"Well, now that he's (Le Corbusier) finished one building, he'll go write four books about it." - Frank Lloyd Wright I sure hope a Frank Lloyd Wright video is in the works.
He had some interesting points, but I believe they are an example of a philosophical mind that lost it's sense of balance and became obsessed. Functionality and Efficiency are all well and good, but we shouldn't stop trying to make the world beautiful. Aesthetics and Culture are never irrelevant.
@@LordProteus That's the whole point. We simply exist, we don't live. Beauty is a human concept that tries yo find meaning in objects that are natural, or manmade.
The dichotomy that "form follows function" implies can be resolved by realising that form is the function of art. Buildings are both art and structures we need. So the beauty needs to be balanced with all the other requirements. Things are ugly because they remind us of our messed op priorities. After watching this video I think the guy the guy didn't have completely the wrong idea. It's just that in a society that prioritises money over our wellbeing, it's bound to happen that people will not put the idea into practice the right way. Creating ugly buildings because we don't see beauty as relevant. If we change our ideas about what should really be at the centre of our lives, everything we produce will follow. Admittedly. Not sure if he himself understood that. And clearly the consequences of his ideas weren't always positive.
I worked in an office building in Japan that was built in 1958 by a Japanese architect inspired by Lecourbusier. It was the most dreadful work place I could have possibly imagined. The dense, uninviting concrete was impossible to remodel or decorate, it had been designed in an age before computers so the layout made no sense. It was drafty, ugly and foreboding. One of the worst buildings I have had the displeasure of being in.
Do you mind sharing the location of the building? I'm curious to see it xD Regardless, living in the United States reminds me just how boring cities can be with no good architecture. I'm often looking for trips to Mexico or Europe just to get the glamour of the baroque, gothic, art deco or beaux arts etc. Here in the states, utility and enterprise win over beauty and the arts. Just look at what they did to Penn Station in New York.
"You can't find a person who are better to destroy the urban space, than a modernist" - Jan Gehl, one of the most influential urban theorist and designers. Modern architects was so caught up in the newest technology and mashines, that they forgot about the human factor to design.
Indeed, but I don't completely agree. When I look at Kahn's architecture in my home-country, I feel deeply connected with my culture, and traditional roots of the culture, symbolically represented by the form, materials and design of the Kahn-architecture. To touch on the human part, I believe symmetry in Kahn's architecture isn't completely symmetrical, just like the human body, the feeling it evokes, is almost unexplainable because if a structure can make you feel roots and :being at home' and connected to your culture, then I think it's a strong point to consider here....
"Building taller buildings will solve overcrowding" he says, as if the Humans who live in those buildings will never leave the building... He actually didn't know what he was talking about in a lot of cases.
But I think you need to understand and appreciate the importance of his philosophy. The push for “modern” architecture and the “less is more” approach was a springboard to what we create now and how we want to “break the box” that I believe Le Corbusier created. Just something to think about
Are you sure there is no traffic problem in Chandigarh? I was born and live in Chandigarh and the traffic just drives me nuts. Due to a very high number of cars per capita, the city roads are choked with traffic all the time. The only good thing is that the driving sense of the people of the city is much better than the people of other cities in India.
@@bhaaratsharma6023 compared to other indian cities. Ofcourse you cannot compare it to western world, it will be just plain unfair with the population we have, there will be traffic everywhere but atleast during non peak hours, roads are quit empty. Ofcourse, during office hours whole india is stuck in traffic but atleast you have tree's shade to stand in😁
As an architect it may be "sacrilege" to say this, but I'm very much not a fan of almost all of Corbu's work. Even beyond the 'towers in the park' urban planning mistake, I find his buildings lack any sense of refinement or delight. I love clean spare buildings -- Tadao Ando is one of my favs -- but they need a solid grasp of space and light to function, which most of Corbu's buildings seem to lack. Ronchamp is the only work of his that I'm enamored with (maybe La Tourette as well) and it's because there is a sense of space, refinement, and delight there.
Skopje, post 1963 earthquake, is built in his vision, and I've gotta say I like it. But our previous government decided to "antiquities" our city (in the process angering our neighbors) and ruined the city forever.
Sadly, his most beautiful contributions that your video cited - the furniture and domestic interiors - were in fact designed by his female peers, Charlotte Perriand and Eileen Gray. The women were almost forgotten by the male-centric architectural history narrative until rediscovery in recent years.
I had the "chance" to grew up in a private house designed by Le Corbusier (rue des Arts, Boulogne Billancourt, France). I was actually quite an awful design. The first floor was very dark with small large windows place at 1m80 height. Stairs was large and in concrete at the center of the building. He made a distopian vision come true and, with the help of the politician of his time, he is responsible of many of the consequences we have in the French banlieu. Parking poors far away from the center of the city, in places designed for robots to be stored. His work is in-human, ugly, non-functional, without emotions. Storage for robots.
the importance of his buildings are the direction architecture took because of them. while some of his grander ideas may not have pinned out as hoped, the principles are being used todays to generate really functional and beautiful structures
@@matthewluck9077 His philosophy was full of sophistry, though. He regularly says "we must" do this or that without explaining how to do so or why. He did not design homes, offices or cities, but, he admitted himself, machines for living, working, and being in. The thing is, humans are not machines, and thus do not do well in this construct. He didn't design for people. Rather, he expected people to conform to his design. His ideal efficiency was not human efficiency, but machine efficiency. An automated loom doesn't care what color the wallpaper is or even whether there is any. It doesn't care about privacy or comfort or edification. A human weaver does. He did not recognize this. His view was ultimately totalitarian. He wanted to tear down what was established and build his new "utopia," expecting all who live in his ideal cities to conform to his will. Rather than a visionary, he was a man of his time. Edited to fix a comma splice and to remove an unnecessary reference to Hitler and Stalin.
@@rbell3505 I doubt I've ever seen such a hideous chapel (or any religious building), it's claustrophobic, little slabs of light that get dominated by concrete, all structured to create the illusion of chaos, while still maintaining a rigid structure, it's soul crushing.
Christopher Caryotakis totally! i agree with what you’re saying. but you cannot argue against his importance in influencing today’s architecture, be it good or bad. our modern skyscrapers might not be quite what they are today without his free façade design principle. open floor plans may not be as widespread as they are today without his free plan concept. he radically standardized roof gardens, such a seemingly novel concept these days, in his designs. what would architecture be today without his influence? maybe better, maybe worse, but admittedly different
I think his approach was sound, but as you said he didn't fully recognize the needs of human beings. It's all well and good to say you want to design a building or a neighbourhood purely around the practical needs of humans, but in order to do that properly you need to make sure you understand human needs and how to meet them. I've been inside many brutalist buildings that are very attractive and comfortable, and many that aren't. The difference, as far as I can tell, is the level of skill and respect for the human possessed by the people who built them.
Building tall buildings surrounded by huge patches of grass that lead only to car parks yields desoloate terrifying areas. Cities are only safe and fun when lots of people are walking about all the time, but he only wanted people to walk to their cars. This yields hellscapes.
@@BradyDale Exactly, I feel like if he had recognized the more intangible needs of people his designs would have been a lot more successful. Social spaces, services, culture, etc. are all necessary for a so-called "machine for living" to properly fill its intended purpose.
