The labels with the names and architects at the beginning are a nice touch. But if you do that again in the future, maybe have all of them in a top corner, like Hotel Inntel, because those in a bottom corner get covered by the subtitles.
@@wheresmyeyebrow1608 yes I first found it in Charles Jencks’ 2011 book The Story of Post-Modernism. It’s also posted on his website: www.charlesjencks.com/post-modern-evolutionary-tree
My architecture history teacher said the best definition he heard of posmodernism is: to take something that fell into disuse and resignify it. It's a movement that didn't only affect architecture, but all arts. For instance, there's a music channel called postmodern jukebox that plays contemporary songs but with earlier 20th century music styles, like swing. I think the definition hits on the mark.
Old buildings are ugly as hell. I don't want to live in the days of my great grandparents. I want to live in a modern society. Decrepit looking buildings are ugly. Their exterior is already ugly, their interior is extremely ugly. Looks like a haunted house, it's always so dark, it feels so sombre.
I think you give these architects more credit than is due. The use of previous styles is most likely a side effect of the artist’s lack of imagination as they putter around for something that selfishly eschews beauty. The architect won’t have to look at it and demonstrates a lack of concern for anyone who does.
I totally agree! The fine grain that architects and designers in general, put on these styles are all well and good. But for us folks in the real world, who have to live with these things, it's clear what is a horrific scene from some dystopian nightmare, or at best, just painfully monotonous. There must be some middle ground between Dark Ages video games and Mickey's fantasyland. Pick a lane, guys!
Hi I'm an American now living in Tbilisi Georgia. This city has a fascinating architectural heritage. And it is being decimated by contemporary buildings. I like in a section called Vake. If I look outside one window I am living next to a large brown office building tipped over at an angle. The outside windows all follow that design, but of course no one inside could possible work at such an angle. Across the street are double corkscrews, twisted rising up 40 or 50 floors, called the Axis Towers. Then down the street is a rather ominous massive, almost Brutalist, Hilton Garden Inn, which seems to be neither a garden nor anything as cozy and an 'inn'. I live in a Stalinist era type of building from 1956, about 7 stories tall and set up as a series of connected buildings surrounding a courtyard. It's certainly not a masterpiece. And it's from an era where overbuilding was the order of the day. ( I do really appreciate the soundproof walls!) Further up the street are several late-Soviet apartment structures which are much too big and have a more totalitarian coldness to them. On the outskirts of the city are very 20+ story tall dark bleak kruschevkas, highly, and by Western standards illegally, modified by their residents, looking strangely patchwork now. And then there are new buildings going up everywhere with nominally Postmodern features, but really just workaday products of bad design and hasty contractors with cheap materials. And this sort of thing is mushrooming everywhere now. And here's the point, I think contemporary construction is literally destroying humanity. Even the kruschevkas seem human by contrast to the blight of soulless buildings being foisted upon us. Starting with folks like Adolf Loos, and moving through what really seems like an elite cult of Modernists and then Postmodernists, it seems that my 1956 tank of Soviet Era building is far more human.. nay even the kruschevkas are far more human, than 85 percent of new buildings since the post-war period. (Not to forget that the materials used in contemporary culture are literally destroying the planet.) To me it seems that nothing in our insane society will change until the architects can build livable conditions again. We have to abandon Postmodern irony, which is just as destructive to human flourishing as Modernism. And one way you can tell the Postmodern is the comic version of Modernism, is that both of them eschew all serious textures but the smooth. I gave a lecture several years back on the loss of natural texture in our flat environments, and moreover I also see the loss of traditional ornamentation, which was a feature of all traditional cultures up through Art Deco, and it's juvenile delinquent child Googie, and then slipped into a coma after the late-Sixties with the phantasmagoria of psychedelic art, which sadly was never incorporated into architecture. So texture, ornamentation, and a human scale have to be rediscovered. I have made a very small step towards rethinking the texture problem by repainting a room in my flat with a highly unorthodox manner. (I made a video of it that you can watch.) Anyway thanks for your discussion. I am coming at these issues through another door. But I appreciate your videos and have subscribed.
