I just spend the last few minutes retreading and parsing through that very strange G.K. Chesterston quote. It occurs to me that he may actually have been arguing in favor of traditions.
Miles, educating clients is a good thing, and actually hopefully we all do so in our practise.
And FWIW, I do not "think the practice of architecture is an exercise in the application of period style," (and have never said so) but I do think we can all benefit from continued education.
Oh, and Miles, I agree that clients who want traditional design are not being denied. What many of them are being denied, and this we have gone over here many times, is good traditional design. Why? because many architects just do not know how to give that to their clients (and have not been taught how to in school, because the teaching of it has been deliberately excluded from the curriculum in many cases) .
Je viens pensé à elle. Thayer-D est vraiment surixurient.
Awsome! It was just a matter of time before I was accused of being someone else, becasue no one else could have had similar experiences. The paranoia is fascinating.
Then go to Notre Dame, Don't go to SciArc because you want to hand draft Palladian Villas,
So we are both denying and acknowledging the phenomena?
this is where you loose me gwharton.
As it turns out, the reason many studio profs discourage the use of historic and traditional design languages in school projects is that most students who want to use pre-existing design languages do so as a crutch, and poorly. The effort necessary to direct a student who is trying to design in "French", who does not speak "French" and doesn't understand anything about "French" is large and tiresome. Pretty soon, work with that student becomes all about teaching them "French" and not so much about the deeper subject matter you're trying to cover
Besides contradicting your earlier point, why are you assuming that students want to use historic styles (besided historic modernism) becasue its a crutch? What if they don't know any "languages" (thus being in school) and go with the one that simply speaks to them? In that case whatever style (if you don't mind) they chose is simply a vehicle for teaching the basics of architecture. You seem to assume that the "tiresome" work of teaching them 'french' wouldn't happen in any "language" they chose, however far fetched the reason they chose to speak in it. That's the whole reason for architecture school, to teach students to speak to the public, not only in a specific language, but lyrically, boldly, quietly, musically, technically. The language itself ought to be secondary to the actual lesson taking place. BTW, as elegant and accurate the "language" analogy is, if one is employing it for some inate rejection of the word style and it's implications, then you've already bought into the modernist pile of crap meant to muddy up the whole discussion, which we've been trying to clear up. Style and beauty. They are common words in our clients vocabulary. Why do we shun them?
aojwny, i think your post from robert adam reinforces my opinion that it's a fabricated battle. he says, in part "I think for some younger architects, the whole style war thing is boring or irrelevant." that starts to make it sound like a one-sided battle. a bunch of traditionalists watching the world change, and not liking it. so robert adam thinks people don't care about what he designs anymore. he complains about it. nobody listens, so he fabricates a nemesis to blame for his woes. meanwhile, he says Caruso St John and FAT are designing in a more 'modern' style because that's what architects do. instead of complaining about how people think they're irrelevant, those firms are maintaining their relevance, right?
thayer, i'm pretty sure gwharton is saying most studio professors want to teach their students about architecture instead of 'style.' forcing the 'style' because of your ideology only makes it more difficult to get the message of 'architecture' across. that's true if the "style" is neoclassical or gothic or postmodern or anything else. there are fundamental problems when designing a building that should be solved, no matter what 'style' it is, and that's what kids need to be learning.
eke says Traditions are man's way of passing down accumulated wisdom from previous generations. we have new ways to do that now, such as the printing press and the internet. what we need to learn is things like 'gravity goes down' and 'water doesn't always go down.' if you're learning how to space triglyphs when using the doric order instead of the stuff that actually makes for good architecture, you're wasting you time. unless you design in a neoclassical style because you have clients who want to pay for that service, then it's useful to know.
tint, do you think you can phrase or sum up the 'traditional' view in a way that would be more difficult to misunderstand?
as an example, eke said that tradition has a useful purpose in handing information down from one generation to the next. some elaboration on what we should be learning from tradition might help. when the greek and romans were building buildings, they needed some sort of guidance on how much load a stone beam could carry, since they had stone beams. they learned what they could do with a beam through trial and error. it took time, and was probably quite expensive to figure out the best way to do things. we have ASTM and other testing organizations now, so in that case both the information they were handing down, and the necessity to use tradition to hand that information down, is no longer relevant.
on the other hand, we still use keystones to transfer vertical loads horizontally over openings in masonry construction. that is a case where tradesman hand down that useful bit of information from one generation to the next. of course you can learn about keystones through the internet instead of apprenticeship if you wanted to. despite the fact the keystone is quite the useful thing, drawings pictures of one on a precast lintel, or on EIFS, as a symbol of something is, in my humble opinion, an unnecessary decoration that typically does not make architecture more pleasing.
It all started when our over-heralded star, Suri, woke up in a magical cornfield. It was the fourth time it had happened. Feeling abnormally pleased, Suri punched a banana, thinking it would make him feel better (but as usual, it did not). Before anyone could take off their pants, he realized that his beloved aesthetics was missing! Immediately he called his bed-friend, An Internet Forum. Suri had known An Internet Forum for (plus or minus) 153 years, the majority of which were saucy ones. An Internet Forum was unique. She was easygoing though sometimes a little... annoying. Suri called her anyway, for the situation was urgent.
An Internet Forum picked up to a very unctuous Suri. An Internet Forum calmly assured him that most legless puppies grimace before mating, yet Indonesian devil cats usually charismatically grimace *after* mating. She had no idea what that meant; she was only concerned with distracting Suri. Why was An Internet Forum trying to distract Suri? Because she had snuck out from Suri's with the aesthetics only three days prior. It was a enchanting little aesthetics... how could she resist?
It didn't take long before Suri got back to the subject at hand: his aesthetics. An Internet Forum cringed. Relunctantly, An Internet Forum invited him over, assuring him they'd find the aesthetics. Suri grabbed his hammock and disembarked immediately. After hanging up the phone, An Internet Forum realized that she was in trouble. She had to find a place to hide the aesthetics and she had to do it skillfully. She figured that if Suri took the hippie-pleasing hybrid vehicle, she had take at least nine minutes before Suri would get there. But if he took the Ignorance? Then An Internet Forum would be ridiculously screwed.
