Trip....I was familiar with the Flatiron before I was familiar with the PSFS prior to studying architecture. And having seen them both in person I like them both for what they achieve independent of one another. The flatiron's emphasis on the horizontal shadow line to create the illusion that it's not that tall and its rootedness in the Chicago style of skyscrapers and departure from the more overly decorous nature of Burnham's earlier work. PSFS I like because of the era it embodies as well and built only 30 years later. Emphasizing it's verticality by overlapping the limestone vertically to break up the ribbon windows, its contemporary use of classic materials make it a great building, especially within the context of the Philly skyline.
Interesting this abstract painting done by the painter Albert Gleizes in 1916 is quite interesting in that the painting isn't directly reflective of the Flatiron building by using realism to represent the building but employs the cubist techniques he championed. Illustrating that at the start of the 20th century - there was so much "newness" going on people were unsure of exactly what to think. That he chose a building, whose style is firmly rooted to the tale-end of the 19th century stylistically and was completely "modern" in the the technology used to achieve it is interesting as well. Maybe Gleizes' painting is a critique of the building as well - trying to cling to a bygone, Romantic era while the excitement of modernity knocking at the door and the world in the middle of WW I.
Maybe that gets back to the duality of the American psyche I was alluding to in earlier posts. One that is longing for the recent past and desirous of a utopian future.
eke, i went back to those surveys you posted. one stated people in england like bungalows. the other was a wikipedia page. since the people of wikipedia chose the empire state building as their favorite, i think we know art deco is the favorite architecture style for americans. actually, i don't think it works that way at all, but as long as it suits your argument. some people still do like modernism on that list. the vietnam memorial made this list, as did the world trade center.
i have duly noted and absorbed that information, but it doesn't cause me to change the opinion i hold on architecture. i am not familiar with your editor. i'm also not convinced that people buying coffee table books (if that's what you're after, i don't know) are the same people paying for buildings.
the whole concept of phrasing this debate as 'tradtional' v. 'modern' is sophomoric to begin with. what does traditional incorporate? everything designed before 1950? does it only include architecture with one 5 identifiable types of columns? is traditional limited to vernacular architecture (obviously not if you're including neoclassical). are you going to include every revival style? saying people prefer victorian houses is far different than saying people prefer neoclassical houses.
and how are you defining modern? everything that isn't traditional is obvious, but you're talking international style and teamX and all those, then dumping in decon and pomo and blobitecture.
for someone with an actual education in architectural history, isn't the way you're grouping things kind of stupid? or are you grouping them in a different way, that might make some sense. if so, please elaborate on your classification system.
What would you say about how I defined traditional and modernist?
"As for what's traditional vs. modernist, (becasue modern is what the dictionary says, regardless of how anyone wants to misappropriate the word) it's a matter of aesthetics for me. The open plan and whatever else modernists want to claim as their invention has always existed. Sure, a certain material might be new, but it will still be a panel or whatever application it's being used in. The traditional aesthetic is something that's understood primarily through the senses, meaning it dosen't require any reading or understanding of concepts to "get". The modernist aesthetic is cereblal in that it usually requires some understanding of the architect's intentions to fully appreciate. Now of course there are very sensual modernist buildings and also didactic traditional buildings, but there's a reason all those surveys show the public's preference for traditional work, despite the use of such leading terms as "style". Another way of looking at the aesthetic differences between modernist and traditional is in Vitruvious's Firmness, Commodity and Delight. Both views have to accomplish the first two, or else the work tends to dry up, and most of us get that. It's the delight part that seems to elude a lot of modernist work I see, assuming you aren't delighted by manifestos. So while traditional is commonly understood to look like historical or vernacular buildings and modernist buildings tend to be abstract and/or minimalist, there's an incredible overlap, which tends to be where I like to live both archietcurally and in my personal life"
"eke, i went back to those surveys you posted. one stated people in england like bungalows. the other was a wikipedia page. since the people of wikipedia chose the empire state building as their favorite"
What do you mean the people of wikipedia chose the empire state building?
It starts with "In 2006 and 2007, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) sponsored research to identify" If your going to skim a page, try to be sure and include the opening points in your skim (they tend to be important).
Look a little closer at the surveys I posted Curt. The methodology of the English study was to show people a variety of different housing types, and to ask them where they would rather live. Bungalows was the favorite, but the overwhelming takeaway is that people preferred the non-modernist buildings.
The other reference is a Wikipedia page describing a survey conducted by the AIA. Wikipedia had nothing to do with it. Of course there are modern buildings on the list - I didn't say it was unanimous. But the non-modernist buildings certainly dominate the highest ranked spots on the list.
I count 3-4 people that have taken umbrage/offense by what Suri is reporting. Not exactly "people" in general we're speaking about here.
Don't confuse umbrage with loss of patience over obstinate persistence.
What are you guys suggesting, that because you think you have refuted his argument, that he should just STFU and go away?
Suri can say whatever s/he wants. But to keep endlessly repeating the same line while utterly ignoring every point to the contrary ... it's been said that crazy is repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result. That's not crazy, that's stupid. It's also an amazing example of trolling that has resulted in a more than a few laughs and unintended consequences.
As to the ivory tower and the distinction between historical and contemporary styles, they're all wrong when they leave suitability to purpose, function, sustainability, etc. out of the equation. From where I sit this is the true nature of architecture and a responsibility that has been largely cast aside in favor of decoration in one style or another at the expense of those things that really matter.
As to tammy's "the other side (for instance Miles' summation) fall back on dogmatic clichés based on other mythical religiously modernist liasons", the only thing mythical are my cliches or support for one style over another. Unless of course you'd care to provide examples? You're not the first on this thread to put words in my mouth that I did not speak. I'd also suggest that some English lessons are in order.
As to as books on traditional style outselling books on the modern 3:1 (or evidenceto the contrary), or the construction of production housing in traditional styles, one can point to the failure of modernism to deliver on its promises while at the same time clearly citing how traditionally styled production housing isn't traditional and often fails in similar ways.
I love the Chrysler Building, which was the leading edge of modernism and the machine age in 1930. Does that make me a modernist, a traditionalist, or an admirer of beauty?
ok then, what we've learned is that the american people prefer art deco buildings. therefore, architects should design art deco buildings.
eke, is that the style you design in? art deco?
not a single mention of 'traditional' in that survey. not a single one.
thayer, you can call that 'modern' if you want, but i do not believe the absence of delight is a necessity for modern architecture. the absence of doric columns may be prevalent, but doric columns are not necessary for 'delight.' also, i think those definitions are unique to you, and therefore difficult to use in conversation with other people. however, if you define 'good' architecture as traditional and 'bad' architecture as modern, then i can see how you might prefer traditional architecture.
here are some modern bungalows for you eke. a house can be both a bungalow, and modern. bungalow does not mean 'traditional' or 'old.' i don't really want to dig through pages of this thread to find your link again, but as i recall the general consensus was that people like houses instead of apartments, and stuff that costs a lot over stuff that doesn't cost a lot? i think you're looking for meaning where there isn't much.
Well, the largest remainng example of Third Reich architecture is the Prora resort complex on the island of Ruga. It is straight out of Corbu's Radiant City. Herman Goering's Air Ministry in Berlin is not far behind; it is used as the Finance Ministry now. The 1936 Olympic Stadium to me also looks modernist; it is still standing also. The IG Farben office building woukd also qualify. It was once the largest office building in Europe and was only moderately damaged in the war. Modernist all the way. Templehof Airport was also modernist although it has been torn down now I believe.
