The best way to describe modernism is “‘anti human”. It’s cold and bleak agenda, lack of any ornament is in contrast to the human condition that has celebrated beauty in design since the beginning of civilisation.
To me, modern architecture was anti - architecture. This is why modern architecture cannot belong to lawns in the real world. Modern architecture belongs first and foremost to Minecraft. If architects still want to build modern style they should do that in Minecraft, because otherwise they are going to be given the same treatment as people who once regarded covid - 19 vaccines as part of what was then described as modern medicine. Modern architecture was thus not only anti - human but also anti - architecture.
Exactly. The interesting thing is that le corbusier, arguably the biggest pioneer of modernist architecture even refered to it as “a machine for living”, meaning that the architecture was to represent the machine not the human. I have no idea how this quote could even be seen as reasonable but that’s that.
It is a big scam and we are finally reaching the turning point. In the long run, modernism will just be a blip in history, but rather sooner than later.
@@michael.diamant hey are you the guy from the video? 😅 Well me I live in New York City and I'm studying architecture but in my school we design in the contemporary style so I'm not to knowledgeable on classical architecture. But I was thinking of researching by myself about these styles.
@@javierpacheco8234 Regarding the technicalities, I would suggest reading The American Vignola: A Guide to the Making of Classical Architecture. It's a must and a very accessible book.
@@georgek3261 no this a poor generalisation. There are thousands of high quality every day buildings with many drawing upon the classical tradition just not in the overt way that grand homes or civic buildings.
I have been working in the architectural field as an architectural designer for 35 years and it has been a battle that i have yet to win a single battle. I love traditional architecture (Paris). I am constantly told I live in the past. Read the book -A Patterned Language.
Don’t surrender to their Marxist agenda, there are positive signs that things are beginning to change. Living in the past is just a camouflage for their incompetence to design anything that most humans can relate to. Designing using the principals of the classical, gothic, renaissance etc styles does not mean slavishly copying anything but rather using a talent to adapt these as the highly talented architects of the 19th and early 20th so brilliantly accomplished.
Small correction on the topic of Notre-Dame : the roof and spire will be finally reconstructed with wood, it was found that making an iron structure would be too heavy for the walls… They have now started to collect the trees and the proper reconstruction will start later this year…
This is one of the main reasons I dropped out of college architecture - almost everything I was being made to learn was the exact opposite of what I wanted to do in the first place (design and build oldschool, non-shitty houses). Instead I had to meditate daily on the wackiest, ugliest ways to make things and somehow explain why it was "good". The stress, disgust, and lack of actual motivation was overwhelming, and realizing it was by design made it even more so.
They demoralised you and they did it intentionally and strategically to keep you out of the gates. If you could have maintained your morale even suffering their tortures, then today you would be their competition. Breaking up the old boys' clubs was a strategic mistake because the old boys incorrectly presumed that the pretenders whom they let in would extend to the next generation the same charity that was extended to them. The old boys' club has been replaced with the xim/xers of a certain age club.
Yes it's all intentional. It's intended to demoralize the individual and recast them as "a simple cog in a great machine". Mr. Diamant is right it is completely ideological. Thankfully the tide is starting to turn on all this madness. But not in Universities... that will be the last place to find change.
As an architecture student, wish me luck. I might either get rusticated tomorrow or loved for the presentation that I will be giving on this exact topic😅
I have long followed people like Krier,Terry and roger Scruton and their seeming hopeless quest for the revival of beauty…..pure astonishment….that you people exist….long live social media…
I agree when he said that ee should design buildings beyond mere function. I just witnessed a brutalist building set of for demolition to be replaced by an all glass building and no one complained. Then I witnessed a 1930's neo classical mansion that was also set up by developers for demolition to turn it into a warehouse like grocery store but people in the community protested against it. Though it was all rundown people find it valuable for their community.
Michael Diamont is brilliant and brave. It's so wonderful to hear cogent arguments like this. Of course many have made the same arguments, but their voices are rarely heard. So, thank you so much for this video. I will share it. I highly recommend reading books on architecture by the historian Alan Gowans. He would agree vociferously with Diamont. I'm only mid-way through the video and although I'm a children's book illustrator, I'm excited to draw beautiful architecture for fun and for my children's books. Thanks for this video.
He has recently become a hero in my heart, Michael brings forth a very important topic that we really need to tackle as we go into the future. Beauty will prevail 😍
Swan Lake Castle here in Granite Bay, California is an epic example of classical architecture finding it's way into modern buildings and it was built fairly recently using all contractors trained in classical European architecture and construction methods.
We are currently in a Dark Age of architecture and can only hope for a new Renaissance in classical architecture. The classics are no longer taught in architecture school. That needs to change. It should at the very least be taught as a freshman background course.
There are a very few schools that teach classical architecture now, but you could count them on one hand. Mere and more are beginning to see they'll have to start to some degree. Notre-Dame in Indiana has been the beacon that has been teraching it for years. Cjeck them out.
I clicked this video in the hopes that Michael Diamant would have a broad swedish accent, and he does not disappoint! This man and people like him are important to swedish architecture.
WOW! Much respect! I must say I agree with all of content and am finally happy, that I am not the only one viewing the architecture this way. I am confident enough, but now I will be even more. ;) Thank you so very much, Mr. Michael Diamant.
Brilliant discussion debunking the argument of modernists. It constantly distresses me how my city, London, has been trashed by modernists since the post WW2 era. There of course some decent designs but overall most are cheap, bland and soulless with no relationship to their location. Robert A M Stern of New York summed up perfectly their irrelevance when he said (can’t recall the exact quote) they looked as though they could be demolished with a can opener - perfect!
The same happened to my city, Rio. It was considered the most magnificent city in the world in beginning of 20th century. Today is a ugly city, and people call the city as wonderful (maravilhosa), but people don't even know the origins of this nickname, just call this way because it was stablished by the modernist stablishment to relativize all the wrong things they do in the city for people to believe in them like they're supposedly are doing the right things. People shall know this, even if some of them don't care about architecture, but everybody needs to know how things are working and how it could really do positive results if we not also rebuit old important buildings but also give a chance to build modern buildings in classical style.
There are many summer schools now in classical architecture and urbanism and in the US you can study to become a classical architect at Notre Dame university. But otherwise joing the social media groups and ask any question that you have.
Old brownstones here in NYC are beautiful from the outside but often feel cramped once you’re inside. If there was a way to incorporate bigger windows and higher ceilings (introduced in modern design )and bring it into more classical designs … I’d be a fan!
Of course you can build beautiful buildings and have modern standards. The good thing about newly built apartments in my country is that the bathrooms, doors and hallways are bigger so they're wheelchair accessible. That requirement wouldn't change.
Amazing discussion. Everything I have felt consciously and unconsciously all my life about modern architecture summed up in 1h 40 min. And so true. Bravo!
I'm deeply thankful to this channel for such a remarkable conversation. Someone needs to put Michael Diamant in contact with Jordan B. Peterson to discuss all of theese topics, from a psychological and religious perspective, as architecture also reflects the current moral state of our culture. It would be highly appreciated to be able to listen both men make the case for ancient knowledge that has been now disregarded due to ideological impositions. Thank you for all the great content!
Thank you very much for those kind words. It would be an honour to be at the same panel as Jordan B Petersen though he has much more knowledge of psychology and philosophy than I have. My strength is my knowledge of sociology, demography, social anthropology and ofcourse urban planning.
@@michael.diamant please make it happen! @Jordan B Peterson ... The fact that such an interdisciplinary conversation between both of you could take place will be of upmost value. Thanks again for your efforts on transmitting the knowledge of our past teachers and masters, I'm certain that ancient wisdom will save our future. Greetings from Barcelona.