Before she could come up with any reasonable ideas, An Internet Forum was interrupted by eleven oafish Flying Gerbils that were lured by her aesthetics. An Internet Forum shuddered; 'Not again', she thought. Feeling worried, she recklessly reached for her potato and deftly punched every last one of them. Apparently this was an adequate deterrent--the discouraged critters began to scurry back toward the foxy forest, squealing with discontent. She exhaled with relief. That's when she heard the Ignorance rolling up. It was Suri.
----o0o----
As he pulled up, he felt a sense of urgency. He had had to make an unscheduled stop at Egg Roll King to pick up a 12-pack of ripened avocados, so he knew he was running late. With a calculated leap, Suri was out of the Ignorance and went flamboyantly jaunting toward An Internet Forum's front door. Meanwhile inside, An Internet Forum was panicking. Not thinking, she tossed the aesthetics into a box of dull pencils and then slid the box behind her elephant. An Internet Forum was displeased but at least the aesthetics was concealed. The doorbell rang.
'Come in,' An Internet Forum exotically purred. With a careful push, Suri opened the door. 'Sorry for being late, but I was being chased by some selfish self-righteous ass in a nappy, busted-out hatchback,' he lied. 'It's fine,' An Internet Forum assured him. Suri took a seat ridiculously unclose to where An Internet Forum had hidden the aesthetics. An Internet Forum sighed trying unsuccessfully to hide her nervousness. 'Uhh, can I get you anything?' she blurted. But Suri was distracted. A few unsatisfying minutes later, An Internet Forum noticed a pestering look on Suri's face. Suri slowly opened his mouth to speak.
'...What's that smell?'
An Internet Forum felt a stabbing pain in her taint when Suri asked this. In a moment of disbelief, she realized that she had hidden the aesthetics right by her oscillating fan. 'Wh-what? I don't smell anything..!' A lie. A selfish look started to form on Suri's face. He turned to notice a box that seemed clearly out of place. 'Th-th-those are just my grandma's ninja stars from when she used to have pet albino cats. She, uh...dropped 'em by here earlier'. Suri nodded with fake acknowledgement...then, before An Internet Forum could react, Suri aptly lunged toward the box and opened it. The aesthetics was plainly in view.
Suri stared at An Internet Forum for what what must've been eleven nanoseconds. In a blinding moment of misguided bravado, An Internet Forum groped earnestly in Suri's direction, clearly desperate. Suri grabbed the aesthetics and bolted for the door. It was locked. An Internet Forum let out a eccentric chuckle. 'If only you hadn't been so protective of that thing, none of this would have happened, Suri,' she rebuked. An Internet Forum always had been a little stupid, so Suri knew that reconciliation was not an option; he needed to escape before An Internet Forum did something crazy, like... start chucking wolverines at her or something. Suddenly cheered up by the Hamtaro theme song, he gripped his aesthetics tightly and made a dash toward the window, diving headlong through the glass panels.
An Internet Forum looked on, blankly. 'What the hell? That seemed excessive. The other door was open, you know.' Silence from Suri. 'And to think, I varnished that window frame four days ago...it never ends!' Suddenly she felt a tinge of concern for Suri. 'Oh. You ..okay?' Still silence. An Internet Forum walked over to the window and looked down. Suri was gone.
Just yonder, Suri was struggling to make his way through the swamp behind An Internet Forum's place. Suri had severely hurt his love handle during the window incident, and was starting to lose strength. Another pack of feral Flying Gerbils suddenly appeared, having caught wind of the aesthetics. One by one they latched on to Suri. Already weakened from his injury, Suri yielded to the furry onslaught and collapsed. The last thing he saw before losing consciousness was a buzzing horde of Flying Gerbils running off with his aesthetics.
About eleven hours later, Suri awoke, his scalp throbbing. It was dark and Suri did not know where he was. Deep in the broad magical cornfield, Suri was alarmingly lost. A few unfulfilled decades later, he remembered that his aesthetics was taken by the Flying Gerbils. But at that point, he was just thankful for his life. That's when, to his horror, a teensy Flying Gerbil emerged from the disease-infested jungle. It was the alpha Flying Gerbil. Suri opened his mouth to scream but was cut short when the Flying Gerbil sunk its teeth into Suri's taint. With a faint groan, the life escaped from Suri's lungs, but not before he realized that he was a failure.
Less than ten miles away, An Internet Forum was entombed by anguish over the loss of the aesthetics. 'MY PRECIOUS!!' she cried, as she reached for a sharpened dull pencil. With a inept thrust, she buried it deeply into her shin. As the room began to fade to black, she thought about Suri... wishing she had found the courage to tell him that she loved him. But she would die alone that day. All that remained was the aesthetics that had turned them against each other, ultimately causing their demise. And as the dew on melancholy sappling branches began to reflect the dawn's reddish glare, all that could be heard was the chilling cry of distant Flying Gerbils, desecrating all things sacred to virtuous men, and perpetuating an evil that would reign for centuries to come. Our heroes would've lived unhappily ever after, but they were too busy being dead. So, no one lived forever after, the end.
Traditions are man's way of passing down accumulated wisdom from previous generations.
The printing press and the Internet are methods of communicating traditions, they are not the traditions themselves, and do not replace them.
this is probably one of those 'deliberate misunderstandings'
if the purpose of the tradition is to pass wisdom from one generation to the next, and you can pass that wisdom through communication instead of tradition, what's the point of the tradition? as i illustrated before with the stone beam hypothetical, the wisdom in most of the traditions you're passing down are no longer relevant. the wisdom that is still useful, such as use of a keystone in an arch, can be communicated through means other than 'tradition.'
can you provide an example of wisdom that is held within tradition that cannot be communicated with the various tools of communication we have available to us? something that isn't fully based on your opinion of 'beauty.' we've already established "traditional" could mean "buildings thayer likes," but to be honest, that isn't a definition of 'traditional' i want passed to the next generation. i don't think one person's opinion is all that valuable, even if it is thayer's opinion.
do you really believe there is some sort of metaphysical "the wisdom that can be named is not the true wisdom" in your designs, just because you read an old book about columns?