There are many bizarre buildings close to me (I live in Rotterdam). The cube houses, the Boijmans Depot, central station, the "Markthal" (Market hall). And there are several others. Some of these are weird but functional, the cube houses are cute but really unpractical.
You used a lot of Dutch examples! A lot of them clustered in Rotterdam, a city mostly rebuilt in the 50s to 70s after being bombed during WWII. Then had a bunch of new development from the 90s onward. The latter stuff often a response to the earlier rebuilding: instead of being done cheap and quick it was allowed to be luxurious again. Early plans for the Central Station would have been to make it look like 4 champagne glasses, for example (they eventually landed on a up-side down aluminum food-tray). So you see two responses at the same time: government and project developers wanting more luxurious buildings as a response to the "Architecture Done Cheap" and artists responding to the "boring, grey slabs of stone" with more color, glass and funny shapes. There's a lot of fun to be had for students of architecture and city planning during a visit to Rotterdam.
@@sirwand1507 Don't forget that the projects you do have a context, they are not sculptures, and that you design for people, not just for architecture critics, who often like very different things than ordinary people.
Your videos are consistently excellent, and this one is no exception. I still intensely dislike Postmodernist architecture, but at least I now understand the principles behind it.
There's a Frank Geary building in Las Vegas that i finds absolutely fascinating. It's dedicated to mental health professionals, and the shape of the entrance/exit facades reflect this. You enter through his typical crumpled paper awning and exit from a bunch of stacked blocks. Essentially, you go from disorder to order, much like the patients' minds (hopefully). When i was in architecture school, i thought this was the best designed building in the valley, and there's a lot to choose from. Runner ups are the UNLV library and Clark County administrative complex, though the resorts have their own fascinating architectural design of course. I redesigned the El Cortez's entrance and parking/pedestrian access to the Welcome Sign, plus helped move the origin Little Chapel of the West, so I've got a reason to like those
My perspective on architecture is based on respecting local traditions and forms of building, and being able to improve them by identifying its biggest strengths and exponentiate them to make them more functional and efficient. Not exact replicas, but not erasing everything and starting from scratch. One could think that this definition fits perfectly with how Postmodern Architecture has been defined, and on the surface it seems to be that way. But when I see what´s usually the final result of the so called Postmodern thought... I just don´t think it is what I am looking for. Instead of taking the best parts of modern and classic forms or architecture, they seem to take the worse, and use them to create something either tasteless and boring or just a big "Look at me!" sign that breaks all harmony and balance with its surroundings. In my head, architecture should be as flexible as possible and adapt to different circumstances. Some buildings can be grandiose and monumental but others need to be more discreet and personal... And all of them need to represent the people who inhabit them. That´s why architects like Luis Barragán and Ricardo Legorreta may be my favorite ones from my country, because they were able to understand the essence of Mexican architecture and translate it into the modern in a very elegant, sophisticated and rational way.
Postmodernism architecture is ugly and an abomination of architecture, that causes a loss of inspiration and confusion. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder is another lie we've been brainwashed to believe. Sure there might be a few odd people that believe something to be "beautiful" but the majority is quick to recognize what is beautiful or not.
t'as réussit à exactement mettre les mots sur ce que j'essayais de formuler, merci @eduardof7322, je te citerais dans les remerciements de mon mémoire #tropleboss #samplingspatial
Great video! I studied architecture for years and I learned a lot from this. When I was in school in the ‘90s it was just: “Postmodernism is facile and Deconstructivism is profound”. This is the first time I’ve seen anyone draw a through-line from the late work of Le Corbusier to the present. Well done!
Any lecture done at university was like this back then, even before, at least within art history these subjects are core. Mannerism and parallels through history is a favorite. If you have the chance to look up British Architectural Review from the years around 1950, you get a different look on modern architecture, at least how it is thought about and dealt with.
