"Ornament" is just another word for "art". Imagine Chartes without the stained glass windows and statues. imagine the Sistine Chapel with modernist (flat white) walls and ceiling.

I would further ask, do you consider all elements of a building which are not required structurally or functionally gratuitous ornament, or is there some other aspect of them necessary to earn the title?   

Lets say the building you don't like had walls made entirely of blocks, and the blocks around the opening were of a different color.  It would have the same effect visually as the building which you find offensively gratuitous, but would you consider it ok being only the color of the blocks was varied instead of the size?  Or would you still say the color variance suggested structural quoins and is gratuitous?

if it was covered in loos's 'ornament and crime,' it's ornament.

you can like it if you want.  i'm not saying i agree with 'ornament is crime,' or any other such thing.  in this case, it's my personal opinion that this bit of decoration did not accomplish it's goal of being 'beautiful.'  if misrepresenting the structure of that corner has some sort of transcendent traditional quality that all humans love, we must consider the possibility that i am not human.

if that building did something other than those quions, and if i like what they did, and if that other thing was 'ornament,' i probably would have shrugged it off. it is my opinion that using different colored bricks to represent quoins would be the same thing as cast stone.  that's just my opinion though, and not some great manifesto of what all modernists must believe.....

.

i would consider the blocks on the ennis house to have an ornamental quality.  i do not consider the beam in the seagram's building to be ornament.

iit, right trip?

The detail is of Seagram. To me it clearly shows the steel member as superfluous and seems to meet your criteria of "misrepresenting the structure."  When compared to the actual structural rolled steel, one notices the jump in dimension and the fact that the real one is actually embedded within a fireproof concrete column. 

That is one nice thermal-break in that single pane glass wall. Just like moma used to make em.

then to you trip, it's ornament, and that's ok. 

mies did it right.  if he put ornament in his buildings, it's because he was able to step back, let go of the dogma associated with his ideology, and do what's best for the building he was building.

hopefully, the same detail designed by a modern architect today would look a lot different.  because the materials and methods and everything else available today are different.  a good modernist isn't held back by internet trolls and ideology.  they're focused on making better architecture instead of mimicking things that represent a different time and place.

I personally have no problem with Seagram, Mies, nor ornament. Just trying to find some consistency in the language we're dealing with around here. I feel most skins being trotted today are full of ornamentation by this definition as well. They've become almost baroque in a way.

On a side note, I used to work down the street and would enjoy strolling to Seagram's plaza around lunchtime, which is more or less around the time it usually receives some sun (on clear days, of course).

Ah, yes, Mies van der Rohe, architect of the famed Farnsworth House. It was loathed by Ms Farnsworth and the subject of a lawuit for being unlivable. The architect built it on a flood plain; it has spent more time under water than some submarines.

if mies would have slept with ms farnsworth like wright would have, she probably would have complained less.

i don't actually know for certain if that's true or not....

Also, is there a less honest use of material in history than spandrel glass?

i definitely think spandrel glass is a fair non-ornamental material.  opaque glass is just a really dark tinted glass.  same thing as infilling a curtainwall system with porcelain or aluminum or any other material.  infilling curtainwall systems with something opaque at interstitial spaces is, of course, necessary and spandrel glass fills that need.

of course you could say colored glass is ornamental.  everything could be ornamental if you wanted to go that way.

What I am referring to are buildings that appear as top to bottom glazing thanks to the heavy use of spandrel glass panels giving off a notion of transparency that is purely fictional. Nobody will ever look into or out from them so why create the illusion in the first place? I feel a solid panel at least tells the story a little more straightforward. But that's just me. 

Hi Volunteer!

you got your story wrong:

A good architect would notice all your Charleston details, down to the railings, and then design something lovely like a Gehry. Maybe even a nice boxy decon Gehry to help it blend nicely with the context.

So did everyone decide whether or not Barragan is beautiful yet? I can't tell?

