Posted by Richard Haut on February 15, 2004 at 04:06:58:
In Reply to: Re: Visions of the Future City in Film posted by Piotr on February 15, 2004 at 01:26:51:
right - I misunderstood your intentions. We are in agreement on this.
look to its origins - modernism was seen as an oppressive style for buildings and cities, the architecture of totalitariamism.
what is wrong with it can perhaps be best seen from modernist urban spaces - they are blank, they are cold, they are sterile.
compare the frigidity of modernism with that other movement that used modern materials to redefine shapes: Art Deco.
I believe that the use of such symbols in film is a precise representation of this environment of hostility - a hopeless and terrible future. What I simply cannot understand is why the profession of architecture continues to regurgitate this stuff.
Corbusier was wrong - buildings are not "machines for living". They are places of ritual - they are to contain not just the people, but the symbolism of their lives.
Perhaps the film-makers see a terrible future (Blade Runner, Soylent Green). Or maybe they foresaw the likes of Perle and Wolfowitz who merely consider their fellow humans as potential slave material.
Types & Styles
Free 3D Models