Posted by Thomas Nash on September 13, 2002 at 11:16:24:
In Reply to: Re: tradition and innovation posted by Paul Malo on September 13, 2002 at 07:23:35:
I am very pleased to read so many arguments around tradition and innovation, in fact I like thinking about this theme, though my major is architectural design£¨not theory£©, and possessing a lot of project experiences as an architect for about four years , and though this arguments may be too inane to be judged. I can feel that the architectural design is so interesting that many architects have no time for thinking, especially in a country there are so many projects for you to design. In modern society, the most important value is time and the most inexcusable method of work is hesitation and suspicion.
When I want to look for the modern architecture theory about tradition and innovation, I am disappointed though it is one of the plenums at XXI World Congress of Architecture in Berlin. Most books about modern architecture theory is written by annalistic method to discovery or reveal the thoughts and spirit behind phenomena. And the thoughts by famous architects is great but can not form a valid theory. Compared with other research area, such as economic, music, literature, fine arts, politics, the research about architecture theory about tradition and innovation is poor.
I like the word of ¡°authenticity¡± than ¡°logic¡± in architecture. What about authenticity as "classical" Roman or Greek or Renaissant Architecture judged by the modern architecture theory? Are the ¡°decorations¡± about classical architecture authentic? If the answer is no£¨by the avant-garde in early modern architecture movement£©, what is not authentic in so called ¡°modern architecture¡± nowadays£¨because authenticity is one of the most important factors in early modern architecture£©...?
Free 3D Models