Posted by Paul Malo on October 21, 2002 at 07:27:31:
In Reply to: Re: DON'T READ THIS !!!!!!!!!!-Preferences modern vs traditional posted by BRUTUS on October 21, 2002 at 00:32:13:
I don't know what those terms mean any more--fifty years ago, yes (or maybe in some parts of the world still)--but here "Modern" has indeed become "traditional" after a half century. Probably 95% of students of architecture in the US today were educated in school buildings that were "Modern" when built. They go to shopping malls that are "Modern" in style. They may live in apartment buildings, or have parents that work in office buildings, that are "Modern." This IS the tradition of most students. Consequently the distinction between the terms seems archaic.
"Modern" is the major influence on most students, since it's what they have seen most--particularly students from an urban environment. "History" to many students is an alien subject, not particularly relevant. Many of these students will go on to perpetuate a world of "Modern" schools, shopping malls, apartment and officebuildings, simply because that's what they know. It's the accepted paradigm of what buildings are supposed to be.
I don't see Decon or Blobs or any other purported avant garde movement of offering much of an alternative, because these are all basically postmodern variants of the Modern paradigm, which is object-fixated constructivism. What I do see as the more promising alternative is a basic paradigm shift, moving from object-fixated constructivism, Here we need to reconsider the lessons of thousands of years of architectural history, taking off the blinders of futurism which really has not been liberating at all but in truth has been restrictive.
Free 3D Models