Modernism and the Argument of Form follows Function

[Kwakelaar 92]

Date: 8/24/2005 8:21:26 AM
Author: Dionisos

What I meant was:

In my opinion, using other styles directly or 'copying' architectural designs is a bit samey and concentrating them in areas when they are not naturally there is what kwakelaar referred to earlier about big lots of land being devoted to buildildings of 1 style; a more cosmopolitan, free to whatever the individual building's users wanted is what I would think ideal and give the onlooker a view of what is going on inside the peoples minds and the building itself. I know that this is theoretically impossible and it is going against the fact that buildings and architecture in general has to be aware of its enviroment and adapt; unlike art but on a small scale at least, I think it is a good idea.

[Kwakelaar 92]

Date: 8/24/2005 1:47:00 PM
Author: ACEfanatic
However, when they are used in the form they are in Modernism and International Style, I do not think they make for visually appealing stuctures. A house built of sticks with nothing but glass inbetween is slightly interesting in the abstract, but is architectual heresy in practice.

quote>
Why is that heresy?

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Oh my, Yeah please do tell: why is a form of any expression heresy?

Although my chide is un-invited; I believe a true artist, can make beauty and unique form, from only the basics and that takes talent.

[ACEfanatic 7]

Date: 8/24/2005 4:51:52 PM Author: Kwakelaar

Date: 8/24/2005 1:47:00 PM Author: ACEfanatic However, when they are used in the form they are in Modernism and International Style, I do not think they make for visually appealing stuctures.  A house built of sticks with nothing but glass inbetween is slightly interesting in the abstract, but is architectual heresy in practice.

quote> Why is that heresy?

quote>

It disrupts the entire point of architecture.  The International Style destroys the cityscape around it by mocking the more classical structures around it.

I've said it before, and I say it again.  Buildings such as those are barely architecture.  They degrade architecture to the point of mere constuction.  It is not an expression of anything.  It is an attempt to prove that expression is unnecessary in architecture, which conflicts with the very basic point of architecture as opposed to construction -- to reflect the occupant (figuritively).

In my honest opinion, heresy is the perfect term to label such constuction.

-ACE

[Motina 77]

Most of the Internationalist architects respected and revered classical architecture - especially Mies and Corb. Sure they erase all possible aesthetic from them, but they couldn't be any truer to classical proportioning.

[ACEfanatic 7]

Date: 8/24/2005 5:56:25 PM Author: Motina Most of the Internationalist architects respected and revered classical architecture - especially Mies and Corb. Sure they erase all possible aesthetic from them, but they couldn't be any truer to classical proportioning.

quote>

Yes, and Communism is perfect in theory.

One of the basics of architecture is that people must be able to relate with it.  Thus, a bland, monochromatic box of steel and glass is difficult to classify as architecture.

Mies, Corbusier, and the rest of the early Internationalists deserve little blame, I agree.  The technology came around to create glass curtain wall, and it was natural to experiment with it.

Still, it is flawed in practice, if not in theory.  It is nearly impossible to relate to an imposing slab of steel and glass.  More classical architecture, however, is more human, in a sense.

-ACE

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

heresy? too harsh of a definition for mere architecture. No, I do not mean to belittle architecture, but heresy is an opinion that goes against religious fact.

I despise religion, therefore I am a heretic.

 

ACEfanatic, you said:

One of the basics of architecture is that people must be able to relate with it.  Thus, a bland, monochromatic box of steel and glass is difficult to classify as architecture.

 

Still, it is flawed in practice, if not in theory.  It is nearly impossible to relate to an imposing slab of steel and glass.  More classical architecture, however, is more human, in a sense.

Twice above; you were adding your own personality to your assessment.

 

My personality is linear, logical, B&W. so steel and glass is very attractive to me. I classify it as architecture. I must relate to it's blandness. Actually soothing to my spirit. look at my image above: granted it is not completed, but I love the plainness, of that house and I had only one precedent function; solitude.

 

What if I feel cluttered, smothered by 1930's styles?

 

Kwakelaar:

like I said, I am not sure who I agree with. This argument is very nearly the same as; art imitating life and visa versa. this debate has no ending and since neither argument is fact, it is impossible to call it heresy.