Um are you sure you just didn’t party a lot and miss a lot of lectures? This is standard architectural history, that would be taught on any undergraduate program. I won’t lie, I was one of those students, its only when I got older, I started to realise the importance of tradition and read the university reading list fully. The profs expected us to have done it and would expand on the basics during lectures, many of which went over my head because I was too busy partying and missed the basic reading.
I like those branches of postmodernism that arent the bizarre messy eclectic collages, typical for 90s. For example many Rossis buildings, some of the latter more regionally oriented postmodernist buildings and so on.
Surprised to see the Stata Center in the context of serious architecture that fits purpose and community; as just one example, it took decades to fix some of the basic failures (especially around Boston, the primary task of a building is to keep the weather on the *outside* not the inside...)
I've always liked postmodern styles, and growing up in the '80s and '90s I could see why. People just plain got bored with the minimalist modern forms of the '50s and especially '60s, so it was only a matter of time before "extraneous" decoration made a comeback. But I also agree that pretty much _any_ style can be executed well or badly -- and that personal tastes can vary a lot in where the line is for various factors. I've also read (digests of) some of Robert Venturi's and Denise Scott Brown's ideas, about architectural elements often being symbols of other things* -- which is partly why they never really went away in private homes or on retail commercial strips, even at the height of the modernist era. As a note, I like that expression of "revolution" in the sense of "coming back around" -- and add that you're farther down the road once the wheel has revolved, so you're not in the same place as when that bit was on top before. And speaking of coming back around... Modernist styles have been around long enough to see revivals and reinterpretations of their own -- with some postmodern sensibilities incorporated in. Like the Art Deco revival of the '80s, and how it brought glass block into style again through the early '90s. Or how elements of the '50s version of streamlined modern started coming back around in the '90s and '00s, but with more natural wood. Or how some fast food restaurants of the 2010s and '20s -- especially McDonald's and Taco Bell -- mixed in elements of midcentury modern for a more "high style" look to compete with fast-casual restaurants. As for Frank Gehry... I always have liked his work, especially his abstract sculptural metal buildings like the Guggenheim Bilbao in Spain or the Weisman Art Museum here in Minneapolis. But I'm also glad it's not _everywhere._ 🙂 * like how suburban houses had coach lights and columns to evoke prosperity and tradition, or fences and grassy front lawns to evoke larger country estates
There's various postmodern buildings near me, but the two I think of most are the Ex-Cárcel Cultural Park and the National Congress of Chile, both in Valparaíso, Chile The first one is widely loved, made mostly out of rough concrete in a former jail playing off the old jail building and the brick containment walls that line the site, and the second one is universally held up as ugly and an eye-sore, being a sort of pink arc de triumph rising high above the rest of the city totally more interested in how it looks than how it feels In the end I feel that's what differentiates good architecture from bad architecture, if it looks good but doesn't feel good or will never really feel good, and the opposite is just as true
Postmodernism is a prime example of what happens when you completely ignore any real functionality and practical use of a buiulding in favour of form. They are just giant, tacky, sculptures made without care about how they are going to be used or maintained and are peak of architectural hubris.
@@igelkott255 Exactly. Architecture should still be primarily (and I would argue exclusively) functional. If aesthetics of your building inhibit its practical use, you've made a bad building
I personally think they’re an elegant solution to the inherent same-ness a lot of modernist architecture tends to fall into. Obviously it doesn’t work for every building, and I don’t think anyone is envisioning a future where everyone has their very own postmodern house, but for cases like museums or other important buildings in central metropolitan locations they break up the otherwise monotonous scenery. I would be very happy to live in a neighborhood with a postmodern community center or something similar in it They also are a way for cities to regain an identity, as globalization and modernist principles have smoothed out a lot of the “imperfections” that gave different regions their own unique look and identity via their architecture. A lot of the most talked about buildings are postmodern ones, and they also indirectly draw attention to the location they’re built in too, driving tourism and interest to the city
We need to start creating architecture like in the past, modernists for some reason always want to ignore the past designs because they believe contemporary or anything that's crazy is better. They don't know that their crazy designs are doing nothing good except making architecture disrespectful. We need to create again in the styles so the future can be beautiful again.
