Prince Charles Was Right: Modern Architecture is Still All Glass Stumps and Carbuncles
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligenc...
__________________________
Filmed at the Royal Geographical Society on 30th June 2008.
Roger Scruton absolutely nailing the opening position speech. Bravo
Cause that's as far as you watched
@@davidgjam7600 Triggered douche.
Nails in a coffin of myopic arrogance!
True, but I don’t know if it’s me not being a native speaker of English but I thought he talked very very fast given the complexity and detail of his speech
@@LeonElQueAmas May have been because he only had a limited time to give his argument
No one was saying let's bury our heads in the past, just go in a different direction. Modern architecture is boring, random and even often depressing.
Which is why past architecture is so appealing. What's so wrong with getting at least some inspiration from the past anyway?
Which is why past architecture is so appealing. Besides what's wrong with at least being inspired by the past?
@@AmazingStoryDewd it's modernist ideology and any institution that has a lot of support will have a cult. there is nothing wrong with getting inspiration of the past. I'm an architecture student and I agree with your comment.
The thing proponents of modern architecture always ignore is the fact traditional architecture is always in style. People seek out older homes with more character. It never looks out of place. It never looks outdated. Compare that with anything from the modernist movement. Brutalist buildings, 1960's international style, the glass boxes of the 1980's and 90's. It ages horrifically. So much so that nobody misses it when its torn down. They also ignore the fact that for many centuries buildings became only more ornate.
Even looking at nature itself, everything in nature is ornate and detailed. There's always a pattern, color, or texture to look at. Traditional architecture takes those patterns and combines them into recognizable organized shapes, the familiarity of a man-made structure with the beauty of nature.
Beloved how else can I show off to God without my neighbors? Indeed well said beloved. Remember you are worth more than anything nor everything that exists! For all things that exists and yet to come made just for thee and all my neighbors given from our father God. Resting upon 1st. Love God 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself.
It's all about profits now, no longer quality, beauty and style.. Which is why many modern buildings are so hideous looking. Row of boxy uniform houses with low ceilings, ridiculously narrow staircases, tiny rooms, thin walls, and no storage. And of course, plastic doors and windows and plastic clumpy handles. The wonder of it is that such houses are not even cheap to buy! With huge profit margins for developers, the siuation can only get worse.
Bravo!
Whether pre-industrial buildings are superior to modern buildings is irrelevant to the question of what kind of buildings we should build. Pre-industrial building methods would be unbelievably expensive to imitate today in comparison with industrialized methods. Industrialized methods and materials are hardly avoidable. The real questions for the vast majority of people in the modern world to the extent they're building any new buildings at all are questions of superficial style.
There will always be people of poor taste and it's imperative that we do not give them control of public spaces.
Government has a special way of putting the village idiot in charge of everything.
Oh I’ve seen clients who were once poor, then get rich quick, and their desire for grandiose designs >> monstrosity homes glommed on with Greco Roman wedding cake all over and I’ll proportioned chandeliers. This whole shoe horn rhetoric of neo-classical being lost as “a travesty “ is so tiresome and arrogant.
@@smallstudiodesign we need something simple like the old ones houses or something modern but decent to looking. Not these awful buildings that are ruining the world
@@smallstudiodesign Well I’m sure you don’t exactly give your clients too well designed classical buildings, as you hate it so much, but that’s their loss for hiring you, still I’m glad you’re working for private clients and not imposing your shitty «craft» on the rest of us
Did the cameraman fall asleep in the middle of the presentation and forget zooming out and back in?
Oh, I talked too early. It looks like the genius is doing it on purpose, zooming out only when he wants to and not showing the entire screen for every picture shown...
Absolutely- keep zoomed out- we don’t need to see the speaker, better to see the illustrations of their points
It was infuriating - hardly anything Alain showed on the screen was shown, and I feel he made the most compelling argument.
Not to show a slide was a crime. Camera drew me nuts.
Can we please stop this modernist nonsense and return to making real buildings with passion, soul and effort.
As long as our societies are so shallow that they worship kim kardashian the answer is NO
Bring Art Deco back - the *REAL* modernist architecture.
Oh, these architects do it with passion...a passion to piss off the general public, to depress us and sap our morale.
There's only one solution -- if you can't stop these arrogant *ssh*l*s from drawing insulting building plans, then we can prevent the construction workers from building the damned things. There are many ways of doing this which don't require violence.
Don't forget talent.
Too many architects like ugly because they get to use fancy algorithms and so forth making things "technical" and "clever".
But they're bloody ugly.