So if you are going to hold up a porch over an entryway you would not consider using graceful tapered Doric columns? You would just stick in several straight four by fours instead and to hell with it? Or you would not consider using wrought iron supports unless your computer said so? The wrought iron might have daring designs that mimic nature if the house owner got carried away. The ornament! The horror! Perhaps you would just cantilever the roof over the doorway (because you can!) and give every occupant and visitor apprehensions of being crushed to death by the roof every time they walked underneath?
curtkram, ASTM Standards are an important tool, but still just a tool. It is not a guide for designing per se. The internet and books as we all know are integral tools for disseminating knowledge and learning it, but without the proper, experienced guidance, how do we know where to turn in the vast sea of information and misinformation? Otherwise, why go to architecture school at all, right? We have the internet, so why bother? I know you don't believe that. Sometimes, it's helpful to know what others before did so we can try to emulate some of their successful approaches and at the same time try to minimize shortfalls. If you had thought to design a side yard or dog trot or shotgun house, I personally don't see what tools like ASTM would have to do with, say, the comfortable depth and section of a porch. Again to the tired old analogy, just because we have access to tools like auto correct and spell check doesn't mean we shouldn't read the literary greats both past and present.
Curtkram, you are making a category error. Traditions require information to be communicated. The internet is a method of communication. The method is not the content of the communication. I'm happy that the internet exists, and I hope that it's used to hand down great wisdom about design to anyone who wants to be part of that tradition.
Y'all really should just start talking in reference to specific styles. Blanketing everything under two categories of traditional and modern, and excluding everything else is ridiculous. This is all arguing for the sake of arguing. Completely disregarding what someone with an opposing view says and just trying to find the contradiction in their words. It is very familiar...
Did I? I don't believe I did. I merely, again, stated that tradition (by way of experiences, both positive and less so, that came before) is a most valuable resource not to be ignored in just about all pursuits. You're welcome to disagree with that belief of course.
I honestly thing you've give such a wide reaching vague "definition" that it can apply to everything across different individuals. It's like arguing which is more of a color, red or blue.
RyuArch, you sound unconvinced. Are you having a hard time with the word design? Modernists seem to have a hard time with the most simple concepts, which considering the minimalism inherent in a lot of modernist styles work, is ironic. How about you defining the following words since even a dictionary sounds suspect.
Tradition, design, beauty, archtiecture, modern, ornament, and of course, style.
Let's hear you define these without deconstructing life into atomic particles and then we can proceed with this conversation in an English blessed by you.
Here is the issue, the way y'all design to define tradition, outside of architectural terms, means anything passed from one generation to another, and then you decide to declare modernism as anything lacking the definitive decorative elements of classical architecture and those that share strong similarities; ignoring that "modernist" trends have spanned generations and been passed on and built upon and even reference those other elements in a different way. Y'alls heads, are so far up your asses, you're just yelling and arguing despite what any sensible person says. You attack those that disagree, and you attack those that don't declare you right. You don't have to be a patronizing asshole to everyone that isn't as conservative as you just because you feel threatened.
As always, tone is impossible to discern in this medium. I see this as interesting discourse and not as any kind of attack in one direction or the other.
As for conservative, you are not the first person to try desperately to inject political language into the discussion. I'm not sure why that is. I myself don't really consider myself conservative, as my voting record usually can attest, though that does not mean that's a good thing or bad. However, if learning from the past equals conservative to you, then the antonym to conservative in this case would not be "liberal" but "foolish" rather.
con·serv·a·tive
kənˈsərvətiv/Submit
adjective
1.
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion
eke, i read your statement to suggest traditions are a means of passing wisdom from one generation to the next. which means, as i understand it, that "tradition" in that sense is a form of communication, just like the internet is a form of communication.
trip, as ryu said, i think you're describing all design. i don't need the traditions handed down from the sangallo's when desigining st. peter's basilica. i'm not going to design st. peter's basilica. the work i do will be so different in pretty much ever way from that job, that to learn their sculpture technique, or the way they expect the load paths to work, or the compressive strength of the marble they used, or even the spatial sense of a big ass very old church, is not relevant to my work. therefore, handing down those traditions, in the way we are now talking about 'tradition,' is irrelevant.
what is relevant would be what's been handed down in the last 50 years, or 20 years, or 5 years. it is definitely smart to listen to people who have worked on similar project types, in similar contexts, so you can learn from their mistakes and their victories, to design the best building you can. there may very well be things handed down from 500 years ago that are still applicable too. ignoring the past 80 years so you can focus on irrelevant traditions isn't helpful, if what we're talking about is how to design and build buildings today. that is directly opposed to suri's notion that the last 80 years of the built environment should be ignored so we can regress back to his fictionalized past.
i don't have to use a nicely sculpted doric column on my front porch. there is no reason for me to tie myself down to a ridiculous relic of the past like that. it is an avenue available to me. if i want to put a doric column on my front porch as a symbol of the past, i can do that, but there are a lot of other options i would want to explore. for my porch to be attractive, it is not required to meet your narrow aesthetic. especially since it's my porch, and it would annoy me (personally, not all of the public) to walk across a relic of the past every day. for your porch, go ahead and use doric columns. i won't be walking past those every day.
Curt, it's impressive how far you will go to (willfully?) ignore the clear distinctions between traditional, classical, modern, contemporary and Modern.
suri, it doesn't matter if the beams on seagram's are ornament. they can be ornament. i'm fine with that.
this isn't a two-way conversation. there are 'traditionalists,' who are generally using the term to describe stuff they like, apparently both buildings and opinions. 'modern/modernist' is an imaginary category to define 'not traditional.' so i'm 'modern' because you're unable to see how dumb your premise is. i can't help that, especially if you're unable to consider perspectives outside your broken dogma.
i'm not your enemy just because you want an enemy.
trip, breaking it down into 5 categories might be a good start if you're trying to explain architectural styles. there is a pretty big difference between 'classical' and 'gothic.' let's add 'gothic' to the list. if 'traditional' still means that you're handing down wisdom, why exclude the wisdom of the last century?
