying to argue/make a point against what I said as if I said something contrary to any of your arguments...
You're right Ryu, but I was using your statements to explore the main issue of this thread, which is ...Why won't you design what we (the public) want? I'm not for or against either myself, all though I have my own taste like all of us do. I'm for teaching both in schools to alleviate both points you brought up. The only place I disagreed with you specifically is that Seaside's desirability isn't a flaw, quite the opposite.
So wouldn't allowing students to study traditional design rather than simply attending a history class go a long way to aleviating that problem?
students of architecture, or students of house building? i suppose we could force all university programs related to construction management, real estate development, finance, and whatever other forces are involved to set aside a semester to learn about the proper way to detail a historic style in residential housing. hmmm. which revival style were we going to teach again?
it's not fear thayer. you're unable to develop a cohesive thought on what it is you want, and from what i can tell it's incredibly impractical. that's why i've been trying to get you to be clear about what it is you want. we can't teach people to design buildings you like because nobody but you knows what you like. if we were to develop a set of goals that a designer was supposed to achieve, what would that look like? 'include what thayer considers 'beauty,' because vitruvius said so?'
It isn't so much that it's desirability is flawed, but that instead of being a living community, it has shifted to a seasonal community where families from further inland go for their family vacations. It is a place for upper upper middle class or the upper class. http://www.seasidefl.com/real-estate/ those prices are ridiculous.
I will say though, you cannot give credit solely on the building design aesthetic, other factors like lifestyle, master planning, location, and community add to it's desirability in addition to the building aesthetics (which, contain additional aesthetic elements other than traditional ones too).
students of architecture, or students of house building?
Are they two different things? curtkram, teaching traditional design dosen't mean it's the most beautiful or the best, it simply means teaching traditional design. If you don't know what that means, you should study history and actually see for your self what was in the curriculum of architecture schools before modernism. You'd be surprised there where no courses on the best adhesives with which to stick fake columns on buildings.
I completely agree with you RyuRrch. Seaside is sooo much more, but that discussion never seems to take place on sites like this one, exactly becasue people are hung up on the style question. Even when DPZ designed the code to specifically not dictate style, and low and behold there are some modernist styled buildings there, roughtly in proportion with the market's appetite for them. Go figure.
a high school kid who applies to college and enters the architecture program is an architecture student.
a student who applies to college and enters a different college is something other than an architecture student.
i don't know what you mean by 'traditional' design. i have my own idea of what it is. i suppose my thought on traditional design might include designs that happened a long time ago (a victorian house that was a contemporary design in it's time could be considered a traditional design now), or if one were to engage in 'traditional' design today, that would likely mean a revival style. there is not one revival style, there are many. sometimes perhaps i slip up and think you're referring to traditional the way i would define it, so i kind of think you're saying you want to teach kids some sort of revival style. that isn't entirely consistent with your previous definition though.
your previous definition of 'traditional' was so loose and vague that it would include all buildings you like. if you were to create a guideline for a program that taught the specific requirements to students that they should learn, what would it look like? just 'make it beautiful?' that sounds a lot like what students do today, under the guise of what you seem to think is 'modernism,' and what you think is bad about education now.
It's been clear that attempting to force traditional design or training onto the curt's of the world is obviously not a solution and would result in some pretty god-awful architecture anyways. Simply fostering the debate on the relevance of traditional architecture in the appropriate venues (universities, publications, forums) is enough, the rest will come naturally. What has been preventing the rest from coming naturally is the active resistance and hostility and the shutting down of dissenting opinions.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
as if all corbusier ever did was build Pruitt igoe (which the tv tells me the residents loved)
or as if all loos ever did was write ornament and crime for dummies . . .
talk about dogma.
What about Zorlu Center Istanbul? Everybody loves that architecture!
Trips example of housing before modernism was built in the 30s, after modernism started. It is not housing, it is a hostel a guy built after taking a trip to europe with the boy scouts. His picture of new social housing is probably fairly accurate for many regions, though brad pitt's foundation, along with a local developer and government grants/tax incentives are renovating an old school into low income housing fairly close to me. My view of modernism is to be aware of the material, methods, tools, techniques, and anything else available in the time you're designing in. I can learn from bramate or vitruvius, but I can also learn from gropius or rem or frank gehry. I don't have to stop my education at some point in history. It's my lack of a dogma thatgives me the flexibility to not glue fake composite columns on a perfectly fine victorian house.
