Nothing better than condescension as a place-holder for an actual response Thayer. Be that as it may, when I write you're "implying" that nothing short of classical training will do that isn't altering your position when what you wrote "Imagine if traditional archtiecture was taught on the same footing as modernism in schools, with out any of the prejudice so evident on these pages. Imagine how many students would jump into architecture with open arms if the world they understood intuitivley actually corresponded with the one being taught at school."
It's inferred in your tone with other posters and in your first post on this thread where you agree in tone and content with EKE and the original poster.
The issue of good architecture shouldn't be an either/or argument about aesthetic styles. If you think architects need more classical training that's fine. But what is meant by classical training? Drawing on vellum? Studying and replicating ogee curves? Studying pattern books? Reciting the poems of Byron? Good architects don't stop learning after they get their certificate and we shouldn't expect every school of architecture to teach everything (despite the protestations of professionals).
But teaching someone the stylings of classical architecture equally as teaching someone the stylings of modern architecture isn't teaching them architecture. It's teaching them to replicate.
As I think most can agree that scale and proportion are not the singular purview of classical architecture. I get the sense that your objection to most of the modern architecture out there is that it isn't done well. That's fine. EKE and surixurient seem to feel the same way but have been more upfront in their comments that they prefer historical styles to contemporary stylings.
For me, the rhetorical tone and implied position that classical architecture is superior because a few people on this board like it or the public seems to "demand" is just as condescending as a person that insists people aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate modern architecture. And for many people they conflate traditional/classical architecture with quality architecture and modern architecture with disposability.
Like I said before, regardless of when a building was built or its stylings, a great building will move a person, connect with its surroundings, force us to rethink our positions and appreciate the thought and craftsmanship that went into building it. A great modern building can do that as much as a great classical building.
I appreciate good architecture, regardless of style or time. I work in one of the few great examples of "modern" architecture in New Orleans and across the street from only H.H. Richardson building in town as well. I appreciate them both and both serve their context well.
hey, iamus! i worked on the restoration of that richardson building in 1988! also worked on the balconies on the front of the taylor energy (old saints) building...
I'll resist responding to the snark in your post, lamus, although the "reciting the poems of Byron" comment was a hoot. :)
I will say though that a good source for understanding what good training in the classical tradition looks like is to review the core curriculum of the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art.
The core curriculum includes in-depth study of the rationale of classical architectural language, the construction and philosophy surrounding the classical orders, theory of proportion, linear perspective, field drawing, ink wash rendering, observational drawing, the literature of classical architecture, etc.
ok, so i think we have 2 things going here. first is designing traditional architecture in the sense of no power tools, which i'm pretty sure none of us think the public wants. second is designing a building to look like traditional architecture. as i mentioned before, this could include greek, roman, renaissance, victorian, or a wide variety of other styles. if you were an expert in designing in all of those styles, it would probably require a fairly significant education focus.
architecture is the profession of designing buildings. how the building looks is important, but there is a whole lot more to it. personally, i think how the building looks really isn't the driving factor of what architects do. after all, we have to know how the building is actually going to be put together, and coordinate all of the various disciplines involved in making that happen (at least on the design end, methods and sequencing are on the contractor).
so the education question is strictly for schools to focus on designing buildings that look traditional. this would be at the expense of something else, since architecture students are already spending a lot of time doing stuff. to know enough about every traditional style is going to be a pretty significant time sink.
so here is my proposal. we've established a great need among the public for this services. the public wants traditional architecture, but architects are unable to give it to them. we've established that traditional architecture is limited to solely how the building looks. go into a program that teaches architecture history, and become a facade decorator. you will be hired by the architect to dress up the building in a way that makes it look traditional. you've established the need and the market, and the architect who is hiring you as a consultant can deal with the mundane details of making the building work.
if the public truly wants traditional architecture then they'll hire someone to design it for them
Let's not forget that we're talking about sheeple here, easily led people following each other, herded by insecurity, peer pressure, popular culture, mass-marketing and other dogs of conformity, people who have bought - among other things - pet rocks.
architecture is an art
We're not going to get into this again, now are we?
Designing classical buildings is a discipline, one which takes years of education immersed in the culture, literature and philosophy of classicism. Or decades of self-education and groping, which is what I had to do.
I would say instead that years of education immersed in classical education including fine art and the practical matters of construction practice, craftsmanship, problem-solving, etc. enable one to produce architecture in any style.
Maybe instead of forcing architecture students to learn classical architecture or modern architecture we teach them how to detail buildings, design functional spaces and resolve the clients' needs regardless of style. Teach them how to run a business. Teach them the art of craftsmanship. Teach them a building trade. Teach them how to do great architecture regardless of style.
Thanks for posting that. Rem was clearly caught in the act. Dismissing the question does not make the question any less pertinent. In any case, he does answer truthfully and more straightforward a little later in the interview (after the interviewer presses him and refuses to let him off the hook that easily).
EKE, the ICAA and classical program at CUDenver sound very exciting, thanks for mentioning them. Perhaps the change I am hoping for will come sooner rather than latter.
suri, this company makes millwork in profiles for use in classical detailing. can you clarify if you think this is the sort of thing that should be more common in architectural detailing?
EKE - my snark about reciting Byron poems was as much tongue-in-cheek as serious. The "classical" education had all that in spades. And the courses you listed as part of a classical architectural education - the "study of the rationale of classical architectural language, the construction and philosophy surrounding the classical orders, theory of proportion, linear perspective, field drawing, ink wash rendering, observational drawing, the literature of classical architecture, etc.", by and large should be standard courses offered in today's architectural programs.
All those classical courses are, in effect, modes and methods of teaching a person how to observe the world and perceive architecture. It might even make some of them great draughts-persons. Just as someone who is fluent in rhino, revit and parametric scripting may be good at 3-d renderings it won't make them a great architect.
My point is that those types of courses aren't unique nor should they be unique only to "classical" architectural education. Why is ink wash rendering and observational drawing only applicable to doing classical architecture? Is the ink wash rendering necessary to "sell" the classical design or to imbue that drawing done in 2013 with the feeling of antiquity? Of course not. That's a rhetorical technique of presentation though just as a 3-d rendering at dusk can sell an ambiguous modern design.
Certainly you agree that every architect should learn how to draw, be familiar with the theories of proportion, applying the golden section, understanding scale and of course reading theories and treatises regardless of architectural style. Understanding the full history of architecture is essential. Learning and practicing the methods and skills that help one to bring ideas and design to paper is essential. But architecture didn't stop being architecture after 1900. Vitruvius was lamenting cheap clients and unskilled labor back in his day so the challenges facing architects haven't changed but they also haven't been frozen in time.
You mention that the CU-Denver has had to create and formalize a classical program based off the ICAA to teach classes that they used to teach under the ENVD program. I graduated from Boulder back in the mid-90s and traditional drawing classes, color theory, perspective drawing, programming, learning the classical orders, historical theory etc. were part of the electives and required classes. I later did my masters at VT in Alexandria and the pedagogy there was neither modern nor historical but eccentric and broad with courses that helped the architectural student understand their own place within the world of architecture but also the place of architecture in the contemporary world with an understanding of where it had been before.
Steven...the HH building had some minor restorative work done recently and it's a great building with a beautiful space inside. Being used as a wedding reception hall, movie set and the AIA awards banquets as of late. A far cry from when it was the Civil War museum.