Did anyone die of shock over the Seagram building having both pinstripes and a bustle?

The Farnsworth is beautiful, isn't it?

I fail to see the difference between using colored bricks or blocks to make an opening feel visually reinforced or using I-beams outside of a curtain wall to make a building feel structurally exposed or 'honest'.  Both have no purpose other than invoking some kind of response from the viewer.   At least the traditional architect is not claiming some kind of bogus building philosophy and then going right out and breaking it.  That is hypocrisy by any measure, and the fact that you simply consider it a commendable example of 'being free to break the rules for the desired effect' just exposes a double standard.  

no purpose other than invoking some kind of response from the viewer

A more accurate description of your behavior is difficult to imagine. 

'form follows function', 'honesty of material', 'truth in architecture'

it is nothing but a travesty.  it's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

And as a boy in a well's didascolo says, these ideas are in fact incompatible with architecture, as they ultimately leave you with nothing more than a hut.

trip, I might too if I lived in a dick tracy comic book.

suri is a travesty

Interesting article from the Architects Journal (UK) published on Tuesday:

Olcayto: Caruso St John's Tate Britain is Postmodernism 2.0

19 November, 2013 | By Rory Olcayto

Rory Olcayto asks whether the Caruso St John’s Tate Britain revamp could be the future of British architecture

Caruso St John’s Tate Britain is one of three essential projects this year changing how architects engage with the past. Like Witherford Watson Mann’s Astley Castle, and Urban Splash’s Park Hill retrofit, the Thameside museum remodel wilfully blurs the line between old and new.

‘I think for our generation, this distinction between new and old, is less interesting than it was to previous generations’ Adam Caruso says of the look and feel of his studio’s work at Tate Britain. With partner Peter St John he favours the ‘enormous ambiguity’ of daring you to find the join. The basement for example, its arches and vaults, they could’ve been there for years.

Somehow the new stuff feels timeless, like the beautiful new rotunda staircase, a polished concrete smart-deco set-piece, with jazzy look and feel derived from a fish-scale patterned floor. Caruso St John know the old building inside out. But then they did spend a whole year drawing it. Yet the best new space - the restored rotunda gallery - is a private members bar. That’s to be expected when its mostly been paid for by private donors. With government subsidies on the slide expect land grabs like this will to typify the cultural sector.

The new architecture is so deeply informed by what’s already there that a dialogue with James Stirling’s unloved 80s’ extension was inevitable. ‘The Clore was very important in its time [although] there was a different attitude to the way things were built then,’ says St John. ‘That generation were less concerned than we are with the nature of materials. But this was the generation that first started to show people how history might be used again in contemporary architecture - so there is a connection’. Is this the future of British architecture? Sure. It’s called Postmodernism 2.0. Or how about just bloody good?

There are photographs available on Dezeen: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/11/19/tate-britain-millbank-renovation-caruso-st-john/

This is not traditionalism as we have been defining it here, but neither is it modernism as we have been defining it. It is something new with some of each mixed together into a stimulating stew.

It looks great aoywny, and is entirely refreshing. I would love to see a dozen more museums follow in its track and keep raising the bar.

I'd agree aojwny, the work certainly looks great.  But like Barragan's work or Fay Jones, it dosen't really matter that we have slightly different tastes, as long as all of them are allowed to co-exist. 

Is this the future of British architecture? Sure. It’s called Postmodernism 2.0. Or how about just bloody good?

I think it's bloody good, but if we have to attach labels to it, then I'll hold out for Postmodernism 3.0 when architects finally don't feel the need to justify their work in the context of history.  That's surely an unsettling thought for those who rely on linterpreting the zeitgeilt to navigate the world, but rest assured, our public is oblivious to these arcane discussions.

if mies would have slept with ms farnsworth like wright would have, she probably would have complained less.