I'm glad you brought up Jordan Peterson. Because it's these same types of people behind modernist architecture who promote the other anti-truth ideologies he fights against.
love this conversation. ive always wondered the economics why we dont build new traditional architecture.... and why we replace them with death squares.
In the book "The Naked Communist" by W. Skousen, he said the promotion of ugly arts was one of the subversive agendas. The effect is prominent not only in architecture, but painting, music and recently Holywood movies as we can easily witness.
Such an incredible video. It’s very satisfying and reassuring to listen to someone spell out the many passionate feelings that I have in such a clear and comprehensive way.
I think one of the mistakes architects often make today is that they believe they are artists. That's all fine and good, and I'm all for avant garde art and art that makes you question what "art" is. There is a place for that: it's called contemporary art museums or in private collection. Architecture is "art," but in addition, it is "permanent, public" art which EVERYONE has to look at and live with. The post-modernist ego needs to be lost; stop thinking you know more than the masses. Create beautiful spaces!
St. Edmundsbury Cathedral in the UK is a lovely example of extending a parish church into a Cathedral in modern times, by using a Gothic architectural style to blend seamlessly the new with the old.
Pretty good style of argumentation. He knows what he is talking about. Decipher the enemy first. Use right terminology (modernist not modern), use right example (Berlin and New York and not Russia). He is right saying it is about power. Neuroscience shows that beauty is partly objective. Would be great with a reference.
Architects have their own ideology and produce what James Stevens Curl calls Dystopia. They don't produce ugliness because people won't like it. They produce ugliness, and want you to beleive tit is for some unavoidable reason, but it's because they aren't capable of doing anything else. They are indoctrinated only with modernism from the day they start school and never learn traditional architectures.
The speaker nailed it. Creating ugly buildings is not to save money. The reason is ideological. Architects are trained to desire novelty for its own sake and to disregard the sensibilities of clients, employees and residents of the monstrosities they are forced to pay for, work in, or worse, have to live in. Such arrogance is an abomination matched only by the depressing ugliness it hatches.
If it were left up to me, I would without hesitation give the order to demolish every last postmodernist monstrosity on earth. But that is a bit severe, so I would happily agree to err on the side of caution and preserve a single-digit percentage of it. Pleasant reveries aside, this was a wonderful discussion, both for its reassurance that those of us who think this way are not alone, as well as for the intellectual ammunition it provides our side. That last point is important, because many people over the last few generations who had considerable misgivings about modernist architecture's aesthetic value must have felt intellectually intimidated and lacked the self-confidence to argue their case for fear of being considered philistines.
@@michael.diamant I am here a year later, but what you said here was wonderfully said, and so relevant. You also articulated some things I've not previously been able to articulate, and I thank you for that. I've linked this video to my own Facebook page. I live in France, and I just hate seeing some of the horrible modern buildings going in and ruining beautiful areas. But, I have seen some towns are no longer allowing hideousness to be built simply because it's somehow cheaper right this split second to do so. It needs to not be an eye-sore. And I think it's good to treat aeshetics as an objective, rather than subjective subject.
22:20 this for me is the problem with this argument. I’ve heard this perspective now in a few places and this way of defining it, however the end point is always a historical reference with no bridge to the present. It’s a difficult question to answer. And the reason it happens is that the argument is always made by non-architects who don’t understand that the best modernists actually used classical proportions etc. it’s just a very difficult thing to do- move forward and make beautiful architecture which is what the entire post-modern movement is all about. That said I think Cino Zucchi and Adam Caruso are doing some good work, it learns from the past but is clearly of our time. The digs he takes at architects are highly generalised and there are many sweeping comments where in reality it’s a lot more nuanced than he’s making out but it’s good to look at different perspectives.
If you need proof of concept just watch a Studio Ghibli movie. Many feature an idealized European city for their setting. And there's never a modern building in sight. Miyazaki knows what is beautiful.
People don't rave about the Moscow subway system because its trains are the most reliable in the world being fast and always on time (which they are and all due props to them for that). No, they rave about the Moscow subway because it arguably has the most beautiful stations in the world which many of the people in Moscow take a great deal of pride in. In fact, Moscow citizens take so much pride in them that people caught trying to vandalize stations have gotten swarmed by groups of people trying to stop them. People ascribe a high value to things, like the Moscow subway, not just because they're beautiful, but also because they have pride in them. I would argue that they feel that pride largely due to the fact that it's difficult & expensive to build things that are beautiful, and beautiful & sturdy building represents the physical embodiment of the sweat and effort of the people who worked to build it, the proof of their accomplishment. People take a lot of pride in that kind of thing, especially if they can tie themselves to it (i.e. "I built that station", "my father or grandfather did a lot of the tile work and mosaics for the stations", or "My city did that!").
Mr Diamant, you are precious and a veritable pleasure to listen to. All my support for the demolition of ideological ugliness, it cannot happen soon enough.
Here ( 1:02:00 ) I Agree in the statement, that beauty is a sign of intelligence, because intelligence is not something which goes on individually, it is what goes on between different individuals, between different organisms, which is also why I do not agree with this follwing statement ( 1:02:34 ) ; that beauty is much harder to achive. I in fact hold quite the opposite stand to that. Precisly because of intelligence. What is this intelligence if not a relationship? In order to relate one has to give in and quiet the mind for a moment to actualize and engage the senses, and just dwell in reality. To relate, is not possible without harmony. Such a relationship in funcktion, is based on two principales; love, which carries no boundaries what-so-ever, and respect, which set boundaries and keep a distance. Without the one, the other fail to deliver, too. Those inseparable yet profound opposites are the grand mother of all conflicts, and the dawn of the aestetic path.
When you talk about how you took a classical architecture course and you were as knowledgeable as the actual architectural students to point out the loss of knowledge, this is something I've thought of a bit. In addition to knowledge of proportions, styles, etc., classical architecture often included motifs and story elements, in statues or carvings, frescos or paintings, or in the molding, basically the building often tried to tell a story or convey imagery that contributed to the overall character or theme of the building. In most classical architecture, a lot of the time that drew on Greek or Roman history or myth or European myths, although if you expand out of what's typically seen as "traditional" classical architecture to buildings from Asia, you get a lot more types of story elements being included in building designs. My point is, that historical classical architects could design a lot of what they did because they also often had a "classical" education and a deep knowledge of history and culture. I could be wrong, but I feel that people now a days are fairly culturally ignorant or they actively reject out of a sense of superiority to prior generations, which stems from wide-spread presentism. As such, a lot of architects today wouldn't have the knowledge to design a building that tells a really good story.
Yes. That’s partly why I’m personally a bit sceptical towards revival styles or new classicism in general. The reason that those styles were built was because the avarage human person looked back towards ancient greece and Rome as epicenters of cultural sophistication. Barely anyone nowadays have read classical literature or view ancient civilisation like we did. That’s why I personally would advocate for a new architecture but with classical design philosophy. That means reinventing the ornaments to fit the zeitgeist instead of copying greeco-Roman ones, like they did with art nuvou, Art Deco etc. I’d be curious to know what other people in the architectural uprising thought of this approach, or if they simply want to bring back textbook classicism.
It's insane to claim the people who like traditional architecture are fascists when the darling and golden child of Modern architecture, Le Corbusier, was an actual fascist who supported fascist causes in the 1920s, 1930s, and during WW2.
The classical system is all based on human scale and proportion. Modernist architecture is based on an inorganic, mechanistic scale. It's is inherently anti-human and even normal people can feel it, though they can't express why.
