Are "Modern" American Architects Simply Not Creative or Talented? (office, plan)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess I am not making my point clear. In decades prior to the 1950's, beauty in architecture was valued enough that most buildings were built with beauty, as well as function in mind. Many of these beautiful buildings are still standing, as testament to times when simple economics was not the ONLY thing that mattered.
Why did that change and and what exact point in time?
Did the general population notice that buildings were becoming hideous?
What did the talented architects think, assuming there were some? Why did they not take to the streets, literally?
Are there books written about this phenomenon?
You can't say simply that economics is everything because some people value art and beauty and would have wanted beautiful buildings versus ugly buildings . . .
Why was there a tipping point to UGLY? Who decided UGLY was the way to go?
And once things were GOOD AND UGLY, why did no one care?
Where are the upstart architects who would like to make America beautiful again?
What are they doing of import?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It sounds like you have an affinity for pre war architecture. That doesn't mean everything post war is devoid of design or merit. There was plenty of nondescript utilitarian buildings and homes before WWII. Many of them were torn down or fell down over the years so it isn't that post war somehow cornered the market on crappy construction.
Post war architecture includes a number of modern styles. Lots of mid-century architecture is very pared down and follows sort of a Scandinavian aesthetic. Some of it is brutalist and looks very utilitarian but does actually have a design and purpose to it. Of course there is always going to be some architecture that is just plain awful for one reason or another.
I grew up in Minneapolis in the early 70's. There were lots of interesting post war buildings but if you are looking for ornate carved stone and chandeliers dripping with crystals you would be very disappointed. Much of what was built from about 1950 to 1980 was trying new things. That willingness to do something new that challenged what a space could be meant there was lots of unusual architecture.
Some of the buildings constructed in MN in the 70's were very simple and looked like huge blocks of dark brown bricks. These usually incorporated passive energy designs like thermal mass insulation, daylight systems to bring natural light into the deep parts of the building. I liked these buildings, they were usually built into the terrain and had atriums with trees or other features that made them seem one with nature.
I see less of that adventure now. It may be partially that businesses don't see having a unique building as a status symbol anymore. Fewer homes are architect designed because fewer people can afford that cost. Businesses don't see a building as a key part of their business, but just space to house it.
Yes, avant-garde. In terms of connecting with his occupation well he's up there. On the other hand, what about those who move about and live or just simply see the architecture? What is their relationship now to the 'constructions?' I am curious in understanding how we have perhaps sustained our relationships to buildings in the millennia and centuries past. And has our post-modern era changed that relationship very much and in what way good or bad? From one who looks at lives in and admires buildings.
Unfortunately I am only a student who is not so much able to discuss about these arguments, because they are so difficult and I'm forming an opinion about these yet...both studing and reading others opinions on forums.
However I am sure that the post-modern architects think exactly about what you said when they plan. On one hand, they create a work of art playing with exterior aspect (and the result can be liked or not); but in other hand, they think about those who live the architecture: about what they see, where they go, how they use it. Nothing is leave to chance. The architecture planning is teached so at school. We have to imagine the indoor and outdoor space, and for this reason 3D softwares are very useful.
Obviously not all actual architects do it when they design...but the best ones do that (IMO for example OMA or Foster).
I want to say an other thing. We take best buildings as examples when we talk about passed architecture. So...we should do the same thing when we talk about contemporary architecture: to take the best post-modern buildings as examples (IMO not everyone does it), of course not forgetting the worst building not to be imitated.
The problem with architecture, IMHO is it has one foot in the art world, and one foot in the business world, when in reality it should be neither.
In terms of art, architecture followed the general formula which fine visual art did. Hence it shifted over from more traditional styles (which were elaborations upon vernaculars which existed for centuries, in some cases for thousands of years) to a clean break with the past and tradition - developing more abstract building designs based upon playing around with form and proportions.