@@Torus2112 I guess I just don't get what you mean by "his approach" then. That was his whole thing. Like... do you mean his aesthetic? His aesthetic isn't what drove his urban planning vision tho.
@@BradyDale I mean that in theory taking a rational approach to the design of living spaces is sensical, all you have to do is find out what a human needs to live comfortably and sort of engineer the space around those needs rather that be guided by a more artistic type of vision as had been traditionally done. Therefore in my opinion the fact that people don't seem to like Le Corbusier's designs is the result of his own failure to engineer the spaces properly.
@@BradyDale If you want to see a successful example of his philosophy, then look to the city of Hong Kong. If you want a successful example of tradition meets simplicity, then look to the country of Japan, where simplicity is a part of their ideals.
Use of "the architect" movie clips was brilliant idea. I love that movie. It took my entire 7years of architecture school to come to this conclusion about him. This is a must watch for archi students.
Really glad you’ve returned back to making videos on art and architecture and add to your range of videos in this category! Any more on philosophy and sociology also always a joy to listen to! Thank you!
@@linky1995 Only buildings he built before 1920, after that he went complete bonkers. Just look at some of his typical later stuff, like Sainte Marie de La Tourette. This rotting concrete abomination is Unesco World Heritage. Can you believe that?
So, this is the devil responsible for the crime against art, the monstrosity we see everywhere in ex-Communist countries? There should be an awful punishment for such a crime, too.
By far, the architect I hate the most! His houses are just lifeless white boxes. Most of his clients had a lot of problems with their houses at the beginning until a proper architect came by to fix all of the problems this idiot could not figure out. Problems with water entering the house in rainy days due to bad design, too much heat inside the house during the summer due to his countless windows on the south side of the houses etc.. Even "his" famous chaise longue was the design of his wife/girlfriend at the time, but guess who took the credit for it. You should do a video on Mies Van Der Rohe or Walter Gropius instead
I’m reading your book The Architecture of Happiness right now for the second time and just got to the section where you talked about corbusier, and then this pops up in my recommended!!
I was very worried that you were going to say something good about his approach to urban design. Much relieved. He's one of the worst things to happen to the world.
While I truly do understand what Corbusier and the Bauhaus were going for, it is cold and has never felt like 'humans' should inhabit their buildings. FL Wright also revolted against what he saw as the 'excesses' of the Victorians, but did it in a way that was beautiful - as did the Greene bros. and other Craftsman-style architects.
I'm glad someone mentioned Frank Lloyd Wright... his homes and buildings are amazing and also very modernist, and go for millions. Meanwhile, any ugly old building you see that's a square white block, rusting away with stains and getting set in with weeds is usually Bauhaus or Corbusier inspired, given up on a long time ago as being no longer practical or attractive.
@@thetimelapseguy8 I agree; I love Victorian architecture. And if asked what I think the crowning achievement has been, it would be the great Gothic cathedrals. The thing about Wright or the Greene brothers is, they didn't sacrifice warmth and 'humanness' in their designs for function's sake, as I feel the Bauhaus and later, Brutalism, did.
His ideas seem to me like a postmodern, technocratic dystopia, but I understand where this comes from. The modern, progressive zeitgeist despises classical beauty, because it is a relict from the past, a past that is provocative to modernism. I can understand that, but in a sense of beauty I am conservative. I can't stand the view of gigantic housing batterys destroying the landscape of our ancient citys, nor the monstrousitys we call modern art, that fill parcs and plazas. Does anyone find this beautiful? Please explain it to me, for me it looks shallow and soulless.
Just felt like commiserating, I always wondered why the buildings where I lived looked like a postmodern art museum vomited everywhere. Le Corbusier 's architecture has no soul in it. "What modern man wants is a Monk's Cell." God, why did he get so popular?
modern art and architecture is so diverse you don't pull it in one category then hate it all , some of it is good/beautiful and some of it is not and so is classical art and architecture , we're human beings in constant lookout for new things and ideas we can't just be stuck in the past can we ?
It’s definitely not for everyone. I totally agree with his stance on overly ornate decoration, but his solutions, at least on a large scale, tend not to be very inviting- cool to look at once, but depressing to spend an extended period of time in
@@anesmerazi603 I agree I shouldn't put it all in one category, I really appreciate 20th century expressionism for example, but this obscure things we usually see in "modern art museums" are unbearable in my eyes. Its the trend that bothers me, the trend in the direction of obscurism, efficiency over aesthetic. Not all modern art/architecture deserve this judgement, but most do, within their nature of rebellious anti-classizism/postmodernism.
I sure hope this Chanel hace FLW’s video on the works, I absolutely love the style of these videos and I’m at awe of how such quality content can be free!
Now I know who to blame for the type of architecture I truly despise. Thank you for profiling this influential artist who made indelible changes to our world.
Le Courbousier was a Vichy collaborator and fascist. "Machine For Living In" is an anti-humanist ethos for architects and mankind has suffered greatly due to its prevalence.
Le point de vue plus nuancé de Michel Guerrin Michel Guerrin, rédacteur en chef au Monde, critique cette tribune qui "ne prend pas en compte la complexité de l’entre-deux-guerres où l’esthétique moderne - pureté, fonctionnalité, rationalisme - traverse les idéologies et les régimes." Dans une chronique parue vendredi dans Le Monde, il rappelle que "Le Corbusier a voulu travailler pour Philippe Pétain et Benito Mussolini. Oui, mais aussi pour Léon Blum, en 1936. Il écrit des mots louangeurs sur Adolf Hitler, mais aussi d’autres de mépris sur l’Allemagne nazie. Ajoutons qu’il était proche de résistants et de militants communistes, et qu’à sa mort, en 1965, André Malraux prononce son éloge funèbre. Bref rien à voir avec Louis-Ferdinand Céline." "Cette tribune, qui vise à juger les attitudes d’un artiste dans le climat d’aujourd’hui, est surtout bien de notre époque", résume-t-il.
@skullpull 101 lol there is no such thing as fascist futurism there was futurism in fascist Italy, which the fascists discouraged and banned. the nazis burned down the bauhaus
If you are reading this, may you attract everything you’ve been patiently waiting for & be passionate to pursue it whole-heartedly. It will naturally flow into your life when you are ready to receive it. Hope our channel helps you on your journey 🙏
One of the most overrated architects. He though architecture like a toaster industry, only for utility, not understanding the importance of beauty, sculpture, art, ornament, and cultural connection. Most of his buildings are absolutely awful, many looks like jails. His approach to the classicism, ornament and Rome is absolutely lunatic, anyone with common sense knows that rome is everything contrary to “the city of horrors”. I think Le Corbusier is one of the architects with less taste, aesthetic sensitivity and comprehension of human spirit. And also had fascist thoughts. So no, he isn’t a genius or a revolutionary, he is a tragedy.
I agree totally, while the excessive ornament of classical architecture is near impossible in modern times, being so radically against what humans have defined as beautiful and awe inspiring is beyond me. Not to mention, his architecture inspired the horrors of many modern cities made for industry.
Did I hear the narrator say Le Corbu was one of 20th century's greatest architects? Have to disagree. His style was brutalist and inhuman, and not only had devastating social impact, but as we are now finding out in the 21st century, also had very detrimental environmental impact.
in olden times, a building was built by hundreds or thousands of talented artists, but nowadays, every architect wants 100% credit for their buildings.