That's interesting that the home that the charity home that later became the headquarters of Hostels International was built in the 1930s as you claim. It's architect died in 1895. I think you were probably looking at a date that wasn't actually the built date.
oh, i was mistaken. thanks trip, my googling was not very thorough.
so the hostel didn't move into that building until 1990. i was wondering how that guy was able to afford such a big building, but more than likely he started out a fair bit smaller.
It sounds like was an excellent institution for the people it served, and i commend Society for the Relief of Indigent Respectable Females for being able to offer that service to those who needed it.
sounds like they wanted to tear it down when medicaid came in, as this facility was no longer able to provide the standard of living acceptable to their patients, right? the city of new york had to buy it when it was essentially abandoned. i guess some buildings grow old gracefully, and other need pretty significant intervention to prevent them from being bulldozed. this building is doing fairly well with new life as a hostel?
No worries, Curt. I wasn't trying to call you out. Sorry if that's the effect it had.
Some good questions regarding the Richard Morris Hunt building on Amsterdam Ave. If I'm not mistaken, today it acts more as an office building to Hostels International. Not sure on how it was financed in its day, though the investment seemed to be sound in that the building, after some possible retrofit, is still in good use today. I do think that all designers confronting a low-income housing program today can take notice that this can be done in a manner that is dignified to both the people dwelling within and the passerby on the street.
as if all corbusier ever did was build Pruitt igoe (which the tv tells me the residents loved)
Fair enogh, but that's why I said "take the good while leaving the bad." I happen to like Corbusier's studio buildings in Paris. I also like Ronchamp and a few other things.
I can learn from bramate or vitruvius, but I can also learn from gropius or rem or frank gehry. I don't have to stop my education at some point in history.
Learn from who you like, what you like. It sounds like we are on the same page. I don't mind if you want to do straight glass boxes, it's you who seem to be stuck on someone plastering fake columns on buildings. When the modernists do it like Mies, it's expressive, but when traditionalists do it, it's phony. You just can't get over that one.
My view of modernism is to be aware of the material, methods, tools, techniques, and anything else available in the time you're designing in.
Great, then you'd be aware of the materials, methods, tools, techniques available to the contrectors building strip malls and McMansions. How would anyone explore new techniques if they stuck to what's available? What if what's available is just what the industry told you was available becasue they flooded the market with their product? These criteria you keep throwing up are simply arbitrary. You don't need justificatoin for what you do beyond how well it performs and how much it's liked, asuming it's in the public realm.
Ornament in architecture (and design in general) is the expression of beauty as it is communicated to us by nature.
http://books.google.com/books?id=YwtaAAAAYAAJ&dq=ornament&pg=PT25#v=onepage&q&f=false
The aesthetics of traditional ornament (as seen in the example) is not invented but is pulled directly from nature, from the forms of plants and animals.
Beauty doesn't come from an intellectual exercise inside of curtkram's brain, it comes from nature, from the physical world, from reality. And that is why the public largely rejects modernism in favor of the traditional, because it's essentially more real.
Any "proof" of what you believe comes solely from an intellectual exercise inside of your brain.
Go away.
Shut up.
Please.
If you don't like the topic pete, you needn't keep reading it. I have kept to my topic, despite the temptations to wander off into some of your other threads.
ohhhhh, chinois!
I would recommend reading some Piranesi, some Protopiro and Didascalo.
curts brain is nature.
Stop feeding the troll(s). This used to be a nice forum.
Suri writes - "Beauty doesn't come from an intellectual exercise inside of curtkram's brain, it comes from nature, from the physical world, from reality. And that is why the public largely rejects modernism in favor of the traditional, because it's essentially more real."
This perhaps the least thought-out statement I've read in a while that exhibits a narrow and shallow understanding of beauty especially as it relates to art and architecture.
Suri..the very examples you point to in your link are abstractions and inventions of the human imagination inspired by what they see in nature and what is/was part of their cultural mythology and cosmos. The invention of ornament is an example of humans inventing a visual language to reflect the physical world they inhabit and to reflect the cosmos they are a part of and believe(d) in, as well as the imaginative aspects of the human mind.