You keep referring to "stick on" ornament and foam detailing, as if these somehow characterize the contemporary practice of classical architecture. I know that you think it serves your narrative, but that simply isn't the case. I have been a practicing classical architect for over 20 years, and I have never used a single Fypon product. The architects that do use that stuff are fallen modernists who have no real interest in producing thoughtful traditional buildings.
I agree that this should be a part of every architectural education, but, sadly it is not. To cite just one example, learning the orders of architecture is not just listening to a history lesson on those funny columns that dead guys with beards designed back before we had steel piloti. It is spending time learning the orders through a thorough study of the rationale for them, studying the differing ways that the masters of antiquity and the Renaissance approached their construction and use, learning to draw them in detail, and then employing them as an aesthetic system in a design problem. Only by constructing the orders firsthand can you really grasp the underlying proportional systems.
Believe me when I tell you that the only schools that are providing this kind of education in classical design are the ICAA, University of Notre Dame, U of Miami, and now Colorado.
eke, shhhh. that fypon comment was for suri, who is not actually trained as an architect and doesn't do this for a living the way most of us do. i am interested in suri clarifying her opinion by explaining more specifically what sorts of materials and methods are valued by the lay-person. you and i can't really provide that insight since we're too close to the practice of architecture.
Once again, trying to force an argument into a box of your choosing does not make a convincing argument.
"we've established that traditional architecture is limited to solely how the building looks" You've established this, not anyone else. Traditional architecture is about the user's sensory experience, thus the training in light and shadows, plan and circulation rational, and massing studies. Modernism tends to be about an intellectual experience, but both need to work in all the usual respects that have been the provenance of architects for centuries. Now there's a lot of modernist stuff that's an amazing experience, and a lot of traditionally styled work that's nothing but a potamkin village. But the reality of most buildings is that they provide rudimentary functions and are simply background buildings. This is where modernism falls flat. At least you seem to acknowledge that "the public wants traditional architecture". Now we have to work on your cynicism, which by the looks of your condescension of non architects, will be tough.
SPIEGEL: Where do you live?
Koolhaas: That's unimportant. It's less a question of architecture than of finances.
Actually, it is important, especially from someone that's made a career of slamming traditional architecture. Like Mies who lived in a traditional row house but painted it white for "purity". Some of us aren't so cynical that this kind of hypocrisy is "trivial".
On the subject of "classical"architecture, a few years ago I saw a multi-million dollar custom house that had a grade level loggia with Corinthian columns and a second floor porch above with Doric columns. The interior was full of semi-Mediterranean arches..
It is not uncommon to see replies to the unknown with tired cynicism and passé, stick catchphrases. Usually out of a deep seated insecurity. I too once hid my intimidati
I too once hid my intimidation of traditional methods and, yes, Classical details through this sort of boorish mocking. That's fine. Don't despair. I feel it's a stage most of us must pass through. The whole zeitgeist ideal is pervasive, not just in architecture.
I think one just needs to look at Modernism as an ideology that did produce some beautiful works, and one that has some lessons to offer on how to treat design using steel and plastics. I think the jury is out on concrete. In any case, there's no doubt that the majority of schools today teach a narrow focus of architecture theory, history and practice. It's okay to expand upon that and try to see that architecture has actually been a continuum throughout human history back to the primitive hut, despite efforts in the early to mid 20th C. at creating a tabula rasa. Don't worry,Corb will not rise from his grave if you admit to enjoying a stroll through the Left Bank (and, like most of the non-architecture world, prefer it any day over La Defense).
i agree with quondam. there is a sneaky attitude here by some that confounds a defense of classicism with an attack against modernism, that confounds a personal desire to pursue classicism with an invective bullying against people who choose modernism. yes,pretending to being bashed in order to bash (when actually, there are very few people doing the bashing - i see a sort of very agreeable middle ground that most people agree on and that is that there is good and there is bad modernist/neoclassical work - yukh, i don't like it but it certainly offers a consensus of sorts). or if you want, they're still reacting against what they see as the original sin - namely modernism's now traditional critique and abrogation of neoclassicism (of course, its always more complex than this but people here are liking the flatter plains, so lets go with that). well, its not about stolen lands or goods or dignities that need to be surrendered back, is it?
this party seems to be a rather religious one. they argue in a st anselm/st augustine way, which is to say, they ultimatey beg the question. which is to say, they can not genuinely answer the question "why classicism?" although they will construct a rationale of justification. of course, the answer is just as impossible as "why modernism?" althought perhaps the question "why modernism?" has more going for it. by that i mean, the question "why modernism?" is sort of justified by the respondent question "why not modernism?" since modernism forms the barely conscious of run of the mill architecture nowadays, the de facto, the facile. as such, modernism is sort of the classical now, the architecture that may more unconsciously bear and bare the imprints of today's global but still specific societies. and here, one must pause a bit and ponder: in large metropolitan cities with their admixture of nationalities, ethnicities, religions, fragmented histories, backgrounds....does eurocentric traditional architecture truly speak to all these people in the same way? 1- do they really feel that reverting back to a history that doesn't belong to them 2- following from the logic that we must go back to classicism as a requisite devoir to forge a fundamental relation between people and architecture, must then a metropolitan city then architecturally express melange of classical histories (chinese, middle eastern, indian...etc) of all the global histories carried aboard by the migrant populations? how to go about it? a bricolage of world architecture (sort of like fusion cuisine or buddha bar/world music?). or some neighborhoods/buildings in the kalinga style, some in the damascene ummayid style,some in Ming era styles, others in sicilian rococo?
and here, i would also like to further question the idea of classicism as permitting a more responsive, more sympathetic, more reverberant system of signs. consider that americans are not europeans and their psyche and history in relation to eurocentric architecture is a subject to be studied before indeed assuming some kind of fundamental ownership that implies deep rooted connection. also consider that neocolonial neoclassicism bears totally different meanings and therefore, you should be -within a study of american neoclassicism- anything but a puritanist, anything but a fundamentalist, anything but an architectural evangelist. and i believe that thayer and the like (i don't mean this as an insult to you, thayer, it is simply that i am following a thought here, do not take offense) are taking on a role of generic eurocentric architectural evangelicalism.
i would suggest that one can sidestep this 'much ado about nothing'. i.e. about how classicism relates more to the needs of people more than modernism does. people here like eye candy; so you could just post nice modern neoclassical architecture and introduce us to the work of architects practicing in that . i would imagine that if i were to start arguing that minimalism is the best sort of architecture because its somewhat more honest (in other words, blah blah blah), i would come across as being rather silly.
personally, i also do not so easily accept that details - whether modern or classical, whether good or bad (in any style)- necessitate a stronger connection with the pedestrian and to her or his scale. in fact, when presented with architectural details that are meant to fit within a comprehensible world of architectural rhetoric, that the details want to tell me "this is architecture, please notice my intelligence and craftsmanship", i am bored by the architectural self indulgence. on the other hand, i find detailing with the likes of Carlos Scarpa and Enrico Morales much more interesting, paradoxical, mysterious, deliberately incomprehensible, playful. theirs are intentions not in staging an architectural dogma.
there is also the detail of no-detail, john pawson is a master of this sort of detailing as are others. the act of not seeing is an act of seeing - its a very experiential thing because you expect to have seen but by removing the expected, your experience is alleviated. this is not merely intellectual; its an experience that manipulates a history of experiences.
yes, in conclusion, suppose this is what the best of modernism (including postmodernism, postpost, postpostpost..) has to offer...experiences derived from a manipulation of historical experiences. can neoclassical architecture offer the same...given that the stylistic expectations and the permutations of experiences are hind-seeable (as opposes to foreseeable)?