When we bring down the one world order globalists. Their goal is to destroy everything beautiful from our past and in its place build ugly cold geometric shapes honoring their free mason Luciferian god. The beauty in architecture we once had is quickly being erased by the demonic powerful elites who don’t want us to know how intelligent, creative, talented and wonderful, WE, as God’s creation really are. If we don’t wake up from this zombie like brainwashing that’s been put upon us for thousands of years, we stand to lose everything in its entirety and in its place a history that’s been created for us to learn and never knowing the truth. Let’s teach our children what beauty remains of OUR past before it’s all torn down and replaced with uninteresting, subpar, ugliness.
Modern architecture is dull, soul less, boring. It has been a colossal failure. The only people,l as one of the speakers pointed out, who actually buy the grotesque monstrosities call business towers, and government and businesses that buy them for self aggrandizement. Business districts of cities are ghost towns once people go home. No one wants to be there unless they are getting paid to be there.
Maxwell Jaxwell So, everything has to stay the same for ever? Even if "traditional" architecture was any good? Not possible for start. These traditional environments are often dreary, dull, intimidating, even scary. Intentionally intimidating often in order to terrorize the ordinary folk. The means for this included esoteric signs, symbols, statues of saints, masonic emblems etc. ....
@@kayem3824 I've seen traditional architecture and it's far from dull. If they can create modern styles that are not eyesore s then I'm all for it.
@@kayem3824 Trying to portray traditional styles as intimidating while modernists buildings looks like something out of 1984 is hilarious, you're a comedian.
@@irony8908 No one is saying that every old building is bad and every new building is good. It is clear from the references to signs and symbolism that it's about much of religious and state architecture in Europe mainly, where the arts and the architecture were very much influenced by secret societies, with images and proportions overwhelmingly based on fear. That's not the case with the temples in India and Japan for example. Modernity, on the other hand, was fundamentally secular, socially puposeful, formally free, and receptive of light and color.
@@kayem3824 Secret symbols only have as much meaning as you give them. Absolute majority of native Europeans don't know and don't care what those details mean and it has 0 effect on their comfort or state of mind, if the style of the building itself is complimentary to their culture and history. Unlike modernist buildings that crush human spirit with their soulless totalitarian and utterly inhuman form and brutalist style. Nobody wants to live in them, nobody wants to be around them, nobody has any use for them after they served their initial function.
Stop trying to gaslight people with your nonsensical idea that giant deformed piles of cement, glass and steel are less harmful to human spirit than beautiful buildings because some of them have obscure symbol that you wont even notice unless someone will tell you where to look and even there its meaning is is irrelevant for all but schizos.
Oh, and just because something is secular and "purposeful" doesn't make it GOOD. In fact its the secular and social engineering regimes that are responsible for THE worst human slaughters history has to offer.
Those ideologies and aftermath of their bloody reign is what needed to be purged from architecture if we wish to do good, not beauty and history.
Ancient, Historic, Traditional and Classical architecture is beautiful.
@Teeth Grinder What a great point. Thank you.
@just another human Is there a relationship between architecture and geomancy?
Yes, it is but not all of it. Everything in this world is always changing. By copying the past, you are not respecting antique architecture, you are vandalising it. You can see that not everything in "traditional" architecture was right even in the examples of Reger Scruton. Therefore, those houses in front of the office buildings might be offices, but we do not know if they are efficient, well illuminated or how many things need repairs, how many leaks there are. Plus he even mentioned that these can work as a theatre. How?? does this conservative seudo intellectual knows about accoustics, mechanical and electrical systems?
Furthermore, when he shoved the narrow street of houses, you can feel like if you where trapped in a narrow hall, without any criteria of illumination. Just a dark space that makes you feel claustrophobia. Finally, the victorian railway building was very ugly. you can even see how it was poorly designed whithout any criteria, with additions everywhere and an elevator related to anything.
Not every building in the past was beautiful, Greek architecture was scary, pretenciuos, out of scale, Romanic was dark and horrific. Barroque was overwhelming, false, and scandalous.
I'm not saying that all modern architecture is the best thing in the world. I'm just saying that architects are just, like in the past, those normal people that put a lot of effort by trying to do this world a little bit better to live on.
@just another human Very interesting stuff, certainly wish there was an old book about it that was available. Many public domain books from hundreds of years ago are available on Google's digital book project archive. Might be worth a search.
@@ericksecev Just the fact you'd call Sir Roger Scruton a pseudo-intellectual almost invalidates any point you had, you are obviously speaking from a place of ignorance and don't know who he is and how universally respected he is.
Stephen. Bayley looks awkward and defensive. And quite rightly, because anyone that’s spent their life’s work pursuing something that blatantly and demonstrably hasn’t worked, eventually approaches an intellectual and moral crisis. Admitting you were wrong though? That’s impossible when you are comfortably surrounded by yes-men and yes-women. He himself apparently lives in a house built in 1836 and claims he’d knock,it down. Honesty? No.
Why oh why does the Royal Geographical Society make such a hash of filming this lecture ? We don't see half the slides which are referred to.
