I hear this idea that the average non architect prefers "traditional" to "modern" architecture. Yet, when I ask non architects to define what "traditional" is, I never get a clear answer (hence the post). For example, when speaking to non architects there is this notion that the ranch somehow embodies "traditional" architecture. Where is the disconnect?
Is "traditional" purely about the age of something? In 50 years will parametric architecture be considered "traditional"? Will Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, and Meier be champions of "traditional" architecture of yesteryear?
Is it about the number of ranches that flooded the market and thus a generation was housed in the same dwelling, thus creating a "tradition"? By that logic the mcmansions of today will be the "traditional" homes of tomorrow.
Is it because the ranch somehow has features that resemble parts of the bygone "styles"? Is it purely veneer? Aren't the "traditional" elements more important, such as the hearth, such as the idea of shelter, aren't these archetypal elements really what a "traditional" home should have?
I know there is no simple answer to the question, but I think it valid nonetheless.
I am not trying to argue pro- "traditional" or anti- "traditional", this is purely academic. I think there is a portion of the population who does like "traditional" and I think understanding what this term means will better help me in speaking to clients in the future.
I will qualify this comment by stating that I am from the South where "tradition" reigns supreme. I recently graduated from a university who is at the point where they are attempting to eliminate the parts of campus younger than 60 years old. And this only represents my personal interactions with non architects. So please do not think I am trying to generalize the public.
What is it that makes "traditional" architecture "traditional"?
Dec 20, 13 1:44 pm
To me, traditional architecture is probably best defined by what it isn't. If modernism worked from a sort of tabula rasa that spread with globalization & material efficiency, then traditional is probably a pre-modernist, regional architecture defined by locally available materials and construction techniques.
It's probably maore difficult in America because, as we know, teh arrival of europeans obliterated so much of the "traditional" archtectrue of the americas.
I dont' know, but it's interesting to think about.
Traditional = Historicist. Often, traditional architecture has elements that are reminiscent of classical architectural expression, such as euclidean geometry, symmetrical spatial organization, and so on. However, traditional architecture should never be confused with classical architecture.
I definitely agree that is architectures definition of traditional but I think what I'm more interested here is what is the publics perception of "traditional" and publics definition of "traditional."
I think modern versus traditional is a specious argument.
I prefer framing it as formal versus informal architecture— formal architecture is the kind of architecture that embodies technology and education reflecting major cultural institutions and ideologies of a specific time period. Informal, on the other hand, is architecture born from circumstance reflecting the considerable economic and environmental pressures of a specific time period.
Formal architecture is emissive. Informal architecture is reflective.
Of the cuff example?
The Lincoln Cathedral is a fine example of formal architecture. There is nothing environmentally or economically practical about this building and it's certainly not reflective of English society circa 1150-1350 when it was built and rebuilt several times. This is the medieval architecture for architecture's sake. It's also a stark contrast to the numerous informal architectural objects, whose own histories and styles span several centuries, surrounding it.
I say this because the impracticability and expense of high gothic architecture allowed the stye to be milked further by major cultural institutions— churches, museums, theaters, government buildings, palaces, memorials— for several centuries after it was initially introduced. Even some of the first "modernist" glass-and-steel structures are vaguely more Gothic in appearance and construction than they are romantic or classical for their 19th-century time period.
Modern metal, tensioned concrete and engineered wood composites let designers achieve spans and expanses in buildings previously unseen. Though, most of these architectural technologies, are not economically compatible with informal architecture. One simply isn't going to see a home utilizing steel decking or monolithic cantilevered concrete.
I disagree with your comment, "This is the medieval architecture for architecture's sake." This was an expression of society's devotion to God back in the day. Your other comment, "There is nothing environmentally or economically practical about this building," I believe is only partially true. You can't think of buildings that were built hundreds of years ago in the same way you think of them now. The church was at the center of society and community, and although a religious institution, anchored (from an urban design perspective) important economic drivers such as local markets and inns. During the plague, cathedrals were also places people gathered seek medical care. So you see how some of your statements are derivatives from a more contemporary narrative or understanding of medieval life rather than the actual narrative of people's everyday lives in that time.