"i agree with quondam. there is a sneaky attitude here by some that confounds a defense of classicism with an attack against modernism, that confounds a personal desire to pursue classicism with an invective bullying against people who choose modernism." wow.
With the vast majority of schools stuck on modernism, it's the traditionalists who are the ones doing the bullying? Who knew? As someone who tends to like traditional architecture more than modernism, I can tell you that it's incredibly easy for a traditionally trained architect to produce a descent modernist design. I wonder if the same could be said for a modernist attempting a passable traditional design. That might be irrelevant given comments like "fu" from the sameolddoctor, but it's an interesting question for those looking at this as a civil debate. Ever wonder why traditionalist Frank LLoyd Wright hit it out the park with Falling Water and the Guggenheim? Any intellectual curiosity? Becasue he was good at architecture, regardless of style. Did he give the public some kind of bs reason for each one like Koolhouse might have done? Nope, cause he knew that was secondary to the sensory experience of being there. Same with Saaranin, Kahn, and other modernists that have done beautiful work.
"they can not genuinely answer the question "why classicism" Why not? That's like asking a musician why they use the standard four bar structure with a bridge and a begining, middle, and end. Why? They'd look at you like you're bananas. Becasue it feels good and therefore might make others feel good. So if modernism is your thing, go for it! There is no right or wrong in art, for god's sake. But why then not educate architects in both, in otherwords, why not simply teach architecture without a stylistic emphasis? Becasue given a choice to design in a building style that even most professors seem to prefer for thier own homes, students would probably chose traditional ones. Isn't that why people chose to visit old cities on vatations rather than hanging out in La Defense, COOP city, or even EUR in Rome. But that's too obvious, isn't it?
"does eurocentric traditional architecture truly speak to all these people in the same way?"
It's just not that complicated, unless you insist it is. Again, ask any cook, writer, or muisician if they ponder the ethnic genesis of what they are producing, and they'd wonder what institution you escaped from. Just don't ask artists, cause some of them are just as fucked up about this naval gazing as archtiects. Thanks Bauhaus!
"consider that americans are not europeans and their psyche and history in relation to eurocentric architecture is a subject to be studied before indeed assuming some kind of fundamental ownership that implies deep rooted connection." Is that how culture works?
" i believe that thayer and the like (i don't mean this as an insult to you, thayer, it is simply that i am following a thought here, do not take offense) are taking on a role of generic eurocentric architectural evangelicalism." No offense taken, but as a liberal, mixed race sob, I think you're in the deep on this one. I speak for the lorax, for they have no voice. No really, I just like beautiful things, and can't imagine why people need to build ideological barriers to any of it, and as such, is it really so hard to understand why I am trying to get schools to put traditional archtiecture (irrispective of European imperialism) on the same footing as modernism? That's it...I promise! You won't get cooties if you take a walk with me through Old Brooklyn as we marvel over the beautiful textures, proportions, and even styles (yikes!) I know you've been hurt before, and it's hard to love again so unabashidly, but it's also your only sourse of comfort. Do you really go around thinking about euro-centric stuff as the light flickers on the iron fillings of roman brick or while you absentmindedly admire the ciaro schuro pattern of windows on a plain wall?
"when presented with architectural details that are meant to fit within a comprehensible world of architectural rhetoric, that the details want to tell me "this is architecture, please notice my intelligence and craftsmanship", i am bored by the architectural self indulgence. on the other hand, i find detailing with the likes of Carlos Scarpa and Enrico Morales much more interesting, paradoxical, mysterious, deliberately incomprehensible, playful. theirs are intentions not in staging an architectural dogma."
How can you tell the difference? Can't it all just be looked at as wonderful details? I guess I'll never understand those who when eating meals, obsess over the provenance of every bite rather than simply enjoying the flavors. Like the Portlandia skit where they go nuts trying to figure out if the Chicken they are eating had a wonderful life style before they eat it, or when the two characters try to out slick eachother over who has read what newspaper instead of actually getting into one of the articles that might have provoked an interesting discussion. I guess we'll never resolve this, but what's clear is this discussion seems to elicit the most comments I've ever seen on this site, and considering how much we love labels, it probably never will be. Enjoy you work however you choose to proactice it.
What do people mean by modernism anyways? When I was in architecture school, we didn't learn modernism (except in history class), we studied deconstructivism, an intellectual process where the resulting spaces tend to shock and awe. Working with autistic students now, I wonder how we could ever think that is a good idea to design buildings that are characterized by distortions.
so thayer, the reason you like "traditional" or "neoclassical" architecture is because light doesn't enter "modern" buildings? modern buildings don't cast shadows? if what you're saying is that a sculpture of a pagan god has less linear shadows that the wood slats popular in dwell, i would certainly grant you that. if you're saying modernism lacks training in light and shadow, it's might be because your school didn't teach enough modernism.
also, you mention the plan rationale. did you somewhere learn that modern architecture requires you to put the kitchen in a certain place? is it modern or traditional that puts offices on the perimeter walls? ranch and bungalow have different floor plans. traditional and modern don't.
what are the massing rules in traditional and modern architecture? seems to me, both are proponents of boxes.
if you were really the representative of traditional architecture, i would think our education system would need to refocus on teaching kids more about modern architecture since you've obviously confused what it is. i think eke has done a far better job of defending your religion. he designs traditional architecture that gets built, because that's what people hire him to do. i couldn't say that's anything other than respectable.
it would have been nice to hear what suri really thought about fypon, but if she sees those defending traditional styles saying it's not a good product, she pretty much has to agree now.
You still don't know what I'm saying? What I'm saying is there is no ideology in beauty, and as such it should be studied in all forms, styles, and periods. Like a literature major who would self select what great literature from the past to avoid, doing that in our profession makes no sense. We might not speak the way Shakespeare spoke, but does that negate the content, structure, and flow of his verse? Are we that superficial that anything not close to our own vernacular is off limits? If you want to see ideology, politics, or even ethnicity in architecture, then no one is stopping you. But to dismiss the fact that others don't have those filters is crazy.
EKE is infact very eloquent and I enjoy the intelligence and patience he/she exibits. It's more than I have for sure. I also design traditional and modern stuff for clients, but there's not much of a demand for fish bowl additions, or Tado Ando concrete court yards and the like, and being an overly empathetic kind of fellow, I can understand why. But I don't have an architectural religion as much as you'd like me to have one, simply personal preferences like all of us. I don't even believe in God all though I respect those that do. I'm one of those people who can't stand the Israeli Palestinian conflict, not becasue they are both semetic peoples, but simply becasue the children who get blown up don't give a shit about the ideology thier elders seem to wrap their anger with. Same with the old Irish conflict or any other ethnic or religious fight. All that shit is old world to me, not becasue science dosen't actually back it up, but becasue it blows up kids.