The Stata Center is probably the most famous post modern building near me and it definitely sticks out when compared to other buildings in the area. Its looks really catch the eye and that's not a bad thing either. A building is supposed to stay in it's spot for a while so it might as well be interesting to look at. Great video!
What fun to see the U of D's Trabant Center included! I did a mild double take my first time there... I love learning about its context. I live near the University. I attended Hunter College in NYC in the 1980's. But I grew up in Delaware and am happily ensconced here again. Love your content!
I have one more question: why does such a large portion of the examples come from The Netherlands? You showed Groninger Museum, Bonnefantenmuseum, Hotel Inntel and the Mauritsweg in Rotterdam with a view on the Centraal Station. That's four shots in the first 100 seconds - about half of the shots I counted! Edit: also found the Markthal in Rotterdam behind "Legacy".
I moved to the Netherlands from Seattle, and I was amazed at how much post-modern architecture there is here! Even compared to other countries I have visited, NL seems to have a ton of non-conformist architecture.
I was really happy to see Fed Square in my home city of Melbourne, Australia. We have some wonderful examples of postmodern architecture ( the redevelopment of RMIT University is a prime example), but we also have some absolutely dreadful examples (such as some of the dreadful new skyscraping ‘student residences’ popping up, that are more brutalist inside and out, but with dreadful splotches of ‘colour blocks’ to pretend to be postmodern.
There is a bus station in Hanley (Stoke on trent) that I would describe as post modern. It has a weird slanted roof and looks like one of those neckpillows you get at the airport
Great to see you back! 1) Ah, PoMo. Just like modernism it was responding to, it can be done well, and it can be done poorly. (Which is true of about everything, I guess :P) 2) That does seem to be the cycle amongst all the arts (and societies), doesn't it? Things get codified, "rules" are created, the rules get overhyped, and then there's a reaction/pushback to them. 3) I have diverse tastes and I enjoy diversity in architecture. Not always when they're mashed together in one building, though... 4) I had NO idea that the TD buildings were once lit up with Less Is More on them! That's neat! :) Thank you for the video!
some of them looked cute, like the building that looked like old houses piled one on top of the other. the others seem inspired by the cabinet of dr. caligari.
It began in the late 70s and petered out in the 90s, and we can associate it with a certain formal language, despite the eclecticism. Perhaps one could say that, whereas Modernism suffered degradation at the hands of commerce, Post-Modernism, itself a hybrid, in the ensemble was a bit of the good, the bad and the ugly; at its best, a playful deconstruction, reworking of neo-classical forms that I absolutely adore. It seems that subsequent generations have once again become quite doctrinaire in their rejection of any form of historicism -- here in Berlin, there was a long battle between advocates of "reconstruction" and those who would only accept "contemporary" work, whatever that meant. In this particular case, "classical" Post-Modernism would have been a happy compromise. I've never understood why there is always supposed to be just one, "right" way of doing things.
Same with everything, there are good and bad examples, in my opinion. I do like it when it is done with humour or a wink and a nod. Near where I once lived, on the cnr of Boundary & Vulture Streets in West End, Brisbane there is a post-modern building done with cartoonish ionic columns. It's an area that is eclectic mixture of styles and the columns give a nod to the large Greek community in the area. In furniture I'd define Memphis and Droog as post-modern with their humorous design, again my opinion. Keep up the interesting orations.
This is my favorite style of building. I grew up among google LA, in Downey, and our local neighborhood McD’s was the original at Florence and Lakewood.
Some postmodern buildings are pretty interesting to look at, but they look like they are horrendously difficult to build. I'd be interested in what people from the construction trade think of them.