Curt- yes I saw those posts. They seemed to be purely a debate over style. That's not why I'm here.
James- the points you make are great and are further evidence for a debate about architecture, once again not really what I'm asking.
I was attempting to get insight on what public PERCEPTION of "traditional" is, not what it actually may be. What I'm asking is when a client comes in and says I want something traditional what is it that they're asking for? Are they asking for decoration? are they asking for veneer? are they asking for a feeling?of asking for nostalgia? Are they asking for beauty?
Gruen- this post may have been inspired by suri, yes. But I am hoping to get deeper than purely a discussion on stylistic merits which that post devolved into.
I think its up to the architect/designer to ask the right questions of the client to clarify what "traditional means." Combined with a client's budget, different clients may have different understandings/goals for traditional design. So I think your question is a bit difficult to answer.
according to google, "tradition" is defined as: the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way. Therefore, to different people from different backgrounds, tradition will mean ever something different.
Dec 20, 13 3:41 pm ·
·
Oh, I see what you're getting at.
The only to really find out what they mean then is to ask them. Not directly, so much, but by asking questions taht will force them to think about it. And you to pursue the inquiry until you get them admitting the invisible things that matter (a specific quality, value, or feeling).
after you've gotten them to admit these things, then you can meld your design (wahtever style you use) to match these qualities. The idea is to get away from a specific picture in their heads (or possibly one pulled from a magazine) and to find out "what's important about architecture to you? Why does this building matter?"
so, you know a non-architect who prefers 'traditional' architecture. when you ask them what 'traditional' means, they don't know. sounds like the public doesn't know what they like. maybe for some it's a style, for others it's a memory, and a few think it's a color.
or, 'i'll know it when i see it.'
Dec 20, 13 3:45 pm ·
·
Alternatively, if you watned to be a snarky asshole then when someone asks for a "traditional" builiding then tell them to go buy an old building because anythign you make today won't be considered traditional fro at least a generation or two.
-Handsum, thanks for the post. You're exactly right, that is what I am getting at.
-Quondam- So I know this is a murky subject for us architects to discuss, but I was hoping someone out there might have had personal experiences with the issue. Maybe someone out there has actually had to face this in practice and would like to share? Maybe not.
Traditional architecture is architecture inspired by great traditions. Plain and simple.
Modernism has embedded within its core tenants that the practitioner must break from any traditions in order to be viewed as worthy of recognition. The extent to which the practitioner breaks for what others have done is the extent of their value. So it is fundamentally anti-traditional. On the contrary, traditional practitioners recognize a value in being consistent with a tradition. This is a fundamental difference between the philosophies of classicism and modernism.
Historicism has nothing to do with it. If anything, the true-believer modernists are the historic insists, because they insist on a "ladder of progress" view of architecture.
I've been reading this discussion and the linked threads with some interest. As someone with a different background, but an interest in Architecture, maybe I can provide some insight.
When was Modernism? Why do we use this term to refer to things that are really old? The unconscious irony of the term is that it may be contrasted with "contemporary" for its presentness. If Modernism was then, what's now?
Modernism is a tradition which has situated itself perpetually at the forefront of some kind of imagined development. It radically questions
What is "traditional?"
It can vary dramatically. It's not "Modern" (capital M, take note), or "post-Modern," but it may just be modern.
Modernism radically questions expression, context and authority. Once these statements are made though, there's nothing left to say. It becomes an empty ideology without the trenchancy or inspiration of the forerunners of this movement.
A return to recognizable forms is what i understand traditional to mean.
I don't believe that "the masses are ignorant," or that a new form cannot be found in what is pejoratively called "popular opinion."