So Donna, your story about having a pet rock named Spunky is actually quite touching to me. And I'd say you weren't a dumb kid if you loved it, becasue love isn't dumb, it's all we have. To me, beauty represents love, and love has no ideology.
now back to irony, cynicism, and getting an exact definition of what is modernism...
let's remember, the OP was a non-architect who wants to decide what we should be doing for a living. the OP was not Thayer telling us about all the great things he learned about modernism in school. i don't think we've clearly defined what the difference between "traditional" and "modern" really is. as i stated previously, i think it's probably as simple as ornamentation. thayer thinks sunlight has something to do with it.
the opinion of suri on fypon would clarify what she's talking about. it is impractical to actually carve stone in today's economic and labor environment. i'm pretty sure most of us can agree on that. i know there are other options, like cast stone or cast concrete. i think it would actually be helpful for the lay-person to clarify if she only likes labor and construction methods that are not viable in this market, or if she thinks fypon would achieve her goal.
if fypon is what she's after, i wouldn't have to ridicule her. i could just stay quiet for a bit and let us elitist architects think about what our "traditional" clients are really interested in.
Here's the way I see the issue of the OP or other non-architects: They may respond favorably to bad traditional work because, even though it is inauthentic and poorly executed, it is still giving them something that they respond to, something that other types of architecture isn't providing. Instead of trying to make them look foolish and unsophisticated, or dismissing them as childishly nostalgic or sentimental, we might want to try to understand what it is about those buildings that they like, and learn from that. I assure you that Suri isn't alone.
Impractical to carve stone in a country with a 25 to 30 percent real unemployment rate?
The modernists who decreed "ornament" was a sin and put all the artisians out of business now complain because there are no artisians?
Show me carved stone that is cheaper or comparable in cost to concrete and steel sections and I'll show you a client willing to consider it. In my market, we have to choose concrete in lieu of stone (even-though we can mine it within close proximity) due to its expense.
With that said, I do currently have a quarter-billion dollar project in construction that has 20mm thick limestone panels inserted into a custom curtain-wall/rain-screen system. Would that count or is it too "modern"?
The first sentence being "Modern architecture is generally characterized by simplification of form and an absence of applied decoration."
Yet the first symbolic gestures of modern man in South African caves which is commonly understood to be the begining of communication is sea shells used as ornaments to convey societal order. It's in our genes, and to negate that is to negate the very essence of what makes us human. Who cares if you are communicating a higher form of intelligence with a lack of ornament and white walls, or if you are communicating that you really love jesus with a mound of carvings. It all communicates.
Every project is different, with a different budget and set of client expectations. When we have a client with a tighter budget. We don't use carved stone. We use another material. Of course.
But this notion that we can't do trad architecture because there are no craftsmen capable of executing it for a reasonable price is just nonsense.
Impractical to carve stone in a country with a 25 to 30 percent real unemployment rate? The modernists who decreed "ornament" was a sin and put all the artisians out of business now complain because there are no artisians?
Not quite as simple as that, but I agree with the sentiment. We should spend more time employing more people to make things by hand. Racing to build as much as we can as fast as we can as big as we can for as much profit as we can is a race to extinction. Disposable society disposes of people, too.
A thick blank limestone wall could be part of any architectual style, Hard to say without more information. You are the architect. What is your question?
If you are doing a $250,000,000 building you might be able to afford the odd stone carving.
i may have been unclear, but when i said carved stone i was referring to something like this, rather than cut into a square with a big saw:
that's great if you can get people with the skill to carve something like that. if you want a statue of a baby cherub eating a kitten, i'm not sure how you would detail that. i'm pretty sure you would leave the detail to the stonemason, with a note something like "put cherub here." anyway, carving something like that takes a lot of time. even if you had a very skilled worker putting in 12 hour days on salary for 8 hours at minimum wage and no overtime, vacation, or health insurance, it would take a very long time. from what i've seen, people paying for buildings typically don't want to wait that long (there are exceptions), and they don't want to pay that much. i have worked with clients who are willing to pay a premium for better material and workmanship, but i think this takes that to a level beyond what they're willing to pay or even able to finance.
i think it would be great if we could hire people to build more stuff and better stuff, but that costs money. there is no way to pay more people to do more work without it costing more. the math doesn't add up (unless you're rick perry and want to pay everyone a lot less). i can't do anything about that. i don't have the money to pay those people. it would be up to the clients to pay, and they often don't have the money either. those that can afford often choose not spend their money in that way.
Curtkram, the coffee that was just lost as I spat it out reading "cherub eating a kitten" was not sacrificed in vain.
Volunteer, why would I need to add stone carvings simply because the scale and budget of the project is high(er)? It seems ridiculous to dictate how my client ought to spend their money (tax dollars in this example).
Perhaps the client should be shown photos of the entrance to Notre Dame, and maybe the stained glass windows of Chartes, and of a blank limestone wall and let the discussions begin.
Let the client determine what he can get for his resources. Same as the Medici did.
there is certainly nothing wrong with that volunteer.
i do not want to go back to the days with an entrenched aristocracy like the medicis. i still believe in a world where people can improve their lot in life with hard work. obviously there are a lot of people who do want banking families like the medicis to establish a legacy aristocracy, so maybe this really is in our future.
the medici family was very rich. the sort of life they lived was not common for the vast majority of people. the church was also able to pay for crazy elaborate decoration, such as notre dame, which was completed i think somewhere around 100 years before the prominence of the medici family. quite a tie in there really, since the medici's bought the papacy 4 times. i don't think your going to see as much ornamentation or stonework on the housing for regular folks like me. it's mostly the palaces and religious structures that we talk about. as rem said, there is a financial situation preventing me from living in those palaces.
suri didn't tell us whether she was from a crazy rich finance family. maybe she is. i guess it's possible that's where her taste in "traditional" architecture developed.
here's a picture from the internets. some of the housing on the right is almost "modern" in it's simplicity.
Trip to Fame, those examples are pretty and granted I have not disclosed the location, use and size of my own project, the ornamentation, scale and style of these could not be more off.
Context is important and also, I am not American and neither is any of my projects, therefore your own civic buildings are poor examples.
trip, make sure those examples are built by and for people like suri, who started this thread, because i'm pretty sure that's still what we're talking about.
it would appear god and government have a different set of rules than the rest of us, wouldn't it?
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
Nothing better than condescension as a place-holder for an actual response Thayer. Be that as it may, when I write you're "implying" that nothing short of classical training will do that isn't altering your position when what you wrote "Imagine if traditional archtiecture was taught on the same footing as modernism in schools, with out any of the prejudice so evident on these pages. Imagine how many students would jump into architecture with open arms if the world they understood intuitivley actually corresponded with the one being taught at school."
It's inferred in your tone with other posters and in your first post on this thread where you agree in tone and content with EKE and the original poster.
The issue of good architecture shouldn't be an either/or argument about aesthetic styles. If you think architects need more classical training that's fine. But what is meant by classical training? Drawing on vellum? Studying and replicating ogee curves? Studying pattern books? Reciting the poems of Byron? Good architects don't stop learning after they get their certificate and we shouldn't expect every school of architecture to teach everything (despite the protestations of professionals).
But teaching someone the stylings of classical architecture equally as teaching someone the stylings of modern architecture isn't teaching them architecture. It's teaching them to replicate.
As I think most can agree that scale and proportion are not the singular purview of classical architecture. I get the sense that your objection to most of the modern architecture out there is that it isn't done well. That's fine. EKE and surixurient seem to feel the same way but have been more upfront in their comments that they prefer historical styles to contemporary stylings.
For me, the rhetorical tone and implied position that classical architecture is superior because a few people on this board like it or the public seems to "demand" is just as condescending as a person that insists people aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate modern architecture. And for many people they conflate traditional/classical architecture with quality architecture and modern architecture with disposability.
