3 ms·
Modern architecture wasn't a monolithic movement (and it has changed a lot in the last 100 or so years. It is generally explained and contextualized badly (I sp
by theoh 8y ago
Modern architecture wasn't a monolithic movement (and it has changed a lot in the last 100 or so years. It is generally explained and contextualized badly (I spent years in architecture school) partly because architecture is a very anti-intellectual discipline at the best of times.
The key modernist move was to throw away history (the classical orders and ornaments) and to some extent this meant throwing away existing techniques and theories as well.
So that's why defenders of traditional architecture are often aligned with a certain kind of Enlightenment intellectualism. In a sense, traditional architecture sits easily with faith in reason and analysis, whereas modernism is stereotypically distracted by the need to be avant garde and to avoid kitsch. Within the profession of architecture, though, there is a very strong sense of continuity in terms of architectural values. It might not seem plausible from a surface inspection, but the percentage difference in the genomes of traditional and modern architecture is slight. The continuity inherent in the fairly restricted possibilities for rational, economical assembly of building materials guarantees that the golden rules of construction don't change very much, although superficial appearances might. There are new construction technologies, but tectonics is pretty much a timeless art.
The types of accommodation that are created have changed a lot, for example the genre of the office building has developed into something very new and not necessarily something that will last. But if you look at how the Shard is actually put together, I think a 17th C architect seeing it for the first time would get it immediately. They might find the economic/business side of the building's purpose completely inscrutable, though.
A major theme of Bauhaus design was avoiding pretentiousness or "striving for effect". Simplicity and economy of means was seen as psychologically preferable to the alternative, which was moribund 19th C ornamentation and kitsch. That went for frivolous things like Bauhaus jewellery just as much as essential programmes like urgently needed housing. Maximum effect with as little wasted effort as possible was the guiding principle across the board.
Obviously prestigious, expensive and pretentious buildings, like the Shard, are now built in a modernist style (that didn't take long to start happening at all). That's really architecture slipping back into its old ways (as a symbol of wealth and power, of excess rather than economy). Personally I think the Shard is a great building, but as far as I know it doesn't have a good reason to exist. The major Bauhaus theorists would have hated that.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- man-and-laptop 8y agoIt seems that the Bauhaus were trying to make a political point as much as an engineering point. Also, where's the evidence that the simpler geometric forms and use of cheap materials (concrete in Brutalism) resulted in anything cheaper, more functional, better-looking or long-lasting? How much of it is just a fad? They "Bauhaus"ed the Windows GUI to remove all the ornamentation, and people didn't report it was any easier, more usable (no shadows for buttons, so you don't know what you can click on), or more pleasing to look at (many, including myself, found it childish). Some people say it's faster for the computer, but I suspect that the improvements are very marginal.
- paganel 8y ago> Also, where's the evidence that simpler geometric designs are better than more complex or detailed designs, in either cost, functionality, appearance or long-lasting-hood? Not the OP and I don't have any hard-data at hand, but the no-ornament prefabricated apartment-blocks like they used to build in much of Eastern Europe after WW2 [1] were definitely a lot cheaper to build in a shorter period of time compared to buildings which had ornaments and unique features. In fact, I do have data supporting this, but it's not easily accessible online and it's not in English, more exactly I do have a collection of Romanian architecture magazines published throughout the 1950s where the architects of that time (meaning those that had not been imprisoned by the communists) were discussing about the cheapest and fastest ways to build housing for the country's working class. Those (in-)famous apartment-blocks that started springing up shortly after that (I'd say beginning of the '60s) were the result. You can see details about this on the wiki page for the Khrushchyovka apartment-blocks [2]: > Traditional masonry is labor-intensive; individual projects were slow and not scalable to the needs of overcrowded cities. To ameliorate a severe housing shortage, during 1947–1951 Soviet architects evaluated various technologies attempting to reduce costs and completion time. During January 1951, an architects' convention, supervised by Khrushchev (then the party director of Moscow), declared low-cost, quick technologies the objective of Soviet architects. and > During 1954–1961, engineer Vitaly Lagutenko, chief planner of Moscow since 1956, designed and tested the mass-scale, industrialized construction process, relying on concrete panel plants and a quick assembly schedule. During 1961, Lagutenko's institute released the K-7 design of a prefabricated 5-story building that became typical of the Khrushchyovka. 64,000 units (3,000,000 m2 (32,000,000 sq ft)) of this type were built in Moscow from 1961 to 1968. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Plattenbauten_02_Lobeda_West-2011.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Plattenb... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka