4 ms·

Le Corbusier was a monster, the purest of anti-humanist modernists, and he would have destroyed Paris in the name of ideology. The office park and faceless, is

Le Corbusier was a monster, the purest of anti-humanist modernists, and he would have destroyed Paris in the name of ideology. The office park and faceless, isolated and dehumanized tower are his legacies. The fact that he is still taken seriously, let alone respected, is a testament to the gnosticism, anti-humanism, puritanism and anti-historical rancor that has characterized the building (and broader artistic) community since 1900. But that's none of my business...

scarmig 11y ago
LC was the culmination of a barbaric trend, yes. But isn't it important to take the purest exponent of anti-human modernism seriously, since he's influenced our lives so much?
- carsongross 11y ago
  I can see the argument, like one should read 'Mein Kampf' or 'The Communist Manifesto' for historical reference. On the other hand, I think its important to recognize that the mainstream of academic architecture does not reject his work, and continues to reject, in the main, the works of people like Jacobs and Alexander. So, yes, perhaps we should still read some of his stuff (a lot of it is pretentious nonsense, in my opinion) but only with a proper understanding of what his aesthetic lead to.
jamespitts 11y ago
That he survived WWII in an intellectual sense is unfortunate. His buildings, like Albert Speer's, are a concrete rendering of the idea of 20th century dictatorship. Thankfully there was already resistance to his ideas -- even his friend Salvador Dali loathed his architecture. But it took a long time before intellectuals such as Jane Jacobs developed a complete framework that explained why modernist buildings are so damaging (beyond prudence and horse sense). His aesthetic offers a great lesson, and the lesson can be applied to any field: large-scale changes, applied top-down, incur a risk of inflicting deep social damage. This is why user feedback is so important. This is why going with your gut or channeling a theoretical framework must be strongly tempered by empiricism.
dreamfactory2 11y ago
> anti-humanist modernists And yet the totalitarian dictator types alway seem to prefer classicism

scarmig 11y ago

LC was the culmination of a barbaric trend, yes. But isn't it important to take the purest exponent of anti-human modernism seriously, since he's influenced our lives so much?

carsongross 11y ago
I can see the argument, like one should read 'Mein Kampf' or 'The Communist Manifesto' for historical reference. On the other hand, I think its important to recognize that the mainstream of academic architecture does not reject his work, and continues to reject, in the main, the works of people like Jacobs and Alexander. So, yes, perhaps we should still read some of his stuff (a lot of it is pretentious nonsense, in my opinion) but only with a proper understanding of what his aesthetic lead to.

jamespitts 11y ago

That he survived WWII in an intellectual sense is unfortunate. His buildings, like Albert Speer's, are a concrete rendering of the idea of 20th century dictatorship. Thankfully there was already resistance to his ideas -- even his friend Salvador Dali loathed his architecture. But it took a long time before intellectuals such as Jane Jacobs developed a complete framework that explained why modernist buildings are so damaging (beyond prudence and horse sense). His aesthetic offers a great lesson, and the lesson can be applied to any field: large-scale changes, applied top-down, incur a risk of inflicting deep social damage. This is why user feedback is so important. This is why going with your gut or channeling a theoretical framework must be strongly tempered by empiricism.

dreamfactory2 11y ago

> anti-humanist modernists And yet the totalitarian dictator types alway seem to prefer classicism