Corbu was as bad an architect as he was a urban planner IMO, he is remembered for his ideas (or rather, the ideas that he popularized) and his powers of persuasion more than for his designs. I would love to see a video on Bucky Fuller, I think he was what Corbu only claimed to be. Great video!
I think this video is a bit unfair to him, it doesn't mention how he was one of the main pioneers of the architectural revolution that inspired the whole future of the architectural design and philosophy (how can you not talk about Villa Savoye?), and doesn't mention his amazing success with planning the city of Chandigarh.
Yeah so unfair he was such a great guy they didn't even mention he wanted to destroy the right bank of Paris with his Plan Voisin, destroy the old gothic cathedrals. They even forgot to mention he was such a virulent antisemite and nazi admirer. What a same.
I really disagree with this take on Le Corb as a planner. Firstly, you have to have a little perspective - what did much of his schemes (and those he inspired) replace, Victorian back to backs slums a lot of the time. Yes they might not hold up to modern standards, but they were a marked improvement in their replacement. Secondly, the video places the decline of modernist buildings squarely with their planners which is so untrue. Documentarian Jonathan Meades sums up this misguided opinion saying these structures initially "had yet to be gangrened by local authority mismanagement and neglect. You don't buy a car and never get it serviced. The lifts had yet to be pissed in. The stairwells had yet to become crime scenes. It had yet to be used as some sort of asylum. That was the horrible future which was by no means inevitable" The point is how a scheme is funded and run is really important. Finally, the planning decisions behind Le Corb at least had some objectives and ideals for the betterment of society. Think about what we have now. Neoliberal governance and Entrepreneurial planning bodies in cities that care only about their one fragmented project. Residential architecture is only considered for the wealthy, and all other development follows the status quo. Think cookie cutter houses some developer bought up in a greenfield, that all look the same. Even the architecture the video references that it "destroyed by modernism" - who was that architecture for, the upper and upper-middle classes. Again Le Corb had improving lives in mind, even if that was not always the case at the end. The criticisms of Le corb here are really superficial and dated, a little bit more research would have shown that this planning philosophy is much more complex!
Although I did appreciate the architecture part, and am a fan of this channel. I've just seen this take rehashed by so many youtubers already and it kinda grinds me gears ;-)
Are there any works by Le Corbusier that you admire? Any you hate? Let us know in the comments below and be sure to subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications to ensure you don't miss our next film and become a channel member here: ua-cam.com/channels/7IcJI8PUf5Z3zKxnZvTBog.htmljoin
He designed Chandigarh one of the most well planned cities in India and it’s truly beautiful and EXTREMELY different from the other unplanned cities of India.
He wasn't the only creator though. He took over earlier plans and was part of a team of 3 architects. That most likely saved Chandigarh from his worst ideas
He was a disastrous architect. I have been to Chandigarh decent people, clean city and you have so many trees & parks but there is too much traffic like in rest of Indian cities. No offense but all plans are doomed to fail considering the size of population in india.
AMULYA MISHRA I think beauty depends on one’s perspective. For me, someone who’s lived there for years, it is an extremely beautiful city because of how clean, green and peaceful it feels and looks. And I honestly cannot say that for most Indian cities so even comparatively it is beautiful yes!
Nonsense. His ideas didn't ruin anything. His many copy cats from the 60s and 70s urban disaster progarms who barely understood him and made cheap concrete blocks without any of his actual ideas ruined cities. He is often blamed for things he didn't do. The man gave us flat practical roofs with roof gardens, restourants swimming pools, you name it. Also spacious modular well lit apartments which everybody wanted. Also don't ignore that people love living in his buildings. Rents are high and always fool. His building are SUCCESFULL and thats a FACT.
He had zero respect for historical architecture or historical layouts of cities but he was a master form-maker and incredible talent. His legacy was a mixed bag which I appreciate that this video captures. He was also a misogynist but so were many men of that time. I love many of his projects: Church of Saint-Pierre, Notre Dame du Ronchamp, Villa Savoye, Pavillon Le Corbusier, Villa Roche, and Convent of La Tourette because they all expressed original ideas about form.
Don't think he was a great architect. But I know he wanted to destroy the right bank of Paris with his terrible "Plan Voisin", he recommended the demolition of all the old gothic cathedrals in Europe because in his opinion they were ugly and barbaric. Le Corbusier invented the urban zoning that led to cities in the US made for cars and not for people, he said "each district its purpose", a district for business, another for shopping, and huge districts for living .. All of this connected together with plenty of high ways. The perfect urban planning if you like traffic and pollution. They also forgot to mention in this video that he was a virulent antisemite and nazi admirer.
Read "Toward a new architecture" and stop speaking bullshit about Le Corbusier. Plan Voisin was made only to bait "conservative" architects. It was also made shortly after WWI, so what they call "historical section of Paris" was not really historical in those years. Plan Voisin was also made to present the idea that you can make dense populated area of city, with green areas and sun for everyone and without need to make quadrature city blocks. It wpuld benefit everyone who live there, because everyone in this area would have access to sun light (in XIX century building it is not common to use sunlight) and to have beautiful green view from window, because, if you look at sketches of Voisin, there are parks and green fields beetween buildings.
to love his architecture ... one has to possess concept mastery and formal education . he is the 'father' of modern architecture .. a well deserved title .
It seems like we were born in the midst of an argument that spans centuries... and we are trying to gather the pieces to make sense of this whole modernism mess (now postmodernism). The desire to get rid of the past and ignite a new more beautiful prosperous future seems to have made us lonelier and narcissistic.
I think as modern movement reached its zenith in 40s,50s it was the time modernist were able to spot their mistakes and turned many of their once obsolete naive looking designs into some of the most beautiful architecture in terms of look and practicality,mid century modern however it was in reality,for me it's far superior than most of post modern buildings directed and built by Venturi and his so called his followers
I think two very different things are being conflated in the video: his architecture and the use it was put to. No place housing poverty and dirt looks beautiful - to their Paris example, I'll oppose downtown Naples: "classical" buildings and one of the ugliest urban landscapes I've seen in my life. I live in a "modern" city, Le Corbusier style, and it's green, spacious and organized. I would never trade it for most of the "old" cities I've been to. Which is fine, because beauty is not universal and there should be options for everyone - some people might even find the royal carriage aesthetically pleasing!
Alot of architects consider him to have brought sheer destruction to the fabric of cities and culture. He divided people, made them drive cars forever between places, demolished culturally significant and historic buildings, and took away gathering places for people to socialize. Please don't praise Corbu, he did far more harm than good to the culture of the world.
He and his help an Indian Engineer P L Verma created the city of Chandigarh, India and it still stands at the epitome of all the major cities in the country.
How can you not talk about Chandigarh and label him disastrous? The city has been a great example of urban design. Growing up and living here as an architect I know why it works! Not that it is perfect but he went into excruciating detail to try and safeguard the future of the city as he knew politicians could mess it up. The kind of rules he made talk volume of his analysis of psychological understanding. He did make mistakes but he was still far ahead of his time in Urban design too!
While I admire the intentions of his vision, I despise what he done to architecture as a whole, he started what ended in functionalists cities with no soul, buildings made for industry and not for humanity.