 

[Dionisos 0]

Good point fryndofyraweh, even glass, steel and stone in its blandest form is a form of architecture, though ugly, it is still a style like all of the rest of them and this string is all based on opinion so no-one is wrong here. But saying that minimalist archiatecture is heresy is a bit far.

and Kwakelaar, yes I was saying that it would be nice if any building reflected the likings or thoughts of the inabitants/workers it would add some individuality to buildings although it may as someone befor quoted destroys the cityscape around it by mocking the more classical structures around it.

 

thanks all,

 

[Motina 77]

Date: 8/24/2005 6:11:58 PM Author: ACEfanatic

Yes, and Communism is perfect in theory. One of the basics of architecture is that people must be able to relate with it. Thus, a bland, monochromatic box of steel and glass is difficult to classify as architecture. Mies, Corbusier, and the rest of the early Internationalists deserve little blame, I agree. The technology came around to create glass curtain wall, and it was natural to experiment with it. Still, it is flawed in practice, if not in theory. It is nearly impossible to relate to an imposing slab of steel and glass. More classical architecture, however, is more human, in a sense. -ACE

 

 

Ha, communism hasn't even existed in theory. Read Marxism (It actually a form Social Utopianism), sounds more like State Capitalism. Lenin, Stalin and Mao being the CEO.

Plus who said Modernism (or Internationalism) is perfect? It merely became a dogma and after a minimal amount of decades it became obsolete and far from being modern. Plus the works of Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe and Gropius were merely a showcase to show how cheap and quick such building could be, and it work. It became the epitome of Capitalism until Post-Modernism (started not that long after Modernism) became dominate. Richard Meier, a Post Modernist, shows a very close resemblance to Le Corbusier. The only thing that seems to be different is that Meier is using 'modern day' technology that didn't exist when Corbusier was a live.

[ACEfanatic 7]

@frndofyahweh:  By it's very nature, this discussion is about opinions.  If it were about facts such as cost-efficentcy, ease of constuction, etc. then of course functionalism would win out.

I am an athiest, so heresy is probably not quite as severe a condemation as it is to the rest of you, but metaphoricaly, it fits the situation from my perspective.

@Motina:  Indeed, Internationalism was initially created for cheap, efficient structures.  Odd that it became a symbol of wealth, is it not?

Something I have mistakenly passed over before:

Architecture is not created for the mere purpose of shelter.  That would fall under the classification of construction.  (i.e. do you really count a tent as Architecture?)  At least in the US, Architecture is, or was, an outlet for people to boast about their wealth and success (or lack thereof, in some cases).  It is a perfectly human reaction to wish to do this, no matter what the idealistists tell you.

Therefore, I find irony in some of the largest corporations in the world located in mundane boxes of steel and glass.

-ACE

[Kwakelaar 92]

Although I am not a great fan of Functionalism, I find it a bit too easy to say that the sole purpose of this way of design was to make cheap buildings quick.
They were just as concerned to find a new language for architecture that could replace the classical style, which had more or less lost its meaning by the turn of the 19th century. You can like it or dislike it, but Functionalism is a part of architectural history aswell as present.
You could say that the situation is quite similar at this time in history, Functionalism (we all seem to agree on this, although we have different reasons for our opinions), is flawed in practice, aswell as in theory. (Or am I pressuming to much here?
I think that there is no one dominant style at the moment (and for the last decades this has been so), everyone seems to be trying out new ways of making architecture. I do not know if there will even be one dominant style for the future. We are to busy beeing individuals to really find that important.
But what I truely belive is that the answer will not be in the past, Art Deco and Chicago style has had its time and trying to recreate these styles today would be meaningles. And I think architecture should have meaning aswell as beauty, and I would surely hope that this is more important for making architecture than as an outlet for peoples wealth and success.

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Kwaelaar: I read your current post twice; I am sure that I mostly agree with it.

 Although the restored Victorian residences, in my area look okay; they are inefficient, to say the least and murder on heating/cooling costs. Not my cup of tea.

 

Art is expression after all. Expression of a personal nature, applies as well. If a person designs their dream Home, to be an expression of them or their wealth; It has become a form of Art. If my dream home  is, straight lines, single pane windows and less decorative trim; It also has become, a work of Art.

