Could it be that the examples of “good” architecture were selected over centuries by the communities that chose to preserve them, while the “bad” examples were chosen by pretentious hacks who don’t have to live and work near these buildings?
I love the author’s point, but I wonder if there are better examples of modern architecture that just aren’t being celebrated by the in-crowd.
Modern architecture is individualism run amok. Buildings are more testaments to architects’ egos than organic improvements to the surrounding environment, or sources of aesthetic pleasure to passers by.
I have a distinct impression that half the modern architects are in on the conspiracy to demean and hinder the people who use their creation. Looking at most modern buildings they are either imposing or convoluted.
"Great" architects get to build buildings based on their vision and have it be something with little to do with anything else.
There is a book called How Buildings Learn and the reality is that a lot of old buildings that are viewed as great buildings evolved into great buildings over a long period of time. They were added on to and tweaked as need arose and they became something wonderful and useful and valuable.
You are unlikely to see a building by a big name architect treated that way. They get enshrined. They get preserved. They are frozen in a moment of time. They don't evolve.
The very act of being known as a great architect tends to rob your buildings of the process by which wonderful spaces gradually come into being.
Also, it's a false dichotomy that we must have either no development, or a building everyone (other than the architect himself) hates.
For most of history, architects sought a graceful balance between art and practical considerations. It seems to be a recent development that they have split into separate groups, one of which focuses solely on cutting costs, and the other of which focuses solely on building monuments to their own genius.
I wouldn’t attribute this to the triumph of modern architecture. More a really obvious lesson that even when faced with hideous modern architecture, people with agency will make do.
I spent several years working in a monumental modernist building. The place succeeded in its primary design goals: glorifying the architect and patron. Some of the exteriors public spaces were not hideous. But the buildings as a place to work were awful and not fit to purpose.
Modern atchitecture is the expression of an artist pushing the limit of building as an art. If, like me, you are not educated to it this can be difficult to enjoy.
Take the someone not specially versed into art to the museum, it's likely they will enjoy and value more Vermeer than let's say Pollock.
Should we design buildings, that people use and see everyday, only for an elite to appreciate it ? I don't have the answer.
I find it amazing that most commenters find nothing good in contemporary architecture but at the same time seem to believe that if only somebody did the right thing things would be better. I think it is pretty obvious that there are hard constraints at play here. If it would be possible to do different kind of new buildings, somebody in the
world surely would be doing them. It’s really hard to find anyone who doesn’t love great historical buildings I don’t think this is a case of wrong people designing structures.
Where is your evidence for "American indifference to architecture"? Frank Lloyd Wright and some of the greatest architects in the modern era would like a word with you. Not only is America the home for much of the avant garde in art, but our wealthy populace and cities have powered all kinds of movements that wouldn't have gotten off the ground in other countries with much more restrictive rules about architectural style.
It looks like everywhere modern architecture, that's the problem. There is no real culture behind it, only the insular culture of professional architects seeking out approval from other professional architects. There is no locality to it, no local materials or methods.
Christopher Alexander's dissertation, "Notes on the Synthesis of Form" lays out a very compelling sociological explanation of how this happens.
TLDR: People initially create things (like houses) to solve local problems, usually their own problems, with the materials and methods they have locally available. As the craft develops, its practitioners start to compete directly with each other and the craft becomes "self-conscious." This competition finds increasingly esoteric "dimensions" to compete on, at the expense of solving the real-world problems the craft initially set out to solve. So consider e.g. early designers of chairs. They were looking for good places to sit that looked nice in their homes. Now, if you want acclaim as a chair designer, you have to design the most garish, over-the-top, wildly uncomfortable "chair" (sculpture) that you can.
That's true in pre-European contact Peru as well. The amazing architecture was produced by skilled craftsman as a community effort. They didn't/couldn't build anything of quality once they were enslaved by the Spanish. (I'm not an expert, but I visited Peru a couple years ago)
It's interesting how architectural modernism works in pop culture (Hollywood films, for example) where the buildings play the bad guy: an arrogant, oppressive or cruelly indifferent character, a stand-in for totalitarianism, for places of extreme wealth or poverty.
Now we're here I can't think of many active celebrations of the form in painting, literature, comics or games either. You?
>> So you get monumental architecture that in addition to being horrifically ugly, is usually non-functional and doesn't wear well, with lots of flat roofing and poor planning for water displacement.
This has also been the case for many of Frank Loyd Wright's houses. Many of his "architectural masterpieces" have been wrought with issues almost since they were built:
When researching the engineering defects and customer complaints of Wright-designed residences, I can’t shake the stereotype of a pretentious and bratty artiste abusing the largess of monied patrons who are willing to tolerate such behavior in hopes that their social status will reflect the golden light of artistic genius. This is a commonly accepted personality trait of Great Artists.
I think the point is that it takes a sort of hubris that's quite typical for autocratic regimes to show off to the rest of the world - and future generations - with gigantomanic architecture.
IMHO a healthy society should be "above" this sort of stuff.
Architects can design buildings that solve social problems. But they can't use Le Corbusier's authoritarian methods - or any derivative of that mindset - to do it.
This was a typical early 20th century worker housing project. It was pretty successful for the time - so much so it's now expensive and gentrified.
Most people want to live in low-density human-scale housing with plenty of greenery. There's nothing complicated or difficult about this. The problem is that architects want to Make A Statement, and you don't do that by giving ordinary people what they want.
Frank Lloyd Wright sought to elevate the environment workers or occupants had to spend their time in. He was designing buildings for people, not as snarky societal commentary.
Maybe we should return to that idea that people are valuable and ought to be treated well, and hire architects to design that way.
Only rarely do actual greatness and humanity cross paths, for example Frank Lloyd Wright or Heitor Villa-Lobos.
reply