Roger Ebert, acclaimed film critic, has become more of a cultural critic these days. He uses the web as his medium of choice since thyroid cancer rendered him unable to speak. Yesterday he posted a critique of modern architecture. In it he describes modernism like a virus, eating away at the history of cities.
Roger Ebert, acclaimed film critic, has become more of a cultural critic these days. He uses the web as his medium of choice since thyroid cancer rendered him unable to speak. Yesterday he posted a critique of modern architecture. In it he describes modernism like a virus, eating away at the history of cities.
Venice will never be eaten by modern architecture; although the most threatened of cities, it is also the safest. - The image of a man you do not see, by Roger Ebert
David Ng, at the LA Times, has shared some thoughts, and posted a poll asking for opinions on Roger Eberts... opinions.
12 Comments
after reading this I actually kind of agree with ebert - although it's far more complicated than just the architects who produce this work (plus there are some really wonderful modern buildings that are very human and humane - even corbu manages to be playful in his later work).
but he's right - most of what is built today is devoid of humanity. devoid of joy - of fun. devoid of the kind of reward you get from a space revealing its subtleties over time... devoid of history, and our hands. even the space between buildings is deadening - not meant to be experienced walking through, but separated from us by a windshield.
it's not just us either - people who make non-architect-designed buildings do not show the joy of craft in their work anymore - the most gaudy victorian craftsman house still stands up aesthetically over any spec house in an exurb - not because they have better space or overall design, but because their elements reveal more care in their construction.
old buildings have texture. most contemporary buildings do not have texture.
false nostalgia.
have you been to IIT? I'm not afraid to say that it looks no different from any suburban office park. and I love Mies.
it's not "false nostalgia" (an oxymoron, btw) - it's yet another person noticing that the uber-clean lines and slick corporate facades are superficial - there is nothing there - there's no gravitas - even after the passage of time. this debate has been going on since at least the 50s... it's the reason CIAM was disbanded and why we had the crisis of modernism and pomo crap in the 60s through the 90s - it's the underlying premise for "junkspace" and "collage city" - why architects like the Smithsons and Louis Kahn and Aldo Rossi and many others have tried to grapple with fundamental changes in how we build with our need for a deep psychological and cultural connection to materials, buildings, and places - and why there's still a market for, albeit somewhat warped and superficial, "traditionalist" or "nostalgic" aesthetic.
if we want to continue to dismiss this deep-rooted feeling among the populace that something is not-quite-right with what we are doing, and continue to celebrate the mirrored and super-rational parametricized monstrosities without any thought to the individual human scale (they're all designed around dehumanized flows of people - endlessly streaming and moving through space), then we've ceded authenticity to whatever the hell gets published in architectural digest.
i'm aware of the history-theory critique of modernism, but ebert's article, definitely falls into the trap of false nostalgia ala frampton and critical regionalism. call this dismissal if you want, but to me it's old hat.
my question is when was it ever right with what we are doing? the gothic style at the university of chicago that ebert heralds is merely a replication of an older style that was once considered void of individual human scale, and if you put it into it's original historic context, is equally representative of old power structures and oppression than it is a celebration of man's aspirations.
i think architecture should be a reflection of our epoch, whether ugly or beautiful, and not a revert to the longing of a better time.
there are rich, textured, and soulful modern buildings, of course. and corporate storefronts like payless and starbucks aren't the fault of modernism.
ebert is sort of all over the place, which would be fine - because it's honest - but what he ends up doing is targeting modern architecture specifically for a whole host of non-specific societal ills. and he has a large audience, many of whom won't analyze what he's saying at all and will just nod in agreement. and that's bullshit.
Thank you, Steven. You always say what I'm thinking much better than I can say it.
