Has modernism failed?

[Steely Dan]

traditional vs. modern is a different issue from urban design. both modern and traditional buildings can be designed in urban friendly and urban unfriendly fashions. the amount of ornamental crap (or lack thereof) festooned upon a given building is a different issue, and one that is entirely subjective. most people seem to like "stuff" on buildings, but others think it's an unnecessary contrivance. personal preference.

[Innsertnamehere]

molsonexport, I must have just missed you there! I agree with molsonexport, except that i found that after a while all the buildings in paris looked the same. then I looked up at la - defence, and the monotony was broken.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Modernism works as art but fails as a vernacular. The problem is that we adopted it as our vernacular.

What's upsetting is that there is a lot of contemporary architects who have worked up inventive solutions to this problem, and it seems the OP would like to simply dismiss these approaches as 'modern' and 'failed.'


deutschland-zum-selbermachen.de


blog.makedesignedobjects.com


lh3.ggpht.com


planetclaire.org

Also, for what it's worth, 'modernist' does not equal 'minimalist.' Theo van Doesburg or Frank Lloyd Wright are clearly both modernists but certainly not minimalists.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

traditional vs. modern is a different issue from urban design. both modern and traditional buildings can be designed in urban friendly and urban unfriendly fashions. the amount of ornamental crap (or lack thereof) festooned upon a given building is a different issue, and one that is entirely subjective. most people seem to like "stuff" on buildings, but others think it's an unnecessary contrivance. personal preference.

Ornament is one way to provide visual variety, but visual variety is not preference. Modernism's inherent interest in sleekness is diametrically opposed to visual variety, which is why modernism only works when it is the exception not the rule, or at small scales.

Also, traditional versus contemporary is a different issue from urban design, but urban design is very much intertwined with modernisn, which is explicitly minimalist. "Modernist" is NOT NOT NOT a synonym for "contemporary". This building, for example, is undeniably contemporary in every conceivable way, but it is not modernist:



It is wrong to conclude that a building must be modernist in order to be "of its time," and it is wrong to conclude that any building featuring contemporary designs and materials is "moderist".

Originally Posted by CGII

What's upsetting is that there is a lot of contemporary architects who have worked up inventive solutions to this problem, and it seems the OP would like to simply dismiss these approaches as 'modern' and 'failed.'... Also, for what it's worth, 'modernist' does not equal 'minimalist.' Theo van Doesburg or Frank Lloyd Wright are clearly both modernists but certainly not minimalists.

I don't agree at all that Frank Lloyd Wright is a modernist, nor would he care to be called one. FLW hated Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius, and went to great lengths to distance himself from that movement.

Again, "modern" and "contemporary" aren't synonyms. Just because a building isn't historicist does not mean it is modernist.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Again, "modern" and "contemporary" aren't synonyms.

What is 'modernism' in this context? Are we talking about post-Mies watered down corporate Bauhaus a la 2 Penn Plaza? Are we talking about European modernism/International Style, which includes Bauhaus, Constructivism, L'esprit Nouveau et al number of styles that may or may not be in contradiction with each other? It's just such a broad term to me to be supporting the amount of arrogance present here in this thread. The impression I am getting from this thread is 'modern architecture has failed, architecture has been finished and it can never be improved beyond Beaux Arts and we should never aspire to create or envision new approaches to design.'

Originally Posted by Cirrus

And I don't agree at all that Frank Lloyd Wright is a modernist, nor would he care to be called one. FLW hated Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius, and went to great lengths to distance himself from that movement.

Really? I think you would find yourself in the minority. Certainly a different brand of modernism than what would eventually be branded International Style, but he revolutionized the practice of design and construction in this country with a completely new approach to design that both rejected and assimilated anything precedent. Giuseppi Terragni hated Le Corbusier, Alvar Aalto hated Mies, are they not modernists? Theo Von Doesburg and Piet Mondrian hated each others guts and you need labels to tell their shit apart. Also Frank Lloyd Wright hated anybody besides himself so that doesn't really matter.

