suri can't help it. Belief systems are immune to logic, fact, experience and basic intelligence. Religious fundamentalists are another good demonstration of this behavior.
I am excited to see what Christine Franck will be doing in Denver, now that she has accepted the position of Director of Contemporary Traditional Architecture Initiatives at the University of Colorado Denver College of Architecture and Planning. Perhaps once she gets it up and running she will post a better definition so that this thread can retire the debate about definitions and get down to the substance of design.
suri, I think your right about it happening naturally. All the good traditional architects where certainly not trained in school, but rather have come upon it like EKE through their own education. While I was at Pratt, I took full advantage of both the incredible library and the built library outside the doors. What's so great about the way you phrased the question is that's how I've heard it from many of my non-archtiect friends. Not with the hostility that many here seem to think it implies, but just matter of factly.
Here's what "traditional" in this context means to me. It means, very simply, design inspired by, and in continuity with great design traditions. Using that definition, I disagree with Curtkram on this point: I think that architecture can certainly be "contemporary" (built now, and and relevant now) and "traditional" (in continuity with a design tradition). So I agree that a Victorian building built in the 1870's was contemporary in its day, but it was also traditional, because it was connected to a long-standing design tradition.
"suri can't help it. Belief systems are immune to logic, fact, experience and basic intelligence. Religious fundamentalists are another good demonstration of this behavior."
So are modernist true-believers. :)
"I'm right...you're the one who's beliefs are irrational!"
"No, I'm right, YOU'RE the one who's beliefs are irrational!"
What is disconcerting is the idea that a modernist architect can start with a clean slate of paper and disregard the solution to problems he faces that have been previously solved by generations and generations of architects and builders. Solved and refined and improved upon time and time again. The only people he looks to are the other modernists promoting the modernist flavor of the month.
Once again, EKE comes in with the winner. There actually is no real stink over what the definition is, it's simply splitting hairs to create distraction. Is that the definition of trolling? This debate was over long ago, it's just interesting to tease out all the psychological baggage that goes into this nonsencicle debate. At this point though, would it be fair to say modernism is traditional based on that definition? Afterall it's almost 100 years old. Now that's trolling!
Volunteer,
That's a great point. Do scientists brush past previous science? Do musicians for that matter? To disregard solutions to similar problems simply becasue they came from a different time and place seems like the last thing a modern person would do, but it's strikingly similar to what a fundamentalist would do.
The only problem with that definition is that there is a long 100 year 'tradition' of modernism, which most, if not all, of today's design is in continuity with.
I actually dont agree, because the modernist point-of-view is intentionally anti-traditional. By that I mean that modernist movements in art and architecture value novelty and uniqueness over continuity and accumulated wisdom.
volunteer, mimicking a wood construction detail in stone, or a stone construction detail in wood, or anything in styrofoam, does not solve any problems. ornament is ornament, and i have a lot of trouble trying to understand how you think space planning or functional design or good architecture in general has anything to do with 'traditional' or 'modern' styles. a modernist can have a length to width, or height to width, ratio of 1.6 if they want.
eke, i agree with you. victorian houses were designed with elements of previous architectural styles in mind. buildings can be built today with any amount of influence from other styles you want to consider. i think designing in a neoclassical style after studying that style tends to be preferable to designing in a neoclassical style after just getting home from the bar and throwing up a bunch of crap so the next neo-eclectic mcmansion can be as ugly as the previous one. i assume you do a good job with the style you're working in.
i don't think that means "the public wants traditional architecture," or that the public wants buildings that are 80 years old, or that the public wants buildings that thayer likes. you can design in a neoclassical style if you want. you can adapt that style to today's environment if you want (does that make it some sort of new revival style?). that doesn't mean that everyone wants their architect to do that, and it doesn't mean that particular style, or any other style, should be pushed on me.
i don't think anyone in here is saying traditional architects have to stop what they're doing and start designing modern buildings. i think what's being said is that suri wants me to stop doing what i do, and other architects that don't fit his 80 year old environment should stop doing what they're doing, and we should all design what he wants us to. of course, thayer still agrees with him.
by the way, if you design a new house, with all the best materials and methods, and have it meet modern codes and everything else, and design that building to be neoclassical in style, that building is not 80 years old. that building fits a different definition of 'traditional' than what suri was trying to get across.