This quote irked: It doesn't seem to spring from humans. It seems drawn from mathematical axioms rather than those learned for centuries from the earth, the organic origins of building materials, the reach of hands and arms, and that which is pleasing to the eye. because he's saying math is somehow inhuman and humans aren't capable of using materials. Weird, and not true IMO.
i am glad he is writing about architecture for the not-on-the-know-about-architecture audience. god knows people who write about architecture for the design savvy group are dime a dozen.
i don't find his article particularly realistic considering we do live in different times and economies from those produced his nostalgically beloved 'textures.'
but his view is very common. architects must stick their heads from their minimalist cages and see what people "like and know" as architecture and what they relate to.
O
My only conversation with Roger on architecture was about Mies vrs Wright. He prefers Wright. And he loves Chicago, the city, it's character and it's neighborhoods.
It's not so much 'minimalism' that Roger dislikes but the anonymity of 'author-less-ness' and perhaps less so the 'place-less-ness' of contemporary architecture. Knowing Roger well, his approach to film is the same and he, like many of his generation, look to the auteur theory as the guiding principal in evaluating films, and hence art. His taste in film responds to the presence of an author, and more likely he will mimic Nero with a thumbs-up for a strong point of view over story, or genre. You may not know this but before becoming a film critic Roger was on track to teach English Lit. The opportunity for him to to review films was a fluke. He knew next to nothing about film when he started. His cinema education developed concurrent with his students
Alison, as you know, was part of that first film appreciation class where Roger held court to a small group of cinephiles. Their education was not unlike ours, talking on for hours and hours, theirs about film at a well known reporters bar. And, as you also know, Alison's father in law at the time, was Gus Cherry, Mies' developer. Roger certainly knew Mies' architecture well, and appreciated Mies then. Alison told me that. Now he's not so responsive it seems. I sense he is going back to his roots, English literature, with all the picturesque settings, expression and character of the 19thC.
eric
eric,
the use of the definition 'minimalism' referred to third person plural's views (architects) in abstract relationship to 'limited' or cleansed of 'complexities' (as in bob-you-know-who's pictures.)
actually ebert is limited too, if we add the fourth element; time, into the criticism. perhaps, as you mention, 19th. century zone helps him to put a value on his occupation and life. he is threatened. naturally, he doesn't want to give his farm away. this could be defined as the classic argument between the newcomers and the old guard. both uncomfortable about each other.. o.
*on another note: i think 19th. century is always shadowed by 20. as if the only asset it had was prepping the 20th century. it is like a step child if you will. maybe roger wants to set the record straight and give some respect to it. what do you think about 17th century?
i personally like 9th. century. but i am kind of growing a fondness for 21st lately. maybe a new favorite, but it is too early to tell. i just hope it doesn't turn into an asshole before we die... i thought 20th c was pretty much on speedy stuff and didn't have too much time to think but act rapidly on impulses and findings. bit like uranium rush;.))
It seems that Ebert's real beef is with the mediocre and cheap - not modernism.
Then I walk outside again and see the street defaced by the cruel storefronts of bank branches and mall chains, scornful of beauty. Here I squat! they declare. I am Chase! I am Citibank! I am Payless Shoe Source! I don't speak to my neighbors. I have no interest in pleasing those who walk by. I occupy square footage at the lowest possible cost. My fixtures can be moved out overnight. I am capital.I concur. Modernism done right does speak to an age (unlike ebert, I think Mies's towers are very contextual in history). Also Ebert seems completely ignorant of architectural history & theory when he says, It seems drawn from mathematical axioms rather than those learned for centuries from the earth, the organic origins of building materials, the reach of hands and arms, and that which is pleasing to the eye.
Excuse me Ebert, but the rococo, gothic, and much renaissance architecture is extremely mathematical - just look at the vitruvian man.
It seems drawn from mathematical axioms......
Ebert's comment is most likely a dig about SOM architect Walter Netsch and his Field Theory.
http://www.som.com/content.cfm/walter_netsch_interview_3
Netsch designed several University of Illinois campus buildings that were ridiculed within Ebert's circle.
I think the Key to understanding Ebert's way of looking at the arts is by way of the auteur theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory
eric chavkin
The part of his argument that really shines through here is the excellence of his movie reviews.
As they say in tha biz, "don't quit ya dayjob, kid."
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.