I remembered reading this a few months back and though I'd dig it up for its relevance to the thread.
"He never looked back. As an undergraduate at the University of Cincinnati, his fellow students still wondered in third year whether they really wanted to become architects. [Michael] Graves said he had no such doubts while he worked as a co-op student alternating semesters studying or working at design studios. “I came out knowing how buildings came together, but not knowing who Palladio was,” he said of that late 1950s experience. “To ensure I did not learn who Palladio was, I went on to the Harvard GSD,” he quipped of his time there, when strict Modernist Josep Lluis Sert was the GSD dean. Both would later go on to receive the AIA Gold Medal."
so are you learning about how palladio built buildings? how he used a block and tackle instead of a crane? how he organized the kitchen of a starbucks? are you learning about how he detailed tile over an expansion joint on a concrete slab? are you learning about the ideal proportions Palladio used for a house? did he get into single family suburban residential much? are you referring to his use of scale when designing a fire station to hold a few large diesel trucks that have to meet ventilation and ada requirements? or the wisdom you take from palladio limited to decoration? just curious.
Classical
a : of or relating to the ancient Greek and Roman world and especially to its literature, art, architecture, or ideals <classical civilization>
i also consider 'victorian' to be an architectural style, influenced by other other styles, common during the period when the queen's name happened to be victoria.
of course there is a bit of a paradox with the modern/contemporary terminology, with 'modern' being a specific style espoused by people such as those in the bauhaus, which is clearly not post-modern or blobitecture or whatever else, and also being a word used to describe 'of the time.'
Palladio is a great precedent and reference. He's of course not the only one out there. It's okay to look to him, and further away and/or much closer to the present also. Mies wasn't designing offices for internet start-ups, but perhaps there are lessons to be gleaned nonetheless. Burnham didn't have our current IBC or UBC or DOJ codes and guidelines to deal with, but his creations still tell a story worth listening to and learning from.
You don't have to be so literal, unless you're just trying to be obstinate.
"The term "classical architecture" also applies to any mode of architecture that has evolved to a highly refined state, such as classical Chinese architecture, or classical Mayan architecture. It can also refer to any architecture that employs classical aesthetic philosophy."
"Classical architecture usually denotes architecture which is more or less consciously derived from the principles of Greek and Roman architecture of classical antiquity, or sometimes even more specifically, from the works of Vitruvius.[1][2] Different styles of classical architecture have arguably existed since the Carolingian Renaissance,[3] and prominently since the Italian Renaissance. Although classical styles of architecture can vary greatly, they can in general all be said to draw on a common "vocabulary" of decorative and constructive elements.[4][5][6] In much of the Western world, different classical architectural styles have dominated the history of architecture from the Renaissance until the second world war, though it continues to inform many architects to this day."
Again, Classical is not a style, but there are many classical styles out there.
ok, so regarding 'traditional' architecture being that which has taken influence from our predecessors, which can include mies when designing and internet start-up, can we also include influence from people say, only 10 years older than us? how about learning from people that are actually younger than us? i kind of think that's a good idea too, in those instances when there is actually something to be learned.
You don't have to be so literal, unless you're just trying to be obstinate.
there is no 'traditional v. modern.' what we've seen is that some people, for example suri or thayer, have developed fairly arbitrary opinions and decided they need to yell at someone to get attention, so they made up 'modern' as something they don't like to attack. somehow they think having that pretend nemesis validates their opinion. it does not.
you're right, we should be able to learn from the past. not just the past that happened 80+ years ago. architects who want to design a colonnade reminiscent of an ancient greek arcade have that available to them. they have other options available too. we aren't required to develop an aesthetic that is reminiscent of something someone else did a long time ago.
what we should all do, ancient arcade or not, is learn from the contemporary (new) sources we can learn from, so if you are making an ancient arcade, it stands up to the expectations of someone today rather than someone a very long time ago.
A masterpiece by Asplund. One of my favorite buildings I've never (yet) visited.
Since it's nearly 90 years old, is that too far back to be a reasonable prescedent under the chronological limitations you (arbitrarily?) set, curt ;)? Can we look at Asplund? What about FLW? Loos? Gaudi? Ledoux?
Who said your a modernist? Is that supposed to be an insult? Your dificulty with the concept of design reminded me of many modernists difficulty with some of those concepts. It's funny you should be calling traditionalists conservatives becasue a conservative usually wants to conserve the existing order, which incase you missed the news, is overwhelmingly modernist. Like the Tea partiers who want to dissmantle the whole wellfare state and call themselves conservatives. Shall we add the word conservative to the list?
curtkram,
You made an interesting confession as to how you might add to St. Peters with this
that to learn their (previous architects means and methods) is not relevant to my work.
This book I'm reading mentioned that in the past, it was assumed that a design would be modified by successive architects (becasue buildings sometimes took a long time to build) so each builder observed the precedent set by the previous generation, but followed no strict predetermined plan. Inotherwords, one man's mimicry is another man's respect. (Witold).
This indifference to anyother intentions besides your new ones is yet another reason modernism dosen't get no respect from the public...becasue you show no respect. I know this will fall on deaf ears when it's as simple as having manners (architecturally), but it dosen't make it any the less relevant to this discussion, assuming we where simply talking about ideas and not attacking eachother personally.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
"If you want to advocate for something, it should be for educating the people who can afford to hire architects....."
If the consumers of architectural services are pleased with what the profession is offering, why would they need to be educated?
I just spend the last few minutes retreading and parsing through that very strange G.K. Chesterston quote. It occurs to me that he may actually have been arguing in favor of traditions.
Miles, educating clients is a good thing, and actually hopefully we all do so in our practise.
And FWIW, I do not "think the practice of architecture is an exercise in the application of period style," (and have never said so) but I do think we can all benefit from continued education.
Oh, and Miles, I agree that clients who want traditional design are not being denied. What many of them are being denied, and this we have gone over here many times, is good traditional design. Why? because many architects just do not know how to give that to their clients (and have not been taught how to in school, because the teaching of it has been deliberately excluded from the curriculum in many cases) .
Je viens pensé à elle. Thayer-D est vraiment surixurient.