Like I said before, regardless of when a building was built or its stylings, a great building will move a person, connect with its surroundings, force us to rethink our positions and appreciate the thought and craftsmanship that went into building it. A great modern building can do that as much as a great classical building.
I appreciate good architecture, regardless of style or time. I work in one of the few great examples of "modern" architecture in New Orleans and across the street from only H.H. Richardson building in town as well. I appreciate them both and both serve their context well.
hey, iamus! i worked on the restoration of that richardson building in 1988! also worked on the balconies on the front of the taylor energy (old saints) building...
I'll resist responding to the snark in your post, lamus, although the "reciting the poems of Byron" comment was a hoot. :)
I will say though that a good source for understanding what good training in the classical tradition looks like is to review the core curriculum of the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art.
http://www.beauxartsatelier.org/curriculum/
The core curriculum includes in-depth study of the rationale of classical architectural language, the construction and philosophy surrounding the classical orders, theory of proportion, linear perspective, field drawing, ink wash rendering, observational drawing, the literature of classical architecture, etc.
The ICAA curriculum is the basis for the new classical program at the University of Colorado.
ok, so i think we have 2 things going here. first is designing traditional architecture in the sense of no power tools, which i'm pretty sure none of us think the public wants. second is designing a building to look like traditional architecture. as i mentioned before, this could include greek, roman, renaissance, victorian, or a wide variety of other styles. if you were an expert in designing in all of those styles, it would probably require a fairly significant education focus.
architecture is the profession of designing buildings. how the building looks is important, but there is a whole lot more to it. personally, i think how the building looks really isn't the driving factor of what architects do. after all, we have to know how the building is actually going to be put together, and coordinate all of the various disciplines involved in making that happen (at least on the design end, methods and sequencing are on the contractor).
so the education question is strictly for schools to focus on designing buildings that look traditional. this would be at the expense of something else, since architecture students are already spending a lot of time doing stuff. to know enough about every traditional style is going to be a pretty significant time sink.
so here is my proposal. we've established a great need among the public for this services. the public wants traditional architecture, but architects are unable to give it to them. we've established that traditional architecture is limited to solely how the building looks. go into a program that teaches architecture history, and become a facade decorator. you will be hired by the architect to dress up the building in a way that makes it look traditional. you've established the need and the market, and the architect who is hiring you as a consultant can deal with the mundane details of making the building work.
if the public truly wants traditional architecture then they'll hire someone to design it for them
Let's not forget that we're talking about sheeple here, easily led people following each other, herded by insecurity, peer pressure, popular culture, mass-marketing and other dogs of conformity, people who have bought - among other things - pet rocks.
architecture is an art
We're not going to get into this again, now are we?
Designing classical buildings is a discipline, one which takes years of education immersed in the culture, literature and philosophy of classicism. Or decades of self-education and groping, which is what I had to do.
I would say instead that years of education immersed in classical education including fine art and the practical matters of construction practice, craftsmanship, problem-solving, etc. enable one to produce architecture in any style.
Maybe instead of forcing architecture students to learn classical architecture or modern architecture we teach them how to detail buildings, design functional spaces and resolve the clients' needs regardless of style. Teach them how to run a business. Teach them the art of craftsmanship. Teach them a building trade. Teach them how to do great architecture regardless of style.
+++ iamus, Bravo!
to respond to thayer above
Better yet, ask Remmy Coolhouse what kind of domecile he chose for himself.
from here
SPIEGEL: Some people say that if architects had to live in their own buildings, cities would be more attractive today.
Koolhaas: Oh, come on now, that's really trivial.
SPIEGEL: Where do you live?
Koolhaas: That's unimportant. It's less a question of architecture than of finances.
Thanks for posting that. Rem was clearly caught in the act. Dismissing the question does not make the question any less pertinent. In any case, he does answer truthfully and more straightforward a little later in the interview (after the interviewer presses him and refuses to let him off the hook that easily).
EKE, the ICAA and classical program at CUDenver sound very exciting, thanks for mentioning them. Perhaps the change I am hoping for will come sooner rather than latter.
suri, this company makes millwork in profiles for use in classical detailing. can you clarify if you think this is the sort of thing that should be more common in architectural detailing?
http://www.fypon.com/literature/pdfs/catalog/pur/E-VentSystems.pdf
EKE - my snark about reciting Byron poems was as much tongue-in-cheek as serious. The "classical" education had all that in spades. And the courses you listed as part of a classical architectural education - the "study of the rationale of classical architectural language, the construction and philosophy surrounding the classical orders, theory of proportion, linear perspective, field drawing, ink wash rendering, observational drawing, the literature of classical architecture, etc.", by and large should be standard courses offered in today's architectural programs.
All those classical courses are, in effect, modes and methods of teaching a person how to observe the world and perceive architecture. It might even make some of them great draughts-persons. Just as someone who is fluent in rhino, revit and parametric scripting may be good at 3-d renderings it won't make them a great architect.
My point is that those types of courses aren't unique nor should they be unique only to "classical" architectural education. Why is ink wash rendering and observational drawing only applicable to doing classical architecture? Is the ink wash rendering necessary to "sell" the classical design or to imbue that drawing done in 2013 with the feeling of antiquity? Of course not. That's a rhetorical technique of presentation though just as a 3-d rendering at dusk can sell an ambiguous modern design.
Certainly you agree that every architect should learn how to draw, be familiar with the theories of proportion, applying the golden section, understanding scale and of course reading theories and treatises regardless of architectural style. Understanding the full history of architecture is essential. Learning and practicing the methods and skills that help one to bring ideas and design to paper is essential. But architecture didn't stop being architecture after 1900. Vitruvius was lamenting cheap clients and unskilled labor back in his day so the challenges facing architects haven't changed but they also haven't been frozen in time.
You mention that the CU-Denver has had to create and formalize a classical program based off the ICAA to teach classes that they used to teach under the ENVD program. I graduated from Boulder back in the mid-90s and traditional drawing classes, color theory, perspective drawing, programming, learning the classical orders, historical theory etc. were part of the electives and required classes. I later did my masters at VT in Alexandria and the pedagogy there was neither modern nor historical but eccentric and broad with courses that helped the architectural student understand their own place within the world of architecture but also the place of architecture in the contemporary world with an understanding of where it had been before.
Steven...the HH building had some minor restorative work done recently and it's a great building with a beautiful space inside. Being used as a wedding reception hall, movie set and the AIA awards banquets as of late. A far cry from when it was the Civil War museum.
Curtkram-
You keep referring to "stick on" ornament and foam detailing, as if these somehow characterize the contemporary practice of classical architecture. I know that you think it serves your narrative, but that simply isn't the case. I have been a practicing classical architect for over 20 years, and I have never used a single Fypon product. The architects that do use that stuff are fallen modernists who have no real interest in producing thoughtful traditional buildings.
lamus-
I agree that this should be a part of every architectural education, but, sadly it is not. To cite just one example, learning the orders of architecture is not just listening to a history lesson on those funny columns that dead guys with beards designed back before we had steel piloti. It is spending time learning the orders through a thorough study of the rationale for them, studying the differing ways that the masters of antiquity and the Renaissance approached their construction and use, learning to draw them in detail, and then employing them as an aesthetic system in a design problem. Only by constructing the orders firsthand can you really grasp the underlying proportional systems.