Curt, Yes most of the crap that litters the suburban landscape is rooted in postmodernism. The Tuscan style shit box, the real housewives of nj McMansions. Just about every grocery store is adorned with some kind of post modern tack on. One albertsons by me even has a broken pediment reminiscent of the Venturi house. Post modernism has become a marketing tool for suburban sprawl. They use it to create the illusion of being old and familiar to ease the mind to the anti-local anti-traditional (with regard to food and recourse production) reality. People like postmodernism because they would rather be lied to than to face the reality of the globalist corporatist landscape they inhabit. Post modernism is the sugar that makes the medicine go down. Like anything else, there are many good postmodernist buildings, but postmodernism has been exploited.
I would say most people want some form of postmodernism. They want the traditional aesthetic without the patina and they also want the steel appliances and the central air.
Modernism is old and familiar; and its forms have been comfortably integrated into the globalist corporatist landscape. That's the other unconscious irony.
Bloom I agree 100% but the overall inhuman nature of modernist corporate buildings is more apparent and most people at least sense it. Post modernist corporatist buildings do a better job of hiding their true nature by appealing to the viewers nostalgia and evoking feelings opposite of their true nature. I think many people subconsciously fall for it.
Strangely, tradition and treason have the very same root. Trado: to hand down, to betray. There must have been a subliminal element of distrust inherent to this passage of inheritance. Which is interesting if one keeps in mind that the only two common traditions manifest through architectural history are that of continuity (development) and change. Tradition and the tradition of treason.
^ Very Interesting Tammuz. But I still think there is something to be said about nuance of meaning... Architects love to point out irony in meaning and somehow relate it to a concept, but rarely bring up the nuance of the word or idea they are talking about...
Dec 21, 13 10:50 pm ·
·
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.
What is "traditional"?
Here is my question. What is "TRADITIONAL"?
I hear this idea that the average non architect prefers "traditional" to "modern" architecture. Yet, when I ask non architects to define what "traditional" is, I never get a clear answer (hence the post). For example, when speaking to non architects there is this notion that the ranch somehow embodies "traditional" architecture. Where is the disconnect?
Is "traditional" purely about the age of something? In 50 years will parametric architecture be considered "traditional"? Will Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, and Meier be champions of "traditional" architecture of yesteryear?
Is it about the number of ranches that flooded the market and thus a generation was housed in the same dwelling, thus creating a "tradition"? By that logic the mcmansions of today will be the "traditional" homes of tomorrow.
Is it because the ranch somehow has features that resemble parts of the bygone "styles"? Is it purely veneer? Aren't the "traditional" elements more important, such as the hearth, such as the idea of shelter, aren't these archetypal elements really what a "traditional" home should have?
I know there is no simple answer to the question, but I think it valid nonetheless.
I am not trying to argue pro- "traditional" or anti- "traditional", this is purely academic. I think there is a portion of the population who does like "traditional" and I think understanding what this term means will better help me in speaking to clients in the future.
I will qualify this comment by stating that I am from the South where "tradition" reigns supreme. I recently graduated from a university who is at the point where they are attempting to eliminate the parts of campus younger than 60 years old. And this only represents my personal interactions with non architects. So please do not think I am trying to generalize the public.
What is it that makes "traditional" architecture "traditional"?
To me, traditional architecture is probably best defined by what it isn't. If modernism worked from a sort of tabula rasa that spread with globalization & material efficiency, then traditional is probably a pre-modernist, regional architecture defined by locally available materials and construction techniques.
It's probably maore difficult in America because, as we know, teh arrival of europeans obliterated so much of the "traditional" archtectrue of the americas.
I dont' know, but it's interesting to think about.
Traditional = Historicist. Often, traditional architecture has elements that are reminiscent of classical architectural expression, such as euclidean geometry, symmetrical spatial organization, and so on. However, traditional architecture should never be confused with classical architecture.
this is probably everything you ever wanted to know about traditional architecture
http://archinect.com/forum/thread/84759019/why-won-t-you-design-what-we-the-public-want
perhaps a better look from eke:
http://archinect.com/forum/thread/42448155/response-to-donna-re-traditional-architecture
I think modern versus traditional is a specious argument.