My God, Stephen Bayley is an insufferable intellectually-dishonest elitist.
Ooh look, he's screwing up the paper as he goes along. So edgy! What an iconoclast!
He's an intellectual, darling, like Laurence Llewelyn Bowen or Nick Rhodes from Duran Duran.
neonatalpenguin stuck in the 80's. And his 80's joke about talking to plants fell flat. Total narcissist. Architecture as social/cultural engineering. What a tosser
You're dead right. I'm no royalist, but the whole "Prince Charles is an idiot who talks to plants" meme was barely true in the first place. Decades before it became mainstream to talk about deforestation, climate change or the positive impact green spaces have upon mental health, Charles was talking about those subjects. He also mentioned that he talks to his plants when he waters them, and that became the headline the press ran with. Now David Attenborough is hailed as a national treasure for saying much the same stuff.
hey! don't bring Duran Duran into this! At least we can listen to Rhodes' music.
Ah, but he vanquished so many straw men!
Yeah, he seems like an insufferable dork.
+ Alain De Botton
Those Dutch buildings in Nagasaki are one part of theme park:Huis Ten Bosch, because Nagasaki was the only port which was opened during Japan's period of isolation (1612-1854). At that time Holland was the only european country which could carry on commerce with Japan.
Take Gothic architecture. A style hundreds of years old. They managed to adapt it to modern skyscrapers in the 1920's and 1930's. Many of them are now on the historic register.
They should of continued building skyscrapers in that style to the present day.
One of the things I love about Victorian architecture is how it applied historic styles like Gothic and Classical to new technologies and ways of life. Consider a Gothic railway station or, as you point out, a Gothic skyscraper. The notion that only Modern architecture can respond to modern demands is already proven false.
RIP Sir Roger Scruton 🌧🌹
It is infuriating that we are mostly not allowed to see the slides.
You and I were probably thinking the same thing at the same time :D
So true
Traditionalists all wearing ties... Modernists not wearing ties
hehehehe
could it be a psychological thing? like a tie is somehow a symbol of careful and conservative thinking and the tie-less people are more free thinking?
C.M. Li Out of respect for fellow human beings
Yes and modernists seem to be most comfortable using swearwords and being disrespectful (in other words being tasteless)
A tie is not necessarily part of a conservative attire.
Sir roger scruton's words flow together as a symphony themselves
So true, I really enjoyed his talk
If only he said something worth listening to.
@@Magmoormaster Impossible.
Bayley's destruction of each page of his opening argument is a perfect metaphor for the general character of the modern architect or developer. They would rather destroy any trace of the past, destroying any evidence of a gradual evolution to the current norms and styles, and would instead prefer to be permitted a blank slate in which they themselves can act as a sort of all powerful deity. This elimination of past evidence freeing them from any constraints or possible points of rebuttal by persons more concerned with the actual topic at hand rather than those persons simply pushing another progressive cause celebre.
As an architecture student, this is it. This is what is missing from our architecture, we are indoctrinated in our academy to design in a ugly way and this is innovative according to architecture it follows the ideas of modernism such as less is more and getting rid of the craftsmanship and ornamentation which is what gives beauty to the architecture.
I know since it's very complicated especially economically, but the design of traditional is still possible with the budget it has, there are preservation and some firms that do practice classical or traditional, so it isn't entirely true that it can't be made, what does matter if people or clients want that kind of architecture.
Bayley lost me when he cited Le Corbusier as a “fine example” of a modern architect. The man was probably the single biggest vandal of the 20th century with absolutely no regard for the termite-like underling proles he envisioned living in or near his monstrosities.
Le Corbusier just ain't Frank Lloyd Wright, William Lamb, or at least argaubly, Minoru Yamasaki.
No he wasn’t. Ignorance. Simplistic ignorance.
@@smallstudiodesign a matter of taste, I suppose.
And a he was a Commie.
And like his little “peers” Philip Johnson and Miles Van der Rhoe he was an active facist and nazi
In the death of Sir Roger, we have lost a great man.
It's strange to see Alain de Botton defending modern architecture. I've read an article of his recently where he claims that Paris is so popular city among public because it has no high buildings and allows only fire stories housing which is pleasing to people. I know he seemed to be in the middle of such debate but ended up defending modern ugliness anyway. Houses and buildings must be for people. What is good for people who will live or work in certain building or house should be priority and first principle of architecture. And it must be in dialogue with nature and any given landscape or street or neighborhood. It's hard to defend Le Corbusier's social housing that looks like prison in dystopian future. Architecture, for the most part, must be about people and society not about ideas or certain architecture's artistic authorship. Obviously, capitalism used and spearheaded modern architecture of concrete and brutalist anti-nature because it was cheap to build and fast to make profits off.
He didn't want to defend it, he just wanted to spread his ideas, he didn't talk about the motion at all.
