Modernist architechture
Submitted by Sceptic on Sat, 2008-06-14 19:10.
Chit Chat
I found this article pretty interesting. It discusses how modernist architechture, not only being an enviromental disaster, but is aimed at destroying cooperative community. The way our cities are planned and built has been a disaster for community life. With anything that makes sense and is meaningful to humans, there is a sort of order that allows life to be understandable, hospitable and welcoming. Human beings are trained from birth to have the ability to function in a way that makes sense socially. But what has been forgotten is that buildings are also part of the order of society and community and they also have an influence in our lives. An influence that any visitor to a family can have and buildings because of their nature works as a very rigid structure that orders our lives around itself. Although the author of the text didnt intend it I find it interesting to think about how the houses we live in could change in order to improve living standards, nurturing community life, become more a part of the ecological order and more meaningful to us as well. Because quite frankly, the straight lines of modernist buildings, their anonymous flat walls and towering steel and glass doesnt mean a damn but could be seen as a constant intrusion into our lives and create the atmosphere of a veriy hostile and mysteriously unwelcoming enviroment.
Anyway I made my point, heres the link to the texts on:
Modernist buildings exclude dialouge:
http://www.ellopos.com/blog/?p=350
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_urb-leon_krier.html&ttl=Cities%20for%20Living
A quote from the city journal text:
"Krier has pursued a career in architecture, but he is also a philosopher and social thinker who believes that architectural modernism is not just ugly but also based in profound mistakes about the nature of human society. As he put it in a recent interview: “Humanity lives by trial and error, sometimes committing errors of a monumental scale. Architectural and urbanist modernism belong—like communism—to a class of errors from which there is little or nothing to learn or gain. . . . Modernism’s fundamental error, however, is to propose itself as a universal (i.e., unavoidable and necessary) phenomenon, legitimately replacing and excluding traditional solutions.” What we need, therefore, is a repertoire of real solutions to the problems of urban design. And that is what Krier has set out to produce."
Quote: Architectural and
Submitted by Foolish Yeti on Sat, 2008-06-14 20:46.
Architectural and urbanist modernism belong—like communism—to a class of errors from which there is little or nothing to learn or gain. . . .
What a nice insiduous reinforcement of capitlaism.
_____________________________________________________
"The sparrow hops along the veranda, with wet feet."
Modernist architecture can be Leaver architecture
Submitted by Amanda on Tue, 2008-07-08 21:27.
Since I just happened to speak about Frank Lloyd Wright and organic architecture at our last Ishmael Houston meeting, I feel that I need to dispute this.
Frank Lloyd Wright is/was indisputably the most famous proponent of modernist architecture in the world. He believed that copying the classical styles of other countries and bygone eras was ridiculous and out of place: hence, his embracing of modernist architecture.
FLW practiced what he called "organic architecture": a unity of form and function. For a definition of organic architecture, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_architecture
Let me just quote the first sentence of that: "Organic architecture is a philosophy of architecture which promotes harmony between human habitation and the natural world through design approaches so sympathetic and well integrated with its site that buildings, furnishings, and surroundings become part of a unified, interrelated composition. "
For FLW, organic architecture was like permaculture and xenoscaping for buildings. He believed in using indigenous materials, and designs and landscape that blended in with the surrounding area. At Taliesin West in Arizona, he used Aztec influences in his building.
FLW often used recycled materials too. There are several chairs in his Taliesin East home that were made out of old crates and barrels, and you can see the writing on the back of them.
FLW loved nature and looked to it for inspiration. To him, the most beautiful and practical forms were those of nature. For example, he designed the Guggenheim museum rotunda in the shape of a snail.
FLW believed that nature had priority over buildings.
Everyone has heard of Fallingwater, his most famous design. He built a house around/over a waterfall rather than diverting the water. There are photos at www.fallingwater.org
At Taliesin East, he built a theater for his aunts' school that had a tree growing out of the roof. That's right: he actually built the building around the tree rather than cutting down the tree! In fact, they used to cut the roof back when the tree grew, rather than cutting back the tree!
FLW also stated that he wanted nature to reclaim Taliesin and built it with the intention that the land would reclaim the house after 50 years. (It can be argued that the estate/conservation society are going against his wishes - and against nature - by preserving the house, but that's not FLW's fault, since he's dead.)
There is a lot of erroneous information regarding modernist architecture, and that is because when we think of "modern", we think of ugly slabs of concrete. That look is not representative of ALL modernist architecture, and it does give this noble art form a bad name.
"Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living." - Mary Harris "Mother" Jones
Examples!
Obligatory link: Examples!