Scroll through and anyone can see the examples of "natural" elements (like the flowers, trees & animals) are figurative not literal representations. I suspect you understand the difference but in attempt to defend your aesthetic preferences for anything not modern you can't see the difference.
Every example is an embellished, interpretive abstractive representation of nature. Some of those "traditional" elements of decoration and ornament are pure abstractions and fantastical inventions of the human mind. I can't recall the last time I saw a real dragon, griffon or Pan in the natural world (Comic Con attendees notwithstanding).
Your delineation between "traditional" vs. "modernism" is arbitrary and capricious and reflects a very narrow aesthetic framework. That is fine but it doesn't invalidate the aesthetics of modern/contemporary art any more than it validates representative or realism in art either. To consistently insist your opinion is "right" is supported by nothing but supposition and opinion. That you think the public rejects modernism in favor of the traditional "because it's essentially more real" illustrates a reaching on your part. It's also a very narrow perception and framing of what is "real" without proving anything. If anything, the proof you've linked to invalidates your argument that traditional is more real than modern.
lol....I'm going to put 600 frozen turkeys on the Elevation of my next project because they come from Nature...ya right. Your really cutting to the quick on man and intellectualism. Go piss in a cup and if it is yellow all buildings should be yellow....I don't think so.
thanks boy in a well, i hadn't heard of that, an enjoyable read. I have to say it entrenches me even further on just how ridiculous ideas of truth and austerity in architecture are.
"Scroll through and anyone can see the examples of "natural" elements (like the flowers, trees & animals) are figurative not literal representations. I suspect you understand the difference but in attempt to defend your aesthetic preferences for anything not modern you can't see the difference."
Regardless on how figurative or literal they are, the 'beauty' of them is what has been translated from nature. The proportions, curves, balance, patterns, variations and repetitions, those come directly from nature and are physical manifestations of beauty as revealed to us by the natural world. This beauty combined with the symbolism and additional meaning imbued by culture and tradition, gives us traditional ornament.
yup....a turd in a toilet is beautiful....with perfect color and form not to mention smell. Not all nature is beautiful as you would want to have us believe. Man can be with Nature but he is not Nature. Traditional Ornament is not nature.....it was some fricking draftsman like Frank lw... being pushed by Sully Boy....to ship up or ship out.....which he did. ta da da...
Franks most complex thoughts never involved Architecture....they involved which woman he was going to sleep with next.
It's amazing how such an innocuous subject like "what is beauty" should rile so many. If you think suri is an idiot for believing what many people believe, why not lump him in with the masses you so easily dismiss? But this and other reactions on this site to similar posts speaks volumes as to how insecure this counter argument is. Would a preist get up in arms over an athiest's claims? I think someone needs a refersher course in modernist theology to buck up thier faith.
" That is fine but it doesn't invalidate the aesthetics of modern/contemporary art any more than it validates representative or realism in art either. To consistently insist your opinion is "right" is supported by nothing but supposition and opinion."
Neither opinion is right per say, he's simply wondering... if most people understand the level of abstraction employed in traditional ornament vs. the level of abstraction employed by most modernists, why don't architects design in the language that is most readable to most people, especially in the public realm? This dosen't disqualify the abstract minimalists any more than it does in other arts, but the object of symbolism like the spoken language is to communicate. The Vietnam memorial certainly communicates to me and many other shlubs, but does that level of abstraction work in an everyday office building, repeated up and down our main streets? Of course not, becasue a memorial is poetic by nature, it's the whole purpose, where a school building for example serves other purposes.
"The invention of ornament is an example of humans inventing a visual language to reflect the physical world they inhabit and to reflect the cosmos they are a part of and believe(d) in, as well as the imaginative aspects of the human mind."
Exactly right, and why do you thing they invented this visual language? To communicate to others with-in society. This is suri's whole point if you'd bother to approach this as intellectuals looking for understanding rather than school yard bullies laughing a kid down who might not be as articulate as he could be. All levels of abstract language, which is what ornaments are, communicate to various people. Assuming your the kind of reformed modernist that even condones the idea of ornament, why spend time slamming someone else's approach to "speaking" to the public when you are doing the same with-in your own chosen vocabulary of ornament?