How is it capitalism. States steal money with which they fund and can use to dictate housing that people have no choice but to put up with as there is not a free market.
To be fair, to say something like “Paris is popular because of the height of the buildings” is actually a really modernist argument. It implies that a modern street with the same building proportions could be as popular
To be accurate, modernist, brutalist architecture was first widely inflicted on gentle societies by totalitarian, collectivist regimes - and not for economic reasons, but ideological ones. They wanted to destroy familiar cultural traditions, to break people and rule them. Only later did capitalists realize the cost-saving advantages of modern materials and processes, and develop the production methods which would be most profitable to them.
To be accurate, brutalist, modernist architecture was first widely inflicted on gentle societies by totalitarian collectivist regimes - and not for economic reasons, but ideological ones. They wanted to destroy familiar cultural traditions, to break people and rule them. Only later did capitalists realize the cost-saving advantages of modern materials and processes, and develop the production methods by which to profit from them.
Scruton is absolutely right.
Some say far right.
... so absolutely fascist in his fascinatingly facile arrogance of urban economics & technological reality. Just another pompous windbag monarchist.
@@smallstudiodesign woah! Whys it arrogant? Scruton's proposals for redevelopment of cities are ecological and address issues of housing. Other traditional building techniques, like log buildings, are far more ecological than modern buildings and more resistant to natural disasters. Any profit for a select few gained by building modern developments is negated by the massive losses in social capital: ruining the visual harmony of the city, the sense of belonging and beauty a city holds is awful for youths
@@kurtgodel5236 you. Just you.
@@TheCrusaderRabbits Yes. No.
The UN building in New York is hardly an example of something to be admired.
I wonder if the psychological effect of such a despressing, inhuman, eyesore is the reason the UN acts the way it does within its walls?
Of course architecture must embrace new materials, construction techniques, and cost efficiency, but the traditionalists voice the concern that lingers on our minds:
Architecture is of the greatest reflections of our shared cultural heritage. It has been, and ought to be, distinguished geographically. It should look dignified, not abstract and inhumane. Art and architecture take discipline. It's not about lazily "expressing yourself." And not about narcissistically pursuing novelty for the sake of novelty (or the starchitect's self-inflated legacy).
The opposing side confuses this with creating nothing new, at all.
I'm from Chicago, the birthplace of the skyscraper and modernism; I don't need Europeans telling me what's "creative" because they they envy the bold, industrious, look of American cities. Don't throw out your heritage. The modern buildings in Chicago are nice because our construction is the highest standard, world-wide (Chicago firms are building these mega-talls abroad). But Roger Scruton is right. All the old, soulfully designed buildings are finding a lot of success in their redevelopments in Chicago.
The too-lazy-to-learn-true-art trend has overtaken everything, every art form, especially music. It's now just 'different for different sake' because they can't come up with any new ideas that are also artistic, so they substitute 'different' and say it's 'creative'. How can anyone argue with the level of shallow?
The movies on the other hand do almost the opposite and keep relying on the same plot, plot twists, and exact story lines. 98% are crime/investigation dramas, as if that's the only subject that can be entertaining. For example, EVERY movie where the main character has a mission, rejects the mission before changing his/her mind and fulfilling the plot to save something/someone. You could bet the whole farm on that, and 30 other exact plot parts that will be in every such movie, and in the same order.
Back to art & architecture: it's only natural that as more good art is created it becomes harder to find new & different designs that are just as artistically satisfying. Because you must first learn what art is & how it works, it's principles, and WHY it satisfies a certain aesthetic hunger, in order to know how to add the "different" ingredient and come up with something new AND artistic. But those principles are not taught in school anymore as far as I know. Students are now told just to "be creative" meaning "whatever you do is creative" just because you did it without any rules or restrictions. And that is the opposite of art.
I agree Chicago's original architecture is the best, until these new trendy ugly buildings came and are ruining Chicago. I wish we designed and built buildings like those again in Chicago.
A lot of "inherent negativity" and "fear of future" talk in Bayley's address. It basically amounted to "we have to be different from the past because we are not the past" doesn't matter if we become worse as long as we are different. It's being original for the sake of being original, outrageous for the sake of outrageous
Every time a modernist architect dies, the world breathes a sigh of relief and an angel gets its wings.
Same for every modern "artist".
And your handle is “happychappy” .. hmmmm, what chilling morbid schadenfreude.
Only as chilling as you like to force it.
hahaha! So true!
There's certainly an arrogance in the modernist's point of view: 'Oh you like that old building, do you? How sweet that you don't understand what good architecture is.'
Poundbury looks great and lots of people want to live there. You can't say the same for the many ghost cities of China all built according to modernist principles.
That question at 51:52 about "the exteriors matching the brilliance of the technology on the interiors" is a horrendous indication of the thought processes of modernists.
