Call it tradition vs. modernism. Should government buildings reflect the optimism and innovation of the future or the successful traditions of the past? It is a question that long has provoked passion among architects. Wall Street Journal
This latest episode reflects a larger debate among architecture aficionados over which school of building design should prevail for federal buildings -- ones with modern twists and curves or ones that evoke the neoclassical government architecture of the 19th and early 20th centuries, typified in buildings such as the Capitol or the Supreme Court.
How ridiculous. Those "traditionalist" styles aspired to be modern and forward-thinking and future-defining themselves at one point.
Also, this article presents much more of the 'traditionalist' (whatever that means) point of view than the 'modernist'.
first, i hate the style A vs. style B framework. the discussion shouldn't be about one style or another, but about relevance. ...
I saw Ed Fiener (former chief architect @ the GSA, client for various modern federal projects, including a projects by morphosis, meier, carol ross barney) on a panel last month. he showed the audience (made up of the local chapters of the AIA and ULI) a 15 minute video on why federal projects should reflect the time of their creation. Numerous noteworthy architects were on the video making the case for contemporary federal architecture (not explicitly modernist, but no doubt contemporary).
Classicist styles were at many times contemporary fads as well, meant to harken back to a past we could not claim, and meant to explicitly make a bold new icon for our burgeoning government. Why we would blindly copy those fads today--while ignoring the reasons they were copied yesterday--is completely beyond stupidity.
Unless they still want to make the same statements today, in which case I'd like to defect. Talk about furthering an imperialist identity... Can I vote that my tax dollars not be poured into poor, hollow copies of buildings that represent imperialist sentiments I do not share?
This stupid article should at least attempt to explain WHY Classicist styles were chosen for many of our past federal buildings in the first fucking place. I am so pissed I feel like writing the WSJ to tell them about their poor journalism. Except that I am probably too used to poor journalism by now to care beyond the writing of this comment.
and my humble contribution to the discussion from Sep 19, 2005 : In response to the generalizations of Messangale and Siegel:
The open letter from the UVA architecture faculty, and creation of this forum, do not suggest that modernism (or its underpinnings)
should replace traditional architecture on the UVA Grounds. (The words "modernism" and "modernist" do not appear in the letter, and "modern" is used only once.)
If Palladio and Jefferson were here today, they would likely be interested in progressing, not thoughtlessly copying motifs with no genuine motivation for doing so. Both of these visionary men were critical of the popular views of their time and created built environments that responded accordingly. They shaped amazing places for people to experience community.
Palladio's Vicenza does not fall victim to the historicism that the UVA campus does. The residents of this historical place understand their collective past, and build upon it. The Vicenza of today is at once Palladian and modern (not modern-ist).
In the case of Jefferson, classicism was used to give a sense of established credibility to a young nation (among other things). He had a reason. What's yours?
Aaron Plewke, Bachelor of Design 2005, University of Florida, School of Architecture
(Post Script)
This draw towards historicism plagues many US universities, including my own former place of study, the University of Florida. Thanks for putting this forum into a place of prominence. AP
Nov 29, 06 5:20 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.
6 Comments
How ridiculous. Those "traditionalist" styles aspired to be modern and forward-thinking and future-defining themselves at one point.
Also, this article presents much more of the 'traditionalist' (whatever that means) point of view than the 'modernist'.
leave it to the WSJ. all media is slanted.
first, i hate the style A vs. style B framework. the discussion shouldn't be about one style or another, but about relevance. ...
I saw Ed Fiener (former chief architect @ the GSA, client for various modern federal projects, including a projects by morphosis, meier, carol ross barney) on a panel last month. he showed the audience (made up of the local chapters of the AIA and ULI) a 15 minute video on why federal projects should reflect the time of their creation. Numerous noteworthy architects were on the video making the case for contemporary federal architecture (not explicitly modernist, but no doubt contemporary).
Classicist styles were at many times contemporary fads as well, meant to harken back to a past we could not claim, and meant to explicitly make a bold new icon for our burgeoning government. Why we would blindly copy those fads today--while ignoring the reasons they were copied yesterday--is completely beyond stupidity.
Unless they still want to make the same statements today, in which case I'd like to defect. Talk about furthering an imperialist identity... Can I vote that my tax dollars not be poured into poor, hollow copies of buildings that represent imperialist sentiments I do not share?
This stupid article should at least attempt to explain WHY Classicist styles were chosen for many of our past federal buildings in the first fucking place. I am so pissed I feel like writing the WSJ to tell them about their poor journalism. Except that I am probably too used to poor journalism by now to care beyond the writing of this comment.
myriam, you might be interested:
http://www.uva-architecture-forum.org/
http://www.uva-architecture-forum.org/discussion/index.html
they've been having the classicist vs. modernist discussion (online) since last September.
and my humble contribution to the discussion from Sep 19, 2005 :
In response to the generalizations of Messangale and Siegel:
The open letter from the UVA architecture faculty, and creation of this forum, do not suggest that modernism (or its underpinnings)
should replace traditional architecture on the UVA Grounds. (The words "modernism" and "modernist" do not appear in the letter, and "modern" is used only once.)
If Palladio and Jefferson were here today, they would likely be interested in progressing, not thoughtlessly copying motifs with no genuine motivation for doing so. Both of these visionary men were critical of the popular views of their time and created built environments that responded accordingly. They shaped amazing places for people to experience community.
Palladio's Vicenza does not fall victim to the historicism that the UVA campus does. The residents of this historical place understand their collective past, and build upon it. The Vicenza of today is at once Palladian and modern (not modern-ist).
In the case of Jefferson, classicism was used to give a sense of established credibility to a young nation (among other things). He had a reason. What's yours?
Aaron Plewke, Bachelor of Design 2005, University of Florida, School of Architecture
(Post Script)
This draw towards historicism plagues many US universities, including my own former place of study, the University of Florida. Thanks for putting this forum into a place of prominence. AP
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.