But modernism was intentional in its desire (ideologically) to break tradition and eliminate history. That's why so many advocated demolishing the traditional city, the very ones that are experiencing a Renaissance today. I don't think it's necessary to exclude anyone, becasue the die-hard modernists tend to eat their own. Thus the incredible speed of new isms in architecture, each one claiming to be the new thing from which all here after will flow.
volunteer, mimicking a wood construction detail in stone, or a stone construction detail in wood, or anything in styrofoam, does not solve any problems. ornament is ornament, and i have a lot of trouble trying to understand how you think space planning or functional design or good architecture in general has anything to do with 'traditional' or 'modern' styles.
Except that's not what he said. Keep chasing windmills!
"think what's being said is that suri wants me to stop doing what i do, and other architects that don't fit his 80 year old environment should stop doing what they're doing, and we should all design what he wants us to."
in case you missed this:
"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."
"that building is not 80 years old."
Has anyone besides you said a building has to be 80 years old to be traditional?
disregard the solution to problems he faces that have been previously solved by generations and generations of architects and builders
tell me about those problems thayer. tell me the specific problem, in a project i might work on some day, that an ancient architect has solved. tell me about the ancient wisdom i'm ignoring. is it just ornament? or are you just trolling? be honest.
here's what i see, that i'm ignoring. i can get a geotech report now, so i know in advance if my building is going to fall down. generations and generations of architects didn't have geotech reports. it would be irresponsible and probably even criminal for me to rely on the way those architects designed buildings. eke can get a geotech report too. he doesn't have to rely on the wisdom of ancient architects to design a building that isn't going to fall down.
Is it unreasonable to assume that the average citizen's favorite buildings are at least 80 years old? That is what I am driving at here.
surixurient
(History|Contact)
Oct 22, 13 4:27 pmBy traditional I mean architecture up until the point where a philosophical/religious/political movement decided that it would redefine architecture from scratch and call today year zero. That is how most of us unwashed masses see it anyways.
surixurient
(History|Contact)
Oct 22, 13 4:30 pmark1t3kt, If you show them something 100 years old after what the architect showed them, it would be the latter they would in fact want. But architects have fooled some into thinking it would be "too expensive" so we don't bother to demand it.
surixurient
(History|Contact)
Oct 22, 13 5:59 pm
Yes it would be sometime around 80 years ago, but its more of a period.
Were those posts addressing 'what is traditional' or 'in which period does modern architecture take off' Do you not have the ability to discern meaning from those posts curtkram, or are you just feigning ignorance as usual?
Well, when looking at it from a public safety angle, tradition could tell you, say, not to build roofs that collect snow in areas where that would be an issue:
There is a good example in this thread of traditional masonry/design for windows managing water and erosion better than the modern designs for windows, or something like that, someone made the point but I forget which pages to look.
thayer asks "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?"
Suri's post that I was replying to was neither his "wondering" nor positing the differences in understanding the level of abstraction employed in "traditional" vs "modern" ornament. His position was that beauty and ornament aren't intellectual exercises but are directly represented in nature we just literally apply to buildings. He then asserts that "traditional" is "more real" than modernism because people like traditional ornament. His examples supported neither of his assertions. Pointing that out is not 'school yard bullying', I'm pointing out the contradictions of his position - most especially when his examples of 'proof' are the very abstractions and productions of human imagination he claims they aren't. Irregardless if they were produced in 1500A.D. or 2010. Suri's position is one of faith that isn't supported by anything other than his faith and opinion that he is right about traditional architecture being more superior and more real than modern architecture. That I debate his opinion doesn't mean I am a modernist, post-modernist, historicist, traditionalist or reformed modernist.
"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?