It inherently assumes that classical architecture isn't brilliant, and that technological progress is somehow the opposite of beautiful design. Rather than embracing the fusion of classicism and technology, it insists that we simply accept these modernist monstrosities because of a concerted effort to attach them to the idea of progress.
A classical building can easily have high-tech interiors, it simply requires a modicum of effort to integrate it into the interior - the end result is both seamless and timeless.
Amen
Bunch of architects in the audience. I suspect an audience of the general populace would have more-or-less 90/10 in favour.
Not sure if modernity did "win". The before and after votes showed that twice as many were convinced to support the traditionalist view, and the traditionalists started with a large vote deficit with this crowd.
So two out of three modernists live in old houses..
Why I do not like Alain de Botton, is that he would make a very good car salesman.
Bayley really does not seem to be in his right mind. Though he never stuttered, his constant motions reflect an un level mind, no wonder he is an architect of the modern style. Apparently he actually agreed with me in regards to his opening speech, he destroys it after reading each page...
15:22 Why is it that they think we need knowledge in architecture and design to recognise beauty and to point out ugliness?
The audience proves that architecture is not only an echochamber, but run like the mafia
According to Alain de Botton we must learn to adapt to modernity. He doesn't say why.
The second "against" speaker is only half correct. Architecture is very defiantly dictated by place, with that he is 100% correct, traditional architectural styles of the native region is what makes the building in that region sustainable. HOWEVER, in terms of time, architecture is not and has never been dictated by time. This current fad of "modern" construction and architecture was an ideological change after the Second World War and nothing more. A change not made or demanded by the people, but forced on us by those who were making the buildings, in an assembly line fashion just as they had produced the ships, tanks, and guns during the war. Don't believe me, just look at pictures of homes and towns during the 1950, 60 and 70's, especially in the US.
modern architecture is akin to a weekly periodical, once completed it is celebrated then immediately becomes out dated. architecture that survives time does not seem to be the goal as often anymore. Scruton is correct, there are good examples of modern architecture but they are far too rare...
I find this debate amazing for 2 reasons: firstly, that it is obvious to anyone with eyes that the ancient building in our towns and cities are vastly better, in feel and asthetics, and for anyone to say that modern architecture can even be compared to them in terms of their look and feel is, a joke! Second, that those defending modern architecture know themselves that these buildings are crap which makes this 'debate' totally pointless.
The elites are so far removed from reality
I felt embarrassed for the final speaker swearing in a formal debate like that. Surprised this side won, although his personal contribution was insignificant.
Not sure if modernity did "win". The before and after votes showed that twice as many were convinced to support the traditionalist view, and the traditionalists started with a large vote deficit with this crowd.
Stephen. Bayley looks awkward and defensive. And quite rightly , because anyone that’s spent their life’s work pursuing what blatantly hasn’t worked, eventually approaches an intellectual and moral crisis. Admitting you were wrong though? That’s impossible when you are surrounded by yes-men. He himself Apparently lives in a house built in 1840 of course,
These glass stumps are a nightmare in an age of heightened terrorism threats.
Did you notice how the 3 modernists are really snobs, condescending and full of themselves?
It was a pleasure to listen to Roger Scruton, he's articulate, has a soothing voice, is polite and is captivating in his arguments. However, I couldn't continue watching once the second speaker started, because his movements, his way of speaking and the words that he uses are really irritating and stress-inducing for me. I pity the people who have to deal with him in every day basis!
I agree. I've dealt with narcs for a lot of my life (I try to avoid them as best I can). And they are exactly like this. The kind of people who don't know how to listen or take someone in..and just turn you into a sounding board. They're completely oblivious and indifferent to the sentiments of 99% of humanity, the whole, the coherence of everything.
I agree 100%. Bayley is insufferable, and Alain's rambling diarrhea of a speech was nothing but contradictory and childish nonsense.
I agree.
Traditional architecture is actually the most sustainable, efficient, useful and practical. This is because it uses natural and local materials and uses the least amount of carbon and energy to construct. Our ancestors had to build in such a way because they didn't have our machines or materials to create buildings that wouldn't hold themselves up without practical means. Historic buildings don't need steel reinforcement, even for vast internal space because they employ simple and practical geometry. Historic buildings last longer because they do not decay quickly, modern buildings decay from mold and rust because it's design doesn't efficiently shed water with all the flat roofs and streamline walls they employ. Modern buildings are energy pits because the materials used, the steel and glass (even tinted glass), creates a greenhouse effect that requires climate control in the buildings at all times. Anyone who is at all interested in sustainability and concerned with the environment will actually prefer traditional building, sometimes old things have application in our own times, to throw away the past because of the "times" or that we live "now" totally misses the point and people take their eye off the ball.
thought of a split-screen/cutaway for your next visual-centric debate? so that we can see what people are discussing?