It seems to me that he was using this functionality argument to rationalize and impose his perception of beauty, there is nothing less functional in the palace of versailles compared to the rotting and mossy cements of brutalist horror stories which are long abandoned in London.
Lovely episode. Le Corb wasn't perfect, but he was the spark who ignited the modernist revolution. Many of his better ideas continue to influence architecture and city planning today and we have him to thank for improving our quality of life. I was surprised you didn't mention his famous quote, that houses are "machines for living in". What a brilliant mind.
How can a brilliant mind produce so much ugliness? I don't see any other use of his hideous architecture than to build prisions, i. e., ugly torture places, places where to be miserable.
@@diegocolomes beauty is subjective, with many exceptions of course. But I find his villa Savoya to be goodlooking ( I know it was a failure practically though ).
The unfortunate result of an architect's grand ideas eclipsing the people he is building for. Would love an episode on Tadao Ando, if you haven't already covered him!
Honestly, it's the kind of urban design Satan would come up with. I detest the vision and result of Le Corbusier & co. - I could elaborate on all that is wrong with the architecture that spawned from those "modernists", but to keep it very, VERY short: *it kills the human spirit.*
As an aspiring architect who has read Towards an Architecture and studied a good chunk of his work, I can tell you that his ideas on space, light and architectural form moved the entire profession of architecture into the 20th century. His ideas about city planning seem horrific to many of you. But you must understand why he proposed those ideas. The European city in the early 1900s was filled with soot filled air, dark, smelly(due to horse manure) and therefore breeding grounds for disease. While he was posing the problem of the city for himself he selected those issues as top priority to be solved. Hence his solution for tall skyscrapers spread apart surrounded by trees and parks. As for his villas, the video didn't give them justice but they too, like his most popular book, were and still are architectural masterpieces that architects today can still pull ideas from. The way they arrange space, and dealt with issues of composition like paintings do. Le corbusier after all was also a painter who invented his own art style derived from his criticism of cubism. Which he called purism. Also to discuss the reinforced concrete, Le corb was considered a master with reinforced concrete. he was one of the first to advocate for its use. He held that belief because one of his life long goals was to solve the issue of affordable housing that would be comfortable for the masses. Reinforced concrete was and still is the cheapest and most durable way to build. That allowed him to produce buildings for significantly less cost than most other buildings at the time.
I think this video is too one-sided and only shows negative aspects. Le Corbusier also had revolutionary ideas that shaped architecture positively in the long term, like using pillars instead of load-bearing walls to make large window façades possible. Also, his mindset of functionality regarding buildings changed when he was older.
Le corbuiser was cheif designer of 'Chandigarh' also known as' City beautiful 'where I am living . We also Le corbuiser centre located in sector-19 Madhya marga. I see it everyday in my way to college. Most of foreigners think that slums of Mumbai repersent whole India but that's not true. Trust me visit only one time Chandigarh your thinking towards India will be changed.
I think this beautiful clip might put some oversimplified cliches of the reality in the viewer's mind... Point #1: Le corbusier was constantly changing his ideas about the architecture and the city. This video has mostly emphasised on his early theories, I guess. Point #2: In his early modern career, Corbusier has decreased the needs and wishes of Human to the mechanical and physiological ones, not only in urban scale, but also in the house. Point #3: What Corbusier has fashioned and designed is not the cause, but an artistic result of the ever changing atmosphere of his era.
I love his furniture design, but he has no grasp of human nature. This is shown in his terrible, autocratic architectural design, ridden of foresight completely. An egomaniac, neo-Marxist, Vichy collaborator Nazi-sympathiser who hated beauty. Although, I like his furniture design, I dislike him as a person, as a planner and as an architect!
He's widely disliked in France. Awful buildings and a confirmed fascist. He viewed people as production material who just needed to sleep, take a shower in a "cité dortoir" (literally dormitory suburbs) and go back to work. He's seen by many as responsible for the social problems that France is dealing with today in the suburbs / cité.
What a time to be alive! To see School of Life uploading again about philosophy and architecture💜
"Well, now that he's (Le Corbusier) finished one building, he'll go write four books about it."
- Frank Lloyd Wright
I sure hope a Frank Lloyd Wright video is in the works.
Lmao
Both Frank and Corbu were terrible assholes. They're better ignored.
@@PeteofHartainia how come? They were some of the greatest architects this world has seen
ahahahahha
He had some interesting points, but I believe they are an example of a philosophical mind that lost it's sense of balance and became obsessed. Functionality and Efficiency are all well and good, but we shouldn't stop trying to make the world beautiful. Aesthetics and Culture are never irrelevant.
If you want a future, then forget about beauty.
@@DacLMK Life would be wretched without beauty. Even nature has beauty. We would not live, we would simply exist.
@@LordProteus That's the whole point. We simply exist, we don't live. Beauty is a human concept that tries yo find meaning in objects that are natural, or manmade.
The dichotomy that "form follows function" implies can be resolved by realising that form is the function of art. Buildings are both art and structures we need. So the beauty needs to be balanced with all the other requirements. Things are ugly because they remind us of our messed op priorities. After watching this video I think the guy the guy didn't have completely the wrong idea. It's just that in a society that prioritises money over our wellbeing, it's bound to happen that people will not put the idea into practice the right way. Creating ugly buildings because we don't see beauty as relevant. If we change our ideas about what should really be at the centre of our lives, everything we produce will follow.
Admittedly. Not sure if he himself understood that. And clearly the consequences of his ideas weren't always positive.
@@DacLMK says who? U? Who tf r u lmao
I worked in an office building in Japan that was built in 1958 by a Japanese architect inspired by Lecourbusier. It was the most dreadful work place I could have possibly imagined. The dense, uninviting concrete was impossible to remodel or decorate, it had been designed in an age before computers so the layout made no sense. It was drafty, ugly and foreboding. One of the worst buildings I have had the displeasure of being in.
were is be located
He wanted modern efficiency and ended up with unsustainable architecture that doesn't meet modern needs...
Agree.
Do you mind sharing the location of the building? I'm curious to see it xD
Regardless, living in the United States reminds me just how boring cities can be with no good architecture. I'm often looking for trips to Mexico or Europe just to get the glamour of the baroque, gothic, art deco or beaux arts etc. Here in the states, utility and enterprise win over beauty and the arts.
Just look at what they did to Penn Station in New York.
‘a japanese architect inspired by’, it’s not made and conceived by le corbusier, stop it this is nonsense, you’re nonsense
"You can't find a person who are better to destroy the urban space, than a modernist" - Jan Gehl, one of the most influential urban theorist and designers.
Modern architects was so caught up in the newest technology and mashines, that they forgot about the human factor to design.
Exactly!
Indeed, but I don't completely agree. When I look at Kahn's architecture in my home-country, I feel deeply connected with my culture, and traditional roots of the culture, symbolically represented by the form, materials and design of the Kahn-architecture.
To touch on the human part, I believe symmetry in Kahn's architecture isn't completely symmetrical, just like the human body, the feeling it evokes, is almost unexplainable because if a structure can make you feel roots and :being at home' and connected to your culture, then I think it's a strong point to consider here....
I grew up in Chandigarh and lived there for over two decades and it's by far one of the most well-designed and beautiful places on earth!