Really?

so thayer, are you saying you agree with me now, that there isn't a debate between 'traditional' and 'modern?'  you've come around to understand separating architecture into those two categories doesn't work for people who actually have an education in architecture hisotry?  you're back to 'to each his own' and no longer support suri's goal do divide architects into 2 groups so one can attack the other?  you no longer support suri's notion that architects should practice traditional architecture, due to how stupid that statement actually is?

or is this more flip-flopping, and you'll be back to 'you should learn 'traditional' design' later today like you've kind of been doing?  it will be harder for you to troll if you accept there are not two and only two camps of architects.  who would you attack then?

I am with you if you'd acknowledge a traditionalist sticking a fake column on a box is no different than a modernist sticking a fake beam on a box.  Can you go that far?  I don't have any problem with the modernist aesthetic, allthough it's not my favorite, but I do have a problem with it's ideology, which i know there's some debate on.  I've said this before, but you seem on the cusp of believing it this time, so I'll try again. 

I support suri's questioning why more architects don't design traditional buildings considering their verifiable preference by the general population.  You seem to disagree with this despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, so this might kill me effort in the womb, but I will try anyway.  What I don't support is any assertion that an architect should be prohibited from studying a specific kind of archtiecture.  And if you are honest about academia's strong bias for modernism, then it would stand to reason that one's effort should be trained to openng up the curriculum.  But if that curriculum went to the other extreme, I would object to that as well.  I hope that's intelligable.

I've only defend those who are attacked for to expressing their opinion.  Should they turn around and attack others, then I'd back off quick, becasue in the end, the study of architecture should be a pleasure, and all this fighting isn't really helping.  Someone can say, 'I hate traditional archtiecture!!!', that's fine, cause it's just a matter of opinion.  But if the person says, 'You can't study the queen anne building in your neighborhood and learn from it by immitation at an institution of higher learning', then I'm going to have a problem with that.  That isn't the intellectual freedom that academia ought to represent and hold out for, that would be indoctrination, plain and simple.

I myself am agnostic stylistically simply becasue I don't see morality in architecture, but I sure as hell am going to study whatever I love, becasue I know others might love it.  I don't see myself as different that my clients.  I want to love my home, whatever neet intellectual ideas I might have explored, becasue I consider others like my family, who feel architecture much more than they think about it.  I know feelings can be hard to explore, but in the end, that's all we have, so you might as well come to terms with them.

If you dont see morality in architecture you are not the solution, you are part of the problem.

all this talk of academic indoctrination... I've never seen anything like this in my years in school. I clearly remember many of my undergrad professors actively involved in conservation of various historic buildings in the city and never has there been a push away from any "style". But then again, traditional is relativistic anyways.

In my experience dealing with the general public, they simply want quality buildings regardless of whatever stylistic category they fall into. Older buildings have wide-scale appeal because they are just that: old. To imply that the old-ways of detailing buildings was the best is a logical fallacy.

Historic preservation is a completely different matter.  It's permissible in academia because it conforms to the modernist notion of the "ladder of progress", where traditional architecture is a historical curiosity to be preserved, but not to be practiced as a living tradition.

if you had designed, say, a beaux arts classical library scheme in you undergrad architectural design studio, how do you think your open-minded professors would have received it?   Be honest.

Then most of humanity is the problem, which aligns perfectly with your disdain for the public. Different strokes for different folks.

Eke, point is made but (hindsight being 20-20), I am pretty sure some (I can think of 2 to 3 at the moment) of my past professors would have approved of a beaux-art project but it would have been criticized just like any other scheme. I can remember residential and museum studio projects where some students kept to such ideas but just because something is designed in these ways does not imply the least bit of success.

I maintain that tradition is relative and it is not useful to link it to a romantic view of the past.

"In my experience dealing with the general public, they simply want quality buildings regardless of whatever stylistic category they fall into. Older buildings have wide-scale appeal because they are just that: old. To imply that the old-ways of detailing buildings was the best is a logical fallacy."