Brasilia looks hideous
Lovely that the Brits have such discussions. In the US, such an argument would not happen outside a university setting, and anger and accusations of all kinds of crimes would ensue.
All contestants did a great job with a civil and thought-provoking debate.
Stephen Bayley deserves a blanket and warm milk. I've never seen a public speaker seem so nervous, but still pull through.
Additionally Anna Ford has been an absolutely superb moderator, by firmly yet courteously controlling the debate, forming astute and revealing questions for the audience and contestants, and keeping a consistent tone and tempo for the debate.
It's a shame there was only so much of the slide show that has been recorded.
"He just looked at me dolefully, and siad, 'Mr. Bailey, why has it got a flat roof?'
There wasn't, I THINK, a scinitilla of intellectual inquiry, or achitectural knowledge."
Or perhaps, Mr. Bailey, lots of people LIKE to see sloped roofs on important buildings, because they tend to add to the character, instead of making the whole thing look like some giant backyard tool shed, and it's YOU, who is so caught up in trying to impress, not the public, but other architects, that you didn't even understand the man's question.
And I am no fan of Prince Charles.
We have an interview up with Krier and Duany on our page. The blog also has an article about the Jungian aspects of their work.
Architecture 'of its time' is meaningful to historians and purists, but 'of its place' is never irrelevant, despite the uncontrollable expressive urges of modernist egos. Material character, function, scale and context always matter to the experience of pedestrians and other sentient occupants of an environment. Architects blame planners for limiting their vision, who famously blame developers and code writers, who deflect to traffic engineers, trade unions and regulators, special-interest groups, lenders and brokers, insurance underwriters and lawyers. I think we can all agree to identify the loser on this stage as Stephen Bayley, whose unwarranted petulance and hubris offend democratically, without discretion.
Scruton you absolute KINGGGG!!!
I'm siding with Scruton.
Those against the motion peddle the same old cliché that art and architecture must be ‘relevant’ and express the ‘spirit of the age’, a concept that has its origins in Hegel’s dialectical philosophy of history. Assuming that ages have spirits, how does anybody know what the spirit of the age might be when judging the relevance of style in buildings? Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton are incapable of knowing what is relevant as they lack a god-like view. The thing they always overlook is whether the ‘spirit’ of our age is benign or wicked. Furthermore, there might be many contradictory spirits in any one age, but the authoritarian wants to ignore alternatives. Their argument turns out to be circular, as architecture is understood to be progressing in the right direction when this coincides with the ‘relevant’ practice the person is promoting.
Town Planners are as culpable as Architects for the horrendous buildings one can see!! To reduce the argument of "Modernism" to its absurdity, how many Architects would like to see Tower blocks in Venice, "to accommodate more people" !!!???
There shall be no change here! Change is right out!
Great Scrutton!
The constant zooming in and out on the speaker with only one camera while still missing half of what they're showing anyway was utterly agonising!
RIP Roger Scruton, my idol!
Someone needs to tell me how glass and steel and concrete buildings that radiate heat and cost a lot to heat and cool are actually a good example of architecture for the age. They seem to be focused on looks more than practicality or comfort. At the same time, at least in the US and according to the panel in England as well, some people go mad for traditional pastiche on the exterior while seeking open interiors with modern features. It repeats in the US in countless suburbs. I have to believe that we'd get a better balance if the architects and the people who are going to use the building could meet in the middle. It is telling tho when you visit a city like New Orleans and you see an ugly concrete monstrosity next to a shabby brick building that you tend to notice how ugly the monstrosity is and think about how cool it would be to fix up and use the old building dating from before 1900.
Sorry for the essay, but…
The Modernist dogma (32:10) that historicists are frightened of modernity stemmed from Nietzsche’s Will to Power. Under this influence, Modernism has avoided telling the human story, i.e. it has dehumanised architecture. True, there are dangers in rose-tinted nostalgia, but a grounding in ‘warts n’all’ history is essential to a society having any sense of direction, value, or meaning.
Dr de Botton’s ‘backwards in time’ (30:26) criticism implies a ‘presentist’ Newtonian view of time as quantified empty units, which having passed are dead to us. Post-Einsteinian relativistic approaches to time, including the Block Universe Model, Benjamin’s Messianic Time, and Derrida’s Hauntology, allow the past to have more continuity with the present than Dr de Botton acknowledges. He deploys the Hegelian concept, ‘spirit of our age’, contrasting the ‘old spirit’ at 30:30, with the ‘modern spirit’ at 31:14, as if the human spirit expires and is replaced periodically. But centuries of tradition may have shared one spirit. Neither humans’ culture nor nature are wholly reinvented generationally. The belief in a ‘zeitgeist’, a spiritual rupture with the past, has driven architects to throw out the aesthetic baby with the Hegelian bathwater each generation and neglect the teaching of architectural history. 21st century evidence-based research, conversely, shows most progress has occurred through incremental evolution, that is, through ‘tradition’.