 

[eltdown 1]

Date: 8/25/2005 11:52:40 PM Author: ACEfanatic @frndofyahweh:Architecture is not created for the mere purpose of shelter. ; That would fall under the classification of construction.  (i.e. do you really count a tent as Architecture?) ; At least in the US, Architecture is, or was, an outlet for people to boast about their wealth and success (or lack thereof, in some cases).

May as well de-lurk for this one. I was going to post a statement that tents were low-level architecture, which then led me to think about the definition of architecture: I really shouldn't think  too much at the weekend, but here goes:

 

Essentially, all construction, even on the tent level, involves a decision-making process. So, does a decision-making process of sufficient complexity constitute architecture? After all, every decision affects the aesthetic qualities of the final structure, although, for me, the phrase implies that specific consideration is given to aesthetic qualities.

 

Which would have to lead me to the conclusion that, even if a building looks appalling and overly basic in someone's eyes, if sufficient consideration has gone into the aesthetics, it is still as valid as architecture. Sure, some buildings are motivated by mainly commercial interests, such as maximising available floor space, and are barely able to be considered as architecture (retail units, for example), which makes me think that it is thoroughly reflective of corporate attitudes that most choose bland, air-conditioned glass boxes.

 

To use a slightly provocative example, what about some of Tadao Ando's urban buildings? They deliberately present bare concrete facades to the street, but come alive inside. A lot of thought has gone into these buildings, but would you want a street full of them?

 

Just to go back to the topic's title, form follows function is not true, as has already been stated: you simply cannot separate the two.

 

Well, that was fun. I really shouldn't type aloud. Excuse the waffling, and I'll go lurk some more.

[Kwakelaar 92]

Date: 8/27/2005 5:01:12 AM
Author: frndofyawe
Art is expression after all. Expression of a personal nature, applies as well. If a person designs their dream Home, to be an expression of them or their wealth; It has become a form of Art. If my dream home is, straight lines, single pane windows and less decorative trim; It also has become, a work of Art.

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Art is expression after all. Expression of a personal nature, applies as well. If a person designs their dream Home, to be an expression of them or their wealth; It has become a form of Art. If my dream home  is, straight lines, single pane windows and less decorative trim; It also has become, a work of Art.

Yes, I did say that, But I agree Kwakelaar; I wouldn't want 20 or so of my nearest neighbors, having exactly the same design as mine. Even in differing colors. That is not architecture to me either. Not sure what to define it as.

 

Copy machine: lol!

[organicsabre 1]

Date: 7/31/2005 7:03:11 PM
Author: frndofyaweh

Well, I do like debates, but more of the general philosopher type. Don't want to do any arguing at ST though. I mentioned All Philosophy because, it is small young website and lets you say anything, I mean real freedom of speech.

I took two years of Drafting, before computers were used much. This conversation is above me a bit. Frank Lloyd Wright (did I spell that right?) Love his work. that is about the most knowledge I have of architecture. His personal study; i wish I had one exactly like that!

Simply: I like things to look smooth and clean, plain functional and convenience, but not always. I am not sure if, I am on either side of this issue.

Thi is my design. the function here was; put the fam on that side and me in the opposite wing. LOL! Still want my input?

quote>

Looks like you have designed some basted valleys there (when 2 roof edges are not he same angle, is a pain to build on site and requires more precise leadwork.

[organicsabre 1]

To add to this debate.

The victorians were the best architects, they were able to produce asthetically pleasing buildings which were very practical and were (and still are)well built. For example Victorian houses are a good size and are still sought after int he uk as they are easy to convert (i have done many conversions in my time)Victorian terraces are the same.

If you look at any city int he UK you fins that the buildings that are prominant are victorian, all the housing and warhouses (alot of which are being redeveloped into flats). No other building period is more prominant. buildings between 1950-1970 are the worst buildings, they are difficult to convert to modern day standards and are ugly modernist buildings. also the architects of teh day concentrated more on How it looked than the fuinctionality of the building.

The argument is really the definition of Architecture and a Building. and to be entirely honest no one has been able to define this properly.

The easy way out is to say architecture looks good, but may not be practical, where as a building is plain and nothing visually special but basically does what its been designed to do You can't just define modernism against practicality as modernism is a form of architecture, so you have to look at the whole picture and try to determine the difference between architecture and a building.

sorry to leave you all with this philosophical stance but this is what the question really is.