Are you sure that people don't like the old buildings simply because that find them more beautiful?

i have spent many hours in the New York's magnificent Public Library by Carrere and Hastings.  New Yorkers love that building.  They love being near it, they love to lunch on its broad terraces, and gaze on the lovingly crafted details and sculpture.  I can assure you that it's not simply because its historical.  They love it because its beautiful in a way that modern buildings by and large are not.  I'm pretty sure that many of them look at that building and the joy it brings to millions of visitors, and think, "Why don't architects make buildings today that make me feel the way this one does?"

Your last sentence is itself a logical fallacy, since it suggests that everything new is ipso facto better than everything done in the past.  This is simply false. 

depends on the professor doesn't it eke?  i had all sorts.  some who let me develop my project however i wanted, and some who were quite specific as to what i should be designing, and some that tried to stay somewhere in-between.

architecture studio should teach architecture, not revival styles.  "tradtional and modern" should not be taught in school at all, since it's just a bilateral division that accomplishes nothing other that giving people like thayer something to complain about.  historic and contemporary styles of architecture, including classical and beaux arts and queen anne and international and prairie style and post-modern should be taught in history classes.

there are a lot of old styles of architecture.  it's too much to expect a studio professor to know how to detail the decorations of each one, so they can nurture the occasional kid that wants to play martyr to their 'traditional' style.  the studio professor should be focused on teaching architecture.  the student should be focused on learning about architecture.  this sort of "traditional v. modern" crap prevents both from doing their job.

Then most of humanity is the problem, which aligns perfectly with your disdain for the public. Different strokes for different folks.

it's not most of humanity thayer, it's just people in your surveys....

Point is made indeed.  If the public simply wanted quality buildings, assuming aesthetics has no bearing on said quality, then we wouldn't have any need for architects.  

Eke, or, are old buildings beautiful because they are old? I work in Canada's capital and we have a great deal of 100+ year old buildings that are beloved by the public. But, what I find interesting is that when it comes to new construction, we have direct instruction from elected officials not to replicate or emulate them. Project proposals that would fit, from what I understand (cards on the table: I have not read all the posts in this thread), into this loosely defined traditional category do not excite people. Now, granted a glass box does not either, but no one here is suggesting that is the alternative.

I have been in NY's public library and it is a great space, no argument needed. Its success is a factor of more than its sculptures though. The design strategies used for its public spaces can be used in a new library building without requiring it to look the same.

note: my previous statement should have said "To imply that the old-ways of detailing buildings was the best simply because they are old is a logical fallacy". Without that extra bit, yes, that would be a fallacy. I think that we are all discounting the effects of time when discussing a return to this idea of traditional.

Curtkram's, you simply can't help yourself.  The logical fallacies abound.  You keep implying that studying traditional architecture is the same as teaching 'revival styles', which just shows how superficially you view architecture.  Like many modernists professors that proclaimed to be above such mundane things like 'style' yet all their students work coincidentally looked modernist, your dismissing the relevance of style in aesthetics is facetious.  If style is irrelevant, why are you so hung-up on it?

Non Sequitor, you should look in to why many governmental agencies explicitly say new buildings should not replicate older buildings.  There's a whole history behind that, for those interested in history or simply understanding what got us here , but that's a whole other 1400 comment post.

"It's not good because it's old, it's old because it's good."

The FBI building is old, but I doubt anyone would miss it if they replace it one day.

The Paris City Hall is another beautiful old building that attracts people like a magnet. In the summer there is an open air cafe in the plaza among the fountains. In the winter the fountains are turned into a skating rink. Hard to imagine sitting in front of an inhuman modern glass wall building of a similar size and enjoying yourself.

