No question.
Posted on 02/19/2008 6:10:07 PM PST by Pyro7480
I'm really not surprised. You seem to be confusing the appearance of a thing with the function of a thing.
Seriously. There's more to life than appearances, far more to any object than its style ... yet in this discussion, you have focused only on style ... for a designer, I suppose "style" is all. For most of the rest of us, it's not the top of the priority list ... and newness of style even farther down the list. When something has to last a long time, for most folks newness of style gives way to style that will still appeal in several years, or even a couple of decades. Today's "hottest trend" is tomorrow's "dated look" ... but colonial ... or older ... that's always good.
What I don’t understand is the emotional repulsion of modern design for many people,
Again, I'm not surprised. But if you in fact are a designer, you would do well to try. Why are you surprised that folks who like "classical" music, "classical" painting, "classical" sculpture ... also like "classical" houses?
who cannot articulate their feelings beyond generalities that the architecture is “cold” or “ugly”.
When they're spending their own money, that's all they need to do. "It's ugly, I ain't buying it. End of discussion." Frankly, I find that modernist designers and artists can't articulate the reasons they like that which they produce. They're very good a spilling verbiage on the topic ... but there's very little substance in said verbiage.
“What do you disagree with?”
That ugliness qualifies as art simply because someone thinks it conveys a truth.
That is propaganda, not art.
I didn’t say “simply because”. What I said is that beauty and art are in a complex relationship and art is not reducible to beauty.
If you want a condemnation of moder art I got one. The story of 20c art is that of probing and degradation. There were real questions in need of answers:
- is art replaced by photography and molding techniques? Surely some traditional function of art is replaced by them.
- can visual impact be divorced from storytelling?
- does self-expression trump things outside of the artist’s person?
The way modern art answered these was to amputate as much as possible and see if the patient still lives. At some point, roughly in the 60’s, the patient died. We now have the task of growing new true art, having learned some painful lessons, from the roots we have abandoned. I would agree that classicism from Poussin to Bouguereau is one such root; medieval religious art is another; folk art is another.
“Bouguereau wouldn’t paint this: “
No, he wouldn’t paint a Millet, but he did paint The First Mourning, The Flagellation of Christ, Dante and Virgil in Hell, Little Beggars, and a magnificent Pieta.
There are “larger truths” in Bouguereau, but one has to look.
I think the writing at the ARC pretty much does away with modern art.
It gets to the point that the only “new” thing one can do is to shock. From that point, “art” is judged not on its artistic merit, but on its ability to shock.
No question.
Yes, it is all dead now -- the deconstruction process has ended around 1965.
Whoever designed that building knew how to make it symmetrical and that is all.
What we have here is quiet simplicity; you describe how the building could have been made into a Greek classic temple. The architect was perhaps a bit naive, but it does not take away from its beauty.
You are right. I did not look at it that close and presumed it to be some kind of transom window.
If you go back and look at the subject of the article, it is about beauty, not utility, though admittedly the two are sometimes intertwined. However, the old dictum that “form follows function” is often just a canard today. One look at plastic plantation shutters, which even if they actually were hinged, could not cover the windows they are designed to accent, shows that such matters of utility have long since been abandoned. I thought the purpose of this website was to discuss the subject at hand? Have I erred by sticking to the subject?
Now, no one, least of all me, is surprised that fads are not universally adopted. But trends are. When I was a young child, hats for men were almost universally worn by American men. Today, the only type of male hats still worn are baseball caps. When was the last time you wore a fedora? Again, it can clearly be demonstrated by even a cursory look at modern society that most people DO adopt new trends and fashions, a few old curmudgeons not withstanding.
Again, in your comments about music, you misunderstand me. I am NOT surprised that some folks like classical music. My oldest bother prefers the big band sound. Nothing wrong with that. The fact remains that some people like both more traditional styles as well as modern music. Even more like current musical artists best, as shown by music sales, concert attendance, and popular culture generally.
As for how you or anyone else wants to spend their money, that’s up to the individual. I support their right to do so. My only remarks, to which you have not added anything of substance to the question, is why buildings, particularly domiciles, are so out of sync with the rest of their buying habits.
Here is a little building that was constructed by vernacular carpenters in remote rural Alabama in 1857, miles from the railroad and almost inaccessible even today (little unpaved county road).
Classic Greek Revival as interpreted in the materials of the time and place. The proportions are right, it's pleasing and beautiful and inside is just as beautiful and peaceful, with the light coming in the long windows.
(In case you noticed it's so short and were wondering why, it was almost destroyed by a tornado and the family repaired the surviving front 1/3 of the structure. But the facade is exactly as it always was.)