I prefer framing it as formal versus informal architecture— formal architecture is the kind of architecture that embodies technology and education reflecting major cultural institutions and ideologies of a specific time period. Informal, on the other hand, is architecture born from circumstance reflecting the considerable economic and environmental pressures of a specific time period.
Formal architecture is emissive. Informal architecture is reflective.
Of the cuff example?
The Lincoln Cathedral is a fine example of formal architecture. There is nothing environmentally or economically practical about this building and it's certainly not reflective of English society circa 1150-1350 when it was built and rebuilt several times. This is the medieval architecture for architecture's sake. It's also a stark contrast to the numerous informal architectural objects, whose own histories and styles span several centuries, surrounding it.
I say this because the impracticability and expense of high gothic architecture allowed the stye to be milked further by major cultural institutions— churches, museums, theaters, government buildings, palaces, memorials— for several centuries after it was initially introduced. Even some of the first "modernist" glass-and-steel structures are vaguely more Gothic in appearance and construction than they are romantic or classical for their 19th-century time period.
Modern metal, tensioned concrete and engineered wood composites let designers achieve spans and expanses in buildings previously unseen. Though, most of these architectural technologies, are not economically compatible with informal architecture. One simply isn't going to see a home utilizing steel decking or monolithic cantilevered concrete.
^ J.J.R
I disagree with your comment, "This is the medieval architecture for architecture's sake." This was an expression of society's devotion to God back in the day. Your other comment, "There is nothing environmentally or economically practical about this building," I believe is only partially true. You can't think of buildings that were built hundreds of years ago in the same way you think of them now. The church was at the center of society and community, and although a religious institution, anchored (from an urban design perspective) important economic drivers such as local markets and inns. During the plague, cathedrals were also places people gathered seek medical care. So you see how some of your statements are derivatives from a more contemporary narrative or understanding of medieval life rather than the actual narrative of people's everyday lives in that time.
Traditional architecture is, of course, older than 80 years and is ALWAYS good, especially if it is gothic revival.
James- the points you make are great and are further evidence for a debate about architecture, once again not really what I'm asking.
I was attempting to get insight on what public PERCEPTION of "traditional" is, not what it actually may be. What I'm asking is when a client comes in and says I want something traditional what is it that they're asking for? Are they asking for decoration? are they asking for veneer? are they asking for a feeling?of asking for nostalgia? Are they asking for beauty?
I hope that can clarify my OP.
I think its up to the architect/designer to ask the right questions of the client to clarify what "traditional means." Combined with a client's budget, different clients may have different understandings/goals for traditional design. So I think your question is a bit difficult to answer.
what I meant was that there are a million and one answers to your question...
according to google, "tradition" is defined as: the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way. Therefore, to different people from different backgrounds, tradition will mean ever something different.
Oh, I see what you're getting at.
The only to really find out what they mean then is to ask them. Not directly, so much, but by asking questions taht will force them to think about it. And you to pursue the inquiry until you get them admitting the invisible things that matter (a specific quality, value, or feeling).
after you've gotten them to admit these things, then you can meld your design (wahtever style you use) to match these qualities. The idea is to get away from a specific picture in their heads (or possibly one pulled from a magazine) and to find out "what's important about architecture to you? Why does this building matter?"
so, you know a non-architect who prefers 'traditional' architecture. when you ask them what 'traditional' means, they don't know. sounds like the public doesn't know what they like. maybe for some it's a style, for others it's a memory, and a few think it's a color.
or, 'i'll know it when i see it.'
Alternatively, if you watned to be a snarky asshole then when someone asks for a "traditional" builiding then tell them to go buy an old building because anythign you make today won't be considered traditional fro at least a generation or two.