Awsome! It was just a matter of time before I was accused of being someone else, becasue no one else could have had similar experiences. The paranoia is fascinating.
Then go to Notre Dame, Don't go to SciArc because you want to hand draft Palladian Villas,
So we are both denying and acknowledging the phenomena?
this is where you loose me gwharton.
As it turns out, the reason many studio profs discourage the use of historic and traditional design languages in school projects is that most students who want to use pre-existing design languages do so as a crutch, and poorly. The effort necessary to direct a student who is trying to design in "French", who does not speak "French" and doesn't understand anything about "French" is large and tiresome. Pretty soon, work with that student becomes all about teaching them "French" and not so much about the deeper subject matter you're trying to cover
Besides contradicting your earlier point, why are you assuming that students want to use historic styles (besided historic modernism) becasue its a crutch? What if they don't know any "languages" (thus being in school) and go with the one that simply speaks to them? In that case whatever style (if you don't mind) they chose is simply a vehicle for teaching the basics of architecture. You seem to assume that the "tiresome" work of teaching them 'french' wouldn't happen in any "language" they chose, however far fetched the reason they chose to speak in it. That's the whole reason for architecture school, to teach students to speak to the public, not only in a specific language, but lyrically, boldly, quietly, musically, technically. The language itself ought to be secondary to the actual lesson taking place. BTW, as elegant and accurate the "language" analogy is, if one is employing it for some inate rejection of the word style and it's implications, then you've already bought into the modernist pile of crap meant to muddy up the whole discussion, which we've been trying to clear up. Style and beauty. They are common words in our clients vocabulary. Why do we shun them?
repeat cycle.
aojwny, i think your post from robert adam reinforces my opinion that it's a fabricated battle. he says, in part "I think for some younger architects, the whole style war thing is boring or irrelevant." that starts to make it sound like a one-sided battle. a bunch of traditionalists watching the world change, and not liking it. so robert adam thinks people don't care about what he designs anymore. he complains about it. nobody listens, so he fabricates a nemesis to blame for his woes. meanwhile, he says Caruso St John and FAT are designing in a more 'modern' style because that's what architects do. instead of complaining about how people think they're irrelevant, those firms are maintaining their relevance, right?
thayer, i'm pretty sure gwharton is saying most studio professors want to teach their students about architecture instead of 'style.' forcing the 'style' because of your ideology only makes it more difficult to get the message of 'architecture' across. that's true if the "style" is neoclassical or gothic or postmodern or anything else. there are fundamental problems when designing a building that should be solved, no matter what 'style' it is, and that's what kids need to be learning.
eke says Traditions are man's way of passing down accumulated wisdom from previous generations. we have new ways to do that now, such as the printing press and the internet. what we need to learn is things like 'gravity goes down' and 'water doesn't always go down.' if you're learning how to space triglyphs when using the doric order instead of the stuff that actually makes for good architecture, you're wasting you time. unless you design in a neoclassical style because you have clients who want to pay for that service, then it's useful to know.
Isn't there a World Record for most deliberate misunderstandings on the internets? Let's beat it!!!!!!!
tint, do you think you can phrase or sum up the 'traditional' view in a way that would be more difficult to misunderstand?
as an example, eke said that tradition has a useful purpose in handing information down from one generation to the next. some elaboration on what we should be learning from tradition might help. when the greek and romans were building buildings, they needed some sort of guidance on how much load a stone beam could carry, since they had stone beams. they learned what they could do with a beam through trial and error. it took time, and was probably quite expensive to figure out the best way to do things. we have ASTM and other testing organizations now, so in that case both the information they were handing down, and the necessity to use tradition to hand that information down, is no longer relevant.
on the other hand, we still use keystones to transfer vertical loads horizontally over openings in masonry construction. that is a case where tradesman hand down that useful bit of information from one generation to the next. of course you can learn about keystones through the internet instead of apprenticeship if you wanted to. despite the fact the keystone is quite the useful thing, drawings pictures of one on a precast lintel, or on EIFS, as a symbol of something is, in my humble opinion, an unnecessary decoration that typically does not make architecture more pleasing.
The printing press and the Internet are methods of communicating traditions, they are not the traditions themselves, and do not replace them.
It all started when our over-heralded star, Suri, woke up in a magical cornfield. It was the fourth time it had happened. Feeling abnormally pleased, Suri punched a banana, thinking it would make him feel better (but as usual, it did not). Before anyone could take off their pants, he realized that his beloved aesthetics was missing! Immediately he called his bed-friend, An Internet Forum. Suri had known An Internet Forum for (plus or minus) 153 years, the majority of which were saucy ones. An Internet Forum was unique. She was easygoing though sometimes a little... annoying. Suri called her anyway, for the situation was urgent.
An Internet Forum picked up to a very unctuous Suri. An Internet Forum calmly assured him that most legless puppies grimace before mating, yet Indonesian devil cats usually charismatically grimace *after* mating. She had no idea what that meant; she was only concerned with distracting Suri. Why was An Internet Forum trying to distract Suri? Because she had snuck out from Suri's with the aesthetics only three days prior. It was a enchanting little aesthetics... how could she resist?
It didn't take long before Suri got back to the subject at hand: his aesthetics. An Internet Forum cringed. Relunctantly, An Internet Forum invited him over, assuring him they'd find the aesthetics. Suri grabbed his hammock and disembarked immediately. After hanging up the phone, An Internet Forum realized that she was in trouble. She had to find a place to hide the aesthetics and she had to do it skillfully. She figured that if Suri took the hippie-pleasing hybrid vehicle, she had take at least nine minutes before Suri would get there. But if he took the Ignorance? Then An Internet Forum would be ridiculously screwed.
Before she could come up with any reasonable ideas, An Internet Forum was interrupted by eleven oafish Flying Gerbils that were lured by her aesthetics. An Internet Forum shuddered; 'Not again', she thought. Feeling worried, she recklessly reached for her potato and deftly punched every last one of them. Apparently this was an adequate deterrent--the discouraged critters began to scurry back toward the foxy forest, squealing with discontent. She exhaled with relief. That's when she heard the Ignorance rolling up. It was Suri.
