Posted by Rog the Dodge on March 05, 2003 at 12:31:45:
In Reply to: how do we classify MODERN architecture? when does it start? posted by degoza on March 04, 2003 at 20:44:56:
Both Gary R and Peter B have touched on the difficulties inherent in the term "modern" and have sought to make a clear distinction between "modern" and "modernist", the latter term centred on the 20th century development in European and American fin-de-siecle 19th century trends.
In the sense that the Renaissance represents a categoric break with the past (although inevitably based on an antique style) it may be considered "modern". But, of course, each new development in architecture, whether a revival style or something novel, is to its adherents, "modern".
For societies with a consistent tradition of indigenous architecture outwith the Euro-American cultural nexus, "modern" architecture would almost certainly seem to be the colonial import of whatever architectural style was then in vogue in the colonising nation. "Modernist" architecture in such cultures, however, is intriguing since, contrary to the case in Europe and North America, it was the presence and attributes of those indigenous architectures that were a positive resource in its development and undermines "modernism's" claim to aculturalism and ahistoricism.
Still confused? I'm not surprised!
Best of luck with your study.
Types & Styles
Library Places Building Photos Free 3D Models Archiplanet