Postmodernism in architecture
Claudia Mesch
>..but mainly because the majority of modern architecture is antiquated,
>boringly repetitious and completely uninspired.
>
>Arguments about isms are a waste of time. At this point we are in a period of
>Nothingism. The two last styles were art-deco (really ersatz art nouveau )and
>its opposite the Bauhaus. The Bauhaus won out not because of any artistic
>considerations but because it is the cheapest way to go.
Blah blah blah. At least you could try to be more original in your
quasi-critique of modernist architecture, instead of regurgitating
Tom Wolfe's ten-year old response.
cme...@rainbow.uchicago.edu
Mani Deli
>... and so the younger architects were a bit less
>enthusiastic about the idea of wiping out the old and replacing it with
>the new. Partially this is because many had grown up in the "modern"
>housing built after WWI...but also many felt that the older form of the
>city, with its allowance for human imperfection, and not constrained by
>"rational" social engineering, offered a more humane setting for human
>society.
..but mainly because the majority of modern architecture is antiquated,
boringly repetitious and completely uninspired.
>...The deeper idea that modernism made a mistake in throwing out history is
>a solid idea; unfortunately, too much of the work built as "Post-Modern"
>never gets past a cheap and uneducated gloss of superficial style...drawn
>for the visual arts of photography, instead of the experiential and
>volumetric art of architecture.
Arguments about isms are a waste of time. At this point we are in a period of
Nothingism. The two last styles were art-deco (really ersatz art nouveau )and
its opposite the Bauhaus. The Bauhaus won out not because of any artistic
considerations but because it is the cheapest way to go.
Simply stated the decorative arts are OUT in modern architecture. Therein
lies the origins of its faults. Today’s architecture is engineering skill. It
is considered acceptable because it functions . In a sense I have no argument
with this except to say that the function of pleasing the eye is generally
missing.
The architect is subservient to the engineer and the buyer. The buyer wants
art but he wants it cheap. The purely undecorated functional (decoration has
become a dirty word because today everything has to pose as ART) is the
cheapest stuff. The result is structure not architecture and all that has to
be done is to get critics to call it art. With the complete acceptance of the
Bauhaus precepts the artistic part of architecture was suppressed.
Decoration today is left to the so-called artists. The results are our
present day eyesores. Miles of flat concrete walls are covered with huge
thoughtless schmiers designed for a fifteen second glance by the man in a
rush. Empty spaces are inhabited by mega-klunks designed by hack sculptures
who spend most of there time at sales pitches. The only craft these works
exhibit is produced by the guy who, so to speak, screwed them together.
The function of our average architect is as a computer-cad-hack who arranges
stuff from a computer menu as best he can. His skills lie in using his
scientific understanding of structure so the that thing will function and not
fall on people’s heads. I might add that this is infinitely more knowledge and
skill than what the modern academic artist hack possesses.
The last really great architect was Gaudi and he was pooh poohed by all
moderns until he was resurrected by public rather than critical acclaim. Today
most holy critics dare not say anything against Gaudi. It was not the case
when I went to school.
Mani DeLi
..Bauhaus is Outhouse.