I don't think you would have to be a Nazi to design Prora, just insane will do fine. A far as the moustache, the number of people who sport Hitler's "toothbrush" stache is effectively zero.
Um Suri, YOU may think that those buildings you've posted are 'modern', but again I refute, they are revival styles based off of Greek/Roman styles and I shall also put forth Egyptian into that mix as they influenced he Greeks and Romans.
thayer, you can call that 'modern' if you want, but i do not believe the absence of delight is a necessity for modern architecture. the absence of doric columns may be prevalent, but doric columns are not necessary for 'delight.'
I never said the absence of delight is a necessity for modern architecture, nor did I say columns are necessary for delight. But given your ideological view point, this re-casting of every point is not surprising.
Marisco, I would call that building traditional, but that doesn't make it good or bad. The actual design makes it bad from what I can tell. If you call someone a conservative or liberal, some people would assume the worst of them, but then if you see how they treat people, you might see that you'd be wrong. This is the problem with ideological thinking. It attaches a value to things which they don't necessarily have, something which the early modernists did a great job with, especially Gropious. The qualities of architecture which are universal get warped into qualities that the people who actually inhabit the buildings don't care about nor should they.
I think the building could be characterized as 'Bauhaus before Bauhaus'. It gives the lie to the idea that the Bauhaus created anything new. Perhaps this what-ever-it-is should be refered to as pre-brutal Brutalist.
Miles Jaffe to Thayer :"But if you want to dis my work as a way to denigrate me, you're far worse than you describe me,"
Miles Jaffe to my person: "I'd also suggest that some English lessons are in order."
Its obvious that this person, Miles Jaffe, while making a pretense of having a superior moral stance apropos Thayer does something at the exact level of what he accuses Thayer of doing. This being, namely, the attempt to undermine someone else on the basis of what does not pertain to the content of the discussion i.e. dragging in my linguistics ability. As such, not only does he prove to reflect a smug, miserly and anal sort of personality but he also proves to be a hypocrite and further assures us that it is not in his nature to discuss matters with others who disagree with him in a respectful demeanor.
It is true I have to occasionally struggle in three languages but I don't see the pertinence here. Furthermore, I typically don' t have the peace of mind when i dash in and out of Archinect and my writing is nearly always a reflection of thinking-in-progress. I do not care to join a debating team.
As for the request to give examples, the request itself is illogical. It is not examples that should be solicited from me but rather an explication or an elaboration. I would but a discussion with people arse-na(i)led with that sort of attitude amounts to being an exercise in addressing a virtual waste bin. I hope my language here is, excepting any typos and errata that might have strayed into the text owing to the shortcomings of non-anglo-native and insufficiently educated yours-truly, acceptable to those who have been proverbially provided with a stick up their ass.
Believe it or not, it was meant to be a helpful suggestion, as I am not the only one who finds you somewhat incomprehensible.
sedentary obscure cliché built on their definitely non-omnipresent belief of what is better and oina fatalistic liason between style and content
tammuz, what are you saying???
What's funny - aside for the unveiled dislike for me that you have demonstrated on more than one occasion, which is without doubt an influence on my responses to you - is that your English is actually reasonably understandable when you're NOT trying to impress with some bullshit vocabulary that only makes me think of this. Or this:
As for the request to give examples, the request itself is illogical. It is not examples that should be solicited from me but rather an explication or an elaboration.
Which is simply a lame attempt to avoid answering a challenge that you can't. Either specifically cite my dogmatic clichés based on other mythical religiously modernist liasons (whatever the hell that means) or admit that you are a liar.
And speaking of proving to be a hypocrite who further assures us that it is not in his nature to discuss matters with others who disagree with him in a respectful demeanor:
I would but a discussion with people arse-na(i)led with that sort of attitude amounts to being an exercise in addressing a virtual waste bin.
THAT is a textbook example of hypocrisy. LOL, thanks for the demonstration!
I assume you felt equally delighted when comparing PSFS and Flatiron?
I liked PSFS the first time I saw it. I disliked Flatiron the first time I saw it.
Who knows what the public wants? The public, if referring to those outside the design professions, can't verbalize what they like and don't like. That's why the responses when a design is shown to a client vary from "I'm not so sure" to "Yes, that's what I was thinking." On the other hand, those trained in building design can nitpick a design, unless they're of the ilk that doesn't like to discuss design ... you know, the redneck architect.
PSFS is cool because it employs simple, classical, modern proportions and has a nice relationship between its base, its main volume(s), and it tapers as it moves upward, and with enough surface articulation to boot. On the other hand, Flatiron is so heavy, and I don't like heavy cornices or heavy anything, meaning the Monadnock Block is not a likable building either, despite its historical significance. So, then, why would a person who likes Renaissance and Baroque churches, which are ornate, not like the Flatiron Building? It's simple. Many Ren-Bar works tend to be tiered and taper as they move upward, rather than being topped with a flattened hat in the form of a heavy cornice.
When you hire any type of professional, you hire professional judgment. Unless the architect is looking to make a statement for his or her own self glorification, they are usually better equipped to decide what the public needs, unless the public is a segment of society (developers, urban planners, et. al.) that is savvy about the design and building process.
Speaking of self-glorification and artistic license, I wonder what's up with that Mayne museum in a large Texas city where there's that random glazed diagonally placed staircase impaled in one corner, which almost looks like a cartoon-like image of someone on the Simpsons with a pillbox stuck in their throat.
i was not hypocritical for two reasons. firstly, i'm not applying different standards as you were - i did not accuse someone of resorting to low life tactics then weild those low life tactics against someone else. secondly, in my original post mentioning you, i did not denigrate your person, your work, your language or indeed drag in anything irrelevant to the topic in my understanding of it - the posts after were my reaction to your insulting/ mocking comment. your personal characteristics were and are of no interest to me. on the other hand, you yourself are mocking my usage of the language (which is not always an intuitive one believe you me especially when i'm wading in the abstract). you might perceive it to be bullshitty but I really don't care whether you do or not. the fact that you see yourself in the position to snidely make stupid remarks about taking english language classes can only mean that you are being an asshole. for those who care to understand, i have appreciation. for those who don't, you have the option to ignore me since i'm criticising your ideas...not your language, not your mannerisms or your style. do i really need to spell this out for you? do you really need classes in etiquette?
as for being a liar or not, this is up to you to figure out. go through your post where you enumerate and read my point against yours. Im not going to spell everything out for you. if it doesn't make sense, then so be it. But being called a liar means that I'm deliberately saying an untruth. why do you take such a vitriolic stance? Can't you just accept that I truly have this impression from my side based on a different interpretation? after all, its not a mathematical formula we're discussing.
no, instead you also call me a liar. this is why i call you miserly. you are cheap, you are intellectually and humanly stingy. you immediately resort to mocking and to representing people who do not agree with you in a fundamentally distasteful manner. and i say this because i'm still reacting to your inane vitriol. in future posts, please be respectful and don't mock .
