Has modernism failed?

[CGII]

Originally Posted by brickell

I'm reminded of the IAC headquarters as the opposite of that. It's perhaps some of the best and worst of the modern or "neo-modern" building movement. It's bold, beautiful and interesting, but it's ploppable. It would be just as at home in a suburban corporate campus as the Manhattan corner it sits on. It's really about the building itself, everything else is secondary.

IAC is a mediocre building with a unique skin.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Except Beekman is a raging example of post-modernism.

Post modernism is a part of modernism, Modernism is design concept that not only exist within the realm of architecture but with art in general. Post modernism, Neo-modern, deconstructive, Simplistic, Arcology, brutalism, blobitecture, international, high tech, expressionist, Corporate Modern, neo vernacular, Functionalism, Contemporary, Googie, Postconstructivism, Mid-Century modern, futurist, constructivist etc. all fall under the umbrella of modern.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman

yadda yadda yadda you're wrong because I can think of some buildings that look mostly modern but have decoration, and some old buildings that are plain

Originally Posted by me on the last page

The two paradigms I identified aren't always black and white. There are plenty of buildings and architectures occupying a grey area in between. Like I said on the last page, the dichotomy is just a mental shortcut.

Honestly, this is tiring.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

Post modernism is a part of modernism

No. It is, in fact, the retaliation against modernism.

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

Though what he was stating was that many large modern tower's fail to meet the street level in a way thats inviting to the general public, it fails to connect with the masses and becomes almost alien. I wouldn't disagree.

While we're here, I also disagree with this statement. I think towers of any style can have a horrible (or likewise great) street presence. This is a problem with skyscrapers in general, not with modernism specifically.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by Alliance

No. It is, in fact, the retaliation against modernism.



While we're here, I also disagree with this statement. I think towers of any style can have a horrible (or likewise great) street presence. This is a problem with skyscrapers in general, not with modernism specifically.

I diasagree, while Postmodernism tries to gravitate toward a more traditional style of architecture (art deco,traditional etc.) that gains inspiration driven by emotion and motivation it fails to totally move away from the less is more concept that rules modernism. Perhaps It would be more appropriate to say that it moves more away from the international boxes than from modernism as a whole.

take a look at this.

The Sony Building


http://static.panoramio.com/photos/o...l/28836480.jpg


now take a look at this.

The Woolworth Building

http://faculty.guhsd.net/mejohnson/i...Woolworth1.jpg

Now can you say that Postmodern buildings are more identical to traditional or classic architectural design? I think not.Postmodernist buildings still stay well with in the realm of simplicity. Materials used also play a big part in this and also dont allow post modernism to stray too far from modernism's philosophy. While it may be a supposed retaliation toward modernism i see it much more as a change in philosophy within the modern style that denounces the box. Even Philip Johnson said he was "tired of the box" and wanted to try something different. Look at brutalism, you cant compare the Verizon Building with SWFC in terms of style to draw similarities though you can say that both rely on simplicity to be beautiful. Same for Postmodern architecture, they have a little more design in the facades though in reality are quite simple structures.

As for your comment on the way modern skyscrapers meet the street i disagree, to put it cut and dry giant atrium's and columns are less inviting than human scaled doors and staircases.

[Dr Nevergold]

Post-modern buildings most definately keep the trend of minimalism alive. They primarily achieve their objectives with differences in geometric shapes rather than ornate styles, but there are some "miniature-ornate" aspects to some post-modernism. I think it is the evolution of modernism rather than becoming a new form of classic architecture.

[Jasoncw]

I think that postmodernism is very distinct in spirit and beliefs than modernism is.


Also, even though postmodernism sometimes uses historical features in the buildings, postmodernism is anti-historical in the way that most people think of history and historicalness.

First, postmodernists believe that history is completely a construct. It's not something real, it's something that people made up to help understand the world in their tiny brains. If you were given a handful of pieces of paper with events and dates on them, a postmodernist wouldn't put them in order on a timeline, they would shake them up in their hand and throw them in the air and however they land is legit as far as their concerned.

Also, as you've heard, "history is written by the victors" and postmodernists believe that history is just a master-narrative devised by elites as propaganda for their own interests.

So understanding their view of history, you can understand that the historical branch of postmodernism has little to do with respecting the past or context or anything like that. The historical postmodern buildings are the same as the deconstructivist postmodern buildings, except the historical ones are deconstructing history, and the other deconstructivist buildings are deconstructing what it even means to be a building in the first place.

Also, since postmodernists are into constructs, they're also into symbols, icon, signals, meaning and communication and all that kind of stuff. So a roman column might get thrown in to communicate power or imperialism, but it's done in a very abstract way that doesn't actually have anything directly to do with romans or roman architecture.


Meanwhile modernists believe in linear history, narrative cause and effect, and they believe that each time is unique and special and characterized by the spirit of the times (the zietgiest), and that everything that happens during a time is the direct consequence of the people and events of that time. That's why modernists believe so strongly against fake historical architecture.


It's also worth pointing out that not all "contemporary" buildings are modern, but not all contemporary buildings are actually postmodern either, and I'd say that most buildings that look postmodern don't have any intellectual connection to actual postmodernism. Both are just loosely treated as styles most of the time.

[Architype]

Modernism became possible through the technology and ideals of the modern industrial age. Everything takes time to catch on and catch up, so it took about almost a century for modernism to reach its peak. While on the upswing, modernism furthered most of its ideals until it became a tool of style and those ideals didn't necessarily matter as much anymore. In our age it has become diluted and distorted and can no longer be measured by the same principles which were originally intended. Most of us judge it by the original standards, therefore we think it has failed; however it has succeeded in many ways. In itself, it did not fail more than any other part of the mosaic of modern society.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

I diasagree, while Postmodernism tries to gravitate toward a more traditional style of architecture (art deco,traditional etc.) that gains inspiration driven by emotion and motivation it fails to totally move away from the less is more concept that rules modernism. Perhaps It would be more appropriate to say that it moves more away from the international boxes than from modernism as a whole.

