I didn’t expect to find this exploration of postmodernism in particular arts very philosophically interesting, but this look into architecture is a surprisingly great illustration of the false dichotomy between “modernism” and postmodernism. E.g. it is more important that everyone has a place to live in the first place than it is that rich people get to have fun spending money making amusing houses for entertainment, but that doesn’t have to mean that every single home has to look exactly identical, because within the limits dictated by optimal functionality there are still lots of different possible options for style and presentation. It’s like logic and rhetoric: a good argument needs to be logically sound, and shouldn’t make fallacious inferences or start from false premises just because those will make for a more convincing, likable argument; but, given whatever the true premises and valid inferences from them are, there are always many different rhetorical flourishes with which one can style the presentation of that argument to better effect on different audiences.
mature modernist practice in europe was heavily constrained by the need to rebuild or just build the entire continent in no time so many aspects are constrained by external factors. whereas pomos are mainly constrained by budgets of their 0.1% clients. to compare and understand the two schools their profoundly divergent ideological commitments, goals and audiences must remain front and center
i understand when creating a lesson on this material, it is usually necessary to draw stark distinctions between the two styles, in an effort to demonstrate to the learner what the key differences are. Obviously, in real life, things get a lot more blurry. Its rarely so black and white. A modernist building can indeed be constructed to be unique. The Fountain Head does a great job juxtaposing Modernism vs Classicism.
This is an old video, but were the ways fast food restaurants built in the 90's based on modern architecture principals? Like, the way they were built and configured, you didn't have to see the Burger King sign to know you were passing a Burger King.
The philosophical foundations of Modernism, especially in Vienna and Berlin after WWI, arose from the verification principles of the Vienna Circle. Modernism was seen to be in opposition to the historical, classical architecture of the Hapsburg Dynasty (and other Monarchies throughout Europe) . It wasn't "dialectic materialism" per se, but it did hold that classical architecture, music, design, art, etc. was an elaborate, false and oppressive "social construct" not subject to their verificationist principles - and that it was used by those in power to give themselves a veneer of authority dating back centuries. Classicism was seen as "forced" on artists, composers, architects, etc. because it was taught, almost unopposed, in the Universities and Art Academies. The Modernism of Vienna was definitely in the vein of the Workers vs. the Ruling Class. The use of a "factory" or "machine" aesthetic was directly influenced by this. Also, they were 100% behind promoting electricity, factories, manufacturing, modern cities, cars, airplanes, ocean liners, etc. I'm not sure where you got the idea that Modernism reflected an "appeal to limited resources." They were all about industrialization. I say that the Modernisms of Vienna was not "dialectic materialism" because the Vienna Circle was largely influenced by Ernst Mach, who was an Empiricist (and who was criticized by Lenin). It's sort of a toss-up of whether or not they were looking for an "objective" and "verifiable" artistic language or that they believed that people could be "conditioned" to accept a new language. Schoenberg's 12 tone was directly influenced by Mach as well.
So, when we talk about performance, are we talking about performance art, or are we talking about musical, dance, drama performance and performance art?
I'm really liking this series. My only question is this: If modernists generally rejected ornamentation, are art nouveau and art deco considered modernist, given that both of these leaned pretty heavily on ornamentation?
It's a bit ironic that the modernists were engaged in a kind of false consciousness, believing themselves to be transcending aesthetic parochialism, but instead inventing another "style" that's firmly associated with certains times and places and with its own "great works" that are quite unique and un-reproducible The post-modernists might be doing something similar, since the space you have to "play with" forms and styles is limited. They can makes references and jokes all day, but ultimately people and furniture still have to fit through the doors and the HVAC systems have to work.
What's the difference between modern architecture and fascist architecture? They seem similar from the little I know, but I'm asking as someone who doesn't know much about architectural styles, and am genuinely curious.
I didn’t expect to find this exploration of postmodernism in particular arts very philosophically interesting, but this look into architecture is a surprisingly great illustration of the false dichotomy between “modernism” and postmodernism. E.g. it is more important that everyone has a place to live in the first place than it is that rich people get to have fun spending money making amusing houses for entertainment, but that doesn’t have to mean that every single home has to look exactly identical, because within the limits dictated by optimal functionality there are still lots of different possible options for style and presentation.