Another way of looking at the aesthetic differences between modernist and traditional is in Vitruvious's Firmness, Commodity and Delight. Both views have to accomplish the first two, or else the work tends to dry up, and most of us get that. It's the delight part that seems to elude a lot of modernist work I see, assuming you aren't delighted by manifestos.
i interpreted that to mean you are suggesting the 'delight' part of firmness/commodity/delight was missing from modern architecture. you'll have to excuse me for thinking that you were defining modern architecture as something that is lacking in delight, since you did associate the term 'modern' with lack of delight. if this statement you made is not, if fact, defining modern architecture as that which lacks delight, then i'm afraid i can't find any definition of modern architecture within you definition of modern architecture. not much of a definition for traditional either, except you imply one includes senses and the other your brain. sort of a battle between apollo and dionysis.
while i disagree with the terms as you're using them, it is helpful to clarify the context you're trying to use them so i get a better sense of the message you're trying to convey. i do appreciate the attempt.
BTW, for those interested, the building I posted is The tomb of Pharaoh Hapshepsut, It is nearly 3500 years old, (around 1450-60 BC). I posted it to illustrate that indeed stylistic influence from even then was imparted to and used by Speer in his designs, hence demonstrating that they are drawn from and emulate traditional sources, ergo not modern.
From a design standpoint Thayer, I would say it was good and appropriate for the time and culture it was built in. As a tomb and temple it works well to illustrate its meaning and significance to the people and culture it was created by and for.
I think this goes toward what most of us have been saying, you say it would be traditional but bad, is that because it does not follow Vitruvius? It predates him so no surprise to me there.
Architectural style should be relevant to the society and time in which it is built, plain and simple. The meaning and significance can otherwise be lost upon those not versed in mythologies and histories of all the known cultures. This is not to say that traditional is bad, nor that moderne or modernist, or everything after a certain date are bad either. I believe that elements can be used, proportions, scale, detailing levels, etc. but I think we need to build upon the past to push architecture into the future and have it relevant to our world, there may not be a one size fits all, but there are principles we can apply regardless of "style". As architects (and designers), we should be seeking to understand the past and use it in new ways and explorations that make sense for our local conditions, social and political climates and economic realities. If you want exposed timber framing or columns, all power to you, just make it relevant to the present day.
For the record, I enjoy good examples of all architecture, traditional through contemporary, but focus mainly on (neo-)vernacular architecture. I just enjoy a good discussion like this.
I think this goes toward what most of us have been saying, you say it would be traditional but bad, is that because it does not follow Vitruvius?
Of course not, that's silly. I say it's bad becasue I think it looks like a bad conposition, like a lot of Speer's work. But that's to my eyes, someone else will feel differently and there's no reason I'd be right and they'd be wrong, cause it's a matter of taste.
As architects (and designers), we should be seeking to understand the past and use it in new ways and explorations that make sense for our local conditions, social and political climates and economic realities. If you want exposed timber framing or columns, all power to you, just make it relevant to the present day
I guess where I'd part company with you is that when one works today, they are inevitably doing something relevant for the present day. There work is modern, of it's time, or whatever appelation one prefers. If I do a dutch gambrel house, the client isn't going to want some stuffy blocked out floor plan with small leaded glass windows, they'll probably want and interesting combination of family rooms open to eachother with maybe a formal dining room that can be converted to a first floor guest suite or function as an office. It will have passive heating, non toxic matterials, etc. Mind you I dare assume what a potential Mr. & Mrs. Smith might want, becasue I'm arrogant, but that's been my experience. So it will be modern by force, not by choice. I've had clients who-ve wanted a modernits look, sleek, minimalist, etc. And the same things happened with them (roughly). I didn't smack them with Vitruvius's book or lecture them on why traditional work was better, but I did approach them the same way traditional architects approached their clients for hundreds of years. I made sure the home was firm, commodious, and that it delighted them in some fashion. It's not traditional vs. modernist, it's all architecture and let history be told by historians 100 years from now instead of us narcissistically wondering where we fit in to the larger narrative. That's putting the cart before the horse.
curtkram, You are getting close to understanding my point. Would you not admit the importance of concept to modernist work? I'm pretty sure the early modernists wouldn't have been caught saying, "this will be beautiful" becasue they distrusted those ideals and wanted to replace them with making function and technology the sole arbiter of modern architecture. Now clearly a young'un isn't soliciting work with manifestos rolled up their sleave, but the "style" reflects this origin in it's adherance to this minimalist aesthetic. But I'm glad to hear you see the importance of "delight" in architecture. Now we have to get you to allow others to achieve this in whatever style they might see fit.
The traditional aesthetic is something that's understood primarily through the senses, meaning it dosen't require any reading or understanding of concepts to "get". The modernist aesthetic is cereblal in that it usually requires some understanding of the architect's intentions to fully appreciate. Now of course there are very sensual modernist buildings and also didactic traditional buildings.
This isn't meant to be an absolutist statement, simply trends I've observed.
when you include a doric column in a design because a doric column has meaning, you should understand it only has meaning to those people that have learned the meaning. this could probably be more easily understood with a statue of athena under eisenhower. if you've studied greek gods and their role in traditional architecture, you would know she is a symbol of wisdom and other great virtues. if you did not learn who athena is, you would see i a picture of someone in a dress, that's dressed up as a general. putting that on a statue of eisenhower might make it look like he was cross-dressing. the symbol is lost on people who don't have the same education we do.
when you space doric columns the way they did in ancient greece because that's what people find beautiful, you're designing columns that aren't acting like columns. the materials and methods we use to build buildings today allow us build far more efficient structures than what they had to work with. i believe you do not need columns that look like ancient greek columns and are spaced the way they were back then in order to make a building beautiful. we can use the materials and methods common today to make beautiful architecture.
Non sequitur wrote:
Quick, somebody send out 4 dozen carvers... I'm in need of crown moulding everywhere for this half-million square foot building.
That's a silly comment. Not least because it falsly assumes that traditional, classical and vernacular need be made of stone and only stone. Any natural material will so in reality.
Do you know how resource and process intensive it is to produce just an ounce of silicone caulking?
The sad truth is that a vast sum of large building projects today and in the past are in some way or another built upon the tired backs of the underclasses.
i believe you do not need columns that look like ancient greek columns and are spaced the way they were back then in order to make a building beautiful.
Well good for you. But the question is why not study what made beauty, in Greece or any other culture and time in history. My guess is one would find some underlying principles of composition that over-ride culture and climate, unless you think as humans we are physiologically very different that the Romans or one from eachother genetically.
We are at least talking about beauty as if we practiced an art, which we do. A functional art, but an art none the less. This emphasis or elevation of beauty is the main difference between the Beaux Arts and Modernist educational models. This is probably why the early modernists who where educated in the Beaux-Arts produced work that still holds its own with the subsequent 80 years of modernism.
Should one be allowed to persue conceptual or technologically based work, sure, why not? But the point is if beauty still holds such an important place in human psychology, why not teach it to young architects? And if the public can read whatever symbolism the author uses, all the better. Good work of any kind can be read on multiple levels, but becasue of architecture's eminently public nature, the failure of striving for some kind of beauty or delight will have consequences as to how people will percieve the work, assuming they are the sensitive to aesthetics.
Miles, I fully agree. hopefully we can just respect eachother's views and allow them to co-exist, which is the problem with architectural education. They don't acknowledge that people who have differing views are equally entitled to their opinion.
Thayer, I learned to respect differing views, I just expect the same from others. I don't care if you subscribe to Vitruvius' Firmness, commodity, delight, Palladio's 4 books, Ruskin's seven lamps or Alexander's pattern language (all good reads btw). The proof of your composition failing or succeeding is in the pudding as it were.