Clearly, this kind of 1200+ comment furor dosen't happen without many people thinking there's more at stake than one person's vision of ornament over anothers. Imagine musicians spending half the time architects do defending thier unique vision of how to communicate to the public and attacking other visions. They'd be laughed off the stage if they where ever good enough to begin with, becasue all the energy poured into this debate isn't free. It comes from time better spent practicing ones craft. Then again, music comes and goes through speakers, while a building is an everyday part of all of our lives. Intellectually though, the idea stands. Why is someone who calles for a stronger connection with society through the built visual language such a threat?
Clearly, this kind of 1200+ comment furor dosen't happen without many people thinking there's more at stake than one person's vision
Or without trolls to perpetuate it.
Miles, I feel my time is best spent here than reviewing my list of deficiencies. Less to be sad/angry at on this thread.
<cue drums>
Ba Da Boom
i think it would be hard to say that this is a valid topic due to the number of posts or pages. many of these posts talk about circumcision and hitler and things like that. i'm still convinced there is no debate regarding 'tradtional' v. 'modern' architecture, due to the fairly obvious fact there isn't consensus on what the difference is, and if we did choose to define those terms, it would likely become apparent that it's a pretty dumb thing to discuss.
what there is, is a few of people who for whatever reason want to feel like they are some kind of downtrodden minority, fighting goliath to save their fair cities. of course that's a ridiculous notions, but if you want to pretend like i'm your arch nemesis 'the modernist with a manifesto' so you can pretend to be the superhero, knock yourself out.
Miles, I think many of the comments, while sometimes snarky and sarcastic represent strongly held beliefs, not merely trolls. And curtkram, I'I love your nonchalance towards this whole thread when you've been on the front lines belitteling anyone who should stick fake columns on a building. If you are still convinced about there being no debate, you have a wierd way of expressing that. But if you really think that, then I think we've made some progress. There is no right way to express yourself artistically in architecture, there are simply ways that seem to communicate to more or less people.
"But if you really think that, then I think we've made some progress."
Yeah, not to patronize anyone or anything. That couldn't possibly be the reason people keep getting angry, could it? A patronizing, know-it-all, over-the-top demeaning tone always works for me!
thayer, just so we're clear then, you are no longer an advocate for 'traditional' design. you are now an advocate for 'to each his own.' suri's suggestion, which is what this thread is about, is to design and build buildings that are 80 years old instead of 'to each his own.' so, am i right in stating that you withdraw your defense of his proposal?
You are absolutly right about one thing curtkram. The reason I come off as a traditionalist is becasue modernists splash the color red on anyone who looks sympathetically to non modernist work. I've learned that it's ridiculous to try and enforce a code of aesthetics since we all have our own way of looking at things. What I work for is getting acceptance for non-modernist work in both the press and academia since there's very little accpetance of work that dosen't fit the accepted mold. To each his own means treating differing differing views with respect, despite the differences. If you'd not been reading through ideologically tinted glasses you would have known that I like many non traditional buildings and have designed some myself, which I like. You are wrong though to think I withdraw my defense of suri's position. His question was simply, Why won't you design what we (the public) want? To which we've all been debating, even if it sometimes leads down seemingly irrelevant places. I think it mostly has to do with our training in archtiecture school, others might disagree. But I defend his position becasue I actually believe in science, meaning the surveys that you've tried to dismiss are real. The realestate prices are real, the endless quotes proffered here are real, and on and on. If suri wants to ban modernism, I wouldn't be for that, but he simply asked why architects don't deliver more of what the public patently wants. Can that be answered by not patronizing or belittling the people who want something other than modernism?
Considering the "patronizing or belittling" started with the initial post, I think you're asking the wrong people.
There has hardly been any discussion or debate of "Why won't you design what we (the public) want?". This has just been one long thread of subjective arguments based on stylistic preconceptions without any real discussion into the role of the public and little understanding of the design process from the OP.
This is not a discussion of betterment or discovery, the whole premise of this thread is "I am not one of you, I represent the entire public, I declare that you are not part of the public, I place the entire design results on your shoulders, and you are wrong while I am right". This thread is inflammatory to meet whatever desires for argument the OP has, while neglecting the diversity of communities, people, and cultures.
Sneaky Pete, by your standards, any opinion is patronizing.
the whole premise of this thread is "I am not one of you, I represent the entire public, I declare that you are not part of the public, I place the entire design results on your shoulders, and you are wrong while I am right".
Again, reading more into the actual question of ...
