Posted by Paul Malo on September 17, 2002 at 20:05:44:
In Reply to: Re: WTC: General Observations posted by Issi on September 17, 2002 at 18:42:23:
That modernism generally has been "nihilistic," i.e. opposed to traditional systems of belief, seems to be implicit in the Salingaros thesis. He did not characterize current hostility as a conflict between religious beliefs, however, but rather as a conservative cultural reaction to threatening modernization.
Modern architecture clearly is a facet of cultural modernism, which conservative fundamentalists may find threatening. Salingaros did not say, nor does it follow, that terrorists were motivated to destroy Modern architecture, or to attack the World Trade Center because is was Modern. That was not the point.
His thesis, as I understand it, was that generic, global modernism in general, and Modern architecture in particular (as an "International Style") was less than satisfactory as a universal culture. He didn't argue that Modern architecture was the cause of hostility, but rather that it was symptomatic of a widespread malaise.
Why, you ask, wasn't dissatisfaction expressed from other parts of the world? People in many of these places are not hostile to modernization but. to the contrary, are eagar to modernize. Opposition to modernization naturally is strongest and most violent where cultural conservatism--i.e. "fundamentalism," is strongest.
As I suggested to Brutus, the issue is not about hostility between religions. It's rather about the future of culture, and about the role of tradition and group identity in the face of an increasingly common global culture.
Free 3D Models