Everyone has different ways of composing their work, just because I may not go by Vitruvius nor think he was the be all and end all doesn't make me (or Curtkram, or Miles, or others who have posted) wrong, it means we recognize the contribution, acknowledge it, and proceed with what we believe is appropriate. It does not devalue the work, nor throw it our, we just place a different value on it than others such as yourself. It does not mean that one needs to accept it as architectural gospel and must therefore be forced to be educated and trained in the method you see fit so that we can be better architects/designers. Architectural education and practice need to be open to new and differing ideas, it allows it to grow and provide appropriate (and often differing) solutions to the problems of the built environment in today's world.
Like I said, everyone is entitled to practice and learn the way they see fit. Just as 'the public' is entitled to have choice and differing opinions on what constitutes good architecture. I just cannot believe that one person can dictate, even using suspect statistical data, that all of the people want one thing. That is totalitarian and that my friend is contrary to human nature. Our uniqueness and difference of opinion is what brings life, excitement and new ideas into the world, by respecting that, embracing it and allowing it to flourish, we move forward into the realm of possibility.
Thayer, everyone is entitled to an opinion but not all opinions are equal. Not directed towards you, just talking about the "public." The value of an opinion is weighed on knowledge, experience, creativity, talent, character, and wisdom. Generally speaking, the public lacks most of these things with regards to architecture.
I just cannot believe that one person can dictate, even using suspect statistical data, that all of the people want one thing.
If you believe some are advocating that, I would agree, but all the data shown wasn't used to prove your statement (that all of the people want one thing), it proved that a majority prefered one type of work over another, by a ratio of 3/1. If you want to contradict that by stating that ALL people means 3/1, ok. Furthermore, if you don't trust those surveys, that's your perogative just like it was Romney's perogative to mistrust the 'liberal' media's polls. My only issue is with schools that prejudice students to prefer one view over another while they study and learn.
The value of an opinion is weighed on knowledge, experience, creativity, talent, character, and wisdom. Generally speaking, the public lacks most of these things with regards to architecture.
This speaks to the previous point, that somehow what some people experience and feel in our shared built environment must be invalidated becasue of being 'uninformed'. The arbiters of who's 'informed' being the very schools that indoctrinate students with modernism's bias against traditional architecture, whether that be for technological, political, social, conceptual, or moral reasons. We've heard all these arguments before, yet it still dosen't explain why so many of these very architects choose a traditional home or a traditional neighborhood to live in. When did architects (historically speaking) become 'informed'?
We will simply have to agree to disagree that the public's opinion isn't equal to ours since as you say (generally speaking) they... lack knowledge, experience, creativity, talent, character, and wisdom. This public would include all those very intelligent liberals who live in the same traditional homes and neighborhoods as those intelligent architects you speak of.
"the symbol is lost on people who don't have the same education we do."
Actually that kind of symbolism is part of our pop culture...unless you were raised on a farm without television you are aware of architectural symbolism, greek pantheon included.
We will simply have to agree to disagree that the public's opinion isn't equal to ours since as you say (generally speaking) they... lack knowledge, experience, creativity, talent, character, and wisdom. This public would include all those very intelligent liberals who live in the same traditional homes and neighborhoods as those intelligent architects you speak of.
The "public" does not spend most of their time thinking about architecture as many of us do. Taste is a matter of exposure. Some people in the public may have a greater understanding than others. Most know very little about architecture because most people have very little exposure to it.
If you grew up eating fast food, and never had a proper cooked meal, you will probably like fast food. Once you are exposed to more diverse and higher quality foods you will tend to be disgusted by the thought of a sloppy double whopper with fake processed cheese. Its not about elitism. I tend to go with the chefs recommendation when I go out to eat. He knows more. The chef lives for it, I just eat it. Sure I know what tastes good and what tastes bad, but if I decided what I wanted and what was good before even seeing the menu, then I would have missed out on a lot of good stuff that I never even knew existed. The architect may live in a Victorian home and the chef may love to eat peanut butter and jelly at home, but I would hope and expect them to make the menu a little more interesting than that. Ya dig?
Suri, the Pantheon is a rather famous Roman building from the first century ACE in Rome. This is the official name of the building referred to above. I would think this should have been obvious to you given all those books on real architecture you claim to read.
yes non sequitur, there is a building called the pantheon...and it was obvious i was not talking about the building, and was instead talking about curtram saying that uneducated people do not know that athena is the goddess of wisdom.
And being you were such dicks about it, ill be a dick too. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you when you were taught something about a building called the pantheon in one of your architecture history courses, that there might perchance be some other possible use of that word outside of your architecture-centric worlds, that it in fact was a word and not simply a name invented for the purpose of you having to memorize it for one of your tests. But of course you probably see the public as bumbling idiots lined up for the next appearance on the jerry springer show and automatically assume they would make some stupid out of context reference to the pantheon, mistaking it for the parthenon.
curt wasn't talking about the greek pantheon, he was talking about athena. And then he was talking about the Parthenon. No need to be dicks. If there is a misunderstanding, it shouldn't be a big deal.
I tend to go with the chefs recommendation when I go out to eat. He knows more. The chef lives for it, I just eat it. Sure I know what tastes good and what tastes bad, but if I decided what I wanted and what was good before even seeing the menu, then I would have missed out on a lot of good stuff that I never even knew existed. The architect may live in a Victorian home and the chef may love to eat peanut butter and jelly at home, but I would hope and expect them to make the menu a little more interesting than that. Ya dig?
I'm with ya champ, but you ain't follow'n what I'm say'n. Must be dat education you's got ain't no good! I'll go with the chef's recommendation also, why not? What I'm saying is if I don't like the meal after I eat it, no amount of talking, reading, or education is going to change my opinion. I don't care if the chickens ran a marathon on whole wheat, if the combination of tastes don't suit me, they just don't. We're not talking about brain surgery or climate warming, or advanced physics,,, we're talking about responding to the built environment. Non so si mi spiego.
As for chefs eating peanut butter sandwiches, I can guess why they'd like that cause I've heard many a story where that's the case. It usually goes like this...I really dig'em or my momma made them like that, or what business is it of yours what I eat? But who cares how you feel, tell me what you've read! Look, everyone and my grandmother is concerned about status, heck, I got a couple of diplomas just to talk about this bullshit and ensure I'm allowed to eat my organic glutten free peanut butter sandwiches without some schmuck telling me how tacky that is. But own up to your superior knowledge, and make sure your client's understand that you got one over on them, and make your millions. I got a different take on the value of education.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
trip, i thought you, eke, and thayer were the only ones who approved of what he's saying?
http://www.thirdreichruins.com/luitpoldhallerittich.jpg
http://www.ottens.co.uk/gatehouse/user/files/Zeppelinfeld%20by%20Albert%20Speer.jpg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_hVOW2U7K4-M/SZus4yuVaCI/AAAAAAAA6as/xRLLVmy2XvM/s640/ryhjrsthsrfthf.jpg
The buildings speak for themselves.
Keep patronizing, ignoring, assuming, and dismissing and you'll never figure out why people have taken so much umbrage at Suri's load of shit.
Yeah, I can't seem to figure that one out either. Hmmm.
