Roger Ebert calls modern architecture "totalitarian"

[mthq]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

We will never pass a time when classical designs can not be built. A building designed using classical elements is just as relevant today as 150 years ago.

Agreed. How many years came between the fall of ancient Greece and the construction plans for the U.S. Capital in D.C.? And how many years came between the Capital and today?

To me the whole drive among architects for modernism reminds me of Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon. The blind following of dogmatic ideas leads not to the ideals the doctorine hoped to accomplish, but rather away from them.

[Veritas]

And here's another thing: Buildings are not representative of times, they are representative of places. It's common sense: there's an unlimited amount of time, a limited amount of places, and a limited amount of architectural ideas. Most of today's architects are literally designing for the wrong dimension.

Rather Lovecraftian, but Lovecraftian things are generally more interesting...

[vandelay]

Roger Ebert was a humanist, and it's unsurprising that he found much of modern architecture inhospitable and antagonistic towards the people the architecture is supposed to serve, whether due to scale, materials, or geometry. The usual responses by architects, and architecture academics and critics never address the complaints, but rather attack the complainant for being out of touch, old fashioned, ignorant, uneducated, anti-progressive, etc. Therefore I can see Ebert's point that contemporary architecture mirrors aspects of totalitarian beliefs.

[Jasoncw]

Originally Posted by Veritas

And here's another thing: Buildings are not representative of times, they are representative of places. It's common sense: there's an unlimited amount of time, a limited amount of places, and a limited amount of architectural ideas. Most of today's architects are literally designing for the wrong dimension.

Rather Lovecraftian, but Lovecraftian things are generally more interesting...

So what you're saying is that since buildings are representative of place, there should not be any neoclassical buildings outside of Italy or Greece? Or Gothic architecture outside of northern Europe?

And what does that mean for the United States, where there there were no relevant, existing building traditions?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by vandelay

Roger Ebert was a humanist, and it's unsurprising that he found much of modern architecture inhospitable and antagonistic towards the people the architecture is supposed to serve, whether due to scale, materials, or geometry. The usual responses by architects, and architecture academics and critics never address the complaints, but rather attack the complainant for being out of touch, old fashioned, ignorant, uneducated, anti-progressive, etc. Therefore I can see Ebert's point that contemporary architecture mirrors aspects of totalitarian beliefs.

Wow, this statement should be my signature...

I have encountered too much of this attitude around here

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by mthq

To me the whole drive among architects for modernism reminds me of Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon. The blind following of dogmatic ideas leads not to the ideals the doctorine hoped to accomplish, but rather away from them.

How the hell does the embracement of clean forms and lines have anything to do with this? Typical anti-modernist propaganda. Funny how absolutely nobody today says the same thing about old architecture built during slavery and oppressive times, but the classicists feel it's okay to bash modernism like this.

[marvelfannumber1]

I personally agree with what Ebert had to say about this. Sure there is some modern architecture I like, but to be honest I feel it's lacking the imagination, the passion and the human motivation to defy God. When I look at an ornamented building and I look at all the little statues and murals I get a great deal of respect for the architect and for the building. I can notice the effort and passion put in to make it beautiful.

Now this is not to say modern buildings don't have passion put into them. In fact a lot of them do. But I can't say I feel anything when looking at them. I only see a pre packaged design that as most likely mandated by the developers with the architects basically playing the yes man. When looking at something like the Pantheon I get a sense that the Romans were trying to build something that would make a visitor go "wow", something that would inspire people and give us a closer realationship to art than paintings could ever do. Modern architecture on the other hand is just....there. As said it does not really give me a feilling or any type of opinion. I don't get any connection with it, it's just a building.

Just my personal thoughts. I might be rambling a little bit, but it felt good letting it out.

[vid]

Originally Posted by marvelfannumber1

I only see a pre packaged design that as most likely mandated by the developers with the architects basically playing the yes man. When looking at something like the Pantheon I get a sense that the Romans were trying to build something that would make a visitor go "wow", something that would inspire people and give us a closer realationship to art than paintings could ever do. Modern architecture on the other hand is just....there. As said it does not really give me a feilling or any type of opinion. I don't get any connection with it, it's just a building.

You use the Pantheon as an example of not-modern architecture so perhaps your perspective goes back far enough to accept that even 150 year old buildings had made-to-order, mass-produced mouldings and details for building that were basically built by contractors (not all buildings were designed by architects back then) who acted as yes men for their clients.

"I want a moulding of a monkey eating figs above this window!"
"But sir! You are a lumber baron in northern Canada!"
"MONKEY. FIGS."

