4 ms·
> The argument seems to boil down to, "of course it's ugly, just look at it" Yes, but only because the heart of the modernist movement has been an attempt to d
by stupidcar 7y ago
> The argument seems to boil down to, "of course it's ugly, just look at it"
Yes, but only because the heart of the modernist movement has been an attempt to deny, belittle and mock the idea that the instinctive aesthetic reaction of the majority to their creations is important or valid. If you think their constructions are ugly, that's not their problem, it's your problem. Firstly, you're too stupid, conservative and narrow-minded to perceive its genius, and secondly, in fact, you actually do like it, or eventually you will, if you just shut up and wait long enough.
It's as if avant-garde jazz advocates were put in charge every radio station and music streaming service on Earth, and given free rein to remorselessly enforce their taste on the whole population, with any dissenter being shouted down and told that, when they eventually forget what all other music sounded like, they'll come to love atonal jazz noise.
In such a situation, the fightback would have to begin with people being told it's OK to trust their own instinct and hate the music that's been forced upon them. Likewise, the fightback against overweening modernism has to begin by bursting the elitist bubble of faux-intellectual obfuscation that modernists have created around architecture. It has to begin by telling people that they have as much right to judge the aesthetics of huge changes to the places they live and work as anybody else, and that if they think the changes are ugly, then that's valid, without any "but..." unfolding into a lecture about how daring and original the latest edifice being foisted upon them actually is.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Pils 7y agoSo lets see: - Modernism isn't a collection a movements across different countries/mediums in the early 20th century, but a "movement" whose "heart" is making intellectuals feel better than regular folks. - No space for differing aesthetic opinions, the only real art is what you feel in your gut. - Modernists are actively trying to change the places you live in work, despite the fact that the height of the movement happening decades ago. - Specifically call out Jazz/Atonal music, apropos nothing. Look, I'm all for differing opinions, but yours are more political than aesthetic (proving the parent's point). Plenty of modern architecture is aesthetically pleasing to the untrained eye. Some of it is not, and some of it is just objectively bad. However, your particular point of view, which presupposes some elite cabal, pushing there modernist agenda/degenerate art on an unknowing and unwilling populace, deserves some more scrutiny.
- richardhod 7y agoGood points, yet for context there have been weird official conspiracies in modern art: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-...
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoIn this context architecture is mostly about homes, so gut reactions aren't unreasonable. And the Modernists very much were trying to change the landscape. Here's a video about the Smithsons who designed one of the UK's largest housing projects. They're clearly serious and well-intentioned, but also... "eccentric" is probably a diplomatic description. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH5thwHTYNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH5thwHTYNk But... it's worth remembering that these projects were replacements for slum housing, not showcase palaces and cathedrals. While they weren't ideal, they did usually manage to be warmer, healthier, cleaner, and more sanitary than the hovels they typically replaced. Over time some of the harder egdes of modernism have been filed off, and modern projects seem to be trying to learn from the past, while still keeping the functionalism of the original modernists. There are plenty of blocks on the European mainland which are very liveable, built in that style. And unless Mr Dalrymple wants to propose a new archiectural style that he thinks can improve on them, it's not worth taking him seriously - except as a self-indulgent grumbler.