-
Trip....I was familiar with the Flatiron before I was familiar with the PSFS prior to studying architecture. And having seen them both in person I like them both for what they achieve independent of one another. The flatiron's emphasis on the horizontal shadow line to create the illusion that it's not that tall and its rootedness in the Chicago style of skyscrapers and departure from the more overly decorous nature of Burnham's earlier work. PSFS I like because of the era it embodies as well and built only 30 years later. Emphasizing it's verticality by overlapping the limestone vertically to break up the ribbon windows, its contemporary use of classic materials make it a great building, especially within the context of the Philly skyline.
Interesting this abstract painting done by the painter Albert Gleizes in 1916 is quite interesting in that the painting isn't directly reflective of the Flatiron building by using realism to represent the building but employs the cubist techniques he championed. Illustrating that at the start of the 20th century - there was so much "newness" going on people were unsure of exactly what to think. That he chose a building, whose style is firmly rooted to the tale-end of the 19th century stylistically and was completely "modern" in the the technology used to achieve it is interesting as well. Maybe Gleizes' painting is a critique of the building as well - trying to cling to a bygone, Romantic era while the excitement of modernity knocking at the door and the world in the middle of WW I.
Maybe that gets back to the duality of the American psyche I was alluding to in earlier posts. One that is longing for the recent past and desirous of a utopian future.
eke, i went back to those surveys you posted. one stated people in england like bungalows. the other was a wikipedia page. since the people of wikipedia chose the empire state building as their favorite, i think we know art deco is the favorite architecture style for americans. actually, i don't think it works that way at all, but as long as it suits your argument. some people still do like modernism on that list. the vietnam memorial made this list, as did the world trade center.
i have duly noted and absorbed that information, but it doesn't cause me to change the opinion i hold on architecture. i am not familiar with your editor. i'm also not convinced that people buying coffee table books (if that's what you're after, i don't know) are the same people paying for buildings.
the whole concept of phrasing this debate as 'tradtional' v. 'modern' is sophomoric to begin with. what does traditional incorporate? everything designed before 1950? does it only include architecture with one 5 identifiable types of columns? is traditional limited to vernacular architecture (obviously not if you're including neoclassical). are you going to include every revival style? saying people prefer victorian houses is far different than saying people prefer neoclassical houses.
and how are you defining modern? everything that isn't traditional is obvious, but you're talking international style and teamX and all those, then dumping in decon and pomo and blobitecture.
for someone with an actual education in architectural history, isn't the way you're grouping things kind of stupid? or are you grouping them in a different way, that might make some sense. if so, please elaborate on your classification system.
curtkram,
What would you say about how I defined traditional and modernist?
"As for what's traditional vs. modernist, (becasue modern is what the dictionary says, regardless of how anyone wants to misappropriate the word) it's a matter of aesthetics for me. The open plan and whatever else modernists want to claim as their invention has always existed. Sure, a certain material might be new, but it will still be a panel or whatever application it's being used in. The traditional aesthetic is something that's understood primarily through the senses, meaning it dosen't require any reading or understanding of concepts to "get". The modernist aesthetic is cereblal in that it usually requires some understanding of the architect's intentions to fully appreciate. Now of course there are very sensual modernist buildings and also didactic traditional buildings, but there's a reason all those surveys show the public's preference for traditional work, despite the use of such leading terms as "style". Another way of looking at the aesthetic differences between modernist and traditional is in Vitruvious's Firmness, Commodity and Delight. Both views have to accomplish the first two, or else the work tends to dry up, and most of us get that. It's the delight part that seems to elude a lot of modernist work I see, assuming you aren't delighted by manifestos. So while traditional is commonly understood to look like historical or vernacular buildings and modernist buildings tend to be abstract and/or minimalist, there's an incredible overlap, which tends to be where I like to live both archietcurally and in my personal life"
"eke, i went back to those surveys you posted. one stated people in england like bungalows. the other was a wikipedia page. since the people of wikipedia chose the empire state building as their favorite"
What do you mean the people of wikipedia chose the empire state building?
It starts with "In 2006 and 2007, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) sponsored research to identify" If your going to skim a page, try to be sure and include the opening points in your skim (they tend to be important).
Look a little closer at the surveys I posted Curt. The methodology of the English study was to show people a variety of different housing types, and to ask them where they would rather live. Bungalows was the favorite, but the overwhelming takeaway is that people preferred the non-modernist buildings.
The other reference is a Wikipedia page describing a survey conducted by the AIA. Wikipedia had nothing to do with it. Of course there are modern buildings on the list - I didn't say it was unanimous. But the non-modernist buildings certainly dominate the highest ranked spots on the list.
so...we agree now, right?
I count 3-4 people that have taken umbrage/offense by what Suri is reporting. Not exactly "people" in general we're speaking about here.
Don't confuse umbrage with loss of patience over obstinate persistence.
What are you guys suggesting, that because you think you have refuted his argument, that he should just STFU and go away?
Suri can say whatever s/he wants. But to keep endlessly repeating the same line while utterly ignoring every point to the contrary ... it's been said that crazy is repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result. That's not crazy, that's stupid. It's also an amazing example of trolling that has resulted in a more than a few laughs and unintended consequences.
As to the ivory tower and the distinction between historical and contemporary styles, they're all wrong when they leave suitability to purpose, function, sustainability, etc. out of the equation. From where I sit this is the true nature of architecture and a responsibility that has been largely cast aside in favor of decoration in one style or another at the expense of those things that really matter.
As to tammy's "the other side (for instance Miles' summation) fall back on dogmatic clichés based on other mythical religiously modernist liasons", the only thing mythical are my cliches or support for one style over another. Unless of course you'd care to provide examples? You're not the first on this thread to put words in my mouth that I did not speak. I'd also suggest that some English lessons are in order.
As to as books on traditional style outselling books on the modern 3:1 (or evidence to the contrary), or the construction of production housing in traditional styles, one can point to the failure of modernism to deliver on its promises while at the same time clearly citing how traditionally styled production housing isn't traditional and often fails in similar ways.
I love the Chrysler Building, which was the leading edge of modernism and the machine age in 1930. Does that make me a modernist, a traditionalist, or an admirer of beauty?
ok then, what we've learned is that the american people prefer art deco buildings. therefore, architects should design art deco buildings.
eke, is that the style you design in? art deco?
not a single mention of 'traditional' in that survey. not a single one.
thayer, you can call that 'modern' if you want, but i do not believe the absence of delight is a necessity for modern architecture. the absence of doric columns may be prevalent, but doric columns are not necessary for 'delight.' also, i think those definitions are unique to you, and therefore difficult to use in conversation with other people. however, if you define 'good' architecture as traditional and 'bad' architecture as modern, then i can see how you might prefer traditional architecture.
here are some modern bungalows for you eke. a house can be both a bungalow, and modern. bungalow does not mean 'traditional' or 'old.' i don't really want to dig through pages of this thread to find your link again, but as i recall the general consensus was that people like houses instead of apartments, and stuff that costs a lot over stuff that doesn't cost a lot? i think you're looking for meaning where there isn't much.
https://www.google.com/search?q=modern+bungalow&tbm=isch
Well, the largest remainng example of Third Reich architecture is the Prora resort complex on the island of Ruga. It is straight out of Corbu's Radiant City. Herman Goering's Air Ministry in Berlin is not far behind; it is used as the Finance Ministry now. The 1936 Olympic Stadium to me also looks modernist; it is still standing also. The IG Farben office building woukd also qualify. It was once the largest office building in Europe and was only moderately damaged in the war. Modernist all the way. Templehof Airport was also modernist although it has been torn down now I believe.
But Hitler had a moustache and hitler = nazi therefore it is only logical to link moustaches to nazis. Mustachioed architects are therefore nazis.
good thing we cleared this up.
Case in point:
I don't think you would have to be a Nazi to design Prora, just insane will do fine. A far as the moustache, the number of people who sport Hitler's "toothbrush" stache is effectively zero.
Um Suri, YOU may think that those buildings you've posted are 'modern', but again I refute, they are revival styles based off of Greek/Roman styles and I shall also put forth Egyptian into that mix as they influenced he Greeks and Romans.
Tell me is this building modern or traditional?
thayer, you can call that 'modern' if you want, but i do not believe the absence of delight is a necessity for modern architecture. the absence of doric columns may be prevalent, but doric columns are not necessary for 'delight.'
I never said the absence of delight is a necessity for modern architecture, nor did I say columns are necessary for delight. But given your ideological view point, this re-casting of every point is not surprising.
Marisco, I would call that building traditional, but that doesn't make it good or bad. The actual design makes it bad from what I can tell. If you call someone a conservative or liberal, some people would assume the worst of them, but then if you see how they treat people, you might see that you'd be wrong. This is the problem with ideological thinking. It attaches a value to things which they don't necessarily have, something which the early modernists did a great job with, especially Gropious. The qualities of architecture which are universal get warped into qualities that the people who actually inhabit the buildings don't care about nor should they.
I think the building could be characterized as 'Bauhaus before Bauhaus'. It gives the lie to the idea that the Bauhaus created anything new. Perhaps this what-ever-it-is should be refered to as pre-brutal Brutalist.
Miles Jaffe to Thayer :"But if you want to dis my work as a way to denigrate me, you're far worse than you describe me,"
Miles Jaffe to my person: "I'd also suggest that some English lessons are in order."
Its obvious that this person, Miles Jaffe, while making a pretense of having a superior moral stance apropos Thayer does something at the exact level of what he accuses Thayer of doing. This being, namely, the attempt to undermine someone else on the basis of what does not pertain to the content of the discussion i.e. dragging in my linguistics ability. As such, not only does he prove to reflect a smug, miserly and anal sort of personality but he also proves to be a hypocrite and further assures us that it is not in his nature to discuss matters with others who disagree with him in a respectful demeanor.
It is true I have to occasionally struggle in three languages but I don't see the pertinence here. Furthermore, I typically don' t have the peace of mind when i dash in and out of Archinect and my writing is nearly always a reflection of thinking-in-progress. I do not care to join a debating team.
As for the request to give examples, the request itself is illogical. It is not examples that should be solicited from me but rather an explication or an elaboration. I would but a discussion with people arse-na(i)led with that sort of attitude amounts to being an exercise in addressing a virtual waste bin. I hope my language here is, excepting any typos and errata that might have strayed into the text owing to the shortcomings of non-anglo-native and insufficiently educated yours-truly, acceptable to those who have been proverbially provided with a stick up their ass.
Believe it or not, it was meant to be a helpful suggestion, as I am not the only one who finds you somewhat incomprehensible.
sedentary obscure cliché built on their definitely non-omnipresent belief of what is better and oina fatalistic liason between style and content
tammuz, what are you saying???
What's funny - aside for the unveiled dislike for me that you have demonstrated on more than one occasion, which is without doubt an influence on my responses to you - is that your English is actually reasonably understandable when you're NOT trying to impress with some bullshit vocabulary that only makes me think of this. Or this:
As for the request to give examples, the request itself is illogical. It is not examples that should be solicited from me but rather an explication or an elaboration.
Which is simply a lame attempt to avoid answering a challenge that you can't. Either specifically cite my dogmatic clichés based on other mythical religiously modernist liasons (whatever the hell that means) or admit that you are a liar.
And speaking of proving to be a hypocrite who further assures us that it is not in his nature to discuss matters with others who disagree with him in a respectful demeanor:
I would but a discussion with people arse-na(i)led with that sort of attitude amounts to being an exercise in addressing a virtual waste bin.
THAT is a textbook example of hypocrisy. LOL, thanks for the demonstration!
I assume you felt equally delighted when comparing PSFS and Flatiron?
I liked PSFS the first time I saw it. I disliked Flatiron the first time I saw it.
Who knows what the public wants? The public, if referring to those outside the design professions, can't verbalize what they like and don't like. That's why the responses when a design is shown to a client vary from "I'm not so sure" to "Yes, that's what I was thinking." On the other hand, those trained in building design can nitpick a design, unless they're of the ilk that doesn't like to discuss design ... you know, the redneck architect.
PSFS is cool because it employs simple, classical, modern proportions and has a nice relationship between its base, its main volume(s), and it tapers as it moves upward, and with enough surface articulation to boot. On the other hand, Flatiron is so heavy, and I don't like heavy cornices or heavy anything, meaning the Monadnock Block is not a likable building either, despite its historical significance. So, then, why would a person who likes Renaissance and Baroque churches, which are ornate, not like the Flatiron Building? It's simple. Many Ren-Bar works tend to be tiered and taper as they move upward, rather than being topped with a flattened hat in the form of a heavy cornice.
When you hire any type of professional, you hire professional judgment. Unless the architect is looking to make a statement for his or her own self glorification, they are usually better equipped to decide what the public needs, unless the public is a segment of society (developers, urban planners, et. al.) that is savvy about the design and building process.
Speaking of self-glorification and artistic license, I wonder what's up with that Mayne museum in a large Texas city where there's that random glazed diagonally placed staircase impaled in one corner, which almost looks like a cartoon-like image of someone on the Simpsons with a pillbox stuck in their throat.
to Miles Jaffe
i was not hypocritical for two reasons. firstly, i'm not applying different standards as you were - i did not accuse someone of resorting to low life tactics then weild those low life tactics against someone else. secondly, in my original post mentioning you, i did not denigrate your person, your work, your language or indeed drag in anything irrelevant to the topic in my understanding of it - the posts after were my reaction to your insulting/ mocking comment. your personal characteristics were and are of no interest to me. on the other hand, you yourself are mocking my usage of the language (which is not always an intuitive one believe you me especially when i'm wading in the abstract). you might perceive it to be bullshitty but I really don't care whether you do or not. the fact that you see yourself in the position to snidely make stupid remarks about taking english language classes can only mean that you are being an asshole. for those who care to understand, i have appreciation. for those who don't, you have the option to ignore me since i'm criticising your ideas...not your language, not your mannerisms or your style. do i really need to spell this out for you? do you really need classes in etiquette?
as for being a liar or not, this is up to you to figure out. go through your post where you enumerate and read my point against yours. Im not going to spell everything out for you. if it doesn't make sense, then so be it. But being called a liar means that I'm deliberately saying an untruth. why do you take such a vitriolic stance? Can't you just accept that I truly have this impression from my side based on a different interpretation? after all, its not a mathematical formula we're discussing.
no, instead you also call me a liar. this is why i call you miserly. you are cheap, you are intellectually and humanly stingy. you immediately resort to mocking and to representing people who do not agree with you in a fundamentally distasteful manner. and i say this because i'm still reacting to your inane vitriol. in future posts, please be respectful and don't mock .
thayer, when you said:
Another way of looking at the aesthetic differences between modernist and traditional is in Vitruvious's Firmness, Commodity and Delight. Both views have to accomplish the first two, or else the work tends to dry up, and most of us get that. It's the delight part that seems to elude a lot of modernist work I see, assuming you aren't delighted by manifestos.
i interpreted that to mean you are suggesting the 'delight' part of firmness/commodity/delight was missing from modern architecture. you'll have to excuse me for thinking that you were defining modern architecture as something that is lacking in delight, since you did associate the term 'modern' with lack of delight. if this statement you made is not, if fact, defining modern architecture as that which lacks delight, then i'm afraid i can't find any definition of modern architecture within you definition of modern architecture. not much of a definition for traditional either, except you imply one includes senses and the other your brain. sort of a battle between apollo and dionysis.
while i disagree with the terms as you're using them, it is helpful to clarify the context you're trying to use them so i get a better sense of the message you're trying to convey. i do appreciate the attempt.