While the "pioneering" architects designing modernist buildings may have been "ideologically" driven (insane), and the herd of architects following in the footsteps may be scared & stupid, the powerful figures behind the scenes, that allowed a fringe movement to become what it is today, certainly weren't any of those things. There's cool, calculating reasoning at play.
There must be since the modernist movement is so succsesful despite every non architect hating it. It should be studied just have it succeed with that.
Once traditional architectural principles and techniques are re-learned, we will still have opportunities for creativity and ingenuity. Look at Gothic architecture, and how exceptionally creative and groundbreaking it was compared to the Romanesque that came before.
My question is: there is a clear difference between then and now in the way we live, how can we build a bridge between this rich heritage without pretending that nothing has changed (in a sort of escapist theme-park ideology) but rather expressing some of what we are today?
In North America the idea of public consultation and democratizing development has turned into the main tool of NIMBYs to stop development at all costs which turns into an anti-development anti-housing mindset. This has created an affordability crisis and housing shortage in many parts of the developed world. It's good intention for creating better looking buildings but I actually think getting out of architects/developer's way once the rules are set by the community (generally classical to an extent) is the best path forward. Having more democratic decision making will basically stop all development.
The NIMBYS exist because they don't want their neighborhoods to change. I get it. They don't want high rise housing to go up because it changes the look and feel of their home, which is the entire reason they moved there. So the solution isn't to build high-rises, it's to discover what people love about their neighborhoods and duplicate them. I personally think New Urbanism is the solution, not high-rises.
The Bauhaus School has had an enormous influence on modern architectural culture. The basis of this philosophy is form following function. However there is an emphasis on such things such as symmetr for. So there seems to be some values which crossover between the classical and modern. I agree with Diamant but would love to hear a debate on some specific aspects of each philosophy. A Bauhaus and a Classical architect going head to head would be great.
Beauty is a function. It's a function that makes us feel good. It helps our mental health. Living in a ugly place is depressing. This is common sense but the modernists have no sense.
1:29:57 it’s about authenticity. Fake materials are not good. A good analogue is electric cars that have fake engine noises and fake air vents and scoops. It’s disturbing to your sense of understanding of you environment which is advocated for earlier in this discussion under the topic of vertical articulation of a facade.
What I would do with Acropolis of Athens is this. I would preserve it as the original ruins, but then I would choose a similar hill near Athens, transform it into a copy of the original, and on it build a perfect copy of the Acropolis from the time of the ancient Greeks (could be done with cheap materials, as long as the look and feel would be identical to the original). Thus, mass visitors could first see the original, romantic old ruins, and then experience the Acropolis from its most brilliant times in a new location, in 4D and in all colors, and experience the ancient world and life first hand. :) We could also reconstruct some of the ancient Athens around this "new" hill and thus this joint work of the entire civilization would become the 9th wonder of the world. This perfect reconstruction of ancient Athens wouldn't serve only as an amazing tourist attraction, but also as permanent location for making films and documentaries. I think it is a great idea. ;)
As a wise man gave his critique of rationalistim: "Man likes to make roads and to create, that is a fact beyond dispute. But why has he such a passionate love for destruction and chaos also? Tell me that! [...] May it not be that he loves chaos and destruction (there can be no disputing that he does sometimes love it) because he is instinctively afraid of attaining his object and completing the edifice he is constructing? Who knows, perhaps he only loves that edifice from a distance, and is by no means in love with it at close quarters; perhaps he only loves building it and does not want to live in it, but will leave it, when completed, [...]" -Fjodor Dostojevski
Well tough I agree we should start building more buildings inspired from the older periods I think we shouldn't make everyone classical architect it's better if we have more diversity like sprinkle of classical, sprinkle of art deco for example, art nouveau, gotick revival, baroque, and even architects with ideas like Zaha Hadid she was amazing. Because the point is to make everything beautiful and individual not globalist.
Definitely I agree, make cities more unique with context and uniqueness. I would like to see more of the older styles come back because all I saw was the new and modern being built everywhere.
While I do agree to many of the comments of your guest, and feel drawn to classical architecture myself, though I was educated as a modernist architect, I believe many of the statements lack healthy nuances and some counter examples. It feels like a war between humans and some alien species meant to destroy joy on Earth. Too much hatred and generalization managed to close me off to a topic I was open to. What about people like Diébédo Francis Kéré, Yasmeen Lari, Studio Mumbay, Jan Ghel and so many others? They are making the next step that is slowly recovering what got lost, but in a way that does not mimic what used to be and does not inflate hatred. It is a gentle shift to more sensible projects.
@michael.diamant Very possible, but maybe it would be better not to pay it forward. There are great architects that feel the same as you. Also many young ones that might bring the much needed shift.
@@cristinaenuta6988it is not a few bad apples but main stream name calling from almost every modernist the last 10 years. So they deserve what is coming.
I have been unimpressed with modern architecture for years but I assumed that I was just old fashioned and not cool or modern minded . Now through videos like this I realise that modern architecture realy is tasteless brutalist and anti-beauty and I was right all the time . Wonderful to see taste and beauty is being re-awakened .
That is one trick the modernists have used to suppress dissident! To make us believe that our common love for classical beauty is only individual taste. But now more people than ever know that we are the overwhelming majority.
Well, frankly, it is already a 'war', of sorts. Entrenched interests obviously want to impose this trash on the rest of us - and they are far from done yet - and they possess the means to prevent discussions such as this one breaking out in society. 'Being right' is nice and it's important, but by itself it avails us of very little. The real struggle is to draw sufficient attention to the issue.
Reading a Tome on Modern Art, I just skip the chapters on Architecture because it is all tedious rationalizations of ugliness. The same holds true for the painting and sculpture, so much Philosophy about ridiculous ugliness it becomes a great soporific. Sometimes I think there has been a race to get to the blank canvass. The cement box. Come to think of it a coffin might be the archetype behind modern buildings!
One thing I need to mention is that the terminology in this video is partly wrong. What we know of as modern architecture is not simply modernism, it’s divided into two main styles which is modernism and postmodernism. To generalise architecture into these two styles can be contradictory in some ways, but the reason I refer to them like this is that modernist architecture is architecture that follows the modernist ideology and postmodernist architecture is architecture that follows the postmodernist ideology. We usually group these two together, but philosophically they are almost opposite. Modernist architecture follows the philosophy that a building should reflect the machine. It should be utilitarian and ultra-efficient. Human emotions should not be included as it cannot be objectivly defined in architecture and efficiency and monotony is the end goal. This is the style that promotes monotone buildings without character. Buildings that often employ symmetry but lack character because of their rigidity and monotony. These are the buildings which our public housing projects consist of. Postmodernist architecture however is the opposite in that the end goal is to avoid monotony. Postmodernist architecture is not efficient or practical. It embraces diversity in form. However This is the type of architecture where relativism comes from. Since it implyes that beuty does not exist it lacks the proper proportions or symmetries altough it can have a degree of character. These are the types of buildings with wacky forms and irregular placements of architectural features like the ”evolved modernist” building as Michael refered to it which they discussed in this video. In actuality it’s not modernist because of the ideological difference which I just mentioned. I hope This comment will help all of you understand these types of architecture better after reading This comment.
The key is quality. Good modernist architecture or art is incredibly beautiful. Good classical architecture is beautiful. The problem is that the bean counters have gotten their fingers in the pie. There is newly built classical architecture in my city that is appalling, there is also brutalist work that is wonderful, and it goes both ways.
Who says that eveyone prefers classical? Were are you getting this info from. Of course classical is going to look more applealing than a concrete box which is more often than not acrhiectually design. Youre focusing on just one part of modernism.
@michael.diamant yeah you've said. And maybe it's true, but what supports the claim? What were the nature of the surveys done, like sample size, the kinds of architecture used as an example, and what region were people surveyed from or was it multiple regions? I don't understand where this claim comes from
There are so many valuable youtube channels out there too - please someone tell mr. Diamant to check out Stewart Hicks' channel, if nothing else. Maybe set up a talk with an actual architect and historian who knows how to guide him before he goes and records a 2 hour long video based mostly on "vibes" and arguments like "ugly" vs "pretty" without defining the terms or anything.
Ancient and medieval pictorial art are respected today but not imitated. In our epoch we have our own style. Although there are ugly modern buildings, to be sure, there are also beautiful modern buildings expressive of our own epochal style. Why not discuss beautiful modern buildings?
@@michael.diamant I should have said: "In our epoch we have our own styles" (plural). My favorite modern American style is inspired by classical Zen Buddhist architecture: elegant minimalism that savors aesthetically the quality of building materials and the spirituality of understated elegance, well designed walls of glass (a modern incarnation of shoji screens) designed to allow for privacy but also for promoting an aesthetic relationship between the occupants inside and the creation outside, asymmetrical rather than symmetrical balance, etc. Done well, modern architecture has a spiritual quality of its own. It is not everybody's spirituality, to be sure, but for some of us it is incomparable.
So glad you mentioned that. I especially dislike his buildings. And the fact that more than one of them has set fires tells me he learns nothing from what he's done. Him, and so many of the hideous buildings you see now always make me thing "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should."
the level of misrepresentation of "the architects" here is amazing. It demonstrates a lack of awareness about the current architectural discourse, or the variety of it. It also demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the incentives in the building process that derive in ugly cities (most of it is regulation)
@@michael.diamant Well... "modern architecture" itself is the most diverse thing you can imagine. Its not a style, just the mame we give to architecture after the radical changes of the industrial revolution. Mies Van der Rohe is modern architecture, so is Louis Kahn, Carlo Scarpa Bakrishna Doshi or Luis Barragán. All those are universal references for all architects today, so is Palladio.
The classical buildings are coded geometry. The problem is that even those who push this agenda of returning to thé past would not accept this truth. Instead they are creating a world of kitsch which will be equally soulless. I have made some videos showing how contemporary architects apply these codes. Understanding the codes must come first and then be applied in practise after.
@@michael.diamant Amen to that! I keep seeing how they'll add to a classical museum, and say "this form here is a nod to this element of the original building" and if it is a nod to it, it's one that is so out of context that it makes no sense at all, and ignores that the whole of the addition is simply hideous. I especially hate to hear when they're adding to an old museum, they always make it ugly. It's so bizarre that things dedicated to art can themselves be so blasted ugly. Of course, with some things being called art, the ugly buildings are appropriate housings for them. A perfect example of that is the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston. the addition is ugly, ugly, ugly, and more ugly.
I agree with a lot of points raised in this interview but as an architect myself I cannot say I recognise most of the qualities being ascribed to the profession. I don't know where you're meeting these architects who think the only relevant buildings are made out of steel and glass because I can honestly say I've never met anyone like that. We've been making habitable structures for thousands of years - if you're involved in making new ones and you've never looked to the past for inspiration or education, you can't really call yourself an architect. I understand of course that there are bad apples like there is in every profession but putting the blame of the world's uglification solely at the feet of architects is not only simplistic but also incredibly unwise. When I sit around the table to discuss projects with its stakeholders, it is often only myself and my architect colleagues who care about beauty being an integral part of the building. Alienating architects will mean that less people who care about buildings are involved in the process of making them.
Once again, I cannot say I relate with this clique-based impression you have of my profession. The architecture industry is not high school haha. Even if it was so clean cut, it would be very unwise to replace all modern architects with classical ones. You wouldn't consider doing the same with doctors, lawyers or even musicians. I'm also distraught at the degraded state of some modern urban environments, but the only thing more annoying than ugly modernism is Potemkin classicism. May I suggest "Humanise" a book by British designer Thomas Hearherwick about the subject.
@@TheoCachia I have engaged with (modernist) architects now for 10 years in more than a dozen countries. But a serious question to you. Is there something called objective beauty or is everything relative?
Its all about the money. Modern buildings are easier to design because they are so simplistic. Why would they spend a lot of time on buildings that are beautiful when they could spend less time on a ugly building. They only care about making money as easy as possible
You lament that they are free to make all kinds of experiment, If you don't let them do experiment, how can they make better one? They can make experiment because their building materials are a few times cheaper than the one you use in your so call classical building.
The best way to describe modernism is “‘anti human”. It’s cold and bleak agenda, lack of any ornament is in contrast to the human condition that has celebrated beauty in design since the beginning of civilisation.
Yes. Modernism, or functionalism by large, is a diabolic pagt with the inhumane.
To me, modern architecture was anti - architecture. This is why modern architecture cannot belong to lawns in the real world. Modern architecture belongs first and foremost to Minecraft. If architects still want to build modern style they should do that in Minecraft, because otherwise they are going to be given the same treatment as people who once regarded covid - 19 vaccines as part of what was then described as modern medicine. Modern architecture was thus not only anti - human but also anti - architecture.
Exactly. The interesting thing is that le corbusier, arguably the biggest pioneer of modernist architecture even refered to it as “a machine for living”, meaning that the architecture was to represent the machine not the human. I have no idea how this quote could even be seen as reasonable but that’s that.
And it is intentional, its the New World Order philosophy to turn us into a rootless grey mass of mindless consumers without a culture or beauty.
It is a big scam and we are finally reaching the turning point. In the long run, modernism will just be a blip in history, but rather sooner than later.
Im an architecture student and my dream is to design like the good old days.
And you can! where are you situated? There are possibilities in many countries now to study classical architecture design.
@@michael.diamant hey are you the guy from the video? 😅 Well me I live in New York City and I'm studying architecture but in my school we design in the contemporary style so I'm not to knowledgeable on classical architecture. But I was thinking of researching by myself about these styles.
@@javierpacheco8234 Regarding the technicalities, I would suggest reading The American Vignola: A Guide to the Making of Classical Architecture. It's a must and a very accessible book.
Well yes, but there is no good old days. Aside from the rich who built all these classical beautiful buildings, the poor lived terribly
@@georgek3261 no this a poor generalisation. There are thousands of high quality every day buildings with many drawing upon the classical tradition just not in the overt way that grand homes or civic buildings.
Absolutely true: ugliness is intentional. It's a form of spite and hatred for tradition and everything normal.
I have been working in the architectural field as an architectural designer for 35 years and it has been a battle that i have yet to win a single battle. I love traditional architecture (Paris).
I am constantly told I live in the past. Read the book -A Patterned Language.
Christopher Alexander ? Omg I love that book
Don’t surrender to their Marxist agenda, there are positive signs that things are beginning to change. Living in the past is just a camouflage for their incompetence to design anything that most humans can relate to. Designing using the principals of the classical, gothic, renaissance etc styles does not mean slavishly copying anything but rather using a talent to adapt these as the highly talented architects of the 19th and early 20th so brilliantly accomplished.
Small correction on the topic of Notre-Dame : the roof and spire will be finally reconstructed with wood, it was found that making an iron structure would be too heavy for the walls… They have now started to collect the trees and the proper reconstruction will start later this year…
Wait... aren't you supposed to dry the wood for like 50 years for such beams?
@@anicola2 Not 50 years, they had to dry the wood for only a year or so (they are already installing the beams on the cathedral)
This is one of the main reasons I dropped out of college architecture - almost everything I was being made to learn was the exact opposite of what I wanted to do in the first place (design and build oldschool, non-shitty houses). Instead I had to meditate daily on the wackiest, ugliest ways to make things and somehow explain why it was "good". The stress, disgust, and lack of actual motivation was overwhelming, and realizing it was by design made it even more so.