It is beautiful compared to other Indian cities. But in terms of architecture it's just dull
"Building taller buildings will solve overcrowding" he says, as if the Humans who live in those buildings will never leave the building... He actually didn't know what he was talking about in a lot of cases.
His philosophy was so naive. He really had no idea just how important beauty is.
Also he is the reminder of the moves of XIX and early XX century, the era of scientific positivism.
brutalism is beautiful
Or he had a different sense of beauty than most. I for one find it beautiful, but I understand that many others don’t.
But I think you need to understand and appreciate the importance of his philosophy. The push for “modern” architecture and the “less is more” approach was a springboard to what we create now and how we want to “break the box” that I believe Le Corbusier created. Just something to think about
Yup, he was like a drunk crackpot in a small town bar spewing ludicrous idealist theories as if he’s the smartest man on the planet.
Livin in city made by him.. Chandigarh,India. Because of the vision he had. We dont have much traffic or pollution problem.
Are you sure there is no traffic problem in Chandigarh? I was born and live in Chandigarh and the traffic just drives me nuts. Due to a very high number of cars per capita, the city roads are choked with traffic all the time. The only good thing is that the driving sense of the people of the city is much better than the people of other cities in India.
@@harshitagrahari7281 stop spamming dude
@@bhaaratsharma6023 compared to other indian cities. Ofcourse you cannot compare it to western world, it will be just plain unfair with the population we have, there will be traffic everywhere but atleast during non peak hours, roads are quit empty. Ofcourse, during office hours whole india is stuck in traffic but atleast you have tree's shade to stand in😁
r/whoosh
@admiraliggz the last thing we want is an ill-informed westerner like you telling us about slaves.
As an architect it may be "sacrilege" to say this, but I'm very much not a fan of almost all of Corbu's work. Even beyond the 'towers in the park' urban planning mistake, I find his buildings lack any sense of refinement or delight. I love clean spare buildings -- Tadao Ando is one of my favs -- but they need a solid grasp of space and light to function, which most of Corbu's buildings seem to lack. Ronchamp is the only work of his that I'm enamored with (maybe La Tourette as well) and it's because there is a sense of space, refinement, and delight there.
I live in a city shaped by his vision. “Maison Domino”, Athens. A concrete Jungle. Awful.
Skopje, post 1963 earthquake, is built in his vision, and I've gotta say I like it. But our previous government decided to "antiquities" our city (in the process angering our neighbors) and ruined the city forever.
Sadly, his most beautiful contributions that your video cited - the furniture and domestic interiors - were in fact designed by his female peers, Charlotte Perriand and Eileen Gray. The women were almost forgotten by the male-centric architectural history narrative until rediscovery in recent years.
Le Corbusier was a sexist. Not thinking that women could create beautiful design.
And roundly abused by Le Corbusier
Maybe a Le Corbusier-machine-central planning-dystopic centric and fanatic point of view in architecture...
Women shouldn't be allowed to talk
@@seaslug7421 Ironic, considering what he only ever created was flaming dogshit.
The only time i want Saturday school is if it's the school of life
I had the "chance" to grew up in a private house designed by Le Corbusier (rue des Arts, Boulogne Billancourt, France).
I was actually quite an awful design. The first floor was very dark with small large windows place at 1m80 height. Stairs was large and in concrete at the center of the building.
He made a distopian vision come true and, with the help of the politician of his time, he is responsible of many of the consequences we have in the French banlieu. Parking poors far away from the center of the city, in places designed for robots to be stored.
His work is in-human, ugly, non-functional, without emotions. Storage for robots.
"One of the world's greatest architects but also one of the world's most disastrous urban designers"
The man created the most soul crushing designs in existence. I would dread having to see, live or work in any of his buildings.
the importance of his buildings are the direction architecture took because of them. while some of his grander ideas may not have pinned out as hoped, the principles are being used todays to generate really functional and beautiful structures
@@matthewluck9077 His philosophy was full of sophistry, though. He regularly says "we must" do this or that without explaining how to do so or why. He did not design homes, offices or cities, but, he admitted himself, machines for living, working, and being in. The thing is, humans are not machines, and thus do not do well in this construct. He didn't design for people. Rather, he expected people to conform to his design. His ideal efficiency was not human efficiency, but machine efficiency. An automated loom doesn't care what color the wallpaper is or even whether there is any. It doesn't care about privacy or comfort or edification. A human weaver does. He did not recognize this. His view was ultimately totalitarian. He wanted to tear down what was established and build his new "utopia," expecting all who live in his ideal cities to conform to his will. Rather than a visionary, he was a man of his time.
Edited to fix a comma splice and to remove an unnecessary reference to Hitler and Stalin.
You may never have seen his chapel at Ronchamp. He was capable of great poetry .
@@rbell3505 I doubt I've ever seen such a hideous chapel (or any religious building), it's claustrophobic, little slabs of light that get dominated by concrete, all structured to create the illusion of chaos, while still maintaining a rigid structure, it's soul crushing.
Christopher Caryotakis totally! i agree with what you’re saying. but you cannot argue against his importance in influencing today’s architecture, be it good or bad. our modern skyscrapers might not be quite what they are today without his free façade design principle. open floor plans may not be as widespread as they are today without his free plan concept. he radically standardized roof gardens, such a seemingly novel concept these days, in his designs. what would architecture be today without his influence? maybe better, maybe worse, but admittedly different
I think his approach was sound, but as you said he didn't fully recognize the needs of human beings. It's all well and good to say you want to design a building or a neighbourhood purely around the practical needs of humans, but in order to do that properly you need to make sure you understand human needs and how to meet them. I've been inside many brutalist buildings that are very attractive and comfortable, and many that aren't. The difference, as far as I can tell, is the level of skill and respect for the human possessed by the people who built them.
Building tall buildings surrounded by huge patches of grass that lead only to car parks yields desoloate terrifying areas. Cities are only safe and fun when lots of people are walking about all the time, but he only wanted people to walk to their cars. This yields hellscapes.
@@BradyDale Exactly, I feel like if he had recognized the more intangible needs of people his designs would have been a lot more successful. Social spaces, services, culture, etc. are all necessary for a so-called "machine for living" to properly fill its intended purpose.
@@Torus2112 I guess I just don't get what you mean by "his approach" then. That was his whole thing. Like... do you mean his aesthetic? His aesthetic isn't what drove his urban planning vision tho.
@@BradyDale I mean that in theory taking a rational approach to the design of living spaces is sensical, all you have to do is find out what a human needs to live comfortably and sort of engineer the space around those needs rather that be guided by a more artistic type of vision as had been traditionally done. Therefore in my opinion the fact that people don't seem to like Le Corbusier's designs is the result of his own failure to engineer the spaces properly.
@@BradyDale If you want to see a successful example of his philosophy, then look to the city of Hong Kong. If you want a successful example of tradition meets simplicity, then look to the country of Japan, where simplicity is a part of their ideals.
Use of "the architect" movie clips was brilliant idea. I love that movie. It took my entire 7years of architecture school to come to this conclusion about him. This is a must watch for archi students.
Really glad you’ve returned back to making videos on art and architecture and add to your range of videos in this category! Any more on philosophy and sociology also always a joy to listen to! Thank you!
So this is the guy that made most cities look souless and grey?
He has done so much harm to the west with his architecture.
