Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin
I wouldn't put much value in the architectural tastes of the average American.
|
On one hand, I understand this. I mean, it's not like Bud Light is good beer, or pop-country is good music.
On the other hand, there is a tension in architecture. What I mean is, since architecture is an art form, it can and should elicit all kinds of different feelings from people. Just like a good painting may in fact disturb someone, a good building doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing to be artistic. At the same time, architecture is built for a consumer base in the modern era, with functionality seen as key. If a building does not elicit positive feelings from people when viewed and utilized, in some fundamental manner the architect has failed.
Regardless, my point is that to the extent that architecture has coalesced around styles that those who are unschooled in architecture dislike, it is somewhat of a failure. Not a failure of art, but a failure of craft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin
But sure, good old ornate buildings are fantastic. But let's be realistic here, the modern interpretation of that as it's built across most of North America usually looks a little more like this:
|
Yes, emphasis on usually, as 90% of everything is shit. One need only look to the Hed Kandi thread elsewhere on the forum to see that new traditional can be done well. On the flipside, I could just as easily post links to dozens of modernist-style monstrosities clad in metal paneling, and colored with a limited palette of off-white, rust and gray.
However, I'm not saying that I think there should be 100% historically accurate buildings only. But many, many historic styles were revivals and modifications of earlier styles - something which pretty much ended with modernism. I think this is a shame. To use a musical analogy, just because we developed electronic music, it did not displace folk from being a valid art form - one which can be done in either straight-ahead historic style or with a myriad of contemporary influences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin
If you're going to build suburban shit, might as well at least make it look cool (and a little more honest & optimistic) like they did in the 50s-70s:
|
Mid-century modern worked I think because although it was a nationwide movement, it was a conscious effort to create a "vernacular" of sorts. Vernacular styles are important in architecture because they help to develop a sense of place to an area. The character of regions, cities, or even neighborhoods is in large part defined by their built form - the use of material, the massing of the structures, and yes, their style of ornament. While MCM was a nationwide style, it was of its time and became classically identifiable for that reason. Nothing since then has moved much outside of the realm of "starchitecture" - certainly not down into the area of home design.
Prev
Linear Mode