Same thing happened to me. I work in real estate now.
They demoralised you and they did it intentionally and strategically to keep you out of the gates. If you could have maintained your morale even suffering their tortures, then today you would be their competition.
Breaking up the old boys' clubs was a strategic mistake because the old boys incorrectly presumed that the pretenders whom they let in would extend to the next generation the same charity that was extended to them. The old boys' club has been replaced with the xim/xers of a certain age club.
Yes it's all intentional. It's intended to demoralize the individual and recast them as "a simple cog in a great machine". Mr. Diamant is right it is completely ideological. Thankfully the tide is starting to turn on all this madness. But not in Universities... that will be the last place to find change.
As an architecture student, wish me luck. I might either get rusticated tomorrow or loved for the presentation that I will be giving on this exact topic😅
In School, they don't accept classical architecture or traditional architecture to be teached, which is weird and not right.
How'd it go?
how did it go?
Oh... I got the lowest grade😂😅
@@chetansrivastava1210 not surprising, unfortunately most Architecture Campuses are Just spreading modernistic propaganda
I have long followed people like Krier,Terry and roger Scruton and their seeming hopeless quest for the revival of beauty…..pure astonishment….that you people exist….long live social media…
I agree when he said that ee should design buildings beyond mere function. I just witnessed a brutalist building set of for demolition to be replaced by an all glass building and no one complained. Then I witnessed a 1930's neo classical mansion that was also set up by developers for demolition to turn it into a warehouse like grocery store but people in the community protested against it. Though it was all rundown people find it valuable for their community.
Michael Diamont is brilliant and brave. It's so wonderful to hear cogent arguments like this. Of course many have made the same arguments, but their voices are rarely heard. So, thank you so much for this video. I will share it. I highly recommend reading books on architecture by the historian Alan Gowans. He would agree vociferously with Diamont. I'm only mid-way through the video and although I'm a children's book illustrator, I'm excited to draw beautiful architecture for fun and for my children's books. Thanks for this video.
What a lovely comment! And thank you for sharing the video, it helps in spreading the word that the world can be beautiful again.
He has recently become a hero in my heart, Michael brings forth a very important topic that we really need to tackle as we go into the future. Beauty will prevail 😍
It will! But rather sooner than later. That is what the fight is about.
Swan Lake Castle here in Granite Bay, California is an epic example of classical architecture finding it's way into modern buildings and it was built fairly recently using all contractors trained in classical European architecture and construction methods.
We are currently in a Dark Age of architecture and can only hope for a new Renaissance in classical architecture. The classics are no longer taught in architecture school. That needs to change. It should at the very least be taught as a freshman background course.
There are a very few schools that teach classical architecture now, but you could count them on one hand. Mere and more are beginning to see they'll have to start to some degree.
Notre-Dame in Indiana has been the beacon that has been teraching it for years. Cjeck them out.
I clicked this video in the hopes that Michael Diamant would have a broad swedish accent, and he does not disappoint!
This man and people like him are important to swedish architecture.
Why limit it to Swedish architecture?
WOW! Much respect! I must say I agree with all of content and am finally happy, that I am not the only one viewing the architecture this way. I am confident enough, but now I will be even more. ;) Thank you so very much, Mr. Michael Diamant.
I have grown sick seeing boxes mushrooming around me.
I met my soul tribe here. Loved this.
Brilliant discussion debunking the argument of modernists. It constantly distresses me how my city, London, has been trashed by modernists since the post WW2 era. There of course some decent designs but overall most are cheap, bland and soulless with no relationship to their location. Robert A M Stern of New York summed up perfectly their irrelevance when he said (can’t recall the exact quote) they looked as though they could be demolished with a can opener - perfect!
The same happened to my city, Rio. It was considered the most magnificent city in the world in beginning of 20th century. Today is a ugly city, and people call the city as wonderful (maravilhosa), but people don't even know the origins of this nickname, just call this way because it was stablished by the modernist stablishment to relativize all the wrong things they do in the city for people to believe in them like they're supposedly are doing the right things. People shall know this, even if some of them don't care about architecture, but everybody needs to know how things are working and how it could really do positive results if we not also rebuit old important buildings but also give a chance to build modern buildings in classical style.
We need a place/academy for the layperson to learn the technical side of building design integrated with classical knowledge. PLEASE CREATE THIS!
There are many summer schools now in classical architecture and urbanism and in the US you can study to become a classical architect at Notre Dame university. But otherwise joing the social media groups and ask any question that you have.
Old brownstones here in NYC are beautiful from the outside but often feel cramped once you’re inside. If there was a way to incorporate bigger windows and higher ceilings (introduced in modern design )and bring it into more classical designs … I’d be a fan!
My first apartment in Manhattan - 1882 brownstone - but inside 400 square feet - half of one floor.
Of course you can build beautiful buildings and have modern standards. The good thing about newly built apartments in my country is that the bathrooms, doors and hallways are bigger so they're wheelchair accessible. That requirement wouldn't change.
Amazing discussion. Everything I have felt consciously and unconsciously all my life about modern architecture summed up in 1h 40 min. And so true. Bravo!
I'm deeply thankful to this channel for such a remarkable conversation. Someone needs to put Michael Diamant in contact with Jordan B. Peterson to discuss all of theese topics, from a psychological and religious perspective, as architecture also reflects the current moral state of our culture. It would be highly appreciated to be able to listen both men make the case for ancient knowledge that has been now disregarded due to ideological impositions. Thank you for all the great content!
Thank you very much for those kind words. It would be an honour to be at the same panel as Jordan B Petersen though he has much more knowledge of psychology and philosophy than I have. My strength is my knowledge of sociology, demography, social anthropology and ofcourse urban planning.
@@michael.diamant please make it happen! @Jordan B Peterson ... The fact that such an interdisciplinary conversation between both of you could take place will be of upmost value. Thanks again for your efforts on transmitting the knowledge of our past teachers and masters, I'm certain that ancient wisdom will save our future. Greetings from Barcelona.
I'm glad you brought up Jordan Peterson. Because it's these same types of people behind modernist architecture who promote the other anti-truth ideologies he fights against.
love this conversation. ive always wondered the economics why we dont build new traditional architecture.... and why we replace them with death squares.
Brilliant interview, important topic in this world of ugliness, both in ideology and buildings, deserves way more views!
thank you! please share it with friends on other social media :)
Yes, this is a "go to" interview if you care about beauty in architecture, in my opinion. Fabulous.
In the book "The Naked Communist" by W. Skousen, he said the promotion of ugly arts was one of the subversive agendas. The effect is prominent not only in architecture, but painting, music and recently Holywood movies as we can easily witness.
It breaks you down since you are not allowed to critisize it. That until now!
Yes! I used to be a Marxist and can attest to this. The first stages are demoralization and iconoclasm
I rarely have the pleasure of coming across someone so like-minded.
Such an incredible video. It’s very satisfying and reassuring to listen to someone spell out the many passionate feelings that I have in such a clear and comprehensive way.
I think one of the mistakes architects often make today is that they believe they are artists. That's all fine and good, and I'm all for avant garde art and art that makes you question what "art" is. There is a place for that: it's called contemporary art museums or in private collection. Architecture is "art," but in addition, it is "permanent, public" art which EVERYONE has to look at and live with. The post-modernist ego needs to be lost; stop thinking you know more than the masses. Create beautiful spaces!
Yes their self identification as artists is a root problem, since it makes them deaf to public criticism.