So, uh, my city's most "beautiful" skyscraper is made with stock pieces from a warehouse in Montreal. All those little stone banks across Canada? Terra cotta, not stone (more like brick, just prettier) and all designed by a small team of architects in the south who pumped them out several a week with little regard for the contexts in which they would sit. And often with early 20th century buildings those "large stone blocks" are a veneer, sometimes less than an inch thick. There is a lot of deception to them. The giant stone columns of most banks in Western Canada are brick structures coated in mass-produced terra cotta tiles. They didn't even have to build the bricks correctly for it to work, the gaps were filled in with mortar. Very little skill was actually necessary compared to 100 years before.

The ornamentation of 19th to early 20th century revival and neo- architecture in North America is largely just for show. I means very little. I am sure James Whalen didn't even know that the architect had put monkeys eating figs on his building.

Not really saying that newer buildings are "as nice" as old ones, but to say the old ones are nice because of "the craftsmanship" is kind of faulty logic. There is more craftsmanship in one of Mies' skyscrapers than there is in many of those historic buildings. And the mass-produced buildings of the era? They were smaller because the country wasn't as rich back then and the technology wasn't as affordable, and the vast majority of them are gone now.

[RudyJK]

Originally Posted by vid

Not really saying that newer buildings are "as nice" as old ones, but to say the old ones are nice because of "the craftsmanship" is kind of faulty logic. There is more craftsmanship in one of Mies' skyscrapers than there is in many of those historic buildings. And the mass-produced buildings of the era? They were smaller because the country wasn't as rich back then and the technology wasn't as affordable, and the vast majority of them are gone now.

But there is usually much less craftsmanship in a Mies knockoff than a Pantheon knockoff.

For me, that is the biggest beef with most modernist buildings. They are so cheaply designed and constructed you just know they won't be around for another 50 years, let alone 500. Craftsmanship is dead. Disposable buildings live; temporarily at least. (I'm looking at you Georgia Dome. There is no hue and cry about losing you.)

[ThatOneGuy]

Many are being landmarked, including the masterpiece Chase Manhattan Plaza, which was given its new status unanimously. I think all of Mies Van Der Rohe's towers are landmarked along with a few of Yamasaki's remaining ones. Mies Van Der Rohe's houses are more valuable than any of the neo-classical mcmansions built in the USA recently.

I think social housing blocks and the crime that arose due to them being used to house the poor and uneducated gave Modernism a bad name. Those, along with a few unsuccessful, empty and unmaintained midrises in the big cities are the only modernist ones actually being demolished at all these days.

[marvelfannumber1]

Very true, however your examples are being landmarked more for historical reasons that architectural reasons. Buildings like the Seagram building or the painfully bleak Chase Manhattan bank were some of the first modern skyscrapers. The only other thing modern buildings really have got going for them in terms of lastability is height. How many of the skyscrapers built in NYC in the last 40 yearsdo you think are going to be landmarked? 13, 14 maybe 18 if I am being really generous.


On another note my major problem with modern architecture is not really the look or style, that's really all subjective and to be honest not worth debating (even though I did it anyway). The main problem that sits with me is that that is the only style right now. We don't have any classical building being built anymore. Not even our modern, expensive monuments or landmarks seem to have ornamentation or effort put into them. I understand that not every building needs to be detailed out the ass, but the question is why are there so few nowadays? What have we lost as a species and what are we missing?

Ok, this post has gone on for far too long, so i'll think i'll end it at there

[ThatOneGuy]

^^ Have you even seen the huge amount of neoclassical lowrise buildings being built in NYC lately? Claiming that none are being built is just absurd. An art deco skyscraper is even being planned on 99 Church Street in NYC. For every classical building lost, it seems, two more are built. And the only International modernist buildings I know that are being built right now in the US are 250 West 55th street and 432 park avenue.
We've not lost anything as a species. In fact we've gained something: an ability to look past the details, and the surface.

When the 60s-70s generation grows old, I think the younger ones will landmark more skyscrapers from that era on a massive scale. It always occurs to me that people who have lived their early lives in a certain period hate that architecture, for example I hate a lot of the 90s architecture. Even brutalism is undergoing a renaissance, due to new techniques arising on keeping them maintained. People are appreciating concrete and corten steel a lot more these days.

If Gothic architecture starts up again, only then will I push for more classical buildings. Gothic is incomaparable to other classical styles, imo, and it seems, this is the style that hasn't had any builds recently, anywhere.

[marvelfannumber1]

Lowrise classical buildings being built in NYC lately? Interesting, I can't seem to have ever seen nor heard of those. (Not saying they don't exist, just pondering why they seem to not be getting much attention when the majority of the public prefers traditional architecture over modern). The question of preserving more modern buildings in the future is a question of time, I can't really agree nor disagree with that. However I will say most young people I have talked to are not too fond of newer styles either. Oh, and 99 church I suprisingly forgot about, but other than 99 church I can't recall a non modern skyscraper built since the early 60's.

[ThatOneGuy]

There's more (especially townhouses), I can't be bothered to search for the rest.

As to non-modern skyscrapers, have you checked the 80s? Art deco postmodernism everywhere...