Modernism in Architecture
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
Holland and Germany are most widely acknowledged as centers of the
modernist movement in architecture. A group of Dutch artists active
around the periodical De Stijl put the abstractions of Mondrian and
van Doesburg into practice as builders. The Dutch wing was the most
progressive because of the conflicts that beset the Germans during
the Weimar period. Germany was essentially silenced due to political
upheavels. One weeps for the young architects whose imaginations were
stultified by parochialism.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
lee
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:21:25 -0600 Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote in
<8738972...@dejanews.com> a lesson in elementry modernist architecture:
Holland and Germany are most widely acknowledged as centers of the
modernist movement in architecture. A group of Dutch artists active
around the periodical De Stijl put the abstractions of Mondrian and
van Doesburg into practice as builders. The Dutch wing was the most
progressive because of the conflicts that beset the Germans during
the Weimar period. Germany was essentially silenced due to political
upheavels. One weeps for the young architects whose imaginations were
stultified by parochialism.
How did this crop up?
Without picking on you references to *De Stijl*,
I would point out that Ductch school did not build the Cryseller (sp?) Building
(or much else of reknown): that was our Bauhaus man.
The Bauhaus *was* silenced by the Nazis, as was *De Stijl*: but the main reason
the Bauhaus fell apart was because Albert S won the competition and not Meiss:
the fact that M entered it doesn't say much for his ethical crudentials.
Question: does that Neo-Classical revolt against Bauhaus Modernism equate with
pomo? does it equate with the 'white architects' of more recent times?
Lee.
David Christopher Swanson
In article <5v6bt6$7pt$2...@despair.u-net.com>
lee @ jove.u-net.com (Lee Goddard) writes:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:21:25 -0600 Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote in
> <8738972...@dejanews.com> a lesson in elementry modernist architecture:
>
> Holland and Germany are most widely acknowledged as centers of the
> modernist movement in architecture. A group of Dutch artists active
> around the periodical De Stijl put the abstractions of Mondrian and
> van Doesburg into practice as builders. The Dutch wing was the most
> progressive because of the conflicts that beset the Germans during
> the Weimar period. Germany was essentially silenced due to political
> upheavels. One weeps for the young architects whose imaginations were
> stultified by parochialism.
>
> How did this crop up?
>
> Without picking on you references to *De Stijl*,
> I would point out that Ductch school did not build the Cryseller (sp?) Building
> (or much else of reknown): that was our Bauhaus man.
One wonders whether you may be thinking of the Pan Am building in the
design of which Gropius had a hand. The Chrysler Building (William Van
Alen) strikes me as more American Automobile Art-Deco than
Euro-Archetypal International Style.
>
> The Bauhaus *was* silenced by the Nazis, as was *De Stijl*: but the main reason
> the Bauhaus fell apart was because Albert S won the competition and not Meiss:
> the fact that M entered it doesn't say much for his ethical crudentials.
>
> Question: does that Neo-Classical revolt against Bauhaus Modernism equate with
> pomo? does it equate with the 'white architects' of more recent times?
>
>
> Lee.
I don't know what a white architect is, but Pomo in architecture (which
is about as related to pomo in other fields as modernist literature is
related to modernist architecture, i.e. tenuously at best) is certainly
considered a neo-classical revolt against modernism (though Bauhaus
modernism was perhaps gone already).
DCS
Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr
In article <5v6bt6$7pt$2...@despair.u-net.com>,
lee @ jove.u-net.com (Lee Goddard) wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:21:25 -0600 Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote in
> <8738972...@dejanews.com> a lesson in elementry modernist architecture:
>
> Holland and Germany are most widely acknowledged as centers of the
> modernist movement in architecture. A group of Dutch artists active
> around the periodical De Stijl put the abstractions of Mondrian and
> van Doesburg into practice as builders. The Dutch wing was the most
> progressive because of the conflicts that beset the Germans during
> the Weimar period. Germany was essentially silenced due to political
> upheavels. One weeps for the young architects whose imaginations were
> stultified by parochialism.
>
> How did this crop up?
>
> Without picking on you references to *De Stijl*,
> I would point out that Ductch school did not build the Cryseller (sp?)
Building
> (or much else of reknown): that was our Bauhaus man.
>
reason
> the Bauhaus fell apart was because Albert S won the competition and not Meiss:
> the fact that M entered it doesn't say much for his ethical crudentials.
>
> Question: does that Neo-Classical revolt against Bauhaus Modernism equate with
> pomo? does it equate with the 'white architects' of more recent times?
>
> Lee.