----o0o----
As he pulled up, he felt a sense of urgency. He had had to make an unscheduled stop at Egg Roll King to pick up a 12-pack of ripened avocados, so he knew he was running late. With a calculated leap, Suri was out of the Ignorance and went flamboyantly jaunting toward An Internet Forum's front door. Meanwhile inside, An Internet Forum was panicking. Not thinking, she tossed the aesthetics into a box of dull pencils and then slid the box behind her elephant. An Internet Forum was displeased but at least the aesthetics was concealed. The doorbell rang.
'Come in,' An Internet Forum exotically purred. With a careful push, Suri opened the door. 'Sorry for being late, but I was being chased by some selfish self-righteous ass in a nappy, busted-out hatchback,' he lied. 'It's fine,' An Internet Forum assured him. Suri took a seat ridiculously unclose to where An Internet Forum had hidden the aesthetics. An Internet Forum sighed trying unsuccessfully to hide her nervousness. 'Uhh, can I get you anything?' she blurted. But Suri was distracted. A few unsatisfying minutes later, An Internet Forum noticed a pestering look on Suri's face. Suri slowly opened his mouth to speak.
'...What's that smell?'
An Internet Forum felt a stabbing pain in her taint when Suri asked this. In a moment of disbelief, she realized that she had hidden the aesthetics right by her oscillating fan. 'Wh-what? I don't smell anything..!' A lie. A selfish look started to form on Suri's face. He turned to notice a box that seemed clearly out of place. 'Th-th-those are just my grandma's ninja stars from when she used to have pet albino cats. She, uh...dropped 'em by here earlier'. Suri nodded with fake acknowledgement...then, before An Internet Forum could react, Suri aptly lunged toward the box and opened it. The aesthetics was plainly in view.
Suri stared at An Internet Forum for what what must've been eleven nanoseconds. In a blinding moment of misguided bravado, An Internet Forum groped earnestly in Suri's direction, clearly desperate. Suri grabbed the aesthetics and bolted for the door. It was locked. An Internet Forum let out a eccentric chuckle. 'If only you hadn't been so protective of that thing, none of this would have happened, Suri,' she rebuked. An Internet Forum always had been a little stupid, so Suri knew that reconciliation was not an option; he needed to escape before An Internet Forum did something crazy, like... start chucking wolverines at her or something. Suddenly cheered up by the Hamtaro theme song, he gripped his aesthetics tightly and made a dash toward the window, diving headlong through the glass panels.
An Internet Forum looked on, blankly. 'What the hell? That seemed excessive. The other door was open, you know.' Silence from Suri. 'And to think, I varnished that window frame four days ago...it never ends!' Suddenly she felt a tinge of concern for Suri. 'Oh. You ..okay?' Still silence. An Internet Forum walked over to the window and looked down. Suri was gone.
Just yonder, Suri was struggling to make his way through the swamp behind An Internet Forum's place. Suri had severely hurt his love handle during the window incident, and was starting to lose strength. Another pack of feral Flying Gerbils suddenly appeared, having caught wind of the aesthetics. One by one they latched on to Suri. Already weakened from his injury, Suri yielded to the furry onslaught and collapsed. The last thing he saw before losing consciousness was a buzzing horde of Flying Gerbils running off with his aesthetics.
About eleven hours later, Suri awoke, his scalp throbbing. It was dark and Suri did not know where he was. Deep in the broad magical cornfield, Suri was alarmingly lost. A few unfulfilled decades later, he remembered that his aesthetics was taken by the Flying Gerbils. But at that point, he was just thankful for his life. That's when, to his horror, a teensy Flying Gerbil emerged from the disease-infested jungle. It was the alpha Flying Gerbil. Suri opened his mouth to scream but was cut short when the Flying Gerbil sunk its teeth into Suri's taint. With a faint groan, the life escaped from Suri's lungs, but not before he realized that he was a failure.
Less than ten miles away, An Internet Forum was entombed by anguish over the loss of the aesthetics. 'MY PRECIOUS!!' she cried, as she reached for a sharpened dull pencil. With a inept thrust, she buried it deeply into her shin. As the room began to fade to black, she thought about Suri... wishing she had found the courage to tell him that she loved him. But she would die alone that day. All that remained was the aesthetics that had turned them against each other, ultimately causing their demise. And as the dew on melancholy sappling branches began to reflect the dawn's reddish glare, all that could be heard was the chilling cry of distant Flying Gerbils, desecrating all things sacred to virtuous men, and perpetuating an evil that would reign for centuries to come. Our heroes would've lived unhappily ever after, but they were too busy being dead. So, no one lived forever after, the end.
*** L337 Story Generator v1.0
*** Written by Derek Clark. Copyright © www.the-elite.net ~ 2004-present
*** Forever pwning with earnest.
a non sequitur indeed.
Traditions are man's way of passing down accumulated wisdom from previous generations.
The printing press and the Internet are methods of communicating traditions, they are not the traditions themselves, and do not replace them.
this is probably one of those 'deliberate misunderstandings'
if the purpose of the tradition is to pass wisdom from one generation to the next, and you can pass that wisdom through communication instead of tradition, what's the point of the tradition? as i illustrated before with the stone beam hypothetical, the wisdom in most of the traditions you're passing down are no longer relevant. the wisdom that is still useful, such as use of a keystone in an arch, can be communicated through means other than 'tradition.'
can you provide an example of wisdom that is held within tradition that cannot be communicated with the various tools of communication we have available to us? something that isn't fully based on your opinion of 'beauty.' we've already established "traditional" could mean "buildings thayer likes," but to be honest, that isn't a definition of 'traditional' i want passed to the next generation. i don't think one person's opinion is all that valuable, even if it is thayer's opinion.
do you really believe there is some sort of metaphysical "the wisdom that can be named is not the true wisdom" in your designs, just because you read an old book about columns?
yes.
the same way me and patty shoemaker think beauty is innate in nature, thus chinois.