Such a great video❤ I've learned so much. Would love to see more videos with Michael Diamant✨ beautiful world is a happy world!😊
St. Edmundsbury Cathedral in the UK is a lovely example of extending a parish church into a Cathedral in modern times, by using a Gothic architectural style to blend seamlessly the new with the old.
Pretty good style of argumentation. He knows what he is talking about. Decipher the enemy first. Use right terminology (modernist not modern), use right example (Berlin and New York and not Russia). He is right saying it is about power.
Neuroscience shows that beauty is partly objective. Would be great with a reference.
Thank you, I have been doing this for many years now and I have had a lot of help from my sociology and social anthropology studies.
many Architechs have an instinct that that rejects general popularity. If Traditional architecture was hated by the people it would be build more.
Architects have their own ideology and produce what James Stevens Curl calls Dystopia. They don't produce ugliness because people won't like it. They produce ugliness, and want you to beleive tit is for some unavoidable reason, but it's because they aren't capable of doing anything else. They are indoctrinated only with modernism from the day they start school and never learn traditional architectures.
The speaker nailed it. Creating ugly buildings is not to save money. The reason is ideological. Architects are trained to desire novelty for its own sake and to disregard the sensibilities of clients, employees and residents of the monstrosities they are forced to pay for, work in, or worse, have to live in. Such arrogance is an abomination matched only by the depressing ugliness it hatches.
If it were left up to me, I would without hesitation give the order to demolish every last postmodernist monstrosity on earth. But that is a bit severe, so I would happily agree to err on the side of caution and preserve a single-digit percentage of it. Pleasant reveries aside, this was a wonderful discussion, both for its reassurance that those of us who think this way are not alone, as well as for the intellectual ammunition it provides our side. That last point is important, because many people over the last few generations who had considerable misgivings about modernist architecture's aesthetic value must have felt intellectually intimidated and lacked the self-confidence to argue their case for fear of being considered philistines.
This is one of the best conversations I’ve listened to in a very long time. Thank you!
thank you very much for those kind words. Please share on other social media platforms if possible :)
@@michael.diamant I am here a year later, but what you said here was wonderfully said, and so relevant. You also articulated some things I've not previously been able to articulate, and I thank you for that. I've linked this video to my own Facebook page. I live in France, and I just hate seeing some of the horrible modern buildings going in and ruining beautiful areas. But, I have seen some towns are no longer allowing hideousness to be built simply because it's somehow cheaper right this split second to do so. It needs to not be an eye-sore. And I think it's good to treat aeshetics as an objective, rather than subjective subject.
22:20 this for me is the problem with this argument. I’ve heard this perspective now in a few places and this way of defining it, however the end point is always a historical reference with no bridge to the present. It’s a difficult question to answer.
And the reason it happens is that the argument is always made by non-architects who don’t understand that the best modernists actually used classical proportions etc. it’s just a very difficult thing to do- move forward and make beautiful architecture which is what the entire post-modern movement is all about.
That said I think Cino Zucchi and Adam Caruso are doing some good work, it learns from the past but is clearly of our time.
The digs he takes at architects are highly generalised and there are many sweeping comments where in reality it’s a lot more nuanced than he’s making out but it’s good to look at different perspectives.
Thank you so much to the whole twam and the guest. This should be in main tv. But of course it is to dangerous...
If you need proof of concept just watch a Studio Ghibli movie. Many feature an idealized European city for their setting. And there's never a modern building in sight. Miyazaki knows what is beautiful.
Wonderful. I hope the message can be spread far and wide 💖
People don't rave about the Moscow subway system because its trains are the most reliable in the world being fast and always on time (which they are and all due props to them for that). No, they rave about the Moscow subway because it arguably has the most beautiful stations in the world which many of the people in Moscow take a great deal of pride in. In fact, Moscow citizens take so much pride in them that people caught trying to vandalize stations have gotten swarmed by groups of people trying to stop them.
People ascribe a high value to things, like the Moscow subway, not just because they're beautiful, but also because they have pride in them. I would argue that they feel that pride largely due to the fact that it's difficult & expensive to build things that are beautiful, and beautiful & sturdy building represents the physical embodiment of the sweat and effort of the people who worked to build it, the proof of their accomplishment. People take a lot of pride in that kind of thing, especially if they can tie themselves to it (i.e. "I built that station", "my father or grandfather did a lot of the tile work and mosaics for the stations", or "My city did that!").
Mr Diamant, you are precious and a veritable pleasure to listen to. All my support for the demolition of ideological ugliness, it cannot happen soon enough.
Fantastic interview. Just perfect. Thank You both very much. Cheers!
Here ( 1:02:00 ) I Agree in the statement, that beauty is a sign of intelligence, because intelligence is not something which goes on individually, it is what goes on between different individuals, between different organisms, which is also why I do not agree with this follwing statement ( 1:02:34 ) ; that beauty is much harder to achive. I in fact hold quite the opposite stand to that. Precisly because of intelligence.
What is this intelligence if not a relationship? In order to relate one has to give in and quiet the mind for a moment to actualize and engage the senses, and just dwell in reality. To relate, is not possible without harmony. Such a relationship in funcktion, is based on two principales; love, which carries no boundaries what-so-ever, and respect, which set boundaries and keep a distance. Without the one, the other fail to deliver, too. Those inseparable yet profound opposites are the grand mother of all conflicts, and the dawn of the aestetic path.
When you talk about how you took a classical architecture course and you were as knowledgeable as the actual architectural students to point out the loss of knowledge, this is something I've thought of a bit. In addition to knowledge of proportions, styles, etc., classical architecture often included motifs and story elements, in statues or carvings, frescos or paintings, or in the molding, basically the building often tried to tell a story or convey imagery that contributed to the overall character or theme of the building. In most classical architecture, a lot of the time that drew on Greek or Roman history or myth or European myths, although if you expand out of what's typically seen as "traditional" classical architecture to buildings from Asia, you get a lot more types of story elements being included in building designs.
My point is, that historical classical architects could design a lot of what they did because they also often had a "classical" education and a deep knowledge of history and culture. I could be wrong, but I feel that people now a days are fairly culturally ignorant or they actively reject out of a sense of superiority to prior generations, which stems from wide-spread presentism. As such, a lot of architects today wouldn't have the knowledge to design a building that tells a really good story.
Yes. That’s partly why I’m personally a bit sceptical towards revival styles or new classicism in general. The reason that those styles were built was because the avarage human person looked back towards ancient greece and Rome as epicenters of cultural sophistication. Barely anyone nowadays have read classical literature or view ancient civilisation like we did. That’s why I personally would advocate for a new architecture but with classical design philosophy. That means reinventing the ornaments to fit the zeitgeist instead of copying greeco-Roman ones, like they did with art nuvou, Art Deco etc. I’d be curious to know what other people in the architectural uprising thought of this approach, or if they simply want to bring back textbook classicism.
beauty certainly is not subjective. dude on the right is distractingly handsome
It's insane to claim the people who like traditional architecture are fascists when the darling and golden child of Modern architecture, Le Corbusier, was an actual fascist who supported fascist causes in the 1920s, 1930s, and during WW2.
The classical system is all based on human scale and proportion. Modernist architecture is based on an inorganic, mechanistic scale. It's is inherently anti-human and even normal people can feel it, though they can't express why.
exactly! and that is what I try to help with: give words to what everyone feels
While the "pioneering" architects designing modernist buildings may have been "ideologically" driven (insane), and the herd of architects following in the footsteps may be scared & stupid, the powerful figures behind the scenes, that allowed a fringe movement to become what it is today, certainly weren't any of those things. There's cool, calculating reasoning at play.