My response to Suri was not slamming him about someone's else's approach to "speaking" to the public as it relates to ornament. Again, my response was to refute his position that "traditional" is the moral superior to "modern" design/art/beauty. His position is that 1) traditional architecture/art/ornament is "naturally derived" direct from nature without intermediation of the human imagination (we simply replicate) and 2) because his opinion of such allows him to make the statement that traditional architecture/art/ornament is more real. His not acknowledging the contradictions in his position is telling in that he can't admit to them and the collapse of his position fails to or simply can't see them because of the faith in his aesthetic choices.
Perhaps instead of your haste to rush to his defense (and taking others to task for your assumption that they hold a moral certainty of one ornamental style over another while Suri purports the very thing you criticize me for) you could re-read for clarity's sake on your part. I've made no assertion that one style is more superior than the other. You even agree with me.
I could care less about whether suri likes traditional architecture or ornament. I care about the same for your predilection for traditional architecture. I care the same for someone who thinks parametricism is awesome stuff. What I like makes no difference in debating his assertions on a forum. I'm agnostic on style.
suri, you repeated time periods as if the architecture that you want is architecture that is more than 80 years old. that's not a specific date, more of a range. with 26 pages of trolling, flame baiting, flaming, and other nonsensical bullshit (as eloquently pictured by sneakypete, and which i am obviously a contributor to), i may have missed it if you had a better definition of "traditional" architecture, or a more clear explanation of what it is you want.
i don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. obviously, you want your environment to be different than it is. apparently somebody built a building you don't like, and you think coming to the internets to complain will help. unfortunately, you don't get to shape your environment. you get to live with what other people build. if it helps, i don't get to control what my environment looks like either. i've just learned to make the best out of real life as it is, without complaining too much (except in this thread, where apparently i complain a lot).
if you really think the world needs an advocate for "traditional" architecture, find someone who knows what they're talking about. you're not the best figurehead. maybe that lady in colorado will help.
You misunderstood me. I certainly didn't say this "He then asserts that "traditional" is "more real" than modernism because people like traditional ornament. His examples supported neither of his assertions." I said that people like traditional ornament because it is more real, not the other way around. My point was that the beauty of traditional architecture comes naturally to the public, because it is the beauty of nature, it does not require the intellectual exercises and conditioning that a modern sense of beauty does, so in that sense it is more real.
"i may have missed it if you had a better definition of "traditional" architecture, or a more clear explanation of what it is you want." That is the understatement of the year. You miss just about everything. ;)
Again, my response was to refute his position that "traditional" is the moral superior to "modern" design/art/beauty.
I don't buy there's any superiority in aesthetic choices, so that's where I would get off the suri train. I'm also agnostic although I have preferences. When working for a client though, the budget, client's preferences, site, context, climate, and local traditions play a larger role in the outcome of the design than my personal preferences, but we are all different designers tempermentally. I wasn't claiming you had any particular allegiance, I was using your great definition of ornament and simply turning it to answer suri's original question. If ornament is a language, then why not teach archtiects to speak the lingua franca rather than esperanto.
"i may have missed it if you had a better definition of "traditional" architecture, or a more clear explanation of what it is you want." That is the understatement of the year. You miss just about everything. ;)
if what you consider "traditional" is something other than buildings that are 80 years old, you could have helped me out and clarified that position in the last 20 pages or so. telling me about how i miss stuff doesn't help much, does it?
So if you took someone from Kenya, that has never seen anything from Western Culture and tell them to design a house, you're going to maybe get a Richardsonian?
"So if you took someone from Kenya, that has never seen anything from Western Culture and tell them to design a house, you're going to maybe get a Richardsonian?"
RyuArch, this sounds like a great Mythbuster suggestion. They can each go deep in the forest away from the evils of academia and grab people by force from these deep, dark un-modern-architecture-molested corners of the earth and set them to design what they think is traditional.
This is all like if you stuck a first year student who "knows" everything, into a room with a thesis student from Notre Dame and a thesis student from a main stream school, and the first year student decided to talk about his favorite "style"...
so your definition of traditional depends on the definition of modernism right?
traditional is all architecture that does not fall under the category of modernism. what would be included in modernism? postmodernism, deconstruction, brutalism, blobitecture, parametricism, art deco, etc. i don't think gropius would have been a fan of blobitecture, but maybe gropius was of the international style and include that as a small subset of 'modern.'
once you say modern is a hodgepodge of styles like that, i think you should understand there is no more tabula rasa. the idea that architectural styles should start over was really a very small subset of that group. postmodernism obviously depended very much on studying historical styles. it would be a lot easier if you either wanted to stop building new structures all together, or decorate buildings in a revival style of the client/architect's choice. i would disagree, but at least it would be clear.