A lot of the architects that schools teach us to celebrate have done a lot of harmful things
Not only the west, there are buildings everywhere
only in urban planning, all of his houses and villas are beautiful
Blackg11 Well I have to agree with that. They indeed are beautiful. But the buildings...
@@linky1995 Only buildings he built before 1920, after that he went complete bonkers. Just look at some of his typical later stuff, like Sainte Marie de La Tourette. This rotting concrete abomination is Unesco World Heritage. Can you believe that?
So, this is the devil responsible for the crime against art, the monstrosity we see everywhere in ex-Communist countries? There should be an awful punishment for such a crime, too.
It's ironic that this style is most often associated with former Eastern Bloc countries since he was a Fascist sympathizer.
By far, the architect I hate the most! His houses are just lifeless white boxes. Most of his clients had a lot of problems with their houses at the beginning until a proper architect came by to fix all of the problems this idiot could not figure out. Problems with water entering the house in rainy days due to bad design, too much heat inside the house during the summer due to his countless windows on the south side of the houses etc.. Even "his" famous chaise longue was the design of his wife/girlfriend at the time, but guess who took the credit for it. You should do a video on Mies Van Der Rohe or Walter Gropius instead
Please a Video on both!
I've never quite understood the
worship people and architects and intellectuals profess to this guy. To me he is like a criminal and sociopath.
Functionality is important, but humans also need beauty. We need things that inspire us to strive to be greater.
Thus the importance of sculptures. The buildings themselves dont need to be everything.
I’m reading your book The Architecture of Happiness right now for the second time and just got to the section where you talked about corbusier, and then this pops up in my recommended!!
I was very worried that you were going to say something good about his approach to urban design. Much relieved. He's one of the worst things to happen to the world.
You should do one of these with Frank Lloyd Wright!
Antoni gaudi next
While I truly do understand what Corbusier and the Bauhaus were going for, it is cold and has never felt like 'humans' should inhabit their buildings. FL Wright also revolted against what he saw as the 'excesses' of the Victorians, but did it in a way that was beautiful - as did the Greene bros. and other Craftsman-style architects.
I agree with the above, yet I find wright a little soulless.
I'm glad someone mentioned Frank Lloyd Wright... his homes and buildings are amazing and also very modernist, and go for millions. Meanwhile, any ugly old building you see that's a square white block, rusting away with stains and getting set in with weeds is usually Bauhaus or Corbusier inspired, given up on a long time ago as being no longer practical or attractive.
And yet the excesses of victorian buildings make them the most admired architecture.
@@thetimelapseguy8 I agree; I love Victorian architecture. And if asked what I think the crowning achievement has been, it would be the great Gothic cathedrals. The thing about Wright or the Greene brothers is, they didn't sacrifice warmth and 'humanness' in their designs for function's sake, as I feel the Bauhaus and later, Brutalism, did.
@@curiousworld7912 Gothic architecture is the -instagram filter- of buildings.... and also, who cares about your "feelings"?
His ideas seem to me like a postmodern, technocratic dystopia, but I understand where this comes from. The modern, progressive zeitgeist despises classical beauty, because it is a relict from the past, a past that is provocative to modernism. I can understand that, but in a sense of beauty I am conservative. I can't stand the view of gigantic housing batterys destroying the landscape of our ancient citys, nor the monstrousitys we call modern art, that fill parcs and plazas. Does anyone find this beautiful? Please explain it to me, for me it looks shallow and soulless.
Just felt like commiserating, I always wondered why the buildings where I lived looked like a postmodern art museum vomited everywhere. Le Corbusier 's architecture has no soul in it.
"What modern man wants is a Monk's Cell." God, why did he get so popular?
modern art and architecture is so diverse you don't pull it in one category then hate it all , some of it is good/beautiful and some of it is not and so is classical art and architecture , we're human beings in constant lookout for new things and ideas we can't just be stuck in the past can we ?
It’s definitely not for everyone. I totally agree with his stance on overly ornate decoration, but his solutions, at least on a large scale, tend not to be very inviting- cool to look at once, but depressing to spend an extended period of time in
@Matt M I totally agree.
@@anesmerazi603 I agree I shouldn't put it all in one category, I really appreciate 20th century expressionism for example, but this obscure things we usually see in "modern art museums" are unbearable in my eyes. Its the trend that bothers me, the trend in the direction of obscurism, efficiency over aesthetic. Not all modern art/architecture deserve this judgement, but most do, within their nature of rebellious anti-classizism/postmodernism.
I sure hope this Chanel hace FLW’s video on the works, I absolutely love the style of these videos and I’m at awe of how such quality content can be free!
Now I know who to blame for the type of architecture I truly despise. Thank you for profiling this influential artist who made indelible changes to our world.
I'm cringing just from what this guy's thought plan was.
Le Courbousier was a Vichy collaborator and fascist. "Machine For Living In" is an anti-humanist ethos for architects and mankind has suffered greatly due to its prevalence.
Le point de vue plus nuancé de Michel Guerrin
Michel Guerrin, rédacteur en chef au Monde, critique cette tribune qui "ne prend pas en compte la complexité de l’entre-deux-guerres où l’esthétique moderne - pureté, fonctionnalité, rationalisme - traverse les idéologies et les régimes."
Dans une chronique parue vendredi dans Le Monde, il rappelle que "Le Corbusier a voulu travailler pour Philippe Pétain et Benito Mussolini. Oui, mais aussi pour Léon Blum, en 1936. Il écrit des mots louangeurs sur Adolf Hitler, mais aussi d’autres de mépris sur l’Allemagne nazie. Ajoutons qu’il était proche de résistants et de militants communistes, et qu’à sa mort, en 1965, André Malraux prononce son éloge funèbre. Bref rien à voir avec Louis-Ferdinand Céline."
"Cette tribune, qui vise à juger les attitudes d’un artiste dans le climat d’aujourd’hui, est surtout bien de notre époque", résume-t-il.
@skullpull 101 lol there is no such thing as fascist futurism
there was futurism in fascist Italy, which the fascists discouraged and banned. the nazis burned down the bauhaus
he was right for his time where people were poor and efficient low cost for in need but he went too far
Loving this! wouldn't mind more videos on architecture
If you are reading this, may you attract everything you’ve been patiently waiting for & be passionate to pursue it whole-heartedly. It will naturally flow into your life when you are ready to receive it. Hope our channel helps you on your journey 🙏
One of the most overrated architects. He though architecture like a toaster industry, only for utility, not understanding the importance of beauty, sculpture, art, ornament, and cultural connection. Most of his buildings are absolutely awful, many looks like jails. His approach to the classicism, ornament and Rome is absolutely lunatic, anyone with common sense knows that rome is everything contrary to “the city of horrors”. I think Le Corbusier is one of the architects with less taste, aesthetic sensitivity and comprehension of human spirit. And also had fascist thoughts. So no, he isn’t a genius or a revolutionary, he is a tragedy.
I agree totally, while the excessive ornament of classical architecture is near impossible in modern times, being so radically against what humans have defined as beautiful and awe inspiring is beyond me. Not to mention, his architecture inspired the horrors of many modern cities made for industry.
Did I hear the narrator say Le Corbu was one of 20th century's greatest architects? Have to disagree. His style was brutalist and inhuman, and not only had devastating social impact, but as we are now finding out in the 21st century, also had very detrimental environmental impact.