It’s like logic and rhetoric: a good argument needs to be logically sound, and shouldn’t make fallacious inferences or start from false premises just because those will make for a more convincing, likable argument; but, given whatever the true premises and valid inferences from them are, there are always many different rhetorical flourishes with which one can style the presentation of that argument to better effect on different audiences.
mature modernist practice in europe was heavily constrained by the need to rebuild or just build the entire continent in no time so many aspects are constrained by external factors. whereas pomos are mainly constrained by budgets of their 0.1% clients. to compare and understand the two schools their profoundly divergent ideological commitments, goals and audiences must remain front and center
i understand when creating a lesson on this material, it is usually necessary to draw stark distinctions between the two styles, in an effort to demonstrate to the learner what the key differences are. Obviously, in real life, things get a lot more blurry. Its rarely so black and white. A modernist building can indeed be constructed to be unique. The Fountain Head does a great job juxtaposing Modernism vs Classicism.
It was, in fact, a pipe
This is an old video, but were the ways fast food restaurants built in the 90's based on modern architecture principals? Like, the way they were built and configured, you didn't have to see the Burger King sign to know you were passing a Burger King.
S/o to The Cheesecake Factory for some truly post modern architecture
The philosophical foundations of Modernism, especially in Vienna and Berlin after WWI, arose from the verification principles of the Vienna Circle. Modernism was seen to be in opposition to the historical, classical architecture of the Hapsburg Dynasty (and other Monarchies throughout Europe) . It wasn't "dialectic materialism" per se, but it did hold that classical architecture, music, design, art, etc. was an elaborate, false and oppressive "social construct" not subject to their verificationist principles - and that it was used by those in power to give themselves a veneer of authority dating back centuries. Classicism was seen as "forced" on artists, composers, architects, etc. because it was taught, almost unopposed, in the Universities and Art Academies. The Modernism of Vienna was definitely in the vein of the Workers vs. the Ruling Class. The use of a "factory" or "machine" aesthetic was directly influenced by this. Also, they were 100% behind promoting electricity, factories, manufacturing, modern cities, cars, airplanes, ocean liners, etc. I'm not sure where you got the idea that Modernism reflected an "appeal to limited resources." They were all about industrialization.
I say that the Modernisms of Vienna was not "dialectic materialism" because the Vienna Circle was largely influenced by Ernst Mach, who was an Empiricist (and who was criticized by Lenin). It's sort of a toss-up of whether or not they were looking for an "objective" and "verifiable" artistic language or that they believed that people could be "conditioned" to accept a new language. Schoenberg's 12 tone was directly influenced by Mach as well.
So, when we talk about performance, are we talking about performance art, or are we talking about musical, dance, drama performance and performance art?
I'm really liking this series. My only question is this: If modernists generally rejected ornamentation, are art nouveau and art deco considered modernist, given that both of these leaned pretty heavily on ornamentation?
I believe that we should neither follow modern or post modern we should just design and build traditional architecture with the current technology.
nice video
It's a bit ironic that the modernists were engaged in a kind of false consciousness, believing themselves to be transcending aesthetic parochialism, but instead inventing another "style" that's firmly associated with certains times and places and with its own "great works" that are quite unique and un-reproducible
The post-modernists might be doing something similar, since the space you have to "play with" forms and styles is limited. They can makes references and jokes all day, but ultimately people and furniture still have to fit through the doors and the HVAC systems have to work.
I don't see why architecture as tool must supersede architecture as art. Art has plenty of value even if its not as obvious what those benefits are.
Mostly boils down to function over form
a pain in the ass to actually install is what it is.
KEvron
Archicrapture ! 😂
What's the difference between modern architecture and fascist architecture? They seem similar from the little I know, but I'm asking as someone who doesn't know much about architectural styles, and am genuinely curious.
Terrible.
right?