To design something of beauty and to recognize something of beauty are two completely different things. One is a skill acquired by talent education and training, the other comes naturally and is simply part of being human.
So if you took someone from Kenya, that has never seen anything from Western Culture and tell them to design a house, you're going to maybe get a Richardsonian?
I was thinking more Federal, but of the Scottish variety, which is called Adams if I'm not mistaken, like the picture above. With Richardsonian you get into the whole is it queen anne, is it proto modern, is it Romanesque revival. Then you have to distinguish between the syrian, spanish and french influences. Too hard. Much easier if it's modernism revival. Then you just point to Mies.
curtkram, we had this exact same conversation a dozen pages ago. And I even brought it up the last time you tried to claim i wasn't clear on my definition of traditional. How many times should we do this again? I have said that because modernism is the anti-traditional, anything modernist can not be traditional. Postmodern isn't half traditional, regardless of its traditional influences. it's roots in modernism make it not traditional by the very nature of modernism.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
suri can't help it. Belief systems are immune to logic, fact, experience and basic intelligence. Religious fundamentalists are another good demonstration of this behavior.
I am excited to see what Christine Franck will be doing in Denver, now that she has accepted the position of Director of Contemporary Traditional Architecture Initiatives at the University of Colorado Denver College of Architecture and Planning. Perhaps once she gets it up and running she will post a better definition so that this thread can retire the debate about definitions and get down to the substance of design.
http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/ArchitecturePlanning/Documents/Christine%20Franck%20appointment.pdf
suri, I think your right about it happening naturally. All the good traditional architects where certainly not trained in school, but rather have come upon it like EKE through their own education. While I was at Pratt, I took full advantage of both the incredible library and the built library outside the doors. What's so great about the way you phrased the question is that's how I've heard it from many of my non-archtiect friends. Not with the hostility that many here seem to think it implies, but just matter of factly.
That's great news aojwny. Little by little.
Here's what "traditional" in this context means to me. It means, very simply, design inspired by, and in continuity with great design traditions. Using that definition, I disagree with Curtkram on this point: I think that architecture can certainly be "contemporary" (built now, and and relevant now) and "traditional" (in continuity with a design tradition). So I agree that a Victorian building built in the 1870's was contemporary in its day, but it was also traditional, because it was connected to a long-standing design tradition.
"suri can't help it. Belief systems are immune to logic, fact, experience and basic intelligence. Religious fundamentalists are another good demonstration of this behavior."
So are modernist true-believers. :)
"I'm right...you're the one who's beliefs are irrational!"
"No, I'm right, YOU'RE the one who's beliefs are irrational!"
(repeat 1275 times)
What is disconcerting is the idea that a modernist architect can start with a clean slate of paper and disregard the solution to problems he faces that have been previously solved by generations and generations of architects and builders. Solved and refined and improved upon time and time again. The only people he looks to are the other modernists promoting the modernist flavor of the month.
Once again, EKE comes in with the winner. There actually is no real stink over what the definition is, it's simply splitting hairs to create distraction. Is that the definition of trolling? This debate was over long ago, it's just interesting to tease out all the psychological baggage that goes into this nonsencicle debate. At this point though, would it be fair to say modernism is traditional based on that definition? Afterall it's almost 100 years old. Now that's trolling!
Volunteer,
That's a great point. Do scientists brush past previous science? Do musicians for that matter? To disregard solutions to similar problems simply becasue they came from a different time and place seems like the last thing a modern person would do, but it's strikingly similar to what a fundamentalist would do.
Great. Debate over. Can we let this get buried now?
The only problem with that definition is that there is a long 100 year 'tradition' of modernism, which most, if not all, of today's design is in continuity with.