To most non architects I have talked to traditional means anything that's not modern. Even if its new.
such as post-modernism jla?
++ gruen (suri lives!)
Everything that is traditional was once modern.
-Handsum, thanks for the post. You're exactly right, that is what I am getting at.
-Quondam- So I know this is a murky subject for us architects to discuss, but I was hoping someone out there might have had personal experiences with the issue. Maybe someone out there has actually had to face this in practice and would like to share? Maybe not.
Traditional architecture is architecture inspired by great traditions. Plain and simple.
Modernism has embedded within its core tenants that the practitioner must break from any traditions in order to be viewed as worthy of recognition. The extent to which the practitioner breaks for what others have done is the extent of their value. So it is fundamentally anti-traditional. On the contrary, traditional practitioners recognize a value in being consistent with a tradition. This is a fundamental difference between the philosophies of classicism and modernism.
Historicism has nothing to do with it. If anything, the true-believer modernists are the historic insists, because they insist on a "ladder of progress" view of architecture.
i think it's only fair for traditionalists to define traditionalism, and not modernism. let the modernists define their own position.
I've been reading this discussion and the linked threads with some interest. As someone with a different background, but an interest in Architecture, maybe I can provide some insight.
When was Modernism? Why do we use this term to refer to things that are really old? The unconscious irony of the term is that it may be contrasted with "contemporary" for its presentness. If Modernism was then, what's now?
Modernism is a tradition which has situated itself perpetually at the forefront of some kind of imagined development. It radically questions
What is "traditional?"
It can vary dramatically. It's not "Modern" (capital M, take note), or "post-Modern," but it may just be modern.
Modernism radically questions expression, context and authority. Once these statements are made though, there's nothing left to say. It becomes an empty ideology without the trenchancy or inspiration of the forerunners of this movement.
A return to recognizable forms is what i understand traditional to mean.
I don't believe that "the masses are ignorant," or that a new form cannot be found in what is pejoratively called "popular opinion."
I don't know how to edit my post.
Curt, Yes most of the crap that litters the suburban landscape is rooted in postmodernism. The Tuscan style shit box, the real housewives of nj McMansions. Just about every grocery store is adorned with some kind of post modern tack on. One albertsons by me even has a broken pediment reminiscent of the Venturi house. Post modernism has become a marketing tool for suburban sprawl. They use it to create the illusion of being old and familiar to ease the mind to the anti-local anti-traditional (with regard to food and recourse production) reality. People like postmodernism because they would rather be lied to than to face the reality of the globalist corporatist landscape they inhabit. Post modernism is the sugar that makes the medicine go down. Like anything else, there are many good postmodernist buildings, but postmodernism has been exploited.
I would say most people want some form of postmodernism. They want the traditional aesthetic without the patina and they also want the steel appliances and the central air.
I personally hate anything fake. Love old stuff but can't stand all the simulacra.
Modernism is old and familiar; and its forms have been comfortably integrated into the globalist corporatist landscape. That's the other unconscious irony.
Stainless steel appliances and granite countertops are so.........yesterday. Try to keep up.
Bloom I agree 100% but the overall inhuman nature of modernist corporate buildings is more apparent and most people at least sense it. Post modernist corporatist buildings do a better job of hiding their true nature by appealing to the viewers nostalgia and evoking feelings opposite of their true nature. I think many people subconsciously fall for it.
Strangely, tradition and treason have the very same root. Trado: to hand down, to betray. There must have been a subliminal element of distrust inherent to this passage of inheritance. Which is interesting if one keeps in mind that the only two common traditions manifest through architectural history are that of continuity (development) and change. Tradition and the tradition of treason.
^ Very Interesting Tammuz. But I still think there is something to be said about nuance of meaning... Architects love to point out irony in meaning and somehow relate it to a concept, but rarely bring up the nuance of the word or idea they are talking about...
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.