There must be since the modernist movement is so succsesful despite every non architect hating it. It should be studied just have it succeed with that.
Outstanding interview by host and guest. Thank you very much indeed.
Once traditional architectural principles and techniques are re-learned, we will still have opportunities for creativity and ingenuity. Look at Gothic architecture, and how exceptionally creative and groundbreaking it was compared to the Romanesque that came before.
Exactly! There are an unlimited amount of styles within the framework and we will create new amazing ones in time.
I love everything he is saying 👏
My question is: there is a clear difference between then and now in the way we live, how can we build a bridge between this rich heritage without pretending that nothing has changed (in a sort of escapist theme-park ideology) but rather expressing some of what we are today?
Great video. Thank you Michael for this very important message.
Thank you for taking the time to comment :) It warms that people care.
In North America the idea of public consultation and democratizing development has turned into the main tool of NIMBYs to stop development at all costs which turns into an anti-development anti-housing mindset. This has created an affordability crisis and housing shortage in many parts of the developed world.
It's good intention for creating better looking buildings but I actually think getting out of architects/developer's way once the rules are set by the community (generally classical to an extent) is the best path forward. Having more democratic decision making will basically stop all development.
The NIMBYS exist because they don't want their neighborhoods to change. I get it. They don't want high rise housing to go up because it changes the look and feel of their home, which is the entire reason they moved there. So the solution isn't to build high-rises, it's to discover what people love about their neighborhoods and duplicate them. I personally think New Urbanism is the solution, not high-rises.
The Bauhaus School has had an enormous influence on modern architectural culture. The basis of this philosophy is form following function. However there is an emphasis on such things such as symmetr for. So there seems to be some values which crossover between the classical and modern. I agree with Diamant but would love to hear a debate on some specific aspects of each philosophy. A Bauhaus and a Classical architect going head to head would be great.
Beauty is a function. It's a function that makes us feel good. It helps our mental health. Living in a ugly place is depressing. This is common sense but the modernists have no sense.
Amazing discussion
Great episode. I like also the idea of different innterviewers depending on subjects
1:29:57 it’s about authenticity. Fake materials are not good. A good analogue is electric cars that have fake engine noises and fake air vents and scoops. It’s disturbing to your sense of understanding of you environment which is advocated for earlier in this discussion under the topic of vertical articulation of a facade.
Humanity needs renaissance from time to time.
Great lecture
What I would do with Acropolis of Athens is this. I would preserve it as the original ruins, but then I would choose a similar hill near Athens, transform it into a copy of the original, and on it build a perfect copy of the Acropolis from the time of the ancient Greeks (could be done with cheap materials, as long as the look and feel would be identical to the original). Thus, mass visitors could first see the original, romantic old ruins, and then experience the Acropolis from its most brilliant times in a new location, in 4D and in all colors, and experience the ancient world and life first hand. :) We could also reconstruct some of the ancient Athens around this "new" hill and thus this joint work of the entire civilization would become the 9th wonder of the world. This perfect reconstruction of ancient Athens wouldn't serve only as an amazing tourist attraction, but also as permanent location for making films and documentaries. I think it is a great idea. ;)
It is a great idea. That would be a great attraction.
Brilliant discussion. I really appreciated this.Thank you.
I think one way to help the movement is to put classical suppliers/builders on a list.
As a wise man gave his critique of rationalistim: "Man likes to make roads and to create, that is a fact beyond dispute. But why has he such a passionate love for destruction and chaos also? Tell me that! [...] May it not be that he loves chaos and destruction (there can be no disputing that he does sometimes love it) because he is instinctively afraid of attaining his object and completing the edifice he is constructing? Who knows, perhaps he only loves that edifice from a distance, and is by no means in love with it at close quarters; perhaps he only loves building it and does not want to live in it, but will leave it, when completed, [...]" -Fjodor Dostojevski
Well tough I agree we should start building more buildings inspired from the older periods I think we shouldn't make everyone classical architect it's better if we have more diversity like sprinkle of classical, sprinkle of art deco for example, art nouveau, gotick revival, baroque, and even architects with ideas like Zaha Hadid she was amazing. Because the point is to make everything beautiful and individual not globalist.
Definitely I agree, make cities more unique with context and uniqueness. I would like to see more of the older styles come back because all I saw was the new and modern being built everywhere.
all the styles you listed: deco, nouveau, gothic revival, baroque... all those are based in classicism. Classicism isn't usually columns.
I love this discussion
While I do agree to many of the comments of your guest, and feel drawn to classical architecture myself, though I was educated as a modernist architect, I believe many of the statements lack healthy nuances and some counter examples. It feels like a war between humans and some alien species meant to destroy joy on Earth. Too much hatred and generalization managed to close me off to a topic I was open to. What about people like Diébédo Francis Kéré, Yasmeen Lari, Studio Mumbay, Jan Ghel and so many others? They are making the next step that is slowly recovering what got lost, but in a way that does not mimic what used to be and does not inflate hatred. It is a gentle shift to more sensible projects.
Well, after beeing called a nazi for 10 years + now by modernists I did not start the "hatred".
@michael.diamant Very possible, but maybe it would be better not to pay it forward. There are great architects that feel the same as you. Also many young ones that might bring the much needed shift.
@@cristinaenuta6988it is not a few bad apples but main stream name calling from almost every modernist the last 10 years. So they deserve what is coming.
@@cristinaenuta6988 yes I meet young classical architects all the time. They will make the world beautiful again.
This is wonderful
thanks!
New Zealand is in a very bad way in regards to classical architecture
Which country and region isn't these days.. truly dark times continue since post WWII..
Not an architect, but it seems the move is to create an identity architecture. In contrast to architecture that destroys all identity culture.
Amazing video 👍🏻 super bra
Somebody please explain to me the lighting choices on this channel
I have been unimpressed with modern architecture for years but I assumed that I was just old fashioned and not cool or modern minded . Now through videos like this I realise that modern architecture realy is tasteless brutalist and anti-beauty and I was right all the time . Wonderful to see taste and beauty is being re-awakened .
That is one trick the modernists have used to suppress dissident! To make us believe that our common love for classical beauty is only individual taste. But now more people than ever know that we are the overwhelming majority.
Good! Can we demolish I.M. Pei's absurdly ugly buildings to begin with?
If this man asked me to go to war I would follow.
Haha I will keep that in mind :)
Well, frankly, it is already a 'war', of sorts. Entrenched interests obviously want to impose this trash on the rest of us - and they are far from done yet - and they possess the means to prevent discussions such as this one breaking out in society. 'Being right' is nice and it's important, but by itself it avails us of very little. The real struggle is to draw sufficient attention to the issue.
this is sooo well said
very good effort .
Reading a Tome on Modern Art, I just skip the chapters on Architecture because it is all tedious rationalizations of ugliness. The same holds true for the painting and sculpture, so much Philosophy about ridiculous ugliness it becomes a great soporific. Sometimes I think there has been a race to get to the blank canvass. The cement box. Come to think of it a coffin might be the archetype behind modern buildings!