Volunteer, further more it's a 19th century confection of revival styles.  Ahhhh!

i'm trying to beat you with the clue stick thayer, but your skull is too thick.  the only common thing in your perception of 'traditional v. modern' is that you have to draw a line to divide all architecture ever and all architecture to come into 2 and only 2 categories.  do you know why that is?  i'm pretty sure it's because you have some lame superhero complex, like your fighting against this great enemy of modernism.  it doesn't exist.  your ego is fictional.

you don't even know what 'traditional' is.  that's why i was trying to coax it out of you guys, but for you and suri both there are some buildings you like, and some you don't, so you've grouped the buildings you like into 'traditional' and buildings you don't like into 'modern.'  all that means is that you have an opinion.  everyone has an opinion.  the average 6 year old can look at a building and say 'i like that' or 'i don't like that.'  their opinion might be formed by a picture of big bird on a wall instead of the transcendental crap you like to associate with your 'traditional' architecture.  what makes your opinion any more informed than that of a 6 year old?  there is nothing wrong with liking traditional architecture, but then there isn't anything wrong with liking big bird either is there?

there is a difference between a neoclassical house and a victorian house.  there is a difference in the decoration, size, shape, roof slope, etc.  why not pick a side between neoclassical and victorian?  why is it the 'modernists' you're so upset with?  do you just go into the getty museum and 'feel' like you don't like the space?

the public likes good architecture. i think the question as to whether that's 'traditional' or 'modern' is limited to idiots that like to fight people over nothing.  i think you've been very clear in showing that the only thing you're interested in is arguing about things you don't know anything about.  if 'traditional' isn't a revival style, what is it?  are you sticking to your previous definition, which essentially says that 'traditional' is stuff thayer likes?  you don't see how your opinion can't be relevant to any topic broader than your opinion, including public taste or education policy?

what logical fallacy?  do you know what logic is, or didn't they teach you that in 'traditional' school?  plato liked logic.  i would think they would have taught you that in the neoclassical revival part of your traditional education.

Hard to imagine sitting in front of an inhuman modern glass wall building of a similar size and enjoying yourself

really?  because people gather in front of 'modern' buildings all the time.

Rockefeller is neither modern (though it eas when it was built) nor Modernist.

Also, Millenium Park is a park, not a building. 

I think it is funny that architects don't like cars (or auto-mobiles of any sort), but then they build buildings that isolate, don't mesh well with the environment, they distort the natural fabric and scale of things. At least with one of those evil automobiles I can get out in nature every once in a while.

I don't understand why no one cares if the roof leaks a la Gehry @ MIT or if the building barbecues the neighbors across the street or if the plaza is inhospitable or if the stairwell is a crime scene waiting to happen. Why is it that you can design poorly hospitable spaces that leak, offend the neighbors and are maintenance nightmares and still position yourself at the top of your game? I think I know why I'm not an architect anymore. Thanks all for this. It has been, and will continue to be enlightening to hear what people think about architecture. The profession is in crisis!

By the way, try doing a school studio project with brick (oh to be so unhip). There was a kid in my class that designed a brick building, it had precast lintels and a cornerstone with the date stamped into it too. He got crap for it from many but there was a prof that stuck up for him too. 

does that mean art deco, the design that came from the machine age, is traditional?  maybe it's only the designs that the public likes that would be considered 'traditional?'

lots of people hanging out here.  is this traditional?

people like good architecture.  sometimes, that's an old building.  sometimes it's not.  whether it's 'traditional' or 'modern' has nothing to do with it.

there is a stage at millenium park.  it's a built structure.  is this traditional?  or you don't count this as 'architecture' since some people like it and it's not traditional?

i had studios where designing with brick was pretty much a requirement.  one was for a project in a historic area, where all the other buildings were brick, so we were encouraged to be considerate of that.  another one was sort of sponsored by a brick association.  they had a contest and whoever had the best brick design won an award or something.  i had another studio, early on, where i did a brick building just because that's what i wanted to do.  none of them included a cornerstone with the date, because that really is a little bit lame.

Helps when you have a traditional urban fabric for your spaceship.