[Dr Nevergold]

In further defense of modernism, can we step back from the architectural arguments first, and realize that before the year 1800 it was hard to find a city with 1 million people in the world, not to mention mega-cities with tens of millions of people?

Modernism has come along just as the world's population has exploded. For better or worse, cities that have embraced modernist architecture and technique have been very successful.

Let's consider this wasted space argument. The old Penn Station had only one functional use, the station itself. The new Penn Station crams two major office buildings and the MSG venue on top of the station. It makes ultimate and maximum usage of a very small space.

Modernism actually improved density in this example, and improved functionality.

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The problem is that modernism, which was intended to be rare, has become common. It doesn't work when it's common. A singular minimalist statement surrounded by ornament is beautiful, but minimalism carried throughout the entire city is boring, depressing, and stifling.

Modernism works as art but fails as a vernacular. The problem is that we adopted it as our vernacular.

This is opinion if I've ever heard it. I appreciate the sentiment, but modernist buildings can be an attractive anchor in any city. I personally am just not fond of single family housing. There isn't a single American city that isn't built around the single family home concept, even New York metro is largely single family housing, only a million people live in Manhattan (although considerably more when you add in Brooklyn, Queens, etc) and those are only those who can afford it. The urban life is very hard to obtain as most jobs aren't in an urban accessible setting (relative to the nation as a whole, not speaking to NYC).

America isn't a land that operates on a condo or rental model, we are a single family house nation.

Despite my disdain for the single family home, could you imagine a city most entirely built upon modernist homes? I think it would be rather amazing to see this:







All stacked next to each other in a more densified single family form. Modernism is very much an attractive vernacular.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Sounds like you need to take a trip to Milwaukee and check out the new neighborhoods around downtown. There are entire swaths of the city now that look like this:


flickr.com

I highly encourage you to look at the rest of the pictures here, you'll like what you see: http://milwaukeestreets.blogspot.com/

Originally Posted by CGII

Really? I think you would certainly find yourself in the minority. Certainly a different brand of modernism than what would eventually be branded International Style, but he certainly revolutionized the practice of design and construction in this country with a completely new approach to design that both rejected and assimilated anything precedent. Giuseppi Terragni hated Le Corbusier, Alvar Aalto hated Mies, are they not modernists? Theo Von Doesburg and Piet Mondrian hated each others guts and you need labels to tell their shit apart. Also Frank Lloyd Wright hated anybody besides himself so that doesn't really matter.

Exactly. Louis Sullivan was a modernist for heavens sake!

Just as Modern Art does not begin with Picasso, Modern Architecture does not begin with Mies, Corbusier, and Gropius. Modern Architecture began with Adler and Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright just as Modern Art began with Manet and Monet. Their work may look nothing like a Jasper Johns, Pollack, or Picasso, but that doesn't mean it is not in the same vein of experiment and thought.

[Cirrus]

I really object to the notion that if we say "modernism has failed" then we must mean "we can't have new ideas". I also really object to the notion that "moderism is a new idea." It's lazy thinking of the worst sort.

In very simple terms, I define modernism as architecture that seeks to create beauty primarily by means of geometric sculpture, meaning that the shape of the building is its most important feature. In these terms, early modernists built plain, light boxes in order to stand out from the heavy ornamented masonry buildings common in the past. It worked until the plain boxes didn't have anything to stand out from anymore. And, by the same token, Frank Gehry (who I consider to be a modernist) builds cloud-shaped buildings in order to stand out from the boxes that have become common.

This is opposed to traditionalism, which I define as architecture that seeks to create beauty primarily by means of decorating buildings (using ornament as well as other tools), regardless of their shape.

within these two basic paradigms, there are many styles. Gehry's cloud-shaped buildings are a different style from Meis' boxy ones, and the contemporary metallic office building I pictured above is a different style from any example of historicism.

