I'm guessing that the low response to this post comes from a wariness about descending into another modernist vs traditionalist slanging match. My advice would be to focus on the positive, and just tell the story about what's good about modernist buildings.
That said, I think your question is an interesting and important one. In London, a great development by Richard Rogers has just been killed off by popular (and Royal) resentment against 'modern architecture'
From my experience, the modern buildings that people tend to readily appreciate:
- have an interesting and unusual form (eg Sydney Opera House, the Turning Torso)
- often employ curves as well as straight lines (Marina City, Brasilia Metropolitan Cathedral, Guggenheim in New York)
- fit in well with their surroundings (Fallingwater, the Sears Tower on the Chicago skyline)
- add to a place's sense of identity (Gherkin in London, Olympic Stadium in Beijing, Louvre pyramid)
The buildings that people warm to least tend to be the ones that are only concerned with the space inside the building, and insist on the external form being nothing more than the frames and materials needed to create that space. A good example is the Trellick Tower in London, which one forumer memorably described as 'Satan's Dump'. However, these buildings also deserve to be approached on their own terms.
Trellick Tower
Nutted, Architecture-Building-Construction at http://architecture-buildingconstruc...ick-tower.html
I guess the reason why people tend to like unusual, sculptural buildings is that we only go inside a tiny fraction of the buildings we see every day, so we tend to judge from the outside.
This is a problem when explaining modern architecture, since so much of its focus is on producing good interior spaces. Indeed, many of the founding fathers of the modern movement would probably be horrified at the sculptural quality of some of the buildings I've listed above - there is the famous story, for example, of Mies van de Rohe turning his back on Jørn Utzon, the designer of the Sydney Opera house, when the two men met.
So how do you explain the advantages of less spectacular, but equally important and arguably more influential modern buildings, like the Seagram building or Niemeyer's 1943 Ministry of Education and Health?
Ministry of Education and Health
Saopaulo1, Waymarking at http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/W...Janeiro_Brazil
There are several approaches that I think you could use:
- You could encourage people to think about what they like about the buildings they live and work in - do they like light, open spaces, or dark, cramped ones? Do they like working in an open plan office, or a rabbit warren of small, poky offices? You than then build on this to explain how modern architecture tries (not always successfully) to use new technologies and ideas to create the best possible spaces.
- You could contrast vernacular architecture with neo-classical or neo-gothic styles. Vernacular architecture often embodies many of the principles of modernism - it is simple, it employs the best materials available at the time, it is built to fulfil a function. You could contrast this with other styles of architecture, such as neo-classical architecture, which at one time expressed very powerful ideas (the philosophy of the renaissance, the scientific revolution, the French and American Revolutions) but which, by the early 20th Century, had started to loose some of its resonance - people picked styles out of a catalogue, rather than using styles to express profound ideas. You could point out that modern architects are often inspired by vernacular architecture, and in many ways are trying to apply its qualities to the age of mass, mechanised production.
- A lot of people don't like modern architecture because they think it is lazy, and easy, compared to creating intricate carvings etc. One way to show how this isn't the case, is to describe the thought and planning that goes into a well engineered building. Another way is to show detailed pictures of modern architecture, that bring out the subtle details in a building - showing how much pleasure people with real artistic talent get from a modern building. Personally, I don't like the Trellick Tower pictured above, but I feel I can understand those who
do like it a lot better when I see drawings like this:
People Will Always Need Plates,
http://www.peoplewillalwaysneedplate.../trelplate.jpg
- Finally, you could take other designed objects, like cars, cell phones, trains and boats and show how the principle of form follows function works there. You could then show how modern architects have tried to apply the same principles to their work.
Above all, I think the main thing is to be enthusiastic about the buildings you choose. People always respond to that - it's hard to despise something that is loved.
Hope this helps, and that I haven't told you too much of what you already know.
Linear Mode
