Posted by steve on October 08, 2002 at 11:20:22:
In Reply to: post modern achitecture... posted by tyler o'hagon on October 08, 2002 at 08:28:08:
Well, first there is the "post modern" style, as in that style which evolved around 1980 which rejected the international style and embraced historical representation as well as place specific references (in the form of surface and ornament). Then there is Post-Modernism in the broad sense, which as Paul has pointed out in a number of threads is everything after the modern movement of the 1st half of the 20th century +/-. When Charles Jenks coined the term "post-modern", I think he was suggesting the first : 'here is the new architecture, and it looks like this...' (Grave's Portlandia, Johnson's ATT, Moore's Piazza D'Italia, etc.). But there was much more of value that was gained from the movement than the imagery. There was a new sensitivity to context, especially the urban context where modernism had failed quite dramatically. There was the revisiting of traditional building and a greater appreciation for the reason why things evolved the way they did. The work today has moved away from those early stylistic examples but we see a much greater interest in craft, authenticity, and context. We see these concepts being carried out in an architectural language that is more of the modernist era, and by that I mean industrial materials, articulation if not exposure of structure, compositions of lines and planes. However there is also a counter movement that is more willful and autonomous. It is not about the context, and not about the structure, and not about the order and continuity that these 2 subjects bring. It is a movement more about image and sub-text and is akin to the early post-modern work in that respect (typified by the work of Gehry, Koolhaas, Behnisch, Coop Himmelblau etc.) I have not directly answered you but I'm sure there will be ensuing discussion.
Free 3D Models