Dr de Botton dislikes imitation (32:29), whilst implying Modernism was the paragon of originality. It wasn’t. Le Corbusier copied floor plans from Gothic monasteries, light effects from Romanesque churches, proportions from Ancient Greeks, his Modular concept from Vitruvius via Leonardo da Vinci, and his facades from ocean liners. If Professor Krier is right, Le Corbusier sourced Brutalism from Nazi megastructures.
Schinkel’s gallery at 30:41, far from being timid retrospection, expresses the values of early nineteenth-century German Philhellenism. This it was highly relevant to the fundamental politics of the age in which it was built, looking forward to a united Germany, not backward to Ancient Greece.
Any architectural historian can tell instantly the cottage at 29:21 is not 1750 but late 20th century, the segmental soldier course lintels are a giveaway. We don’t need to over-state our contemporaneity - it comes naturally. Future historians will be as capable of subtle readings as we are.
Similarly, Quinlan Terry’s house at 29:26 is a distinctively late 20th century synthesis of elements from different moments in Classicism’s evolution. It’s unmistakeably of its time, especially in how it breaks the Classical ‘rules’ (for example, a string course behind the attached columns) and how it differs from its Nash context. Though its parts have appeared across history, the whole could not have been built other than in the late 20th century. We may not want all our architecture to stress continuity, but, as one contribution to a plurality, the Ionic Villa is 100% valid.
Likewise, the Ca d’Oro at 33:48 is, indeed, distinctively 15th century, but its elements, are almost all 13th century Gothic (pointed arches, quatrefoils, etc) or earlier Byzantine (ogees). It’s the confluence of two organic traditions, not a rupture with the past.
Dr de Botton criticises the Nagasaki development as geographically deracinated. It is, but no more than the Modernists’ International Style, a placeless architectural Esperanto that reduced identifiable settlements into ‘anywhere towns’.
High-carbon Modernism is not the future. Biophilic architecture must be, or else humanity doesn’t have a future. And that means we need an organic relationship both to nature and to the past.
You're comment deserves more likes. Quite a pleasant read.
What a treasure Roger is! BTW why did she cogratulate the losers?
At architecture school I was taught to follow Le Corbusier but I always felt close to Frank Lloyd Wright. But is something you cannot say in the tests, ugliness and designs that only make sense as intellectual exercises but not for places to live and work with happiness.
I agree, the now-King Charles III merely said what we’ve all wanted to say about modern architecture for many decades. I admired his courage for doing that and pushing ahead with his projects to further traditional building. We are our history, and the unique history of each people is reflected in our historical architecture more than anything else. Growing up in a series of new California “ranch” homes, the first home I bought was a Victorian cottage, about the oldest we can get here in California. Living in those beige boxes with their lack of character and cheap materials and construction was soul-destroying. We did live in one modern home which had won many architectural rewards. It was beautiful in its way, outside with its decks and redwood siding, but was so cold and unfriendly to live in. The vaulted ceilings let all the heat escape, and the children’s small, boxy bedrooms were in the cold lower story, lumped in with the utility rooms, and all the light was cut off from the enormous redwood deck on the upper, main floor.
Totally correct take by Roger Scruton on the scourge of tasteless, ugly, depressingly uninteresting modern architecture. I feel insulted every time I have to witness some drab lump of glass and paneling that bears no relationship to surrounding buildings.
The debate keeps getting muddied with sustainability, and whether to take cues from the past vs progressing in creativity, which are not mutually exclusive in the first place.
The motion is clearly about the aesthetics of modern architecture and whether it suits the needs of people.
Modern design is clearly forced and more divergent to the materials and practicalities of the environments they dwell in. The sanitized, cold aesthetics are not suited to an environment built for human dwelling.
Anna Ford: (rubbish) “ we, the people, don’t have much say in the look and feel of our cities, do we?”
Another example of complete arrogance and blindness. (as if she represents the average person)
Yes, we the people do. It’s called Design Review meetings held in community halls and city offices, or schools an gymnasiums in tons of places ... where developers (clients), and their architects present our designs for debate ... to discuss the impact of the design upon the local neighbourhood/ context.
We have had to respect and respond to the desires of neighbours MANY TIMES ...
I speak as someone with intense experience in UK 🇬🇧 , Canada 🇨🇦 & USA 🇺🇸 -- I’d argue that the problem with too many cooks muddling in the design recipes, the outcome becomes more dull, ordinary and less innovative.
I found Alain De Botton's powerful rhetoric was completely undermined by the discontinuity of his words with each of his examples. "This is beautiful and references the past" ...sorry, that thing!? ...Oh, that's your GOOD example!?