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
dosen't actually make it so. Like me defending traditionalists dosen't mean I hate modernism. I simply don't buy into the dogma that many still seem to attach to it and which I think goes directly to the question proffered by suri.
If you honestly think "There has hardly been any discussion or debate of "Why won't you design what we (the public) want?"." Then I'm not sure what paralell narrative you've been reading.
so your saying the survey from the baptist church is accurately representative of all opinions, and the wikipedia page that said people like old buildings but prefer buildings built after 1930 to be in a 'modern' style tells you that we should be building 80 year old buildings.
not all the quotes int this thread are real are they thayer? you've disagreed with a few i think. it's really only the ones that support your traditionalist opinion that are real, right? to me, it's pretty obvious that architects aren't designing what suri thinks people want, because that's not what very many people want. at least not the people who are in a position to actually influence the built environment, though you could look at trips' hostel example as a building where a community organization worked together to get the city to buy a dilapidated building and preserve it. in that example, the community was able to preserve and old building (which is obviously different than designing a new one).
because suri believeS "the people" want buildings built 80 years ago, are you saying we should be designing buildings 80 years old? or are you saying "to each his own?" those are mutually exclusive. either i design based on a survey that you get to pick, or i design based on what i prefer. it can't be both ways.
The discussion has been Thayer and Curt pouring a books worth of history and whatever reasoning into a certain view (which y'all are entitled to do), all the while Suri dropping in a few lines of text to egg you on while he sits back and says very little really concerning the topic relative to you two. Most other in the thread have given their two cents and avoided putting more energy into it, or have been stating that the thread needs to die and this is trolling 101.
The reality is, this discussion is far too generalized to offer anything substantial into what "the people" want. There are varying influences and varying types of people. Out of all the diversity of the world and within it's countries, it is just plain lazy to declare that everyone wants one type of thing and that architects are not doing it.
you got me curtkram, I'm a traditionalist that really wants to crush modernists, assuming we can agree on what that means, which you seem to think is impossible.
"either i design based on a survey that you get to pick, or i design based on what i prefer. it can't be both ways."
I just keep going back to my question. What's the fear of traditionalism about?
The fear is of faux "traditionalism" done by house builders/"designers"
thayer, you've already defined traditionalism, to you, as buildings you like. what buildings you like is your opinion, and you're entitled to your opinion. there is nothing wrong with that. i'm not afraid of you liking any particular building at all.
as far as:
"either i design based on a survey that you get to pick, or i design based on what i prefer. it can't be both ways."
which one? you said "to each his own" and you also said you defend suri's position that we should be designing what the public wants, which is buildings that are 80 years old. that is based on a survey of his choosing or based on a question he asked his friends. i'm just trying to simplify your case, so i can understand what it is you're trying to defend. so far, you've kind of been all over the place, in a way that seems to me to accomplish nothing but illicit the 'woe is me, i'm such a poor victim' position. i also don't think you're a victim.
and i agree with ryu, that pretty much all of this thread is just trolling.
RyuArch, so no fear of the architecture at Seaside, then, right? Or Poundbury for that matter.
Maybe you should go ahead and make a statement relative to your opinion on Seaside, instead of attempting to lure me into an argument (e.g. trolling...)
My question, to perhaps frame it more clearly, is whether or not you consider the architecture, in general, of those towns to be faux "traditionalism" done by house builders/"designers" of which you claim to fear. If you don't feel like addressing the question, then by all means go ahead and label this as trolling.
If you want a statement, on the other hand, I would say that, like you and the OP, I too dislike faux traditional McMansions. Who doesn't? However, I would argue that there is a small but growing number of architects that do practice "real" and good quality traditional architecture today.
I like Seaside, it's major flaw is it fell victim to market forces and became too expensive and is now more of a vacation spot. I am biased though since I am a huge fan of DPZ, and there was much thought put into Seaside, like many of DPZ's projects as well as the implementation of form based code (I think that was implemented on that project). Stylistically, I like it a lot, especially for the South.
The fear is of faux "traditionalism" done by house builders/"designers"
So wouldn't allowing students to study traditional design rather than simply attending a history class go a long way to aleviating that problem? This is what modernists simply can't accept. Putting traditionalism on the same level as modernism. Somehow, modernism is thought to be superior, so they refuse to allow traditional work to be taught, mainly becasue they can't, but also becasue if they did, most of what they espouse would be worthless. Why would you kill you own market worth? This fear is rational, becasue it's about self preservation, especially those who see the world as black and white.