I actually dont agree, because the modernist point-of-view is intentionally anti-traditional. By that I mean that modernist movements in art and architecture value novelty and uniqueness over continuity and accumulated wisdom.
That is why i think the definition needs to explicitly exclude continuity from modernism.
nothing like a good old-fashion dead-horse beating!
volunteer, mimicking a wood construction detail in stone, or a stone construction detail in wood, or anything in styrofoam, does not solve any problems. ornament is ornament, and i have a lot of trouble trying to understand how you think space planning or functional design or good architecture in general has anything to do with 'traditional' or 'modern' styles. a modernist can have a length to width, or height to width, ratio of 1.6 if they want.
eke, i agree with you. victorian houses were designed with elements of previous architectural styles in mind. buildings can be built today with any amount of influence from other styles you want to consider. i think designing in a neoclassical style after studying that style tends to be preferable to designing in a neoclassical style after just getting home from the bar and throwing up a bunch of crap so the next neo-eclectic mcmansion can be as ugly as the previous one. i assume you do a good job with the style you're working in.
i don't think that means "the public wants traditional architecture," or that the public wants buildings that are 80 years old, or that the public wants buildings that thayer likes. you can design in a neoclassical style if you want. you can adapt that style to today's environment if you want (does that make it some sort of new revival style?). that doesn't mean that everyone wants their architect to do that, and it doesn't mean that particular style, or any other style, should be pushed on me.
i don't think anyone in here is saying traditional architects have to stop what they're doing and start designing modern buildings. i think what's being said is that suri wants me to stop doing what i do, and other architects that don't fit his 80 year old environment should stop doing what they're doing, and we should all design what he wants us to. of course, thayer still agrees with him.
by the way, if you design a new house, with all the best materials and methods, and have it meet modern codes and everything else, and design that building to be neoclassical in style, that building is not 80 years old. that building fits a different definition of 'traditional' than what suri was trying to get across.
But modernism was intentional in its desire (ideologically) to break tradition and eliminate history. That's why so many advocated demolishing the traditional city, the very ones that are experiencing a Renaissance today. I don't think it's necessary to exclude anyone, becasue the die-hard modernists tend to eat their own. Thus the incredible speed of new isms in architecture, each one claiming to be the new thing from which all here after will flow.
Except that's not what he said. Keep chasing windmills!
"think what's being said is that suri wants me to stop doing what i do, and other architects that don't fit his 80 year old environment should stop doing what they're doing, and we should all design what he wants us to."
in case you missed this:
"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."
"that building is not 80 years old."
Has anyone besides you said a building has to be 80 years old to be traditional?
disregard the solution to problems he faces that have been previously solved by generations and generations of architects and builders
tell me about those problems thayer. tell me the specific problem, in a project i might work on some day, that an ancient architect has solved. tell me about the ancient wisdom i'm ignoring. is it just ornament? or are you just trolling? be honest.
here's what i see, that i'm ignoring. i can get a geotech report now, so i know in advance if my building is going to fall down. generations and generations of architects didn't have geotech reports. it would be irresponsible and probably even criminal for me to rely on the way those architects designed buildings. eke can get a geotech report too. he doesn't have to rely on the wisdom of ancient architects to design a building that isn't going to fall down.
Here is a hint, there is more to a design than structural integrity and ornament.
surixurient
(History|Contact)
Oct 22, 13 4:21 pm
Is it unreasonable to assume that the average citizen's favorite buildings are at least 80 years old? That is what I am driving at here.
surixurient
(History|Contact)
Oct 22, 13 4:27 pmBy traditional I mean architecture up until the point where a philosophical/religious/political movement decided that it would redefine architecture from scratch and call today year zero. That is how most of us unwashed masses see it anyways.
surixurient
(History|Contact)
Oct 22, 13 4:30 pmark1t3kt, If you show them something 100 years old after what the architect showed them, it would be the latter they would in fact want. But architects have fooled some into thinking it would be "too expensive" so we don't bother to demand it.
surixurient
(History|Contact)
Oct 22, 13 5:59 pm
Yes it would be sometime around 80 years ago, but its more of a period.
