Modernist's Response
Back on July 5th, I shared an email I wrote to Roger Lewis. He is a professor of architecture who wrote an article criticizing people who want Washington D.C. to maintain its Classical spirit instead being turned into a showcase for Modernism. Below is a link to my July 5th post:
http://odracirys.blogspot.jp/2012/07/my-response-email-to-k.html
Well, quite a while back, he replied to me, which was pretty nice of him. I also wrote a reply back to him. My response was not super well-thought-out, but was rather spur of the moment, reaching for what I had at hand. But it has quite a few links to pictures comparing Modernist to Classical buildings. Here are both his and my replies:
Roger Lewis' Email:
Dear Odaricirys Mediys,
I just returned from three weeks teaching and traveling in Russia, which is why I did not respond promptly to your July 4 email.
The headline for my column, "Why classical architecture makes little sense for today's Washington," was unfortunate. It was written not by me, but by a copy editor. It was misleading and did not correctly represent the theme or substance of the column.
I fully appreciate and respect architectural Classicism, and I always taught my students fundamental principles of timeless, classical composition that can apply to any architectural style. But using Classicism's traditional language and vocabulary - its historic elements and ornamental motifs - is not the ONLY worthy architectural design approach, even in Washington. And it's absurd to believe that all modern architecture should be lumped together and dismissed as unworthy. I hope you will agree.
Sincerely,
Roger K. Lewis, FAIA, Architect & Planner
Columnist, "Shaping the City," The Washington Post
Professor Emeritus, University of Maryland School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation
Trustee, National Children's Museum Trustee, Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation
My Response:
Hello Mr. Lewis,
I'm sorry for the late reply, and I appreciate your civil response to my coarse email. I did not think that you would even be willing to reply, to be honest, so I didn't check back often. Yet you did. Thanks.
Actually, although my tone is a bit softer now, my opinion has remained the same. I understand that Classical architecture doesn't need to be used in every building constructed. As you note, it "is not the ONLY worthy architectural design approach". My opinion is not that it should be the only style used, to the exclusion of all others. Rather, I think that Classicism has been wholly discounted in the post-WWII era. If 95% of buildings contained classical motifs and there was a Modernist structure here and there, then I would not be arguing. The truth of the matter is that I cannot even count on one hand the number of large Classical monuments and buildings constructed since 1950, while I can list hundreds (if necessary) Modernist ones. Nearly all museums, skyscrapers, and monuments built in the past 60+ years have not been classical. The Schermerhorn Symphony Center in Nashville, Tennessee (2006) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
In Japan, this 1920s modernist experiment has become an architectural monument, and the prototype for nearly all post-war apartments (up to and including today):
Description here: http://library.osu.edu/
Do you think that this style (which is ubiquitous now) is preferable to ones with sloped, tile roofs that might have been built instead if not for the influence of Modernism?
Here are housing blocks in Rome. At a glance, you can see that they are post-war. If there was something Classical that was built in Rome in my lifetime (and maybe even yours), then I would be surprised.
Although Modernists give lip service to Classicism, it isn't difficult to gauge their true feelings from their loud objections when anything Classical is merely even proposed. Like the religious elite in a theocracy, they must impose their will and don't take kindly to criticism. They are not willing to go "50-50" with traditionalists. It must be 100% their way. And then, when they only get 99% of what they want, they complain that Classicists are unwilling to compromise and only want a world in which Classicism exists. "You know, not EVERYTHING has to have Classical styling? Classicism isn't the ONLY way to build!" Where is the "everything" they speak about?! We're asking for at least 1%!
If right now, architects put out a hand to make a pact that 50% of new buildings would be in a variety of modern styles, and the other 50% of new buildings would be designed in traditional styles, I'd shake that hand in a split-second. They have never done so. And they never will. As I said, they will not even give the traditionalists one city to preserve. And that is why new Classicism is pretty much extinct these days, except in simplified forms in some new houses that there is still demand for.
Here is a Wikipedia page about the "Barbican" in London:
It's a perfect example of the normal way of doing things since WWII. Particularly saddening to me is that they demolished some beautiful buildings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Perhaps you think that is beautiful. I can't possibly imagine how you can, though. How is this
...more beautiful than this
Getting on to art, how is this
...an accomplished work of art, worthy to hang in national museums, while this new piece of art
...will never see the light of day in a gallery, because it's not Modern. It's only NEW. And new isn't Modern. Modern is 1920s Weimar radicalism, and the future forever more must also be. New things can't be accepted as "Modern" unless they are stark and lacking in technical skill. The Modernists were very smart when they named their styles "Modern" and "the International Style". People too lazy to reason for themselves and who only take words at face value think that if you don't do things in a "Modern" way, you must be a backward Barbarian (instead of an accomplished designer). "Minimalist" is a much better appellation, as it's readily apparent that minimal effort goes into most designs.
The false name of "Modern" art becomes apparent due to our need to name new styles (within Postmodernism) which are trying to overtake it (and which are stymied by nostalgic Modernists). There are some who are taking Modern rules but applying a layer of true artistry on top of it in order to create structures that would make Le Corbusier cringe. (By the way, I don't consider "Postmodernism" to be a single category, as it contains so many divergent ideas which are often at odds with each other.)
Finally, do you realize that "place" matters to many people? If a Gehry box were built in Osaka, Japan, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow, or my voice. Osaka has already been fully ravaged by people who can't think outside the "box", and it's a dead city architecturally, so that new building might be a welcome addition. But do you see the difference between putting it there and putting it in the center of Florence? Can you possibly see why some people might object to the entire atmosphere of a city being changed by something that does not fit its surroundings in any way? I hope you can.
I have a question. When in Russia, did you visit the apartment blocks? (http://cdn.c.photoshelter.
...or a business center? (http://www.russia-ukraine-
...or a palace? (http://ulkotours.com/blog/wp-
If you visited all of them, which lifted your heart the most? Which made you feel proudest of humanity? Just a question...
Thanks for your time.
Odracirys
Comments
Post a Comment