BTW, for those interested, the building I posted is The tomb of Pharaoh Hapshepsut, It is nearly 3500 years old, (around 1450-60 BC). I posted it to illustrate that indeed stylistic influence from even then was imparted to and used by Speer in his designs, hence demonstrating that they are drawn from and emulate traditional sources, ergo not modern.
From a design standpoint Thayer, I would say it was good and appropriate for the time and culture it was built in. As a tomb and temple it works well to illustrate its meaning and significance to the people and culture it was created by and for.
I think this goes toward what most of us have been saying, you say it would be traditional but bad, is that because it does not follow Vitruvius? It predates him so no surprise to me there.
Architectural style should be relevant to the society and time in which it is built, plain and simple. The meaning and significance can otherwise be lost upon those not versed in mythologies and histories of all the known cultures. This is not to say that traditional is bad, nor that moderne or modernist, or everything after a certain date are bad either. I believe that elements can be used, proportions, scale, detailing levels, etc. but I think we need to build upon the past to push architecture into the future and have it relevant to our world, there may not be a one size fits all, but there are principles we can apply regardless of "style". As architects (and designers), we should be seeking to understand the past and use it in new ways and explorations that make sense for our local conditions, social and political climates and economic realities. If you want exposed timber framing or columns, all power to you, just make it relevant to the present day.
For the record, I enjoy good examples of all architecture, traditional through contemporary, but focus mainly on (neo-)vernacular architecture. I just enjoy a good discussion like this.
I think this goes toward what most of us have been saying, you say it would be traditional but bad, is that because it does not follow Vitruvius?
Of course not, that's silly. I say it's bad becasue I think it looks like a bad conposition, like a lot of Speer's work. But that's to my eyes, someone else will feel differently and there's no reason I'd be right and they'd be wrong, cause it's a matter of taste.
As architects (and designers), we should be seeking to understand the past and use it in new ways and explorations that make sense for our local conditions, social and political climates and economic realities. If you want exposed timber framing or columns, all power to you, just make it relevant to the present day
I guess where I'd part company with you is that when one works today, they are inevitably doing something relevant for the present day. There work is modern, of it's time, or whatever appelation one prefers. If I do a dutch gambrel house, the client isn't going to want some stuffy blocked out floor plan with small leaded glass windows, they'll probably want and interesting combination of family rooms open to eachother with maybe a formal dining room that can be converted to a first floor guest suite or function as an office. It will have passive heating, non toxic matterials, etc. Mind you I dare assume what a potential Mr. & Mrs. Smith might want, becasue I'm arrogant, but that's been my experience. So it will be modern by force, not by choice. I've had clients who-ve wanted a modernits look, sleek, minimalist, etc. And the same things happened with them (roughly). I didn't smack them with Vitruvius's book or lecture them on why traditional work was better, but I did approach them the same way traditional architects approached their clients for hundreds of years. I made sure the home was firm, commodious, and that it delighted them in some fashion. It's not traditional vs. modernist, it's all architecture and let history be told by historians 100 years from now instead of us narcissistically wondering where we fit in to the larger narrative. That's putting the cart before the horse.
curtkram, You are getting close to understanding my point. Would you not admit the importance of concept to modernist work? I'm pretty sure the early modernists wouldn't have been caught saying, "this will be beautiful" becasue they distrusted those ideals and wanted to replace them with making function and technology the sole arbiter of modern architecture. Now clearly a young'un isn't soliciting work with manifestos rolled up their sleave, but the "style" reflects this origin in it's adherance to this minimalist aesthetic. But I'm glad to hear you see the importance of "delight" in architecture. Now we have to get you to allow others to achieve this in whatever style they might see fit.
The traditional aesthetic is something that's understood primarily through the senses, meaning it dosen't require any reading or understanding of concepts to "get". The modernist aesthetic is cereblal in that it usually requires some understanding of the architect's intentions to fully appreciate. Now of course there are very sensual modernist buildings and also didactic traditional buildings.
This isn't meant to be an absolutist statement, simply trends I've observed.
when you include a doric column in a design because a doric column has meaning, you should understand it only has meaning to those people that have learned the meaning. this could probably be more easily understood with a statue of athena under eisenhower. if you've studied greek gods and their role in traditional architecture, you would know she is a symbol of wisdom and other great virtues. if you did not learn who athena is, you would see i a picture of someone in a dress, that's dressed up as a general. putting that on a statue of eisenhower might make it look like he was cross-dressing. the symbol is lost on people who don't have the same education we do.
when you space doric columns the way they did in ancient greece because that's what people find beautiful, you're designing columns that aren't acting like columns. the materials and methods we use to build buildings today allow us build far more efficient structures than what they had to work with. i believe you do not need columns that look like ancient greek columns and are spaced the way they were back then in order to make a building beautiful. we can use the materials and methods common today to make beautiful architecture.
Quick, somebody send out 4 dozen carvers... I'm in need of crown moulding everywhere for this half-million square foot building.
That's a silly comment. Not least because it falsly assumes that traditional, classical and vernacular need be made of stone and only stone. Any natural material will so in reality.
Do you know how resource and process intensive it is to produce just an ounce of silicone caulking?
The sad truth is that a vast sum of large building projects today and in the past are in some way or another built upon the tired backs of the underclasses.
i believe you do not need columns that look like ancient greek columns and are spaced the way they were back then in order to make a building beautiful.
Well good for you. But the question is why not study what made beauty, in Greece or any other culture and time in history. My guess is one would find some underlying principles of composition that over-ride culture and climate, unless you think as humans we are physiologically very different that the Romans or one from eachother genetically.
We are at least talking about beauty as if we practiced an art, which we do. A functional art, but an art none the less. This emphasis or elevation of beauty is the main difference between the Beaux Arts and Modernist educational models. This is probably why the early modernists who where educated in the Beaux-Arts produced work that still holds its own with the subsequent 80 years of modernism.
Should one be allowed to persue conceptual or technologically based work, sure, why not? But the point is if beauty still holds such an important place in human psychology, why not teach it to young architects? And if the public can read whatever symbolism the author uses, all the better. Good work of any kind can be read on multiple levels, but becasue of architecture's eminently public nature, the failure of striving for some kind of beauty or delight will have consequences as to how people will percieve the work, assuming they are the sensitive to aesthetics.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
tammy should be happy, I used a cliche.
Miles, I fully agree. hopefully we can just respect eachother's views and allow them to co-exist, which is the problem with architectural education. They don't acknowledge that people who have differing views are equally entitled to their opinion.
^ One of the problems ...