So if you are going to hold up a porch over an entryway you would not consider using graceful tapered Doric columns? You would just stick in several straight four by fours instead and to hell with it? Or you would not consider using wrought iron supports unless your computer said so? The wrought iron might have daring designs that mimic nature if the house owner got carried away. The ornament! The horror! Perhaps you would just cantilever the roof over the doorway (because you can!) and give every occupant and visitor apprehensions of being crushed to death by the roof every time they walked underneath?
curtkram, ASTM Standards are an important tool, but still just a tool. It is not a guide for designing per se. The internet and books as we all know are integral tools for disseminating knowledge and learning it, but without the proper, experienced guidance, how do we know where to turn in the vast sea of information and misinformation? Otherwise, why go to architecture school at all, right? We have the internet, so why bother? I know you don't believe that. Sometimes, it's helpful to know what others before did so we can try to emulate some of their successful approaches and at the same time try to minimize shortfalls. If you had thought to design a side yard or dog trot or shotgun house, I personally don't see what tools like ASTM would have to do with, say, the comfortable depth and section of a porch. Again to the tired old analogy, just because we have access to tools like auto correct and spell check doesn't mean we shouldn't read the literary greats both past and present.
Curtkram, you are making a category error. Traditions require information to be communicated. The internet is a method of communication. The method is not the content of the communication. I'm happy that the internet exists, and I hope that it's used to hand down great wisdom about design to anyone who wants to be part of that tradition.
Y'all really should just start talking in reference to specific styles. Blanketing everything under two categories of traditional and modern, and excluding everything else is ridiculous. This is all arguing for the sake of arguing. Completely disregarding what someone with an opposing view says and just trying to find the contradiction in their words. It is very familiar...
I can only speak for myself, but tradition to me is not a style. It is a valuable resource that can greatly inform the design approach.
So you just defined all design?
Did I? I don't believe I did. I merely, again, stated that tradition (by way of experiences, both positive and less so, that came before) is a most valuable resource not to be ignored in just about all pursuits. You're welcome to disagree with that belief of course.
I honestly thing you've give such a wide reaching vague "definition" that it can apply to everything across different individuals. It's like arguing which is more of a color, red or blue.
Or, perhaps, you're trying to find a more complicated definition to a concept that, to others, is rather beautifully simple yet powerful.
nope
Suit yourself ;).
1500 posts, baby.
1500. Donna, Did we break the record yet!
RyuArch, you sound unconvinced. Are you having a hard time with the word design? Modernists seem to have a hard time with the most simple concepts, which considering the minimalism inherent in a lot of modernist styles work, is ironic. How about you defining the following words since even a dictionary sounds suspect.
Tradition, design, beauty, archtiecture, modern, ornament, and of course, style.
Let's hear you define these without deconstructing life into atomic particles and then we can proceed with this conversation in an English blessed by you.
Why do you say I'm a modernist?
Here is the issue, the way y'all design to define tradition, outside of architectural terms, means anything passed from one generation to another, and then you decide to declare modernism as anything lacking the definitive decorative elements of classical architecture and those that share strong similarities; ignoring that "modernist" trends have spanned generations and been passed on and built upon and even reference those other elements in a different way. Y'alls heads, are so far up your asses, you're just yelling and arguing despite what any sensible person says. You attack those that disagree, and you attack those that don't declare you right. You don't have to be a patronizing asshole to everyone that isn't as conservative as you just because you feel threatened.
This is why we can't have nice things.
As for conservative, you are not the first person to try desperately to inject political language into the discussion. I'm not sure why that is. I myself don't really consider myself conservative, as my voting record usually can attest, though that does not mean that's a good thing or bad. However, if learning from the past equals conservative to you, then the antonym to conservative in this case would not be "liberal" but "foolish" rather.
con·serv·a·tive
kənˈsərvətiv/Submit
adjective
1.
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion
eke, i read your statement to suggest traditions are a means of passing wisdom from one generation to the next. which means, as i understand it, that "tradition" in that sense is a form of communication, just like the internet is a form of communication.
trip, as ryu said, i think you're describing all design. i don't need the traditions handed down from the sangallo's when desigining st. peter's basilica. i'm not going to design st. peter's basilica. the work i do will be so different in pretty much ever way from that job, that to learn their sculpture technique, or the way they expect the load paths to work, or the compressive strength of the marble they used, or even the spatial sense of a big ass very old church, is not relevant to my work. therefore, handing down those traditions, in the way we are now talking about 'tradition,' is irrelevant.
what is relevant would be what's been handed down in the last 50 years, or 20 years, or 5 years. it is definitely smart to listen to people who have worked on similar project types, in similar contexts, so you can learn from their mistakes and their victories, to design the best building you can. there may very well be things handed down from 500 years ago that are still applicable too. ignoring the past 80 years so you can focus on irrelevant traditions isn't helpful, if what we're talking about is how to design and build buildings today. that is directly opposed to suri's notion that the last 80 years of the built environment should be ignored so we can regress back to his fictionalized past.
i don't have to use a nicely sculpted doric column on my front porch. there is no reason for me to tie myself down to a ridiculous relic of the past like that. it is an avenue available to me. if i want to put a doric column on my front porch as a symbol of the past, i can do that, but there are a lot of other options i would want to explore. for my porch to be attractive, it is not required to meet your narrow aesthetic. especially since it's my porch, and it would annoy me (personally, not all of the public) to walk across a relic of the past every day. for your porch, go ahead and use doric columns. i won't be walking past those every day.
typ·i·cal·ly adverb \ˈti-pi-k(ə-)lē\
1. generally or normally
2. in the usual way
vs
al·ways adverb \ˈȯl-wēz, -wəz, -(ˌ)wāz also ˈȯ-\
1. at all times : invariably <always smiling>
2. forever <will love you always>
curtkram, why don't you consider the beams on the seagram building to be ornament? or would you like to withdraw that statement?