So, I don't accept that "modernism" is inherently contemporary because we've been building geometric sculptural buildings for many decades, and at the same time I don't accept that "traditionalism" is inherently non-contemporary because it is clearly possible for architects to decorate buildings in contemporary ways.

What I would like to see from the architecture field is less whining that people asking for traditional decorated buildings are historicists and more creative thinking about how to provide decorated buildings in contemporary ways. In my opinion, any architect who decries the public's desire for decoration as "not of our time" is a lazy shit of an architect. It is not "of our time" to rely on the geometric sculpturalist tricks of Meis. On the other hand, it would actually be creative to invent a new, fully contemporary language for ornament.

I want to see more of this:



Basically, I'm sick of architecture being really conservative intellectually while claiming to be really open. I'm sick of people whose only idea is to use a different shape for their geometric sculpturalism being called geniuses, while anyone who would dare to try something actually new and different being stamped out because they're "not of our time".

[Cirrus]

In response to Brandon: I think modernism works pretty well at the small scale, because the shape of the building is enough to keep things interesting.

In response to Nowhereman: That picture is horribly banal. There's far less visual diversity there than on any 19th Century block. I like all those buildings individually, but taken as a whole there's not enough variety. It looks great as a 4 inch wide picture, but scaled up to full size that stuff is pretty bare.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

In very simple terms, I define modernism as architecture that seeks to create beauty primarily by means of geometric sculpture, meaning that the shape of the building is its most important feature. In these terms, early modernists built plain, light boxes in order to stand out from the heavy ornamented masonry buildings common in the past. It worked until the plain boxes didn't have anything to stand out from anymore. And, by the same token, Frank Gehry (who I consider to be a modernist) builds cloud-shaped buildings in order to stand out from the boxes that have become common.

This is opposed to traditionalism, which I define as architecture that seeks to create beauty primarily by means of decorating buildings (using ornament as well as other tools), regardless of their shape.

27.media.tumblr.com

The Venturi argument, I think, is a very pessimistic and two dimensional generalization of architecture that overlooks urban design, tectonics, structure, assembly, environment, theatrics or really anything that makes architecture truly powerful. I would never ever lump FLW in with the Beaux arts or traditionalism. Sure Wright hated Corb and Mies, but he stole their ideas (and gave them his). I don't think I've ever heard more harsh words said about someone than when I read what Wright had to say about Mckim, Mead and White for their design of the Milwaukee County Courthouse.

[Cirrus]

The whole idea that traditionalism equates to "decorated sheds" is intellectually lazy, and an example of everything wrong with architecture.

ALL architecture should take urban design, structure, assembly, environment, and theatrics into account regardless of style. The need to do so is why architecture exists as a profession. I do not accept the ridiculous notion that one aesthetic paradigm takes such things into account and another does not.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The whole idea that traditionalism equates to "decorated sheds" is intellectually lazy, and an example of everything wrong with architecture.

Isn't that what you just suggested? Isn't it just as lazy and offensive to modernism to label it a 'duck?'

Originally Posted by Cirrus

In very simple terms, I define modernism as architecture that seeks to create beauty primarily by means of geometric sculpture, meaning that the shape of the building is its most important feature.

This is opposed to traditionalism, which I define as architecture that seeks to create beauty primarily by means of decorating buildings (using ornament as well as other tools), regardless of their shape.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

In response to Brandon: I think modernism works pretty well at the small scale, because the shape of the building is enough to keep things interesting.

In response to Nowhereman: That picture is horribly banal. There's far less visual diversity there than on any 19th Century block. I like all those buildings individually, but taken as a whole there's not enough variety. It looks great as a 4 inch wide picture, but scaled up to full size that stuff is pretty bare.

And in real life it looks absolutely amazing. I think you are mistaking a lake of trees for a lack of visual diversity considering those buildings are all different colors, materials, and shapes. If repeating designs is what you don't like than you had better not come to Chicago and see any of our blocks of identical two flats or the Bungalow Belt...