I'd be willing to bet the first impression would have been the money they made off of them cuz I bet they made off decent considering the unorthodox shape. Considering your question I would bet it's skewed towards them finding it silly. Basing that off of the demographic of men most likely to be working construction Crews. They don't care so long as they're getting paid but they wouldn't build their own house like that.
The end graphic of Gehry’s Disney Hall reminded me of his “binocular bldg” in Venice CA. The facade is all that matters. From there enters into a literal wind-tunnel lobby, which then opens into an utterly unremarkable “open plan” office space.
Thank you, that was a very informative piece. There seems to have been a time around the 1980s-2000s when architecture was allowed to be fun - colours and joky references all over the place. So much of what we see now is flat-fronted and done on the cheap. During the video I made a note to the effect that "Modernism: form follows function; Post-Modernism: form really follows function" - i.e. allows for the messiness of human scale. I'm reminded of Stewart Brand's book "How buildings learn: what happens to them after they are built." Pleased to see that you covered exactly this point - of buildings needing to be flexible and PM allowing for this - at 8:09.
The most significant post-modern building in my region is Helmut Jahn’s Thomson Center in Chicago. It’s been the subject of both love and hate commentary since it was built. In recent years, cash-strapped Illinois state government whose Chicago offices were housed there, explored a number of alternatives to “unload” it and move to other, more conventional (cheaper) quarters. Much popular opinion favored tearing it down and it looked like that would likely be its fate. Fortunately, Google, looking for office space in the city, saw in the building the value of a building with a strong architectural character and reputation as the kind of place they wanted for their office needs. Their purchase of the building will ensure this iconic structure will continue to stand and draw visitors to its amazing spaces. As a fan of the building, I’m very pleased.
I think a big problem is that we never got to a universal definition of 'modern' architecture and in the desperate lunge for everything to be postmodern a lot of the basic underpinnings of social planning went awry.
One bizarre but very clever building was actually the Villa le Lac near Vevey, designed by good'ol Corbusier. From the outside, this house just looks like a box with shiny foiling. But on the inside, you could see different layers of influence and choices made by Le Corbusier. In retrospect, his greatest talent to cleverly combine broad influences into a clever mix !
I think the adjective for the video is not bizzare but ugly. The three rules of aesthetics are color, harmony, rythm (for music, is melody, harmony and rythm-I wont' go to all arts, please read some books). The postmodern buildings, were created from architects demonstrating personal narcissism instead of user requirements. Thankfully, the quality of materials as well as political-social situation will render these buildings uninhabitable.
Everyone has different tastes and it's all relative. There were some cool, interesting looking designs in this video. It's not about narcissism, it's a legitimate critique and rejection of modernism and problems of the modern world. I think that traditionalists, modernists, conservatives may feel threatened by postmodern ideas and styles.
@@pongop First of all happy new year. Very few people understand aesthetics and the aesthetics need some amount of experience. After 1945 on the pretext of political correctness as well as under the influence of the Soviet Realism in building construction, the lectures of aesthetics were abandonded or replaced with color-theory which was not color-theory but everything the professors assumed to be correct. Most of the political groups that you refer, have very few understanding of art, but as far I am concerned, everyone will prefer to live and work in a classical building rather than a postmodern building. The narcisism that I am talking about is very real and the new buildings reflects the inner world of the architect in aspects such as lighting (buildings with insufficient natural or even electrical lighting), very narrow paths within the building, luck of organic decorative elements to name just a few. Take care yourself and the people you love, ugly days are coming.
As a structural engineer my grandfather would this this about his projects, "Projects are like children. Some are very talkative, some are very smart, some are very playful." I have a bit of a bias, but I'd say the Lipstick building has always been one in my mind, and the O-14 Tower is really cool.
Postmodernism is interesting as a concept, but from people who aren't conversant in the architectural language the reaction to those buildings tend to be baffled incredulity rather than anything else. I think that sometimes architects forget that other people have no idea what they're referencing, or what symbolic meaning various things in a building are supposed to have. Which, of course, was the same in older styles: a lot of people wouldn't know, for example, what a Greek nymph was. But in that case you still had a pretty girl with a bucket of water, which is still easily identifiable for any human being happening to pass by!