Thayer, I learned to respect differing views, I just expect the same from others. I don't care if you subscribe to Vitruvius' Firmness, commodity, delight, Palladio's 4 books, Ruskin's seven lamps or Alexander's pattern language (all good reads btw). The proof of your composition failing or succeeding is in the pudding as it were.
Everyone has different ways of composing their work, just because I may not go by Vitruvius nor think he was the be all and end all doesn't make me (or Curtkram, or Miles, or others who have posted) wrong, it means we recognize the contribution, acknowledge it, and proceed with what we believe is appropriate. It does not devalue the work, nor throw it our, we just place a different value on it than others such as yourself. It does not mean that one needs to accept it as architectural gospel and must therefore be forced to be educated and trained in the method you see fit so that we can be better architects/designers. Architectural education and practice need to be open to new and differing ideas, it allows it to grow and provide appropriate (and often differing) solutions to the problems of the built environment in today's world.
Like I said, everyone is entitled to practice and learn the way they see fit. Just as 'the public' is entitled to have choice and differing opinions on what constitutes good architecture. I just cannot believe that one person can dictate, even using suspect statistical data, that all of the people want one thing. That is totalitarian and that my friend is contrary to human nature. Our uniqueness and difference of opinion is what brings life, excitement and new ideas into the world, by respecting that, embracing it and allowing it to flourish, we move forward into the realm of possibility.
Thayer, everyone is entitled to an opinion but not all opinions are equal. Not directed towards you, just talking about the "public." The value of an opinion is weighed on knowledge, experience, creativity, talent, character, and wisdom. Generally speaking, the public lacks most of these things with regards to architecture.
I just cannot believe that one person can dictate, even using suspect statistical data, that all of the people want one thing.
If you believe some are advocating that, I would agree, but all the data shown wasn't used to prove your statement (that all of the people want one thing), it proved that a majority prefered one type of work over another, by a ratio of 3/1. If you want to contradict that by stating that ALL people means 3/1, ok. Furthermore, if you don't trust those surveys, that's your perogative just like it was Romney's perogative to mistrust the 'liberal' media's polls. My only issue is with schools that prejudice students to prefer one view over another while they study and learn.
The value of an opinion is weighed on knowledge, experience, creativity, talent, character, and wisdom. Generally speaking, the public lacks most of these things with regards to architecture.
This speaks to the previous point, that somehow what some people experience and feel in our shared built environment must be invalidated becasue of being 'uninformed'. The arbiters of who's 'informed' being the very schools that indoctrinate students with modernism's bias against traditional architecture, whether that be for technological, political, social, conceptual, or moral reasons. We've heard all these arguments before, yet it still dosen't explain why so many of these very architects choose a traditional home or a traditional neighborhood to live in. When did architects (historically speaking) become 'informed'?
We will simply have to agree to disagree that the public's opinion isn't equal to ours since as you say (generally speaking) they... lack knowledge, experience, creativity, talent, character, and wisdom. This public would include all those very intelligent liberals who live in the same traditional homes and neighborhoods as those intelligent architects you speak of.
"the symbol is lost on people who don't have the same education we do."
Actually that kind of symbolism is part of our pop culture...unless you were raised on a farm without television you are aware of architectural symbolism, greek pantheon included.
"Greek Pantheon" ??
yes, that's what curktram was talking about when he made that quote.
suri, are you dyslexic? How much TV did you watch growing up???
no i'm not dyslexic, are you reading impaired?
Well the columns and pediment on the Pantheon are Greek influences even though the buildng is in Rome. Perhqps he was thinking of the Parthenon?
pan·the·on
ˈpanTHēˌän,-THēən/Submit
noun
1.
all the gods of a people or religion collectively.
Greek pantheon is a common term.... and you claim to not be out of touch.
We will simply have to agree to disagree that the public's opinion isn't equal to ours since as you say (generally speaking) they... lack knowledge, experience, creativity, talent, character, and wisdom. This public would include all those very intelligent liberals who live in the same traditional homes and neighborhoods as those intelligent architects you speak of.
The "public" does not spend most of their time thinking about architecture as many of us do. Taste is a matter of exposure. Some people in the public may have a greater understanding than others. Most know very little about architecture because most people have very little exposure to it.
If you grew up eating fast food, and never had a proper cooked meal, you will probably like fast food. Once you are exposed to more diverse and higher quality foods you will tend to be disgusted by the thought of a sloppy double whopper with fake processed cheese. Its not about elitism. I tend to go with the chefs recommendation when I go out to eat. He knows more. The chef lives for it, I just eat it. Sure I know what tastes good and what tastes bad, but if I decided what I wanted and what was good before even seeing the menu, then I would have missed out on a lot of good stuff that I never even knew existed. The architect may live in a Victorian home and the chef may love to eat peanut butter and jelly at home, but I would hope and expect them to make the menu a little more interesting than that. Ya dig?
are you reading impaired? Sometimes. I just thought we were talking about buildings here.
Suri, the Pantheon is a rather famous Roman building from the first century ACE in Rome. This is the official name of the building referred to above. I would think this should have been obvious to you given all those books on real architecture you claim to read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome
yes non sequitur, there is a building called the pantheon...and it was obvious i was not talking about the building, and was instead talking about curtram saying that uneducated people do not know that athena is the goddess of wisdom.
And being you were such dicks about it, ill be a dick too. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you when you were taught something about a building called the pantheon in one of your architecture history courses, that there might perchance be some other possible use of that word outside of your architecture-centric worlds, that it in fact was a word and not simply a name invented for the purpose of you having to memorize it for one of your tests. But of course you probably see the public as bumbling idiots lined up for the next appearance on the jerry springer show and automatically assume they would make some stupid out of context reference to the pantheon, mistaking it for the parthenon.
It's amusing how little changes when you switch from "normal" to "dick" mode.
curt wasn't talking about the greek pantheon, he was talking about athena. And then he was talking about the Parthenon. No need to be dicks. If there is a misunderstanding, it shouldn't be a big deal.
I tend to go with the chefs recommendation when I go out to eat. He knows more. The chef lives for it, I just eat it. Sure I know what tastes good and what tastes bad, but if I decided what I wanted and what was good before even seeing the menu, then I would have missed out on a lot of good stuff that I never even knew existed. The architect may live in a Victorian home and the chef may love to eat peanut butter and jelly at home, but I would hope and expect them to make the menu a little more interesting than that. Ya dig?
I'm with ya champ, but you ain't follow'n what I'm say'n. Must be dat education you's got ain't no good! I'll go with the chef's recommendation also, why not? What I'm saying is if I don't like the meal after I eat it, no amount of talking, reading, or education is going to change my opinion. I don't care if the chickens ran a marathon on whole wheat, if the combination of tastes don't suit me, they just don't. We're not talking about brain surgery or climate warming, or advanced physics,,, we're talking about responding to the built environment. Non so si mi spiego.
As for chefs eating peanut butter sandwiches, I can guess why they'd like that cause I've heard many a story where that's the case. It usually goes like this...I really dig'em or my momma made them like that, or what business is it of yours what I eat? But who cares how you feel, tell me what you've read! Look, everyone and my grandmother is concerned about status, heck, I got a couple of diplomas just to talk about this bullshit and ensure I'm allowed to eat my organic glutten free peanut butter sandwiches without some schmuck telling me how tacky that is. But own up to your superior knowledge, and make sure your client's understand that you got one over on them, and make your millions. I got a different take on the value of education.
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.