Modern Architecture is so depressing it inspires suicide. Roger Scruton's advise is just common sense. The modernists come across as arrogant and as self-appointed artists. They obviously consider themselves smarter than the populations who must actually USE the buildings.
Kevin Bardosh They don't like people and their designs show
From Wiki:He was arguing against the motion that: "Britain has become indifferent to beauty" proposed by Roger Scruton and David Starkey, who held an image of The Birth of Venus next to an image of the British supermodel Kate Moss, in order to demonstrate how "cruddy" British culture is.(Stephen Bayley)
The camra man is absolute dope..zoom out so we can see slides..why are we focused on speakers face 90% of time..Alain de Botton's speech was frustrating to watch without being able to see all the slides.
Pan the camera so that we can see what the speaker is referring to the building they are talking about.
Who was filming this a 5 yr old ? Could not see the implied slides from the speakers
The difference between modern architecture and new age non sense, although it is the same nonsensial philosophy, is that modern architecture is stuck in the Stone Age...
Scruton is such a wit
Modern architecture is like modern everything is garbage. Just a debased version of the original original. Totally devoid of beauty and talent.
Creativity is a forward movement ; perhaps a combination of tradition and modernity might suffice. Thank you very much for great debate.
There is no forward if there is no past.
Having no direction isn't creativity.
Powerful Krier, Scruton, and others for tradition, against a bunch of idiots.
To reply to Feliks_k (what's the point in putting forward a question if you don't enable replies)... vernacular in architecture refers to direct functionality, but as Scruton points out in the classical style, not coming at the expense of ugliness, and actually then becoming adaptive.
As opposed to modern vernacular which never escapes the direct purpose for which the building is originally built.
Two cameras should be used if they have such an incredibly slow zoom adjustment
Can’t you pull the camera back to show each slide? We can still hear the speaker clearly, but we need to see what he/she is talking about.
such poor camerawork
Oh Bayley has a wife? Wouldn't have guessed that
Trellick Tower is popular with well-heeled Europeans who want an affordable little pied-à-terre in London for the opera/ballet/galleries/w.h.y. and don't need a garden/tennis court etc., since they've got all that at home. And, of course, it's handy for the City.
"Nature Copies" - leon. that's what convinced me
We aren't seeing all the slides. The cameraman is asleep at the switch.
Sean griffith annoyed me with his response to the question on sustainability.
He just refuses to acknowledge that materials and form follow style and that modernist architecture consistently prioritises other elements of a building over the source of materials and longevity.
To me, its a style with blinders on.
This debate is silly. Certain styles popular in the sixties or thereabouts are hideous, but you can’t indict all modern architecture, which is to say architecture, for the mistakes of a few decades. Someone really should have insisted on a definition of “modern” from the start. I feel like such a definition was never actually established, even after it was requested.
Dear Mr.Botton , pls. Read all the comment of people who are FOR traditional architect , they are living now and not in the future!
I think the Dutch styled buildings in Nagasaki are a remembering of that cities past development based on cooperation with the Dutch so points to the cities place in Japan.
The point about authoritarianism was raised, not because history wasn't cruel, but because it shackles architecture (and art in general), forcing architects to conform and not allowing any freedom of expression, which is deadly. You can say lots of things about the catholic church, but they have always been fond of art.
A talk on architecture--a largely visual art--yet the camera man focussed on the speakers, when their words would still have reached us. Their words would even have made better sense. What was he possibly thinking?
Lots of good arguments from smart people on both sides. There was some sense that the motion itself was flawed and presented a false dichotomy between trad and mod, when the real issues are moral ones around planning and authoritarianism
I love the irony of how without modernity they wouldn’t be able to seat all the people in a large span open space (thank you structural engineers!), comfortably air conditioned with decent/even lighting, (thank you HVAC/ lighting designers), with other conveniences ... the list goes on.
Griffiths’ point is correct... what’s the point of debating a period of the recent past when we’ve all learned and moved on.
I guess there were no large span open space interiors before 1950?
What a pity that many of the images were not visible. Elsewise very interesting...
Botton is simply arguing that architecture must be imbued with meaning, and that meaning must fit the time and place in order for it to feel correct. I think there is a true core there, but he takes it to extremes and says that a building must be a direct reflection of the forces that shape it, and that is how you achieve ultimate truth and therefore beauty in architecture (correct me if I'm wrong). But why must a building be simply a stark presentation of the ugliness around it - in the case of modern architecture, literally mirrored glass - instead of a rebuke to it, and a refuge from the ugliness of everyday life. Should Architecture be aspirational, as art, or simply a joyless photo casually snapped. I think there is room yet for joy, for symbolism, for irony even, in Architecture.
Many modern buildings are quite ugly. Some are beautiful. End of discussion.
and 9 years later its still the same
Alain de Button of the channel "The School of Life"?
yes - surprising