I like Seaside, it's major flaw is it fell victim to market forces and became too expensive and is now more of a vacation spot.
That's not a flaw, that's yet another piece of evidence that the public is clammoring for better traditional design. It's a matter of supply and demand, and the profession isn't supplying the demand, so others will. While we as a profession refuse to engage builders on an even playing field, we will continue to have this artificial separation between those who build and those who design. Architecture is about the art of building first and foremost. If it weren't so, we would not be having this discussion.
I haven't even made an argument for or against either modernism or "traditional" design, yet you are trying to argue/make a point against what I said as if I said something contrary to any of your arguments...
You're right Ryu, but I was using your statements to explore the main issue of this thread, which is ...Why won't you design what we (the public) want? I'm not for or against either myself, all though I have my own taste like all of us do. I'm for teaching both in schools to alleviate both points you brought up. The only place I disagreed with you specifically is that Seaside's desirability isn't a flaw, quite the opposite.
So wouldn't allowing students to study traditional design rather than simply attending a history class go a long way to aleviating that problem?
students of architecture, or students of house building? i suppose we could force all university programs related to construction management, real estate development, finance, and whatever other forces are involved to set aside a semester to learn about the proper way to detail a historic style in residential housing. hmmm. which revival style were we going to teach again?
it's not fear thayer. you're unable to develop a cohesive thought on what it is you want, and from what i can tell it's incredibly impractical. that's why i've been trying to get you to be clear about what it is you want. we can't teach people to design buildings you like because nobody but you knows what you like. if we were to develop a set of goals that a designer was supposed to achieve, what would that look like? 'include what thayer considers 'beauty,' because vitruvius said so?'
It isn't so much that it's desirability is flawed, but that instead of being a living community, it has shifted to a seasonal community where families from further inland go for their family vacations. It is a place for upper upper middle class or the upper class.
http://www.seasidefl.com/real-estate/ those prices are ridiculous.
I will say though, you cannot give credit solely on the building design aesthetic, other factors like lifestyle, master planning, location, and community add to it's desirability in addition to the building aesthetics (which, contain additional aesthetic elements other than traditional ones too).
students of architecture, or students of house building?
Are they two different things? curtkram, teaching traditional design dosen't mean it's the most beautiful or the best, it simply means teaching traditional design. If you don't know what that means, you should study history and actually see for your self what was in the curriculum of architecture schools before modernism. You'd be surprised there where no courses on the best adhesives with which to stick fake columns on buildings.
I completely agree with you RyuRrch. Seaside is sooo much more, but that discussion never seems to take place on sites like this one, exactly becasue people are hung up on the style question. Even when DPZ designed the code to specifically not dictate style, and low and behold there are some modernist styled buildings there, roughtly in proportion with the market's appetite for them. Go figure.
yes, they are two different things.
a high school kid who applies to college and enters the architecture program is an architecture student.
a student who applies to college and enters a different college is something other than an architecture student.
i don't know what you mean by 'traditional' design. i have my own idea of what it is. i suppose my thought on traditional design might include designs that happened a long time ago (a victorian house that was a contemporary design in it's time could be considered a traditional design now), or if one were to engage in 'traditional' design today, that would likely mean a revival style. there is not one revival style, there are many. sometimes perhaps i slip up and think you're referring to traditional the way i would define it, so i kind of think you're saying you want to teach kids some sort of revival style. that isn't entirely consistent with your previous definition though.
your previous definition of 'traditional' was so loose and vague that it would include all buildings you like. if you were to create a guideline for a program that taught the specific requirements to students that they should learn, what would it look like? just 'make it beautiful?' that sounds a lot like what students do today, under the guise of what you seem to think is 'modernism,' and what you think is bad about education now.
It's been clear that attempting to force traditional design or training onto the curt's of the world is obviously not a solution and would result in some pretty god-awful architecture anyways. Simply fostering the debate on the relevance of traditional architecture in the appropriate venues (universities, publications, forums) is enough, the rest will come naturally. What has been preventing the rest from coming naturally is the active resistance and hostility and the shutting down of dissenting opinions.
"active resistance and hostility and the shutting down of dissenting opinions"
So stop doing it.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.