>
> at the intentions of the Modernists themselves. The visual arts are
> subordinate to the building arts. Modernism was motivated by the desire to
> perfect the complete building. The drawings and paintings must be
> incorporated into the impulse to build. Bauhaus animation is a higher unity.
> Modernism accepts the everyman attitude of the era with the addition of
> gigantic dams, industrial installations, bridges, while their creators remain
> unknown. This impulse certainly seems provocative to many.
> Michael Greer
Mondrian
> Holland and Germany are most widely acknowledged as centers of the
> modernist movement in architecture. A group of Dutch artists active
> around the periodical De Stijl put the abstractions of Mondrian and
> van Doesburg into practice as builders. The Dutch wing was the most
> progressive because of the conflicts that beset the Germans during
> the Weimar period. Germany was essentially silenced due to political
> upheavels. One weeps for the young architects whose imaginations were
> stultified by parochialism.
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Firstly, I believe Mondrian and followers of DeStijl were not
abstractionists. Technically, they were plasticists - sort of
metaphysical-designers. The stuff of their work was the basic plastic
elements. In architecture, concrete, steel, wood, space. In art, color,
surface and line. Of course, the idealism of plasticism came up against
the reality of construction, itąs the old art/commerce issue full blown.
Some of Oudąs architectural design is quite human, in contrast to much of
the bauhaus, like the Rietveld House in Utrecht. But we must remeber how
disorganized this movement was, Van Doesberg can hardly vcen be though of
as De stijl, considering hit voiciferous rejection of their fomalist
principles. It would be better to attribute influence rather than blame. I
for one wouldnąt care to live in a de stijl inspired building, they are
nice to visit. But I can understand VDąs sentiment that Śpeople want to
live in shit and so they will die in shit.ą Has postmodern design taken us
out of the sewers?
lee
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 23:21:13 -0600 Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote in
<8739509...@dejanews.com>:
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:21:25 -0600 Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote in
<8738972...@dejanews.com> a lesson in elementry modernist architecture:
Holland and Germany are most widely acknowledged as centers of the
modernist movement in architecture. A group of Dutch artists active
around the periodical De Stijl put the abstractions of Mondrian and
van Doesburg into practice as builders. The Dutch wing was the most
progressive because of the conflicts that beset the Germans during
the Weimar period. Germany was essentially silenced due to political
upheavels. One weeps for the young architects whose imaginations were
stultified by parochialism.
Lee:
How did this crop up?
Without picking on you references to *De Stijl*,
I would point out that Ductch school did not build the Cryseller (sp?)
building
(or much else of reknown): that was our Bauhaus man.
The Bauhaus *was* silenced by the Nazis, as was *De Stijl*: but the main
reason the Bauhaus fell apart was because Albert S won the competition and not
Meiss: the fact that M entered it doesn't say much for his ethical crudentials.
Question: does that Neo-Classical revolt against Bauhaus Modernism equate with
pomo? does it equate with the 'white architects' of more recent times?
Michael Greer:
Interesting questions Lee. Perhaps we might approach this issue by looking
at the intentions of the Modernists themselves.
Yep.
The visual arts are subordinate to the building arts.
Nope.
Modernism was motivated by the desire to perfect the complete building.
Yep. Or maybe to complete the perfect building.
The drawings and paintings must be incorporated into the impulse to build.
Er, they were, yep, but they're a creative impulse all of their own.
Or, are they..? Are they a substitute? I used to dream of putting a vision on
paper long before I dreamt of putting up a building.
Bauhaus animation is a higher unity.
Higher than most.
Modernism accepts the everyman attitude of the era with the addition of
gigantic dams, industrial installations, bridges, while their creators remain
unknown. This impulse certainly seems provocative to many.
Michael Greer
Yes, but do you think that the Neo-Classical Nazi architects, who to an extent
combined their Classical themes with modern themes, could be justifiably called
Post-Modernists?
That they saw themselves as extending a tradition preceeding that of the fresh
Modernists might have a bearing on all; but then that they had that slight
eclectic-ness (? eclectivity? ugh) might also.
Looks like I'm answering this myself: reckon that as their was an identifiable
dogma and attempt at a unity of form/style makes them anything but pomo,
regardless of how the products seem now.
Sorry if that was a waste of time and space.
I need all the help I can get.
