Modernist Architecture is a failure
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лип 2012
- It would be wise to start using classic styles again, we need to get over our post-WWII fear of classic and ornate things.
modern architecture quickly becomes ugly to the general public after its newness wares off, then it just becomes an eyesore (except a few structures).
The public has never fallen in love with modern architecture like they were 'supposed' to.
The same with much modern art.
"Have you ever looked at a bizarre building design and wondered, "What were the architects thinking?" Have you looked at a supposedly "ecological" industrial-looking building, and questioned how it could be truly ecological? Or have you simply felt frustrated by a building that made you uncomfortable, or felt anger when a beautiful old building was razed and replaced with a contemporary eyesore? You might be forgiven for thinking "these architects must be blind!" New research shows that in a real sense, you might actually be right." - Quinlan Terry
It's not a failure it's a disaster
The thing about modernist buildings is how horribly they age. Not because they are not novel---much of what they represent is of perennial value---but rather because their lines are *so* clean, any and all wear and tear spoils them. They just grow dilapidated too easily.
Erectus. that is what happened in the 1980s. The problem is, since then the bauhaus/brutalism structures were replaced by even uglier monstrosities.
Modernism has all the potential to choke the soul.
We buld ugly buildings supposedly because it cost less money, but in fact, not only it cost a lot more money (in the long run), but consider this : 1. It cost our pleasure when we walk (or drive) down those miles and miles of cheap, ugly, impossible to love buildings. 2. It bring us less money coming from travellers, because why would they come visit Cincinnati (for example), when they could go visit marvelous cities like Paris, Edinburgh (Scotland), Old Quebec City (Canada), London, Firenze (Italia), Prague etc..? 3. It cost us the general absence of love for our cities. We should stop cheap philosophy like "well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and start using talented artists again (sculptors) to work with architects and build things in classic "safe bet" architecture styles like gothic, romanesque, normand, gaudi etc... Cities with those architectures receives more visitors despite not being the most populous. We temporaily have cities that get more visitors in asia because more asian people have acces (they make more money now $$$) to travelling, but once more of them will discover the beautiful classic european arctictures, they will invade europe like all of us do... ;)
The reason many old buildings such as cathedrals are considered incredibly beautiful is because they follow the fractal patterns of nature. The disgusting "box" architecture of today is ugly because it does not follow this pattern that is so fundamental. However, in a practical sense it would be difficult to finance "beautiful" buildings that follow these patterns because they are expensive to make. I wish there was a way to reverse this.
they aren't compared to any parametric design like those of zaha hadid. they could be built with less ornaments they will stay traditional and beautiful.
OsmXbal
I'm not certain I understand your meaning, but certainly Zaha Hadid architecture is often more pleasing to the eye than other geometric/brutalistic architecture- this is because she tends to use organic shapes, some that mimic behive shells or even leaf veins. Some of her shapes appear to be inspired by Antoni Gaudi, whose work is also steeped in beautiful organic shapes, whimsical curves, and fractals.
CampingforCool41 you mentioned that they aren't being built because of the cost, not so accurate because a structurally challenging building like Zaha's cost a lot. The cost of a traditional cathedral is in the details and carving which could be reduced to minimum if not being afforded. Some details that are well placed and crafted will do the job. Not all the great traditional buildings are lavishly ornamented yet they still has that spirit of all traditional buildings while innovation of today means the more striking form and structurally challenging buildings, it's nonesese that the architect creates the challenge, the site forces what should make it.
The cost of steel makes sometimes half of the cost and maybe more, why not building load bearing walls when we saw that traditional load bearing buildings proved to be durable.
OsmXbal
So Zaha's cost alot...and? That's kinda my point. Buildings that aren't made of boxes cost a lot regardless of whether they have ornamentation or not, hence they are relatively rare (compared to the number of buildings that are straight angles and imposing boxes). Which is why we get stuck with shitty, ugly architecture so often. Because it's cheaper and easier to build.
OsmXBal That isn't true. Zaha Hadid's designs are very common and overused in plenty of structures throughout major cities. That, and the fact that the her overall designs are simplistic, no matter which geometrical shapes are utilized, ruin the whole "traditional" aspect you are attempting to defend in her design.
And people wonder why so many people are depressed
I totally agree with this video. No one builds anything that is meant to be beautiful anymore. Where ever you look, it's just more modernist Borg-cubes. If the medieval and renaissance left-overs of our cities were to magically evaporate this instant, ALL our cities would be totally featureless and bland.
Ok, I guess there _are_ a few exceptions. Some modern buildings actually are beautiful, but they are few and far between.