Believe me when I tell you that the only schools that are providing this kind of education in classical design are the ICAA, University of Notre Dame, U of Miami, and now Colorado.
eke, shhhh. that fypon comment was for suri, who is not actually trained as an architect and doesn't do this for a living the way most of us do. i am interested in suri clarifying her opinion by explaining more specifically what sorts of materials and methods are valued by the lay-person. you and i can't really provide that insight since we're too close to the practice of architecture.
Ok, Ok, I'll be verwy, verwy quiet. :)
(Between you and me, that Fypon cornice is awful. The ventilation slots in the soffit are a nice touch. gag..)
curtkram,
Once again, trying to force an argument into a box of your choosing does not make a convincing argument.
"we've established that traditional architecture is limited to solely how the building looks" You've established this, not anyone else. Traditional architecture is about the user's sensory experience, thus the training in light and shadows, plan and circulation rational, and massing studies. Modernism tends to be about an intellectual experience, but both need to work in all the usual respects that have been the provenance of architects for centuries. Now there's a lot of modernist stuff that's an amazing experience, and a lot of traditionally styled work that's nothing but a potamkin village. But the reality of most buildings is that they provide rudimentary functions and are simply background buildings. This is where modernism falls flat. At least you seem to acknowledge that "the public wants traditional architecture". Now we have to work on your cynicism, which by the looks of your condescension of non architects, will be tough.
SPIEGEL: Where do you live?
Koolhaas: That's unimportant. It's less a question of architecture than of finances.
Actually, it is important, especially from someone that's made a career of slamming traditional architecture. Like Mies who lived in a traditional row house but painted it white for "purity". Some of us aren't so cynical that this kind of hypocrisy is "trivial".
On the subject of "classical"architecture, a few years ago I saw a multi-million dollar custom house that had a grade level loggia with Corinthian columns and a second floor porch above with Doric columns. The interior was full of semi-Mediterranean arches..
suri would have loved it.
We dont want to design traditional buildings because ... fuck you.
It is not uncommon to see replies to the unknown with tired cynicism and passé, stick catchphrases. Usually out of a deep seated insecurity. I too once hid my intimidati
*continued.
I too once hid my intimidation of traditional methods and, yes, Classical details through this sort of boorish mocking. That's fine. Don't despair. I feel it's a stage most of us must pass through. The whole zeitgeist ideal is pervasive, not just in architecture.
I think one just needs to look at Modernism as an ideology that did produce some beautiful works, and one that has some lessons to offer on how to treat design using steel and plastics. I think the jury is out on concrete. In any case, there's no doubt that the majority of schools today teach a narrow focus of architecture theory, history and practice. It's okay to expand upon that and try to see that architecture has actually been a continuum throughout human history back to the primitive hut, despite efforts in the early to mid 20th C. at creating a tabula rasa. Don't worry,Corb will not rise from his grave if you admit to enjoying a stroll through the Left Bank (and, like most of the non-architecture world, prefer it any day over La Defense).
i agree with quondam. there is a sneaky attitude here by some that confounds a defense of classicism with an attack against modernism, that confounds a personal desire to pursue classicism with an invective bullying against people who choose modernism. yes,pretending to being bashed in order to bash (when actually, there are very few people doing the bashing - i see a sort of very agreeable middle ground that most people agree on and that is that there is good and there is bad modernist/neoclassical work - yukh, i don't like it but it certainly offers a consensus of sorts). or if you want, they're still reacting against what they see as the original sin - namely modernism's now traditional critique and abrogation of neoclassicism (of course, its always more complex than this but people here are liking the flatter plains, so lets go with that). well, its not about stolen lands or goods or dignities that need to be surrendered back, is it?
this party seems to be a rather religious one. they argue in a st anselm/st augustine way, which is to say, they ultimatey beg the question. which is to say, they can not genuinely answer the question "why classicism?" although they will construct a rationale of justification. of course, the answer is just as impossible as "why modernism?" althought perhaps the question "why modernism?" has more going for it. by that i mean, the question "why modernism?" is sort of justified by the respondent question "why not modernism?" since modernism forms the barely conscious of run of the mill architecture nowadays, the de facto, the facile. as such, modernism is sort of the classical now, the architecture that may more unconsciously bear and bare the imprints of today's global but still specific societies. and here, one must pause a bit and ponder: in large metropolitan cities with their admixture of nationalities, ethnicities, religions, fragmented histories, backgrounds....does eurocentric traditional architecture truly speak to all these people in the same way? 1- do they really feel that reverting back to a history that doesn't belong to them 2- following from the logic that we must go back to classicism as a requisite devoir to forge a fundamental relation between people and architecture, must then a metropolitan city then architecturally express melange of classical histories (chinese, middle eastern, indian...etc) of all the global histories carried aboard by the migrant populations? how to go about it? a bricolage of world architecture (sort of like fusion cuisine or buddha bar/world music?). or some neighborhoods/buildings in the kalinga style, some in the damascene ummayid style,some in Ming era styles, others in sicilian rococo?
and here, i would also like to further question the idea of classicism as permitting a more responsive, more sympathetic, more reverberant system of signs. consider that americans are not europeans and their psyche and history in relation to eurocentric architecture is a subject to be studied before indeed assuming some kind of fundamental ownership that implies deep rooted connection. also consider that neocolonial neoclassicism bears totally different meanings and therefore, you should be -within a study of american neoclassicism- anything but a puritanist, anything but a fundamentalist, anything but an architectural evangelist. and i believe that thayer and the like (i don't mean this as an insult to you, thayer, it is simply that i am following a thought here, do not take offense) are taking on a role of generic eurocentric architectural evangelicalism.
i would suggest that one can sidestep this 'much ado about nothing'. i.e. about how classicism relates more to the needs of people more than modernism does. people here like eye candy; so you could just post nice modern neoclassical architecture and introduce us to the work of architects practicing in that . i would imagine that if i were to start arguing that minimalism is the best sort of architecture because its somewhat more honest (in other words, blah blah blah), i would come across as being rather silly.
personally, i also do not so easily accept that details - whether modern or classical, whether good or bad (in any style)- necessitate a stronger connection with the pedestrian and to her or his scale. in fact, when presented with architectural details that are meant to fit within a comprehensible world of architectural rhetoric, that the details want to tell me "this is architecture, please notice my intelligence and craftsmanship", i am bored by the architectural self indulgence. on the other hand, i find detailing with the likes of Carlos Scarpa and Enrico Morales much more interesting, paradoxical, mysterious, deliberately incomprehensible, playful. theirs are intentions not in staging an architectural dogma.
there is also the detail of no-detail, john pawson is a master of this sort of detailing as are others. the act of not seeing is an act of seeing - its a very experiential thing because you expect to have seen but by removing the expected, your experience is alleviated. this is not merely intellectual; its an experience that manipulates a history of experiences.
yes, in conclusion, suppose this is what the best of modernism (including postmodernism, postpost, postpostpost..) has to offer...experiences derived from a manipulation of historical experiences. can neoclassical architecture offer the same...given that the stylistic expectations and the permutations of experiences are hind-seeable (as opposes to foreseeable)?
wtf is this thread about.
Why craftsmanship no longer exists in architecture?
If you're that dumb to ask a question like that then you are obviously a retard.
RETARD...ed
This is the lamest forum Ive ever seen. 6 pages. wow..... good buy...." guurr stupid said 'buy'"
"i agree with quondam. there is a sneaky attitude here by some that confounds a defense of classicism with an attack against modernism, that confounds a personal desire to pursue classicism with an invective bullying against people who choose modernism." wow.