It is a good question. Why do you think it is? It is quite common to see an over-the-top modern design of a car parked in front of a colonial (or pseudo Spanish in the West) house.
Of course, people also buy those retro-looking PT Cruisers, and restore Bel Airs. Nor do only houses try to look vintage -- taste in art is also often traditionalist, and even more so in furniture.
My guess is that no one is foregoing electricity or modern pluming in order to live in a colonial. In houses, you CAN get a traditional look with modern amenities. In cars, you cannot. Imagine that Toyota built one of those royal carriage-looking limousines from the 40's, yet made them as reliable and fuel efficient as the Prius. We might yet see that; we are simply not used to the idea that cars that are not a constant source of frustration are now commonplace. Once we begin to trust the mechanics, we may turn to tradition in looks. In short, people like modern design in areas where there is a rapid engineering progress being made: they associate last year's design with poor quality, and modern looks reassure that the engineering is better. Once the technology is mature, they turn to esthetics for beauty's sake, and become traditionalists.
One striking thing is that a modern artist or architect tries above all to express himself; the biggest fear is to look like everyone else. This self-promotion is in itself irritating.
Why is that college building so menacing? Why, because if the windows had normal proportions it would look just like any other building anywhere. So he designed these ambrasures instead.
Why is this church building so comforting? For the reverse reason: the humility of its creator shines through. You want to be there, because the architect designed it with you in mind, and not himself.
Good thoughts. I don’t know the answer. BTW, my wife drives a PT Cruiser!
I understand that it's a museum, but it's extremely cold, and there seems to be no place for humans in it. The second photograph is also of a Frank Lloyd Wright house, but Wright found it repugnant, and only took the job because he needed the money:
Wright hated the Tudor style, but the client loved it. The structure seems designed for a human scale, and looks like there are comfortable places to sit and talk and be relaxed. The average person is uncomfortable in the first type of structure, comfortable in the second.
Additionally, the first structure is a complete visual statement, and is quite impersonal. There is no area that lends itself to personalization. People like to personalize their space.
In the 1950s, Brazil tried building a national city, Brasilia, based on the premises of modernism. In architecture, Wright was pretty much the deity of this style. It was a master-planned city, and hated by the residents. They found it cold and uninviting. The main streets, which showed off the architecture, alienated the citizens and the business people. The business people started putting the front of their shops in the back alleys, away from the "beautiful architecture." Here's a quote from one Brazilian on the capital city:
Brasília may be a World Heritage Site, but it is only of interest to town planning and architecture students, and those keen to witness the folly of man on a metropolitan scale. It must have looked good on paper, and still looks good in photos, but in the flesh, forget it. Designed by architect Oscar Niemeyer, urban planner Lucio Costa, and landscape architect Burle Marx, the city was built in an incredible three years between 1957 and 1960. Unfortunately, the world's most ambitious planned city is designed for automobiles and air-conditioners, not people. Distances are enormous and no-one walks; the sun blazes and there are no trees for shelter. Bureaucrats and politicians are lured to Brasília by 100% salary hikes and big apartments, but as soon as the weekend comes they jet to Rio or São Paulo - anywhere less sterile. The poor, who work in the construction and service industries, were not part of the plan for an inland capital and live in favelas up to 30 km outside the city, called 'anti-Brasílias'.Modern architecture is frequently designed to appeal to the ego of the architect. The human is left out. This is not always true, but true often enough for you to pose your original question.
what number is, “put world economy in a stranglehold by fomenting instability in regions historically associated with oil production, thereby enriching the cradle of communism, Russia by driving up the price of its greatest export wildly.”
Here’s a simple comparison. A horse carriage, or an early car, is a gazebo on wheels. You don’t have to duck your head to enter; there is plenty of leg and elbow room, and of course no aerodynamics at all. It is designed for the man.
A modern car is like a coffin with a glass top; there is only room to strap yourself to the seat. One day they’ll miniaturize the steering wheel and take away the hand space as well. This is design for the machine.
I realize that the tear-drop cut-through-the-air Nissan Z has beauty, — for one observing it from the sidewalk. The driving pleasure is a beauty insofar as you want the sporting experience, the adrenalin rush. If you want to get from home to work with maximum comfort and don’t feel like you are doing an amuzement-park ride to get there, you want a gazebo on wheels. So, with cars, we have a case when machine dictated what we find beautiful. It is not organic beauty. As soon as engineering matures, we’ll choose vintage designs in cars.
EXCELLENT column, thanks...
Ed
Modern design is ugly because it is chaotic. The point of the article is the ugliness of society, which is ugly because it celebrates the chaotic. Humans have engrained in them a desire for orderliness. It was put there by God, Who creates order out of chaos. Anything else “grates on the nerves” of one’s soul.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.