I think thats the case with most of the world we live in. Movies are mostly generic cash grabs. music in general, some people would even buy a painting of a white stripe for millions. The way I see it our tools (technology) become more advanced but us the users are going backwards.
Plus i found this article pretty interesting and I think t is just part of the trend we have today. mikespassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/thoughts-on-the-%E2%80%98american-anti-culture%E2%80%99/
+Paul A
Yes I feel just the same way. I feel that sometimes we take a step back, instead of a step forward!
Things go by too fast.
I totally agree on people buying a painting of a white stripe for a lot of money. It's crazy how we allow ourselves to buy into these outrageous creations.
Recently I went in an old town that I used to enjoy ... in only a year or so, offensive modern buildings have popped up all over the place where there used to be much more beautiful older buildings. Also, the older buildings that are still there don't mix in well with the new, so it looks horrendous! :(
Glad to see that even in Architecture, there are still some that believe in beauty.
Anything post Art Deco is complete garbage and needs to be demolished.
No. Not demolished. At least not all.
Future generations will never believe that such ugliness was once built.
They must see it so to not repeat it
Modern Architecture deserves to die.
The reason it is so expensive to reproduce the excellent architecture of the past is because architects today are schooled in making political pronouncements (usually some form of Marxism) rather than designing something that can shed the rain and shelter and comfort its occupants. The other reason is that the entire support infrastructure for the old style buildings, the stone cutting firms, the artistic studios that handled the decoration, was dismantled when the "modernist" box became the norm. The businesses that supplied the construction of the beautiful ornate masterpieces of the past were so efficient and good at what they did, the cost of building a beautifully interesting building was almost the same as one of the modernist boxes. When people finally realized how badly most modernist buildings function and look, it was too late. We no longer had the architects who could design real buildings, and the supporting supply firms were out of business. Most attempts at traditional architecture done these days are misproportioned, and done so much on the cheap they are hideous. I have always thought a partnership between developers and the local high schools to have students who have not yet been indoctrinated in our alleged architecture schools help design human-scaled well proportioned buildings that are interesting to look at.
Man, I couldn't agree more.
I can't agree more with the video. I wish building ugly modernist crap was a felony and all those LeCorbusiers and Frank Lloyd Wrights were sent to prison for insulting the art of architecture. I live in Moscow and here the difference between beautiful and ugly is very sharp. Houses built before 1953 were mostly beautiful, sophisticated, interesting. I am happy walking down the street and watching them. And at the same time there are these concrete-metal monstrosities of the 1960s and 1980s or horrible modern buildings. They are plain disgusting and show how miserably our city planning has fallen. The same things happen in Paris, London and German cities. We should definitely return the old classic architectural styles and never build ugly boxes and metalo-concrete monsters again.
+Georg1492
I agree, I love seeing intricate and elegant designs, not "cold" and "sharp" feeling/looking designs that are used now :(
+Georg1492 I agree with you on all except one thing. Frank Lloyd Wright may have been a modernist, but he knew how to do buildings right. His buildings are the ONLY modern buildings which have had a positive impact on me. I believe a lot of it was his view of man's relation to nature, and the natural materials like stone and wood that he used. My favorite is Fallingwater.
*****
I agree, I do like some of his buildings. I'm not entirely crazy on fallingwater either, but it isn't anywhere an atrocity in my book :)
Yeah, I think it's the stone that really saves it, in my opinion. I really don't like that modernist philosophy though, of blurring the lines between indoors and outdoors, bringing the outside in - it's not a bad idea (though personally it makes me uncomfortable), but they completely forget about the house! They talk about integrating the house with nature, but there's barely anything natural about the house itself besides the landscaping and some stone walls! I believe the house is as important as the nature around it, and both must be equally respected.
In general, I don't think modern architecture is bad... my philosophy is that there's always crap architecture, and modern has the most crap of any. And that's not a coincidence, since if you build any building without any regard to style or design (such as strip malls), which is unfortunately very common in today's world, it is almost absolutely guaranteed to be modern. Unless it's made of logs, then it's just a shack.
*****
Dude, wow, you totally just said EXACTLY how I feel! XDDD
I agree, too much glass and spaces which are too open make it feel "cold" and not as cozy :/
To make it pleasing to the eye, it's all about balance. The modern architecture, although containing lots of glass, still doesn't fit in with nature very well. In fact, it's quite difficult to make a building fit in with nature.