Lee.
lee
On 10 Sep 1997 23:23:43 GMT dcs...@cstone.net (David Christopher Swanson) wrote
in <5v7a5v$qu0$1...@Skuzzy.cstone.net>:
In article <5v6bt6$7pt$2...@despair.u-net.com>
lee @ jove.u-net.com (Lee Goddard) writes:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:21:25 -0600 Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote in
> <8738972...@dejanews.com> a lesson in elementry modernist architecture:
>
> Holland and Germany are most widely acknowledged as centers of the
> modernist movement in architecture. A group of Dutch artists active
> around the periodical De Stijl put the abstractions of Mondrian and
> van Doesburg into practice as builders. The Dutch wing was the most
> progressive because of the conflicts that beset the Germans during
> the Weimar period. Germany was essentially silenced due to political
> upheavels. One weeps for the young architects whose imaginations were
> stultified by parochialism.
>
> How did this crop up?
>
> Without picking on you references to *De Stijl*,
> I would point out that Ductch school did not build the Cryseller (sp?)
Building
> (or much else of reknown): that was our Bauhaus man.
One wonders whether you may be thinking of the Pan Am building in the
design of which Gropius had a hand. The Chrysler Building (William Van
Alen) strikes me as more American Automobile Art-Deco than
Euro-Archetypal International Style.
Yep: never having been in any of them , or even seen them from the pavement
(sidewalk?) it's hard for me to remember the names.
This is why I dropped out of the Art History course.
But you know what I mean: Meiss and Gropius built loads of stuff out in the Land
of the Three.
Lee
>
> The Bauhaus *was* silenced by the Nazis, as was *De Stijl*: but the main
reason
> the Bauhaus fell apart was because Albert S won the competition and not
Meiss:
> the fact that M entered it doesn't say much for his ethical crudentials.
>
> Question: does that Neo-Classical revolt against Bauhaus Modernism equate
with
> pomo? does it equate with the 'white architects' of more recent times?
>
>
> Lee.
I don't know what a white architect is, but Pomo in architecture (which
is about as related to pomo in other fields as modernist literature is
related to modernist architecture, i.e. tenuously at best) is certainly
considered a neo-classical revolt against modernism (though Bauhaus
modernism was perhaps gone already).
Would you please explain that bit in brackets?
And, how can pomo be neo-classical?
I feel one of those 'what is post-modernism' spells coming over again...
After the decon thread, that should be fun: how long before it degenerates into
quotations at ten paces at high noon? Bagsie the Lyotard (thank you Van).
Lee
DCS
lee
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 02:13:22 -0500 Mond...@super.zippo.com (Mondrian) wrote in
<Mondrian-110...@dialup23.tcs.tulane.edu>:
In article <8738972...@dejanews.com>, Mic...@www.chonju-tc.ac.kr wrote:
> Holland and Germany are most widely acknowledged as centers of the
> modernist movement in architecture. A group of Dutch artists active
> around the periodical De Stijl put the abstractions of Mondrian and
> van Doesburg into practice as builders. The Dutch wing was the most
> progressive because of the conflicts that beset the Germans during
> the Weimar period. Germany was essentially silenced due to political
> upheavels. One weeps for the young architects whose imaginations were
> stultified by parochialism.
Mondrain replied:
Firstly, I believe Mondrian and followers of DeStijl were not
abstractionists. Technically, they were plasticists - sort of
metaphysical-designers. The stuff of their work was the basic plastic
elements. In architecture, concrete, steel, wood, space. In art, color,
surface and line. Of course, the idealism of plasticism came up against
the reality of construction, itąs the old art/commerce issue full blown.
Some of Oudąs architectural design is quite human, in contrast to much of
the bauhaus, like the Rietveld House in Utrecht. But we must remeber how
disorganized this movement was, Van Doesberg can hardly vcen be though of
as De stijl, considering hit voiciferous rejection of their fomalist
principles. It would be better to attribute influence rather than blame. I
for one wouldnąt care to live in a de stijl inspired building, they are
nice to visit. But I can understand VDąs sentiment that Śpeople want to
live in shit and so they will die in shit.ą Has postmodern design taken us
out of the sewers?
€ Firstly, does the term 'plasticist' contradict the term 'abstractionist'? In
other words, can no plastic art be abstract? And is theosophic art contradictory
to abstraction, or, Mondrain, is it an...exemplification of Kandinsky's
spiritualism?
€ Secondly, on the matter of 'living in shit and dying in shit': I might be
missing the point, plesae forgive me if I am, but did your family ever live in a
slum ghetto? With no inside toilets, and rats running in the alleys? When they
pulled down the slums in Bethnel Green (East London) they replaced them with
Modernist towers: they're ugly, they're no fun, but they are cheap and they are
sanitary.
That is something. For all of its failures Modernism did achieve a higher
standard of living for many.
€ 'Has postmodern design taken us out of the sewers?' you ask. My answer is that
it was Modernism that did that.
What is postmodern design? So many opinions around it would be helpful and
interesting to read yours.
Lee.