Message - Re: classical/traditional vs. modernist

    Responses | Architecture Forum | Architecture Students | Architecture Scrapbook | ArchitectureWeek    

Posted by  Per Corell on November 09, 2002 at 03:18:53:

In Reply to:  classical/traditional vs. modernist posted by Stephen on November 08, 2002 at 15:41:24:

When I se a nice new design I often think about , when standard houses will profit from the inspiration, when this or that nice detail will mirror in new housing. Not that I disagrea with the huge amount of modern housing being produced as a result of the "discussions" in architecture, ------ but nothing are complete and even modernism brought healty houses and nice inviroments, you somtimes and sometimes often , se a backside that is a bit cold, a bit depressing and quite conform. I se it anyway ,I known a lot of people where I somwhere miss somthing very difficult to explain, somthing mentaly.
And I often skipped this thought ,if this shuld have somthing to do with the conformaty ,of the effective idears that brought these inviroments. ------- Now I se this in a very one eyed way, I was not brought up in a modern inviroment so my experience could be wrong but isn't it so, that in some situations, you can emagine some of these living quaters so boring ,that either you blame yourself or start your life looking for somthing with other qualities , other qualities than the conformaty.
I find it a dangouras direction, if modernism only picture by the Lego thinking ,shuld be at the basic when we start using technology to it's potentials, ------ I think this will bring a cold world and people with a basicly low self respect , It also easyli can evolve into a cruel inviroment with very little room for what we proberly all are looking for, an inviroment for people and an inviroment that point to other qualities than just producing neat standard houses.

But almost anything are shaped to fit with sharp corners ; furniture ,windows doors, everything fit much nicer into the Lego mind, and this fact are used as an argument against non-Lego architecture, ---- even the argument are a construct;
You will meet a major resistance about round houses just becaurse of this fact, but the true reson go deeper than this , as fundamentally this is a question about what we know and what we are used to, beside that when adding a window this must be a result of the same ideology than what brought the house. This mean that if you promote organic shapes you will be met with the argument, that you can't fir round walls with square furniture and this is true, as the furnitures was produced to a Lego inviroment, you must dig deeper , and even produce the furniture with the same idear as the organic house ; small things maby but the world consist of small things.
I se it this way, that the manufactoring industrie are depandend of a general ideology to produce somthing that will fit with a few of the basic idears in the overall picture. You will never get a furniture factory to produce one-off pieces of furniture , unless they scrap the Lego idear and trust that new technology will even make a square table ; this is about production idears and design idears so also here you need to dig deeper and deeper, untill you find the core problem ; ------ the one you had infront your eyes all the time.

Now this is aswell a mental issue aswell as an issue about a conservative way to se everything, and maby we have tolook back and realy _se_ how some of the Icons we often refere, was acturly produced. Didn't a few Le.Corb show just those qualities ; why did hous building then evolve into standard square building blocks, when some of the masters of the trade, are acturly know for a compleatly different form language. Wasn't a few of other Icons produced as one-off slick style private houses, didn't a lot of what is now mass produced origine from the result a wery few skilled craftmen/architects -------- how can this argument even be fully accepted, the way academics rule.
In this sense I se architecture fighting itself, while the progress reached are somtimes kind of denied, while innovation and visionary thinking , fit very bad with what is mainly in the focus.
The only way I se ,is to produce somthing from bare "ground" ; to even question the manufactoring processes and production idears , from the idear that even the technike building compoments are produced, carry within the form , the limitations of what can be produced .
Personally I think design, innovation and creativity will suffer within the modernism, I think new technology ought to go thru a periode of Jugend before shipping us to the skies, but a new kind of Jugend that play with all those options we would fail to se , a creativity that will form structures with qualities we can't emagine as we can't se what we can't emagine , while we don't even know it how could we even miss it.
Now I can't even show a WTC being a reverse structure in a town structure, but I can describe somthing on the edge of what most can even emagine, but to do it in real you would need to dig so deep and fight what is essential about this whole discussion , that we accept one direction , the Lego thinking, ..... but failed to develob what at first didn't seem as productive ,and the more Lego the more arguments against non-Lego ideology.
Still it's true, that if you want somthing truly unique the new technology offer all that even starting from scratsh. The technology are even here allready to produce unique building blocks that only make sense placed in the exact spot , to fullfill their porpus to produce the projected forms. From my point of view, modernism went wrong when it wantet to cover the intire inviroment, even the materials are only understood as windows or doors, so the designers who assemble the materials will be bound within this way of thinking.
-------- Sorry if this get to off-topic, but if it was not for Lego ,the material would not be a door or a window ( square ) , but wood or sheet materials, and with a different form language you would maby even not think in the terms of windows and doors ; then how can you expect Lego thinking and modernism to produce new visions , when the "materials" are ready made blocks for somthing you from the start decide only can be solved one way.
I think modernism aswell as designers and architects, are cought up in their own minds. I also know that production are caught up in decades of "this is how this is made" , kind of thinking. But you need to be extreamly clever to even show how to make things that been develobed thru centuries better, ----- you got to know the core craft behind furniture making to even be listened to, and even you have all arguments ,people will not se different than what they want to se, as soon as you suggest somthing you will be somone critising , and this you shuld not do to a carpenter. ------ Unfortunatly not to an engineer either ;))
And esp. not generally about academics as even we will be able to form just anything , houses seem to be under a nature law, saying that Lego rule.

Now please don't pick to hard on me, remember how it must be, to be critick about Lego in the land of Lego.


ArchitectureWeek     Search     Buildings     Architects     Types     Places     Pix     Free 3D Models     Store     Library

Search by name of Building, Architect, or Place:   
Examples:  "Fallingwater",  "Wright",  "Paris"           Advanced Search


Post a Response -



This is an archive page. Please post continuing discussion to the new Architecture Forums.

To post successfully to the new membership-based DesignCommunity Forums:

    1) Go to the new forums area.
    2) Register with a valid email address.
    3) Receive and respond to the confirmation email.
    4) Then login to the new forum system.


Special thanks to our Sustaining Subscribers including .

Home | Great Buildings | CAD Outpost | DesignWorkshop | Free 3D | Gallery | Search | ArchitectureWeek
This document is provided for on-line viewing only. /discussion/23272.html