If the building is too eye-catching, then it will seem like it doesn't fit in. And if it's boring, well, it's just not quite as nice as it could be. (It's not necessarily a bad thing to have it more plain and boring, but it's easier to get tired of it, IMHO)
Modern architecture does not sit well in its surroundings, it is deliberately jarring to the eye. If modern architecture is so desirable why is it that all the most expensive and sought after parts of the U.K. are the old traditional and least spoilt by post war modernism parts. In many cases the architects who build these monstrosity’s live in period hoses themselves yet try and persuade us that modern is the way forward. No council estate or modern development can hold a candle to a historic quaint old village
It looks terrible, you're right! Go back to the old way of doing things, no more glass skyscrapers or concrete block style buildings. That's the reason people travel to Paris, Vienna, Rome, or want Warsaw rebuilt the way it was pre-war, they are and was beautiful.
What are you calling modernist architecture in this video? Because I'm not sure if you want to refer to post-modernism or if you just consider anything after the 20th century to be modernist... Because depending on that we could argue for or against the movement. I just feel like this video needs a little more context and a stronger argument to really dive into this discussion, because it is an interesting one...
Nah, it's a poorly crafted video. He can't even distinguish modernism, post-modernism, deconstructivism, etc. OP probably thought that everything from modernism beyond is called modernism.
Exactly, that's why I said he needs to distinguish what he is talking about.
Definitely.
obviously he means modern upwards because he is defending the traditional architecture so there is no point in distinguishing
OsmXbal Yes there is... Some movements that came after modernism were conceived precisely to refute the dogma proposed by modern architects. Brutalism isn't the same as modernism, neither is post-modernism or art nouveau, art deco, expressionism, futurism, etc.
It's embarrassing... specially for the first world countries! It's a shame! I'm a lecturer born from a third world country but educated in America. I ridicule every American architects I come across who saturate the world with modern trash!😡
We need a new Roman Empire to teach these architects a lesson
We should start a movement, we cant let modern architecture win. We should destroy modern architecture, no more ugliness, only let beuaty come into place.
Just made a video about the subject. There are people working to make beauty again. Ong-Ard Satrabhandu is one good example, working in Thailand.
Modernism is not build to last?! Good! Crumble and fall so we can revive arts and pay those who have true artistic talents.
Yes please! I can’t bear the ugliness and dysfunction of modernity for much longer.
@@SC-gw8np build great buildings
@@orthodoxy6470 I wish I could.
OMG I thought it was just me I had no idea this was a universal thing
"Was the lack of skilled craftsmen"
Bullshit. There was a housing shortage and the way to sort it out was by mass producing buildings able to house more people better.
Adam Something has an excellent video on the subject.
What new research are you citing? Would love to read!
Crysis sound track in the background? 😍😍
What too few people comment on is that modernist architecture isn't beautiful. That's the central argument. People need beauty.
By the way, what's the name of the music?
It's from Crysis 2 the game.
*****
Thanks for the pointer! I searched for Crysis 2 soundtrack videos and found the name of the particular piece in this video: It's called "Epilogue".
We should call it Fast Architecture.
1:53 I believe that's Hengelo (the Netherlands), I pass this ugly ass building by train weekly and it causes severe depression for just the fraction of time that I can observe it. Speaking of Hengelo in general, it's probably the best city to define this video. To be honest, just don't visit the Netherlands at all if you don't enjoy the resemblance of some real-life 'modded Minecraft creative server' that has been demolished by 9-year-olds.
I agree. I am quite generous about glass buildings because they are reflective therefore subtle.
There is nothing subtle in a skyscraper.
An oversized glass rectagle is subtle? Lol
All eras produce good and bad products...I personally never thought "bungalow" or "craftsman" style houses to be particularly attractive with their un-refined, "hill-billy" porches and cumbersome exterior features
+Douglas Fairbanks Modern Porches are horrid. Flat, huge, ugly, tacky.
"hill-billy" porches are only small scale eyesores built by people who don't know better
Modernism, Postmodernism and related sophistry are large scale eyesores built by people who ought to know better.
Why is that architects who love modern architecture including modern architecture fans are usually homosexuals?
+David Siitherism
I don't have any comment on what my gender identity is, but I'd be so glad to have friends like you in real life, whom love older "classical" styles! :D
+David Siitherism
lol
Noth Ing2do They are not homosexuals. It is just a fake pose just as their buildings.
Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
Nice Crysis 2 music, you must play video games a lot.
I wandered what the designer was thinking when they made the new westgate center in Oxford. It is so ugly. it was fine before.
your comment prompted me to look it up, the renovation is much nicer than how it previously looked
but i guess everyones opinion is different since architecture is a very subjective topic
@@theohenry5645 Fair dos, I am quite set in my ways and don't like it when people change big things. Everyone is different. I know there are people that like it.