The problem is, the opinions of the masses on what is beautiful diverge pretty strongly in the modernist age from the opinions of those with a background in the field. Poll after poll has found that most laypeople prefer more traditionalist, detail-oriented styles (which, after all, developed organically everywhere from Europe, to the Middle East, to East Asia). It really isn't a big deal that the lowest-common denominator doesn't get modern art - it sits in galleries that they seldom to never travel to. It does matter if the majority of laypeople don't "get" modernist architecture however, because they have to live and work in and around modernist buildings every day, which will at the very least influence them on an unconscious level.
Architecture is also not really a business, although it operates as such. As long as we live enmeshed in a society where construction labor and most materials are rather expensive, and priority is placed upon getting most building projects done as cheaply as possible, we're not going to end up with 90%+ of structures looking anything like a work of art, no matter how well designed.
IMHO, architecture should be very important, because it's one of the most fundamental ways we express our key values. Traditionalist models of architecture created a sense of place because local forms varied considerably from country to country, and in some cases city to city and even neighborhood to neighborhood. To the extent that buildings were actively designed, they were approached as a craft rather than a modernist work of art - working within the local vernacular to achieve a design which would be deemed attractive by all involved. Indeed, our sense of ascetics is itself culturally transmitted, meaning the most beautiful designs will have to hearken to tradition in some manner in order to be widely successful.
In Düsseldorf we have a clothing department store building and an office building, both designed by the American architect Richard Meier.
The building is from 2001. But I think it still looks good.
This one is from 2002 and it still looks modern. I really like this kind of architecture. Is it Bauhaus style? comtemporary design? I don't know. But I like it
Europe seems to have more buildings in a contemporary design. Whereas down town areas in the U.S. have more buildings that were designed in the 60's or 70's? Maybe it's more common in Europe to tear down an old facade from the 70's (with brown marbled granite tiling) and replace it with a more modern facade? The last couple of years many buildings had get a facelift. And it seems more common to use more glass in Europe.
In Düsseldorf we have a clothing department store building and an office building, both designed by the American architect Richard Meier.
The building is from 2001. But I think it still looks good.
This one is from 2002 and it still looks modern. I really like this kind of architecture. Is it Bauhaus style? comtemporary design? I don't know. But I like it
Europe seems to have more buildings in a contemporary design. Whereas down town areas in the U.S. have more buildings that were designed in the 60's or 70's? Maybe it's more common in Europe to tear down an old facade from the 70's (with brown marbled granite tiling) and replace it with a more modern facade? The last couple of years many buildings had get a facelift. And it seems more common to use more glass in Europe.
Beautiful! I wonder if Europe is hiring American architects because they can't get hired at home for whatever reason. The market in the US isn't open to that type of vision? Or maybe they're not viewed as practical; the winter heating bills and possibly the summer cooling bills, if air conditioning is needed, could be too costly with so much glass.
The thread on America's most boring-looking cities got me wondering what exactly makes American cities so ugly and uninspiring. I know in previous decades (prior to the 1950's), there were talented American architects . . .you can see the remnants in certain old buildings that were preserved or at least not torn down in the name of "progress."
In the Fifties I believe concrete block buildings became standard - in the Sixties you had the advent of the hideous strip mall . . . I just wonder about the so-called "architects" who designed these ugly buildings all over America - from say the 1960's up until the 1990's.
I don't know the relationships between city planners and architects, but someone decided that all of America had to be driven, architecturally, by McDonald's, Shell gas stations, and Subways by every freeway entrance and exit . . .
. . . And that there could be no inspiring architecture . . .I don't know if they had not an artistic bone in their bodies or if they never visited Europe, or studied "A Pattern Language . . . "
As a lay person, I have no idea why much of Modern American "architecture" is so damn ugly.
I am not an architect so what do I know? City Codes would be the main culprit is my guess.
Beautiful! I wonder if Europe is hiring American architects because they can't get hired at home for whatever reason. The market in the US isn't open to that type of vision? Or maybe they're not viewed as practical; the winter heating bills and possibly the summer cooling bills, if air conditioning is needed, could be too costly with so much glass.
Some time ago I either read or heard that it costs more to light a building than to heat or cool it. If that is true, then the glass would be an advantage to the cost of maintaining the building, especially to buildings that are occupied during the day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