*SIGH*
if there is something other than ornament that makes architecture "traditional," i would appreciate it if you elaborate. but be specific.
Were those posts addressing 'what is traditional' or 'in which period does modern architecture take off' Do you not have the ability to discern meaning from those posts curtkram, or are you just feigning ignorance as usual?
Well, when looking at it from a public safety angle, tradition could tell you, say, not to build roofs that collect snow in areas where that would be an issue:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1506872/Children-crushed-in-ice-rink-disaster.html
Or, the more common issue of keeping water away from your building:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/06/mit_sues_gehry_citing_leaks_in_300m_complex/?page=full
There is a good example in this thread of traditional masonry/design for windows managing water and erosion better than the modern designs for windows, or something like that, someone made the point but I forget which pages to look.
thayer asks "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?"
Suri's post that I was replying to was neither his "wondering" nor positing the differences in understanding the level of abstraction employed in "traditional" vs "modern" ornament. His position was that beauty and ornament aren't intellectual exercises but are directly represented in nature we just literally apply to buildings. He then asserts that "traditional" is "more real" than modernism because people like traditional ornament. His examples supported neither of his assertions. Pointing that out is not 'school yard bullying', I'm pointing out the contradictions of his position - most especially when his examples of 'proof' are the very abstractions and productions of human imagination he claims they aren't. Irregardless if they were produced in 1500A.D. or 2010. Suri's position is one of faith that isn't supported by anything other than his faith and opinion that he is right about traditional architecture being more superior and more real than modern architecture. That I debate his opinion doesn't mean I am a modernist, post-modernist, historicist, traditionalist or reformed modernist.
"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?
My response to Suri was not slamming him about someone's else's approach to "speaking" to the public as it relates to ornament. Again, my response was to refute his position that "traditional" is the moral superior to "modern" design/art/beauty. His position is that 1) traditional architecture/art/ornament is "naturally derived" direct from nature without intermediation of the human imagination (we simply replicate) and 2) because his opinion of such allows him to make the statement that traditional architecture/art/ornament is more real. His not acknowledging the contradictions in his position is telling in that he can't admit to them and the collapse of his position fails to or simply can't see them because of the faith in his aesthetic choices.
Perhaps instead of your haste to rush to his defense (and taking others to task for your assumption that they hold a moral certainty of one ornamental style over another while Suri purports the very thing you criticize me for) you could re-read for clarity's sake on your part. I've made no assertion that one style is more superior than the other. You even agree with me.
I could care less about whether suri likes traditional architecture or ornament. I care about the same for your predilection for traditional architecture. I care the same for someone who thinks parametricism is awesome stuff. What I like makes no difference in debating his assertions on a forum. I'm agnostic on style.
suri, you repeated time periods as if the architecture that you want is architecture that is more than 80 years old. that's not a specific date, more of a range. with 26 pages of trolling, flame baiting, flaming, and other nonsensical bullshit (as eloquently pictured by sneakypete, and which i am obviously a contributor to), i may have missed it if you had a better definition of "traditional" architecture, or a more clear explanation of what it is you want.
i don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. obviously, you want your environment to be different than it is. apparently somebody built a building you don't like, and you think coming to the internets to complain will help. unfortunately, you don't get to shape your environment. you get to live with what other people build. if it helps, i don't get to control what my environment looks like either. i've just learned to make the best out of real life as it is, without complaining too much (except in this thread, where apparently i complain a lot).
if you really think the world needs an advocate for "traditional" architecture, find someone who knows what they're talking about. you're not the best figurehead. maybe that lady in colorado will help.
You misunderstood me. I certainly didn't say this "He then asserts that "traditional" is "more real" than modernism because people like traditional ornament. His examples supported neither of his assertions." I said that people like traditional ornament because it is more real, not the other way around. My point was that the beauty of traditional architecture comes naturally to the public, because it is the beauty of nature, it does not require the intellectual exercises and conditioning that a modern sense of beauty does, so in that sense it is more real.