...let us not be turned bigots by history gentleman and gentlemwoman and gentleshlee.
in olden times, a building was built by hundreds or thousands of talented artists, but nowadays, every architect wants 100% credit for their buildings.
Not a single interior plant...Guess they served no function...
Le Corbusier was a bad architect, a terrible urban planer and a criminal to culture.
YESSS! The world needs more SoL architecture videos, keep them coming please!
Corbu was as bad an architect as he was a urban planner IMO, he is remembered for his ideas (or rather, the ideas that he popularized) and his powers of persuasion more than for his designs.
I would love to see a video on Bucky Fuller, I think he was what Corbu only claimed to be.
Great video!
Le Corbusier would love the communist China, with high density high rise apartments but without mess.
this is the guy that ruined our cities?
His plans for Paris were morally evil. This man hated beauty and his designs are soul crushing.
The worst that ever happened to architecture
?
And city planning
I think this video is a bit unfair to him, it doesn't mention how he was one of the main pioneers of the architectural revolution that inspired the whole future of the architectural design and philosophy (how can you not talk about Villa Savoye?), and doesn't mention his amazing success with planning the city of Chandigarh.
I agree, no mention of the Villa Savoye either, his most famous and influential building that inspired a revolution in architecture.
@@Jonjooooo Yep, Villa Savoye should have been another example of bad architecture.
Fine then also mention Brasilia
Yeah so unfair he was such a great guy they didn't even mention he wanted to destroy the right bank of Paris with his Plan Voisin, destroy the old gothic cathedrals. They even forgot to mention he was such a virulent antisemite and nazi admirer.
What a same.
I really disagree with this take on Le Corb as a planner. Firstly, you have to have a little perspective - what did much of his schemes (and those he inspired) replace, Victorian back to backs slums a lot of the time. Yes they might not hold up to modern standards, but they were a marked improvement in their replacement. Secondly, the video places the decline of modernist buildings squarely with their planners which is so untrue. Documentarian Jonathan Meades sums up this misguided opinion saying these structures initially "had yet to be gangrened by local authority mismanagement and neglect. You don't buy a car and never get it serviced. The lifts had yet to be pissed in. The stairwells had yet to become crime scenes. It had yet to be used as some sort of asylum. That was the horrible future which was by no means inevitable" The point is how a scheme is funded and run is really important. Finally, the planning decisions behind Le Corb at least had some objectives and ideals for the betterment of society. Think about what we have now. Neoliberal governance and Entrepreneurial planning bodies in cities that care only about their one fragmented project. Residential architecture is only considered for the wealthy, and all other development follows the status quo. Think cookie cutter houses some developer bought up in a greenfield, that all look the same. Even the architecture the video references that it "destroyed by modernism" - who was that architecture for, the upper and upper-middle classes. Again Le Corb had improving lives in mind, even if that was not always the case at the end. The criticisms of Le corb here are really superficial and dated, a little bit more research would have shown that this planning philosophy is much more complex!
Although I did appreciate the architecture part, and am a fan of this channel. I've just seen this take rehashed by so many youtubers already and it kinda grinds me gears ;-)
It was inevitable because it happened genius
@@parmenides2576yes everything that ever happened was inevitable. I stand corrected.
Preface: "we cant afford nice buildings anymore"
Content: "no extravegances, no conspicuous expense" "its great"
5:43 plot twist
Are there any works by Le Corbusier that you admire? Any you hate? Let us know in the comments below and be sure to subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications to ensure you don't miss our next film and become a channel member here: ua-cam.com/channels/7IcJI8PUf5Z3zKxnZvTBog.htmljoin
The School of Life 😊 very informative video... Thanks 🌸🙏
He designed Chandigarh one of the most well planned cities in India and it’s truly beautiful and EXTREMELY different from the other unplanned cities of India.
Yes, My beautiful city Chandigarh... 💕
He wasn't the only creator though. He took over earlier plans and was part of a team of 3 architects. That most likely saved Chandigarh from his worst ideas
It's beautiful only *comparatively*
Though, he planned it to stand against most urban problems, however, a bit of classical beauty won't do any harm.
He was a disastrous architect.
I have been to Chandigarh decent people, clean city and you have so many trees & parks but there is too much traffic like in rest of Indian cities.
No offense but all plans are doomed to fail considering the size of population in india.
AMULYA MISHRA I think beauty depends on one’s perspective. For me, someone who’s lived there for years, it is an extremely beautiful city because of how clean, green and peaceful it feels and looks. And I honestly cannot say that for most Indian cities so even comparatively it is beautiful yes!
Nonsense. His ideas didn't ruin anything. His many copy cats from the 60s and 70s urban disaster progarms who barely understood him and made cheap concrete blocks without any of his actual ideas ruined cities. He is often blamed for things he didn't do.
The man gave us flat practical roofs with roof gardens, restourants swimming pools, you name it. Also spacious modular well lit apartments which everybody wanted.
Also don't ignore that people love living in his buildings. Rents are high and always fool. His building are SUCCESFULL and thats a FACT.
You should make one on Tadao Ando!
He had zero respect for historical architecture or historical layouts of cities but he was a master form-maker and incredible talent. His legacy was a mixed bag which I appreciate that this video captures. He was also a misogynist but so were many men of that time. I love many of his projects: Church of Saint-Pierre, Notre Dame du Ronchamp, Villa Savoye, Pavillon Le Corbusier, Villa Roche, and Convent of La Tourette because they all expressed original ideas about form.
Don't think he was a great architect.
But I know he wanted to destroy the right bank of Paris with his terrible "Plan Voisin", he recommended the demolition of all the old gothic cathedrals in Europe because in his opinion they were ugly and barbaric. Le Corbusier invented the urban zoning that led to cities in the US made for cars and not for people, he said "each district its purpose", a district for business, another for shopping, and huge districts for living .. All of this connected together with plenty of high ways. The perfect urban planning if you like traffic and pollution.
They also forgot to mention in this video that he was a virulent antisemite and nazi admirer.
Read "Toward a new architecture" and stop speaking bullshit about Le Corbusier. Plan Voisin was made only to bait "conservative" architects. It was also made shortly after WWI, so what they call "historical section of Paris" was not really historical in those years.
Plan Voisin was also made to present the idea that you can make dense populated area of city, with green areas and sun for everyone and without need to make quadrature city blocks. It wpuld benefit everyone who live there, because everyone in this area would have access to sun light (in XIX century building it is not common to use sunlight) and to have beautiful green view from window, because, if you look at sketches of Voisin, there are parks and green fields beetween buildings.
"He forgot..." implies that he ever knew, understood, or cared
to love his architecture ... one has to possess concept mastery and formal education . he is the 'father' of modern architecture .. a well deserved title .
Sinister, vandal.
I think this man destroyed the architecture beauty
I believe that the man gave us Walmart, Target,and Costco.
Now I know who to blame for those monstrosities I see all over the place. Modern architecture is ugly.
It seems like we were born in the midst of an argument that spans centuries... and we are trying to gather the pieces to make sense of this whole modernism mess (now postmodernism). The desire to get rid of the past and ignite a new more beautiful prosperous future seems to have made us lonelier and narcissistic.