With the vast majority of schools stuck on modernism, it's the traditionalists who are the ones doing the bullying? Who knew? As someone who tends to like traditional architecture more than modernism, I can tell you that it's incredibly easy for a traditionally trained architect to produce a descent modernist design. I wonder if the same could be said for a modernist attempting a passable traditional design. That might be irrelevant given comments like "fu" from the sameolddoctor, but it's an interesting question for those looking at this as a civil debate. Ever wonder why traditionalist Frank LLoyd Wright hit it out the park with Falling Water and the Guggenheim? Any intellectual curiosity? Becasue he was good at architecture, regardless of style. Did he give the public some kind of bs reason for each one like Koolhouse might have done? Nope, cause he knew that was secondary to the sensory experience of being there. Same with Saaranin, Kahn, and other modernists that have done beautiful work.
"they can not genuinely answer the question "why classicism" Why not? That's like asking a musician why they use the standard four bar structure with a bridge and a begining, middle, and end. Why? They'd look at you like you're bananas. Becasue it feels good and therefore might make others feel good. So if modernism is your thing, go for it! There is no right or wrong in art, for god's sake. But why then not educate architects in both, in otherwords, why not simply teach architecture without a stylistic emphasis? Becasue given a choice to design in a building style that even most professors seem to prefer for thier own homes, students would probably chose traditional ones. Isn't that why people chose to visit old cities on vatations rather than hanging out in La Defense, COOP city, or even EUR in Rome. But that's too obvious, isn't it?
"does eurocentric traditional architecture truly speak to all these people in the same way?"
It's just not that complicated, unless you insist it is. Again, ask any cook, writer, or muisician if they ponder the ethnic genesis of what they are producing, and they'd wonder what institution you escaped from. Just don't ask artists, cause some of them are just as fucked up about this naval gazing as archtiects. Thanks Bauhaus!
"consider that americans are not europeans and their psyche and history in relation to eurocentric architecture is a subject to be studied before indeed assuming some kind of fundamental ownership that implies deep rooted connection." Is that how culture works?
" i believe that thayer and the like (i don't mean this as an insult to you, thayer, it is simply that i am following a thought here, do not take offense) are taking on a role of generic eurocentric architectural evangelicalism." No offense taken, but as a liberal, mixed race sob, I think you're in the deep on this one. I speak for the lorax, for they have no voice. No really, I just like beautiful things, and can't imagine why people need to build ideological barriers to any of it, and as such, is it really so hard to understand why I am trying to get schools to put traditional archtiecture (irrispective of European imperialism) on the same footing as modernism? That's it...I promise! You won't get cooties if you take a walk with me through Old Brooklyn as we marvel over the beautiful textures, proportions, and even styles (yikes!) I know you've been hurt before, and it's hard to love again so unabashidly, but it's also your only sourse of comfort. Do you really go around thinking about euro-centric stuff as the light flickers on the iron fillings of roman brick or while you absentmindedly admire the ciaro schuro pattern of windows on a plain wall?
"when presented with architectural details that are meant to fit within a comprehensible world of architectural rhetoric, that the details want to tell me "this is architecture, please notice my intelligence and craftsmanship", i am bored by the architectural self indulgence. on the other hand, i find detailing with the likes of Carlos Scarpa and Enrico Morales much more interesting, paradoxical, mysterious, deliberately incomprehensible, playful. theirs are intentions not in staging an architectural dogma."
How can you tell the difference? Can't it all just be looked at as wonderful details? I guess I'll never understand those who when eating meals, obsess over the provenance of every bite rather than simply enjoying the flavors. Like the Portlandia skit where they go nuts trying to figure out if the Chicken they are eating had a wonderful life style before they eat it, or when the two characters try to out slick eachother over who has read what newspaper instead of actually getting into one of the articles that might have provoked an interesting discussion. I guess we'll never resolve this, but what's clear is this discussion seems to elicit the most comments I've ever seen on this site, and considering how much we love labels, it probably never will be. Enjoy you work however you choose to proactice it.
What do people mean by modernism anyways? When I was in architecture school, we didn't learn modernism (except in history class), we studied deconstructivism, an intellectual process where the resulting spaces tend to shock and awe. Working with autistic students now, I wonder how we could ever think that is a good idea to design buildings that are characterized by distortions.
What is modernism?
Towards a multi-sensory architecture. http://www.designyourownmind.net/?p=6
so thayer, the reason you like "traditional" or "neoclassical" architecture is because light doesn't enter "modern" buildings? modern buildings don't cast shadows? if what you're saying is that a sculpture of a pagan god has less linear shadows that the wood slats popular in dwell, i would certainly grant you that. if you're saying modernism lacks training in light and shadow, it's might be because your school didn't teach enough modernism.
also, you mention the plan rationale. did you somewhere learn that modern architecture requires you to put the kitchen in a certain place? is it modern or traditional that puts offices on the perimeter walls? ranch and bungalow have different floor plans. traditional and modern don't.
what are the massing rules in traditional and modern architecture? seems to me, both are proponents of boxes.
if you were really the representative of traditional architecture, i would think our education system would need to refocus on teaching kids more about modern architecture since you've obviously confused what it is. i think eke has done a far better job of defending your religion. he designs traditional architecture that gets built, because that's what people hire him to do. i couldn't say that's anything other than respectable.
it would have been nice to hear what suri really thought about fypon, but if she sees those defending traditional styles saying it's not a good product, she pretty much has to agree now.
curtkram-
Are you interested in trying to trick Suri into saying she likes something that you can ridicule? What is the point of that?
Unhappy hipsters: it's lonely in the modern world. http://unhappyhipsters.com/
When I was a kid I had a Pet Rock. I named it Spunky. Which was not an ironic act at the time, I was just a dumb kid.
Donna, must have been hard to put him down.
tint, while I am astounded that you were "taught" deconstructionism, the teaching of style in architecture was one of the reasons I switched into ID.
curtkram,
You still don't know what I'm saying? What I'm saying is there is no ideology in beauty, and as such it should be studied in all forms, styles, and periods. Like a literature major who would self select what great literature from the past to avoid, doing that in our profession makes no sense. We might not speak the way Shakespeare spoke, but does that negate the content, structure, and flow of his verse? Are we that superficial that anything not close to our own vernacular is off limits? If you want to see ideology, politics, or even ethnicity in architecture, then no one is stopping you. But to dismiss the fact that others don't have those filters is crazy.
EKE is infact very eloquent and I enjoy the intelligence and patience he/she exibits. It's more than I have for sure. I also design traditional and modern stuff for clients, but there's not much of a demand for fish bowl additions, or Tado Ando concrete court yards and the like, and being an overly empathetic kind of fellow, I can understand why. But I don't have an architectural religion as much as you'd like me to have one, simply personal preferences like all of us. I don't even believe in God all though I respect those that do. I'm one of those people who can't stand the Israeli Palestinian conflict, not becasue they are both semetic peoples, but simply becasue the children who get blown up don't give a shit about the ideology thier elders seem to wrap their anger with. Same with the old Irish conflict or any other ethnic or religious fight. All that shit is old world to me, not becasue science dosen't actually back it up, but becasue it blows up kids.