"i may have missed it if you had a better definition of "traditional" architecture, or a more clear explanation of what it is you want." That is the understatement of the year. You miss just about everything. ;)
Again, my response was to refute his position that "traditional" is the moral superior to "modern" design/art/beauty.
I don't buy there's any superiority in aesthetic choices, so that's where I would get off the suri train. I'm also agnostic although I have preferences. When working for a client though, the budget, client's preferences, site, context, climate, and local traditions play a larger role in the outcome of the design than my personal preferences, but we are all different designers tempermentally. I wasn't claiming you had any particular allegiance, I was using your great definition of ornament and simply turning it to answer suri's original question. If ornament is a language, then why not teach archtiects to speak the lingua franca rather than esperanto.
I don't claim that the traditional sense of beauty is superior either, I claim it is more natural.
"i may have missed it if you had a better definition of "traditional" architecture, or a more clear explanation of what it is you want." That is the understatement of the year. You miss just about everything. ;)
if what you consider "traditional" is something other than buildings that are 80 years old, you could have helped me out and clarified that position in the last 20 pages or so. telling me about how i miss stuff doesn't help much, does it?
Define natural please.
I mean traditional architecture to be architecture outside of the influence of modernism.
"Define natural please." Not learned, innate.
Natural is what a person would do without all the bullshit they cram in your head in architecture school about style, beauty, and what is of our time.
Lest it should go un-noticed. We've crossed the 1300 mark! 200 hundred more to go...
So if you took someone from Kenya, that has never seen anything from Western Culture and tell them to design a house, you're going to maybe get a Richardsonian?
What do you mean by modernsim?
"So if you took someone from Kenya, that has never seen anything from Western Culture and tell them to design a house, you're going to maybe get a Richardsonian?"
RyuArch, this sounds like a great Mythbuster suggestion. They can each go deep in the forest away from the evils of academia and grab people by force from these deep, dark un-modern-architecture-molested corners of the earth and set them to design what they think is traditional.
Science!
This is all like if you stuck a first year student who "knows" everything, into a room with a thesis student from Notre Dame and a thesis student from a main stream school, and the first year student decided to talk about his favorite "style"...
so your definition of traditional depends on the definition of modernism right?
traditional is all architecture that does not fall under the category of modernism. what would be included in modernism? postmodernism, deconstruction, brutalism, blobitecture, parametricism, art deco, etc. i don't think gropius would have been a fan of blobitecture, but maybe gropius was of the international style and include that as a small subset of 'modern.'
once you say modern is a hodgepodge of styles like that, i think you should understand there is no more tabula rasa. the idea that architectural styles should start over was really a very small subset of that group. postmodernism obviously depended very much on studying historical styles. it would be a lot easier if you either wanted to stop building new structures all together, or decorate buildings in a revival style of the client/architect's choice. i would disagree, but at least it would be clear.
how about this. it has a couple revival styles:
To design something of beauty and to recognize something of beauty are two completely different things. One is a skill acquired by talent education and training, the other comes naturally and is simply part of being human.
Finally! What the public wants! It is so pleasing to the eye!
So if you took someone from Kenya, that has never seen anything from Western Culture and tell them to design a house, you're going to maybe get a Richardsonian?
I was thinking more Federal, but of the Scottish variety, which is called Adams if I'm not mistaken, like the picture above. With Richardsonian you get into the whole is it queen anne, is it proto modern, is it Romanesque revival. Then you have to distinguish between the syrian, spanish and french influences. Too hard. Much easier if it's modernism revival. Then you just point to Mies.
how about this one. i think this one is a complete lack of style, so it would have to fit somewhere between modern and traditional, right?
I don't like the shrub in the foreground of the above picture... it does not fit the traditional parking lot aesthetic.
That looks like a mix of stripped down mission with modernism. This is fun, next please!!!
So is this traditional or modern?
curtkram, we had this exact same conversation a dozen pages ago. And I even brought it up the last time you tried to claim i wasn't clear on my definition of traditional. How many times should we do this again? I have said that because modernism is the anti-traditional, anything modernist can not be traditional. Postmodern isn't half traditional, regardless of its traditional influences. it's roots in modernism make it not traditional by the very nature of modernism.
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.