One thing I need to mention is that the terminology in this video is partly wrong. What we know of as modern architecture is not simply modernism, it’s divided into two main styles which is modernism and postmodernism. To generalise architecture into these two styles can be contradictory in some ways, but the reason I refer to them like this is that modernist architecture is architecture that follows the modernist ideology and postmodernist architecture is architecture that follows the postmodernist ideology. We usually group these two together, but philosophically they are almost opposite. Modernist architecture follows the philosophy that a building should reflect the machine. It should be utilitarian and ultra-efficient. Human emotions should not be included as it cannot be objectivly defined in architecture and efficiency and monotony is the end goal. This is the style that promotes monotone buildings without character. Buildings that often employ symmetry but lack character because of their rigidity and monotony. These are the buildings which our public housing projects consist of. Postmodernist architecture however is the opposite in that the end goal is to avoid monotony. Postmodernist architecture is not efficient or practical. It embraces diversity in form. However This is the type of architecture where relativism comes from. Since it implyes that beuty does not exist it lacks the proper proportions or symmetries altough it can have a degree of character. These are the types of buildings with wacky forms and irregular placements of architectural features like the ”evolved modernist” building as Michael refered to it which they discussed in this video. In actuality it’s not modernist because of the ideological difference which I just mentioned. I hope This comment will help all of you understand these types of architecture better after reading This comment.
It is not about styles and I mention that a million times. It is about the post war archi ideology of modernism.
The key is quality. Good modernist architecture or art is incredibly beautiful. Good classical architecture is beautiful. The problem is that the bean counters have gotten their fingers in the pie.
There is newly built classical architecture in my city that is appalling, there is also brutalist work that is wonderful, and it goes both ways.
Very few people find modernist architecture and art beautiful (if we are to believe every survey made). And it also lack cultural expressions.
This was amazing
Thank you!
Came from IMGUR
כל הכבוד! Thanks Michael!
You are welcome!
Very interesting episode!
I think this comedy skit from Comedy Central tells the whole story about Architecture: ruclips.net/video/uvU5dmu4sl8/видео.html
Who is the monster that bulldozed the old Penn Station in Manhattan? 🤦♂
Very based
Who says that eveyone prefers classical? Were are you getting this info from. Of course classical is going to look more applealing than a concrete box which is more often than not acrhiectually design. Youre focusing on just one part of modernism.
An overwhelming majority of the public prefer classical architecture over modernism.
@michael.diamant yeah you've said. And maybe it's true, but what supports the claim? What were the nature of the surveys done, like sample size, the kinds of architecture used as an example, and what region were people surveyed from or was it multiple regions? I don't understand where this claim comes from
There are so many valuable youtube channels out there too - please someone tell mr. Diamant to check out Stewart Hicks' channel, if nothing else. Maybe set up a talk with an actual architect and historian who knows how to guide him before he goes and records a 2 hour long video based mostly on "vibes" and arguments like "ugly" vs "pretty" without defining the terms or anything.
What do you mean by guide? What should I learn? That ugly is beautiful?
Ancient and medieval pictorial art are respected today but not imitated. In our epoch we have our own style. Although there are ugly modern buildings, to be sure, there are also beautiful modern buildings expressive of our own epochal style. Why not discuss beautiful modern buildings?
what is our own style? Banality, ugliness and lack of any cultural expression? I prefer that we continue the classical tradition.
@@michael.diamant I should have said: "In our epoch we have our own styles" (plural).
My favorite modern American style is inspired by classical Zen Buddhist architecture: elegant minimalism that savors aesthetically the quality of building materials and the spirituality of understated elegance, well designed walls of glass (a modern incarnation of shoji screens) designed to allow for privacy but also for promoting an aesthetic relationship between the occupants inside and the creation outside, asymmetrical rather than symmetrical balance, etc.
Done well, modern architecture has a spiritual quality of its own. It is not everybody's spirituality, to be sure, but for some of us it is incomparable.
It is a tiny minorities spirituality and for the rest of us it is hideous. So it should be allowed to ruin our cities for the overwhelming majority.
It seems every time he’s referring to bad architecture he’s making references to Frank Ghery
Easy guy to pick at for sure😂
So glad you mentioned that. I especially dislike his buildings. And the fact that more than one of them has set fires tells me he learns nothing from what he's done. Him, and so many of the hideous buildings you see now always make me thing "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should."
@12:06 Everything Woke turns to Shit!
the level of misrepresentation of "the architects" here is amazing. It demonstrates a lack of awareness about the current architectural discourse, or the variety of it.
It also demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the incentives in the building process that derive in ugly cities (most of it is regulation)
where is the variety? Are there students studying to become classical architects at regular archi schools?
@@michael.diamant Well... "modern architecture" itself is the most diverse thing you can imagine. Its not a style, just the mame we give to architecture after the radical changes of the industrial revolution.
Mies Van der Rohe is modern architecture, so is Louis Kahn, Carlo Scarpa Bakrishna Doshi or Luis Barragán. All those are universal references for all architects today, so is Palladio.
Well there's nothing wrong with neo Georgian or neo Victorian. Architects have always repeated to an extent the past.
The classical buildings are coded geometry. The problem is that even those who push this agenda of returning to thé past would not accept this truth. Instead they are creating a world of kitsch which will be equally soulless. I have made some videos showing how contemporary architects apply these codes. Understanding the codes must come first and then be applied in practise after.
I have heard many times how modernist architects have incorporated this and that from classicism.. but when I see the end result it is just nonsence.
@@michael.diamant Amen to that! I keep seeing how they'll add to a classical museum, and say "this form here is a nod to this element of the original building" and if it is a nod to it, it's one that is so out of context that it makes no sense at all, and ignores that the whole of the addition is simply hideous. I especially hate to hear when they're adding to an old museum, they always make it ugly. It's so bizarre that things dedicated to art can themselves be so blasted ugly. Of course, with some things being called art, the ugly buildings are appropriate housings for them. A perfect example of that is the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston. the addition is ugly, ugly, ugly, and more ugly.
I agree with a lot of points raised in this interview but as an architect myself I cannot say I recognise most of the qualities being ascribed to the profession. I don't know where you're meeting these architects who think the only relevant buildings are made out of steel and glass because I can honestly say I've never met anyone like that. We've been making habitable structures for thousands of years - if you're involved in making new ones and you've never looked to the past for inspiration or education, you can't really call yourself an architect.
I understand of course that there are bad apples like there is in every profession but putting the blame of the world's uglification solely at the feet of architects is not only simplistic but also incredibly unwise. When I sit around the table to discuss projects with its stakeholders, it is often only myself and my architect colleagues who care about beauty being an integral part of the building. Alienating architects will mean that less people who care about buildings are involved in the process of making them.
I am not interested in converting modernist architects as they will not change. I want to replace them with classical architects.
Once again, I cannot say I relate with this clique-based impression you have of my profession. The architecture industry is not high school haha. Even if it was so clean cut, it would be very unwise to replace all modern architects with classical ones. You wouldn't consider doing the same with doctors, lawyers or even musicians.
I'm also distraught at the degraded state of some modern urban environments, but the only thing more annoying than ugly modernism is Potemkin classicism. May I suggest "Humanise" a book by British designer Thomas Hearherwick about the subject.
@@TheoCachia I have engaged with (modernist) architects now for 10 years in more than a dozen countries. But a serious question to you. Is there something called objective beauty or is everything relative?
@@michael.diamantYes I believe in objective beauty - but Mozart and Daft Punk both make beautiful music :)
@@TheoCachia bc they both stick to similar frame works. Do you like experimental contemporary classical music?
Its all about the money. Modern buildings are easier to design because they are so simplistic. Why would they spend a lot of time on buildings that are beautiful when they could spend less time on a ugly building. They only care about making money as easy as possible
1:02:00
Concrete is the cheapest and most abundant construction material and it is an environmental disaster.
Ah but the Romans built beautiful buildings from concrete, and they've lasted well
lmao lets not pretend that classical architecture dont use concrete
This is what happens when you industrialize design.
You lament that they are free to make all kinds of experiment, If you don't let them do experiment, how can they make better one? They can make experiment because their building materials are a few times cheaper than the one you use in your so call classical building.