[Cirrus]

It's not the dichotomy I object to, it's the negative connotation. The dichotomy is merely a handy lens through which to think. I agree it's equally disparaging to call all modernism "ducks" as it is to call all traditionalism "sheds", and I've been very careful not to say all modernism is a duck throughout this thread (I don't think it is). If Venturi's point was that all architecture is terrible then yeah, that's awfully pessimistic, but I don't think that was his point.

I edited this in so you may have missed it:

ALL architecture should take urban design, structure, assembly, environment, and theatrics into account regardless of style. The need to do so is why architecture exists as a profession. I do not accept the ridiculous notion that one aesthetic paradigm takes such things into account and another does not.

[Cirrus]

Nowhereman:

1. The lack of trees doesn't bother me.

2. Repetitive shapes are OK if other details (such as ornament) make up the difference.

3. I'm willing to reconsider that the area you posted isn't terrible. Maybe it was just a bad picture. Find me another one if you want.

[Cirrus]

I'm leaving for a while. Will check back later.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Nowhereman:

1. The lack of trees doesn't bother me.

2. Repetitive shapes are OK if other details (such as ornament) make up the difference.

3. I'm willing to reconsider that the area you posted isn't terrible. Maybe it was just a bad picture. Find me another one if you want.

Follow the link I posted: http://milwaukeestreets.blogspot.com/

These buildings are all dripping in fine modern details and rich textures which is why I love the area. Sure they aren't covered in bizzare blue tiles, but they have all sorts of different materials that mesh together to create detail.

The major materials here are black roman brick, stained cedar panels, white, black, and even orange stucco, various metals, even CorTen steel. If you look at the whole set you'll see that even the public resources in the area have gotten in on the game and are all awesome modern designs. The stairs coming down from the top of the bluff, the bridges across the river, the parks, they are all awesome.

[hammersklavier]

The biggest problem with Modernism isn't the buildings or the urban design (although anyone following Corbusierian precepts is going to wind up with shit urban design). The problem is much more basic: the warping of the Bauhausian total architect into the genius architect, and thence the cult of the architect. There's a reason why Modernism started out proceeding through three "fads" where one particular style became--briefly--a vernacular, and has subsequently failed to find a usable vernacular. There's a reason why there are as many Modernist "vernaculars" today as architects practicing.

The reason is because of the way the "cult of the architect" has become so coupled to Modernism...and the cult of the architect is anathema to vernaculars. Think about it. Vernaculars are all about stylistic cues shared by architects. The same way of designing a structure. There can be no vernacular unless you have a bunch of designers drawing from the same set of decoration and ornamentation ideas.

But with the total architect, the genius architect, and in the cult of the architect, you don't get that. You get a singular architect attempting to create a vernacular from scratch, fancying himself a genius...but then nobody follows those cues, because they're all too busy also formulating vernaculars from scratch...and without agreement, these attempts at vernaculars morph into the telltale hallmarks of a single architect's style, because nobody else wants to follow a single "genius"'s "vernacular".

Cirrus' American Chemical Society example shows what has become of this. Independently of the Modernist architects, a new vernacular is forming, growing out of Postmodernist thought. This vernacular is influenced not just by Modernism but also by industrial loft structures, the grid as motif (something wholly abandoned in post-Brutalist Modernism), characterful building materials rather than just glass, concrete, or popular-nowadays metal sheeting, and plenty of ornamentation (although still a grab bag and oft tackily applied).

This isn't to say that Modernist construction can't be appreciated. One of the prettiest neighborhoods anywhere in America is Northern Liberties precisely because of the way Modernist new construction blends into the traditional city environment. It shouldn't be remotely surprising, then, that most of Philadelphia's most exciting Modernist architects are based...in Northern Liberties.

[vid]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

Then why are cities like Paris, Vienna, Venice Florence, Prague etc considered to be the pinnacle of architectural and aesthetic beauty?

Because we live in a Euro-centric society that romanticizes the past.

Modernism hasn't failed, but many architects have failed at Modernism.