Very Big Fan of Contemporary Architecture

[HiFi]

Originally Posted by JR_C

I certainly see a change, but not a decline.

Did you know that "Gothic" to describe architecture, was originally a negative term? Wiki explains it better than I can:


Many of the buildings in your examples have Gothic influences, HiFi...

So? I don't follow you. Are you calling these buildings rude and barbaric? They're art nouveau for goodness sake.

[HiFi]

Originally Posted by archineer

I don't see it, it's just different. Not everyone likes fussy buildings.

One example to the next is different, these stark night and day products of two cultures are way past different

and how convenient that it takes no artistic talent and minimal effort to create a 'non fussy' one. just an added bonus of the modern approach to the arts I suppose any minimal-talent joker can contribute

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by HiFi

So? I don't follow you. Are you calling these buildings rude and barbaric? They're art nouveau for goodness sake.

You sound like those Renaissance fellows who looked down their noses at Gothic architecture.

[archineer]

Originally Posted by HiFi

One example to the next is different, these stark night and day products of two cultures are way past different

and how convenient that it takes no artistic talent and minimal effort to create a 'non fussy' one. just an added bonus of the modern approach to the arts I suppose any minimal-talent joker can contribute

1. There's no such thing as 'way past' different.
2. It is MUCH harder to design a simple building well, as it is easy to cover up mistakes with ornaments. It's why historical buildings are often stodgy and overwrought.

Also I noticed you deliberately picked modernist buildings that are pretty weak (apart from the Corbusier one and the church.)

[HiFi]

Originally Posted by archineer

1. There's no such thing as 'way past' different.
2. It is MUCH harder to design a simple building well, with ornament it is easy to cover up mistakes. It's why historical buildings are often stodgy and overwrought.

Also I noticed you deliberately picked modernist buildings that are pretty weak (apart from the Corbusier one and the church.)

A building which I could have designed vs one designed by a great artist who had studied under the wing of a master for years ,who had studied under the wing of a master, who had studied under the wing of a master, etc, are way past different, you are in the realm of superior and inferior, not different.

If it makes you feel better about your accomplishments and those of the architects whom you admire, than keep telling yourself that. However, the public is not going to keep buying it forever, an art renaissance is definitely in the wind.


I didn't deliberately pick weak or strong from either, for the first list they were mostly from a chicago world's fair architect and some sculptures from the fair and the rest were buildings i happened to see while looking at his buildings, as well as some paintings representative of the time. for the second list I looked for celebrated buildings and artists from our time and searched on them to find the examples. If i had wanted to make modern look especially bad, boy could i of, but it would be clear i was picking the worst. Some of the modern ones I picked I somewhat like, but they are not in the caliber of any in the first list, and it is silly to even attempt to regard them as equal in either effort or in result.