What about art deco style architecture? Art deco is part of modern architecture great examples are the chrysler building and the empire state building in new york.
Truman High School, Independence Missouri.
I was with you up until you brought the ROM into it. That building is art! How dare you pair it alongside those blocky buildings from the 40s and 50s
balr1221 Daniel Libeskind added the Crystal to it, now it looks terrible. I would never hire Daniel to do a job, he designs really ugly buildings.
The architects were too busy trying to see if they could, that they forgot to stop and think if they should.
Crysis 2-3 soundtrack!
Awful stuff, a blot on our cities and towns.
Although I agree with your general idea, I think that for tall buildings many modernist and postmodernist ideas make sense. The recent trend of glass-based tall towers is a good one I think. I certainly don't think the Gherkin deserves scary music. It's a very geometric object whose ancient referents are jewellery pieces rather than old buildings, which makes sense because it's much slenderer than all old buildings with continuous floors.
But for low, human scale architecture, you're right.
Communists, Arab sheiks, bankers all love postmodernism.
Reason enough to implode it wherever is found with some exception as a warning to future generations.
Modern architecture is the embodiment of laziness and repetition pretending to be sophistication and innovation.
i like modern architecture but some texture make me feel weird and lonely.I don't like the big place and squarely,giant simple shape but empty or it's too big for the object purpose inside.these architectures are hyperbolic and it make human feel like they can't go to many position and cavity,so it's viewed like scary texture.
modern architecture was glorified at the times of the WW why? because wars destroyed cities and cities needs to be built quick during those times and hecc guys engineering was flourishing, mass produce of steel and glass so yeah. form follows function. we're here in post modern era, we've moved past that modern era, rejoice
The British and Irish are terrible architects,…good to Paris.
Several of the buildings you presented in your video are actually brutalist and post-modernist architecture. While you can dislike modernism, please be more accurate
I hope that the next style will be digitalism, where anything digital (computers, processors and cool holograms) comes in. The minimalist architecture has been around for too long and it's time to move on.
Minimalism won't go anywhere, it's cheap and boring but pretends to be cool to appeal to the masses.
I have always thought that architects models in whatever medium looked wonderful.
The finished buildings, almost without exception - hideous.
Why is that
I don't care who the architect is/was! Modernism and contemporary architecture were simply designed by architecturally illiterate architects. It's as simple as that.😳
I love googie architecture, mid century modern rocks.
You meant postmodernism.
Bahaus was the only good modern building
Which isn't even saying much as it's 'modern' aesthetic was a subtle lamenting line between old age and new before the complete transition that followed after, which as we see today, complete ass.
... And Fallingwater and the Sydney Opera House
Modern architecture will still continue to be built. The classical style will only be viewed with augmented reality filter in the future, Unfortunately.
the architectural designs ilustrated here are deconstructivist, post-modernist, brutalist. modern architecture is about keeping it simple with the essentials for the structure.
it might be boring and ugly ( not mentioning the fact that beauty is subjective), but it is the one who save billions of lives, including the vast majority of the people who was bitching in the comments. We should have some respect to it.
You criticize architecture, but You can't tell a difference between modernism and postmodernism.
oy vey antisemite
modernist architecture is about practicality and simplicity and it creates structures that are based on what works but it has somehow lost that ideal
I love how he just ignores one of the most famous pieces of architecture in this present day @ 1:34. Of course you don't talk about the modernist architects who are actually good at what they do. Just because what you showed wasn't built to last doesn't mean modern architecture itself can't be built to last.
Is this video a joke?
Why would you say that when it's obviously not?
You have to be exponentially stupid to think it’s a joke
No, but drawing a cube and calling it a modern home sure is.
No but modern architecture is.
This video is just someone taking the hate they have for a wonderful innovative style and putting it into a video. Everything in (most) modern building is put there for a reason. If you don't like how modern buildings look move to Kansas or live in a straw hut.
take your innovative style to places like Dubai where your fellow totalitarians are always ready to pay for grotesque eyesores
I love modern and brutalist architecture it's clean and simple. I hate the ugly and unnecessary ornamentation.
SlightyDisturbedNBK so please, go and live on the moon, you'll find the gray tone lovely, and it's devoid of unnecessary oxygen.
+SlightyDisturbedNBK "A beautifully designed, well crafted bungalow built in the 1920s, well made, beautiful and timeless, as well as Iconic."
OMG, too much ornamentation!
"A flat, horridly built, concrete pile of shit. Built to last 20 years at best, with no quality whatsoever. an eyesore in 10 years."
Wow, so plain and beautfiul!