So Donna, your story about having a pet rock named Spunky is actually quite touching to me. And I'd say you weren't a dumb kid if you loved it, becasue love isn't dumb, it's all we have. To me, beauty represents love, and love has no ideology.
now back to irony, cynicism, and getting an exact definition of what is modernism...
eke, yes. but i think that's valid.
let's remember, the OP was a non-architect who wants to decide what we should be doing for a living. the OP was not Thayer telling us about all the great things he learned about modernism in school. i don't think we've clearly defined what the difference between "traditional" and "modern" really is. as i stated previously, i think it's probably as simple as ornamentation. thayer thinks sunlight has something to do with it.
the opinion of suri on fypon would clarify what she's talking about. it is impractical to actually carve stone in today's economic and labor environment. i'm pretty sure most of us can agree on that. i know there are other options, like cast stone or cast concrete. i think it would actually be helpful for the lay-person to clarify if she only likes labor and construction methods that are not viable in this market, or if she thinks fypon would achieve her goal.
if fypon is what she's after, i wouldn't have to ridicule her. i could just stay quiet for a bit and let us elitist architects think about what our "traditional" clients are really interested in.
Modernism: a vague term pundits use as a crutch to support their otherwise weak ideologies and false dichotomy fallacies.
Donna, I imagine the Rock to have a little Viking Hat c/w horns made out of green pipe cleaners.
"it is impractical to actually carve stone in today's economic and labor environment. i'm pretty sure most of us can agree on that."
I don't agree. I use carved stone all the time in my projects.
Here's the way I see the issue of the OP or other non-architects: They may respond favorably to bad traditional work because, even though it is inauthentic and poorly executed, it is still giving them something that they respond to, something that other types of architecture isn't providing. Instead of trying to make them look foolish and unsophisticated, or dismissing them as childishly nostalgic or sentimental, we might want to try to understand what it is about those buildings that they like, and learn from that. I assure you that Suri isn't alone.
Impractical to carve stone in a country with a 25 to 30 percent real unemployment rate? The modernists who decreed "ornament" was a sin and put all the artisians out of business now complain because there are no artisians?
Show me carved stone that is cheaper or comparable in cost to concrete and steel sections and I'll show you a client willing to consider it. In my market, we have to choose concrete in lieu of stone (even-though we can mine it within close proximity) due to its expense.
With that said, I do currently have a quarter-billion dollar project in construction that has 20mm thick limestone panels inserted into a custom curtain-wall/rain-screen system. Would that count or is it too "modern"?
"i don't think we've clearly defined what the difference between traditional and modern really is."
The public dosen't care. Why is that so hard to comprehend? But if you are curious, just look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernist_architecture
The first sentence being "Modern architecture is generally characterized by simplification of form and an absence of applied decoration."
Yet the first symbolic gestures of modern man in South African caves which is commonly understood to be the begining of communication is sea shells used as ornaments to convey societal order. It's in our genes, and to negate that is to negate the very essence of what makes us human. Who cares if you are communicating a higher form of intelligence with a lack of ornament and white walls, or if you are communicating that you really love jesus with a mound of carvings. It all communicates.
Every project is different, with a different budget and set of client expectations. When we have a client with a tighter budget. We don't use carved stone. We use another material. Of course.
But this notion that we can't do trad architecture because there are no craftsmen capable of executing it for a reasonable price is just nonsense.
Impractical to carve stone in a country with a 25 to 30 percent real unemployment rate? The modernists who decreed "ornament" was a sin and put all the artisians out of business now complain because there are no artisians?
Not quite as simple as that, but I agree with the sentiment. We should spend more time employing more people to make things by hand. Racing to build as much as we can as fast as we can as big as we can for as much profit as we can is a race to extinction. Disposable society disposes of people, too.
A thick blank limestone wall could be part of any architectual style, Hard to say without more information. You are the architect. What is your question? If you are doing a $250,000,000 building you might be able to afford the odd stone carving.
i may have been unclear, but when i said carved stone i was referring to something like this, rather than cut into a square with a big saw:
that's great if you can get people with the skill to carve something like that. if you want a statue of a baby cherub eating a kitten, i'm not sure how you would detail that. i'm pretty sure you would leave the detail to the stonemason, with a note something like "put cherub here." anyway, carving something like that takes a lot of time. even if you had a very skilled worker putting in 12 hour days on salary for 8 hours at minimum wage and no overtime, vacation, or health insurance, it would take a very long time. from what i've seen, people paying for buildings typically don't want to wait that long (there are exceptions), and they don't want to pay that much. i have worked with clients who are willing to pay a premium for better material and workmanship, but i think this takes that to a level beyond what they're willing to pay or even able to finance.
i think it would be great if we could hire people to build more stuff and better stuff, but that costs money. there is no way to pay more people to do more work without it costing more. the math doesn't add up (unless you're rick perry and want to pay everyone a lot less). i can't do anything about that. i don't have the money to pay those people. it would be up to the clients to pay, and they often don't have the money either. those that can afford often choose not spend their money in that way.
Curtkram, the coffee that was just lost as I spat it out reading "cherub eating a kitten" was not sacrificed in vain.
Volunteer, why would I need to add stone carvings simply because the scale and budget of the project is high(er)? It seems ridiculous to dictate how my client ought to spend their money (tax dollars in this example).
Perhaps the client should be shown photos of the entrance to Notre Dame, and maybe the stained glass windows of Chartes, and of a blank limestone wall and let the discussions begin. Let the client determine what he can get for his resources. Same as the Medici did.
Some public buildings paid with tax payer dollars that may help show you it's not that uncommon nor impossible...cat-eating cherubs and all:
Lincoln Memorial
http://images.mapsofworld.com/travel/Lincoln-Memorial.jpg
Philadelphia City Hall
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Philadelphia_City_Hall_night.jpg
Nebraska State Capital
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Nebraska_State_Capitol_from_W_1.JPG
Or design this if you rather:
IM Pei's Dallas City Hall
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2455/3604767655_8e5350125d_o.jpg
I wonder which of those above examples the taxpayers like more. Tough one.
there is certainly nothing wrong with that volunteer.
i do not want to go back to the days with an entrenched aristocracy like the medicis. i still believe in a world where people can improve their lot in life with hard work. obviously there are a lot of people who do want banking families like the medicis to establish a legacy aristocracy, so maybe this really is in our future.
the medici family was very rich. the sort of life they lived was not common for the vast majority of people. the church was also able to pay for crazy elaborate decoration, such as notre dame, which was completed i think somewhere around 100 years before the prominence of the medici family. quite a tie in there really, since the medici's bought the papacy 4 times. i don't think your going to see as much ornamentation or stonework on the housing for regular folks like me. it's mostly the palaces and religious structures that we talk about. as rem said, there is a financial situation preventing me from living in those palaces.
suri didn't tell us whether she was from a crazy rich finance family. maybe she is. i guess it's possible that's where her taste in "traditional" architecture developed.
here's a picture from the internets. some of the housing on the right is almost "modern" in it's simplicity.
Trip to Fame, those examples are pretty and granted I have not disclosed the location, use and size of my own project, the ornamentation, scale and style of these could not be more off.
Context is important and also, I am not American and neither is any of my projects, therefore your own civic buildings are poor examples.
Give me just about any country in the world and I can surely show you some nice examples. ;)
trip, make sure those examples are built by and for people like suri, who started this thread, because i'm pretty sure that's still what we're talking about.
it would appear god and government have a different set of rules than the rest of us, wouldn't it?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.