4 ms·

I may be missing the sarcasm but the idea that "nobody want to travel and take photos of [modern movement]" is about as myopic as it is perfectly opposite to on

by ics 12y ago

I may be missing the sarcasm but the idea that "nobody want to travel and take photos of [modern movement]" is about as myopic as it is perfectly opposite to one of the leading pedagogies in architecture schools today. People do make tours (pilgrimages, only semi-facetiously, if you're an architect) to see modern architecture, even some of the most brutal examples... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture That these buildings would be less prevalent in tours is hardly surprising given that they are new, primarily functional (this is another matter for debate), and do not strive to give one the same feeling of erudition as might be found in an "old" building. I would be very surprised to hear of postmodern architecture being more popular on tours than others, however. Debates on the values of these movements are fierce and alive amongst architects and other designers. The New Yorker article that you linked is interesting but captures barely a sliver of the whole story (which we do/can not necessarily know). The reason I was probing above in my response to bane is because we all tend to fall short on a topic when opinions become fortified by singular viewpoints.

frik 12y ago
Funny that you mentioned "Brutalist architecture" as it led to the development of Christopher Alexander's famous books A Pattern Language and The Timeless Way of Building. He is the "second" Dijkstra, and his work is a must read for both architecture and computer science students, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander#Influence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander#Influence (influenced a lot in both fields). I think you got it, what I meant with "nobody". Sure there are fanboys and followers for almost every niche, what should matter are the mass of normal tourists. Some cities (and their city planers) understand that, some don't. > they are [...] primarily functional Sure, functionality is usually a requirement. But bog-standard sterile concrete box architecture is just laziness/tasteless or constraint by the budget. (that's another debate). Coming back to the former debate-topic, there has been a certain influence in Modern Architecture.
- ics 12y ago
  I've read Christopher Alexander (related: A Second Modernism - MIT, Architecture, and the 'Techno-Social' Movement). While I like his work and agree that he has had far-reaching influence on today's world, his architecture is not something most people are familiar with outside of the Pattern Language fanboyism that sprouted– which he himself has denounced (ref. Notes On the Synthesis of Form, 2nd ed. preface). Where we seem to disagree is that modern architecture, to the best of my observation as an architect and traveler, has far exceeded niche interest. Rather, it has been so influential that the real niche is those who actively fight it. Note that this is not the same group as those who ignore modernism (vernacular builders, non-design architects, and others). Among those who presume design to be the foremost issue in architecture, the influence of modernism is still quite strong. Even among my non-design-interested peers, "sexy" is always somewhere between Bauhaus and California Modern. (Though I secretly suspect that they'd be the ones bringing the postmodernism, maybe a fancy glass house bachelor pad with marble Corinthian columns at the head of the bed or something crazy like that.) I also don't think that the laziness you describe is limited to modern architecture. Plenty of modern movements have hinged on the idea that earlier styles were lazy recapitulations of styles which to varying degrees were meant to cost less and look either familiar (popular) or expensive. They may be right, but then they are stretched thin by a long line of enthusiastic practitioners eager to make a name themselves. That's nothing unique to architecture, and as broad as my interests are there are plenty of structures from the classical to the contemporary that range fall over the map in terms of intrigue and beauty. That's as far as I can stretch my attention for now. Hail Antoní! https://bjornandannette.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/wp-barcelona-gaudi-sagrada-familia-07.jpg https://bjornandannette.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/wp-barce...

by ics 12y ago

frik 12y ago

Funny that you mentioned "Brutalist architecture" as it led to the development of Christopher Alexander's famous books A Pattern Language and The Timeless Way of Building. He is the "second" Dijkstra, and his work is a must read for both architecture and computer science students, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander#Influence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander#Influence (influenced a lot in both fields). I think you got it, what I meant with "nobody". Sure there are fanboys and followers for almost every niche, what should matter are the mass of normal tourists. Some cities (and their city planers) understand that, some don't. > they are [...] primarily functional Sure, functionality is usually a requirement. But bog-standard sterile concrete box architecture is just laziness/tasteless or constraint by the budget. (that's another debate). Coming back to the former debate-topic, there has been a certain influence in Modern Architecture.

ics 12y ago
I've read Christopher Alexander (related: A Second Modernism - MIT, Architecture, and the 'Techno-Social' Movement). While I like his work and agree that he has had far-reaching influence on today's world, his architecture is not something most people are familiar with outside of the Pattern Language fanboyism that sprouted– which he himself has denounced (ref. Notes On the Synthesis of Form, 2nd ed. preface). Where we seem to disagree is that modern architecture, to the best of my observation as an architect and traveler, has far exceeded niche interest. Rather, it has been so influential that the real niche is those who actively fight it. Note that this is not the same group as those who ignore modernism (vernacular builders, non-design architects, and others). Among those who presume design to be the foremost issue in architecture, the influence of modernism is still quite strong. Even among my non-design-interested peers, "sexy" is always somewhere between Bauhaus and California Modern. (Though I secretly suspect that they'd be the ones bringing the postmodernism, maybe a fancy glass house bachelor pad with marble Corinthian columns at the head of the bed or something crazy like that.) I also don't think that the laziness you describe is limited to modern architecture. Plenty of modern movements have hinged on the idea that earlier styles were lazy recapitulations of styles which to varying degrees were meant to cost less and look either familiar (popular) or expensive. They may be right, but then they are stretched thin by a long line of enthusiastic practitioners eager to make a name themselves. That's nothing unique to architecture, and as broad as my interests are there are plenty of structures from the classical to the contemporary that range fall over the map in terms of intrigue and beauty. That's as far as I can stretch my attention for now. Hail Antoní! https://bjornandannette.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/wp-barcelona-gaudi-sagrada-familia-07.jpg https://bjornandannette.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/wp-barce...