Posted by lavardera on September 17, 2002 at 17:03:09:
In Reply to: Re: WTC: General Observations posted by Paul Malo on September 17, 2002 at 11:20:05:
I'd say you may be suffering from the same ailment as the modernists you describe! I don't see the point in seperating modernism in the historic form from modernist in the stylistic sense in a world where all the faults of the former are also ascribed to the latter. I also don't find it necessary to hang the modernist aesthetic on the intellectual uderpinings the historical modernists built their movement on. If that makes modernistic architecture stylistic folly, so be it, it has that in common with classicism and other traditional styles. I am not advocating a strict adherence to the modernist model, no more than a classicist will propose to build a roman temple. I don't care what you call it or how you classify it. My message is that criticism of modernist planning and architecture is often used to promote a traditional planning mode, which more often than not is assumed to have traditional architecture as a matter of fact. Along with that modernistic architecture in that context is criticised as a folly because it does not support the strict tenents of modernism. I think it is no more out of place than historic styles, unless you are willing to believe that you are in fact in another place or time as the style may suggest. I don't think anybody is.
Free 3D Models