Sorry, but art-deco is in no way a "traditional style". Art Deco is the direct precursor of modernism and the international style. Hell, the motivation behind both Deco and Modernism is almost identical. Art Deco involved the worship of human progress and the celebration "machine aesthetic" so prevalent the factories of the time. Modernism just took the same worship of human progress and the machine a step further and attempted to build an entirely new way for humans to live and a new aesthetic that went just beyond celebrating machines and all the way to simply expressing the machine that was the building itself.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Sorry, but art-deco is in no way a "traditional style". Art Deco is the direct precursor of modernism and the international style. Hell, the motivation behind both Deco and Modernism is almost identical. Art Deco involved the worship of human progress and the celebration "machine aesthetic" so prevalent the factories of the time. Modernism just took the same worship of human progress and the machine a step further and attempted to build an entirely new way for humans to live and a new aesthetic that went just beyond celebrating machines and all the way to simply expressing the machine that was the building itself.

Art Deco architecture was first and foremost considered to be decorative - ornamental and beautifying.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Sorry, but art-deco is in no way a "traditional style". Art Deco is the direct precursor of modernism and the international style. Hell, the motivation behind both Deco and Modernism is almost identical. Art Deco involved the worship of human progress and the celebration "machine aesthetic" so prevalent the factories of the time. Modernism just took the same worship of human progress and the machine a step further and attempted to build an entirely new way for humans to live and a new aesthetic that went just beyond celebrating machines and all the way to simply expressing the machine that was the building itself.

One could certainly make the argument that Art Deco incorporates traditional design elements in its aesthetic. While it did lay claim to "machine aesthetic", it by no means rejected the standards and ideals of classicism. There are numerous examples where Deco has been infused with Neo-Classicism, Gothic Revival, Tudor Revival, Spanish Revival, Chateauesque etc. Considering that Deco emphasized aesthetic and ornamentation over function and uniformity, it seems that it would consequently be associated more with the "traditional style."

The Drake, Philadelphia, 1929


Bank of America Building, 1929, Baltimore


40 Wall St, New York, 1929

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Sorry, but art-deco is in no way a "traditional style". Art Deco is the direct precursor of modernism and the international style. Hell, the motivation behind both Deco and Modernism is almost identical. Art Deco involved the worship of human progress and the celebration "machine aesthetic" so prevalent the factories of the time. Modernism just took the same worship of human progress and the machine a step further and attempted to build an entirely new way for humans to live and a new aesthetic that went just beyond celebrating machines and all the way to simply expressing the machine that was the building itself.

Art Deco was a modernization of the Beaux Arts school.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Sorry, but art-deco is in no way a "traditional style". Art Deco is the direct precursor of modernism and the international style. Hell, the motivation behind both Deco and Modernism is almost identical. Art Deco involved the worship of human progress and the celebration "machine aesthetic" so prevalent the factories of the time. Modernism just took the same worship of human progress and the machine a step further and attempted to build an entirely new way for humans to live and a new aesthetic that went just beyond celebrating machines and all the way to simply expressing the machine that was the building itself.

Like CGII said it was a modernization of Beaux art and i citied it for its extensive use of grandeur ornamentation.

[Jasoncw]

I guess it's also worth noting that just like "contemporary" buildings today aren't necessarily modern or postmodern, buildings back then weren't always strictly within any movement/style, so you get a lot of buildings that are just really vague stylistic combinations of everything that was going on at the time.

But a few types of Art Deco do seem traditionally themed but they really aren't. Aztec, Mayan, and Egyptian themed art deco, while based on ancient stuff, is actually the celebration of human science and progress, because those things were recently discovered at the time. If they had space ships and had discovered ancient life on Mars, there would have been Martian styled Art Deco.


But Art Deco isn't quite the same as all the other modernisms, since it's still stuck in the paradigm of ornament and "styles". So I don't think it's quite modern either, but it's definitely not traditional.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

Like CGII said it was a modernization of Beaux art and i citied it for its extensive use of grandeur ornamentation.

While I agree with you for the most part, how is Art Deco a modernization of Beaux Arts alone? It seems that Art Deco borrowed from a variety of historical aesthetics.

[Jasoncw]

I don't think it's to do with the style of Beaux Arts, but the education/training/mode of thought.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by Jasoncw

I don't think it's to do with the style of Beaux Arts, but the education/training/mode of thought.

Art Deco is a collective style that draws off many others though personally i think the minds that created art deco drew highly off of beaux, though thats just my opinion.

[Jasoncw]

Can you post an example? I think of them as being pretty opposed to each other, so I'm having trouble understanding a stylistic connection between the two.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Jasoncw

I don't think it's to do with the style of Beaux Arts, but the education/training/mode of thought.

Art Deco came out of the 1924 Exposition Arts Decoratifs in Paris which was essentially curated by the Beaux Arts school. The shape, scale, layouts and logic for ornament between Art Deco and Beaux Arts buildings was exactly the same, the difference being the style in which the ornament was executed.

[ardecila]

There are lots of types of Art Deco... the simpler kinds (stripped classicism) are merely an attempt to compose buildings with classical hierarchy and proportion without anything figurative like leaves, statues, or carvings. All that remained was the rational core of Classical architecture, which is the same core that lies at the heart of Modernism.