Because that would make the Seagram Building a traditional building that uses decorative elements passed down from generations.
suri, it doesn't matter if the beams on seagram's are ornament. they can be ornament. i'm fine with that.
this isn't a two-way conversation. there are 'traditionalists,' who are generally using the term to describe stuff they like, apparently both buildings and opinions. 'modern/modernist' is an imaginary category to define 'not traditional.' so i'm 'modern' because you're unable to see how dumb your premise is. i can't help that, especially if you're unable to consider perspectives outside your broken dogma.
i'm not your enemy just because you want an enemy.
trip, breaking it down into 5 categories might be a good start if you're trying to explain architectural styles. there is a pretty big difference between 'classical' and 'gothic.' let's add 'gothic' to the list. if 'traditional' still means that you're handing down wisdom, why exclude the wisdom of the last century?
I remembered reading this a few months back and though I'd dig it up for its relevance to the thread.
"He never looked back. As an undergraduate at the University of Cincinnati, his fellow students still wondered in third year whether they really wanted to become architects. [Michael] Graves said he had no such doubts while he worked as a co-op student alternating semesters studying or working at design studios. “I came out knowing how buildings came together, but not knowing who Palladio was,” he said of that late 1950s experience. “To ensure I did not learn who Palladio was, I went on to the Harvard GSD,” he quipped of his time there, when strict Modernist Josep Lluis Sert was the GSD dean. Both would later go on to receive the AIA Gold Medal."
http://readinform.com/feature/graves-wows-richmond/
Five categories of what?
Classical is not a style, although there are many Classical styles from various regions and cultures if you will.
so are you learning about how palladio built buildings? how he used a block and tackle instead of a crane? how he organized the kitchen of a starbucks? are you learning about how he detailed tile over an expansion joint on a concrete slab? are you learning about the ideal proportions Palladio used for a house? did he get into single family suburban residential much? are you referring to his use of scale when designing a fire station to hold a few large diesel trucks that have to meet ventilation and ada requirements? or the wisdom you take from palladio limited to decoration? just curious.
Classical
a : of or relating to the ancient Greek and Roman world and especially to its literature, art, architecture, or ideals <classical civilization>
in architecture, i consider classical to be a fairly specific style. like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_architecture
i also consider 'victorian' to be an architectural style, influenced by other other styles, common during the period when the queen's name happened to be victoria.
of course there is a bit of a paradox with the modern/contemporary terminology, with 'modern' being a specific style espoused by people such as those in the bauhaus, which is clearly not post-modern or blobitecture or whatever else, and also being a word used to describe 'of the time.'
Palladio is a great precedent and reference. He's of course not the only one out there. It's okay to look to him, and further away and/or much closer to the present also. Mies wasn't designing offices for internet start-ups, but perhaps there are lessons to be gleaned nonetheless. Burnham didn't have our current IBC or UBC or DOJ codes and guidelines to deal with, but his creations still tell a story worth listening to and learning from.
You don't have to be so literal, unless you're just trying to be obstinate.
From the same Wiki article, first section:
"The term "classical architecture" also applies to any mode of architecture that has evolved to a highly refined state, such as classical Chinese architecture, or classical Mayan architecture. It can also refer to any architecture that employs classical aesthetic philosophy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Public_Library
First paragraph now:
"Classical architecture usually denotes architecture which is more or less consciously derived from the principles of Greek and Roman architecture of classical antiquity, or sometimes even more specifically, from the works of Vitruvius.[1][2] Different styles of classical architecture have arguably existed since the Carolingian Renaissance,[3] and prominently since the Italian Renaissance. Although classical styles of architecture can vary greatly, they can in general all be said to draw on a common "vocabulary" of decorative and constructive elements.[4][5][6] In much of the Western world, different classical architectural styles have dominated the history of architecture from the Renaissance until the second world war, though it continues to inform many architects to this day."
Again, Classical is not a style, but there are many classical styles out there.
Wikipedia is fun and all, but let's go with something a little more valid http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1366093/Classical-architecture
ok, so regarding 'traditional' architecture being that which has taken influence from our predecessors, which can include mies when designing and internet start-up, can we also include influence from people say, only 10 years older than us? how about learning from people that are actually younger than us? i kind of think that's a good idea too, in those instances when there is actually something to be learned.
You don't have to be so literal, unless you're just trying to be obstinate.
there is no 'traditional v. modern.' what we've seen is that some people, for example suri or thayer, have developed fairly arbitrary opinions and decided they need to yell at someone to get attention, so they made up 'modern' as something they don't like to attack. somehow they think having that pretend nemesis validates their opinion. it does not.
you're right, we should be able to learn from the past. not just the past that happened 80+ years ago. architects who want to design a colonnade reminiscent of an ancient greek arcade have that available to them. they have other options available too. we aren't required to develop an aesthetic that is reminiscent of something someone else did a long time ago.
what we should all do, ancient arcade or not, is learn from the contemporary (new) sources we can learn from, so if you are making an ancient arcade, it stands up to the expectations of someone today rather than someone a very long time ago.
A masterpiece by Asplund. One of my favorite buildings I've never (yet) visited.
Since it's nearly 90 years old, is that too far back to be a reasonable prescedent under the chronological limitations you (arbitrarily?) set, curt ;)? Can we look at Asplund? What about FLW? Loos? Gaudi? Ledoux?
Ryuarch,
Why do you say I'm a modernist?
Who said your a modernist? Is that supposed to be an insult? Your dificulty with the concept of design reminded me of many modernists difficulty with some of those concepts. It's funny you should be calling traditionalists conservatives becasue a conservative usually wants to conserve the existing order, which incase you missed the news, is overwhelmingly modernist. Like the Tea partiers who want to dissmantle the whole wellfare state and call themselves conservatives. Shall we add the word conservative to the list?
curtkram,
You made an interesting confession as to how you might add to St. Peters with this
that to learn their (previous architects means and methods) is not relevant to my work.
This book I'm reading mentioned that in the past, it was assumed that a design would be modified by successive architects (becasue buildings sometimes took a long time to build) so each builder observed the precedent set by the previous generation, but followed no strict predetermined plan. Inotherwords, one man's mimicry is another man's respect. (Witold).
This indifference to anyother intentions besides your new ones is yet another reason modernism dosen't get no respect from the public...becasue you show no respect. I know this will fall on deaf ears when it's as simple as having manners (architecturally), but it dosen't make it any the less relevant to this discussion, assuming we where simply talking about ideas and not attacking eachother personally.
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.