I think as modern movement reached its zenith in 40s,50s it was the time modernist were able to spot their mistakes and turned many of their once obsolete naive looking designs into some of the most beautiful architecture in terms of look and practicality,mid century modern however it was in reality,for me it's far superior than most of post modern buildings directed and built by Venturi and his so called his followers
I think two very different things are being conflated in the video: his architecture and the use it was put to. No place housing poverty and dirt looks beautiful - to their Paris example, I'll oppose downtown Naples: "classical" buildings and one of the ugliest urban landscapes I've seen in my life. I live in a "modern" city, Le Corbusier style, and it's green, spacious and organized. I would never trade it for most of the "old" cities I've been to. Which is fine, because beauty is not universal and there should be options for everyone - some people might even find the royal carriage aesthetically pleasing!
Alot of architects consider him to have brought sheer destruction to the fabric of cities and culture. He divided people, made them drive cars forever between places, demolished culturally significant and historic buildings, and took away gathering places for people to socialize. Please don't praise Corbu, he did far more harm than good to the culture of the world.
Nooooooo wayyyyyy. I was just searching him and now a school or life video reminder ❤️
He and his help an Indian Engineer P L Verma created the city of Chandigarh, India and it still stands at the epitome of all the major cities in the country.
How can you not talk about Chandigarh and label him disastrous? The city has been a great example of urban design. Growing up and living here as an architect I know why it works! Not that it is perfect but he went into excruciating detail to try and safeguard the future of the city as he knew politicians could mess it up. The kind of rules he made talk volume of his analysis of psychological understanding. He did make mistakes but he was still far ahead of his time in Urban design too!
While I admire the intentions of his vision, I despise what he done to architecture as a whole, he started what ended in functionalists cities with no soul, buildings made for industry and not for humanity.
It seems to me that he was using this functionality argument to rationalize and impose his perception of beauty, there is nothing less functional in the palace of versailles compared to the rotting and mossy cements of brutalist horror stories which are long abandoned in London.
Lovely episode. Le Corb wasn't perfect, but he was the spark who ignited the modernist revolution. Many of his better ideas continue to influence architecture and city planning today and we have him to thank for improving our quality of life. I was surprised you didn't mention his famous quote, that houses are "machines for living in". What a brilliant mind.
I like the one about poorer city dwellers being a “black clot of misery, of failure, of human garbage”
He was a despicable creature.
How can a brilliant mind produce so much ugliness? I don't see any other use of his hideous architecture than to build prisions, i. e., ugly torture places, places where to be miserable.
@@diegocolomes beauty is subjective, with many exceptions of course. But I find his villa Savoya to be goodlooking ( I know it was a failure practically though ).
If Le Corbusier has one million haters, im one of them
If Le Corbusier has 1 hater, im the one hater
If Le Corbusier has 0 haters, then im dead
Chandigarh folks where are you at ?
4:30 "The City of Tomorrow and Its Planning" is actually from 1929, not 1925 or 1995.
He sounds like such a dreary man 🙄
Modern = remove character
really glad you brought back the culture videos! Super interesting content! 🙂
Yes i like this content too
He is basically so blinded by simple shapes that he can No longer appriciate history and traditions
The unfortunate result of an architect's grand ideas eclipsing the people he is building for. Would love an episode on Tadao Ando, if you haven't already covered him!
Because of le corbusier millions of people have ugly homes. But thanks to le corbusier, millions of people have homes
Honestly, it's the kind of urban design Satan would come up with.
I detest the vision and result of Le Corbusier & co. - I could elaborate on all that is wrong with the architecture that spawned from those "modernists", but to keep it very, VERY short:
*it kills the human spirit.*
As if he was designing for robots not humans with emotions
After visiting Chandigarh I don't think he was a disastrous urban designer
More architecture
Contrary to his dislike of ornamentation his works of architecture are surprisingly abundant with decorative features.
As an aspiring architect who has read Towards an Architecture and studied a good chunk of his work, I can tell you that his ideas on space, light and architectural form moved the entire profession of architecture into the 20th century. His ideas about city planning seem horrific to many of you. But you must understand why he proposed those ideas. The European city in the early 1900s was filled with soot filled air, dark, smelly(due to horse manure) and therefore breeding grounds for disease. While he was posing the problem of the city for himself he selected those issues as top priority to be solved. Hence his solution for tall skyscrapers spread apart surrounded by trees and parks.
As for his villas, the video didn't give them justice but they too, like his most popular book, were and still are architectural masterpieces that architects today can still pull ideas from. The way they arrange space, and dealt with issues of composition like paintings do. Le corbusier after all was also a painter who invented his own art style derived from his criticism of cubism. Which he called purism.
Also to discuss the reinforced concrete, Le corb was considered a master with reinforced concrete. he was one of the first to advocate for its use. He held that belief because one of his life long goals was to solve the issue of affordable housing that would be comfortable for the masses. Reinforced concrete was and still is the cheapest and most durable way to build. That allowed him to produce buildings for significantly less cost than most other buildings at the time.
Those are the most depressing buildings I've ever seen.
I’d love to see a video about Mexican architect Luis Barragán.
hey! how are you? can I ask you guys to make lectures/videos on styles of architecture? classical, baroque, neo-classical etc? Please?
I think this video is too one-sided and only shows negative aspects. Le Corbusier also had revolutionary ideas that shaped architecture positively in the long term, like using pillars instead of load-bearing walls to make large window façades possible. Also, his mindset of functionality regarding buildings changed when he was older.
Le corbuiser was cheif designer of 'Chandigarh' also known as' City beautiful 'where I am living . We also Le corbuiser centre located in sector-19 Madhya marga. I see it everyday in my way to college. Most of foreigners think that slums of Mumbai repersent whole India but that's not true. Trust me visit only one time Chandigarh your thinking towards India will be changed.
5:33 wait wait wait...did that guy just casually tossed a burning piece of metal for the other guy to catch?!!
Le Corbusier, one of the worst architects in history of architecture.
it looks like a dessert, instead of walking I ran hopping to find some familiar sanctuary
I think this beautiful clip might put some oversimplified cliches of the reality in the viewer's mind...
Point #1: Le corbusier was constantly changing his ideas about the architecture and the city. This video has mostly emphasised on his early theories, I guess.
Point #2: In his early modern career, Corbusier has decreased the needs and wishes of Human to the mechanical and physiological ones, not only in urban scale, but also in the house.
Point #3: What Corbusier has fashioned and designed is not the cause, but an artistic result of the ever changing atmosphere of his era.
A pretty ugly "artistic result".
Glad you guys talked about how lazy of a urban panner he was, everyone always calls him the greatest architect but never remembers Plan Voisin, horrid
I love his furniture design, but he has no grasp of human nature. This is shown in his terrible, autocratic architectural design, ridden of foresight completely. An egomaniac, neo-Marxist, Vichy collaborator Nazi-sympathiser who hated beauty. Although, I like his furniture design, I dislike him as a person, as a planner and as an architect!
le corbusier is a great architect. his works is so much more significant than his words.
That man was a concrete addict
He's widely disliked in France. Awful buildings and a confirmed fascist. He viewed people as production material who just needed to sleep, take a shower in a "cité dortoir" (literally dormitory suburbs) and go back to work. He's seen by many as responsible for the social problems that France is dealing with today in the suburbs / cité.