@@fulalina9778 It's not about being stupid, it's about a style having so obscure references that you need a long education in order to know what to look for. it's like a code language made for the inner circle (architects), but they stubbornly inflict the results on a general publiv who couldn't care less that a set of uneven stairs is supposed to reference the winding stairs of old Greek villages, and have no way of knowing what to look for. of course, even when you do know what to look for it's quite hard to see...
@@derivate_lang that's true for modernism, but at least in architechture(from what I can see in the video, im no expert in architecture) postmodernism is much more accessable. It's playing with simple, common elements but mixing, bending and distorting them. Even when it references something specific(like the stairs you mentioned) I'd say its not necessary to know the reference(other than the reference for normal stairs). It's stairs but in a skewed way. At the end of the day art is not about "finding the answer" or knowing all the references but about experience, and in my opinion anyone can experience the way postmodern architecture plays with how a building should be.
@@fulalina9778 It's not that I don't think that postmordernism can't be interesting, though, but rather that distorted imagery might not be the best way to design the buildings that people have no choice but to live and work in and around.
@@derivate_lang Well that's another question. My point is just that post-modernism, in my opinion, is quite approachable. If you like it or not is ofc subjective, but you can understand if you want. Why people are mad or don't like it is because they don't want to understand, they don't like things that are different, they don't want to understand things that are different. Very simple, basic psychological fact really.
Loving your videos, and this has been a great explanation of something that had been confusing me for some time. Although I spend time in art-space (photography, 3d, etc) I'm effectively more a lay person - just a person that lives and walks around cities, sees these things, and they have to be a part of my environment. And as such a person I gotta say.. both modernism and post-modernism designs (more often then not) drive me nuts. The modernist ones because they just crush my soul almost as bad as subarbian layouts, making me feel like just another number being used and consumed by cities. The post-modernist ones because they feel like artistic m**********n by artists who were given a ton of money. (Wasn't trying to be gross, its just a call-out back to Stranger in a Strange Land and its take on writers that write for themselves and then wonder why no one wants to read their stuff). It isn't that they are 'weird', some weird can be super-cool. It is that they don't take into account the space and people around them. I mean they might 'add their interprestation of whatever' but they don't try to work within their ecosystems, to enhance the existing life and spirit that has developed and is developing in a city, to reflect the inhabitants. They just plop themselves in the middle of a space and demand attention. They're that one neighbor's house with trash piles on the front lawn, blazing music at 4AM, painted like a giant flamingo, with Christmas decorations out in July. Yea, its their 'aesthetic', and its their right to do that, and I'm not gonna burn down their house or anything.. but it also kinda hints at a lack of respect or care for any of their neighbors. Which, also their right, but then they can't expect those who have to live next to it to praise them for that or show them a respect they are not willing to give in turn. Be artistic... but fit into the space. Push it forward, but organically, from where it is.
There is an even earlier example of what could be defined as post-modern designed and built at the end of the fifteenth century near where I live in England. I can recommend anyone who is an architect or interested in architecture to have a look. It is Triangular Lodge in Rushton, Northamptonshire.
You asked if your viewers knew of any buildings that they felt fell into the postmodern category. Watching this video, it's apparent that you live in the same city as do I; Toronto. So I would just be listing the same structures as you showed on this one. In any case, there are a few I didn't see that are worth mentioning. First in mind is what I call the "high flying crossword puzzle" on McCaul St. You know what I'm talking about! Designed by Will Allsop, it's a crossword puzzle page held high in the sky by brightly coloured, VERY long crayons. My reaction is always a chuckle. It's right 'round the corner from the Art Gallery of Ontario, sporting an amazing addition by starchitect, Frank Gehry, which some have described as the ribs of a huge whale. And don't forget the spiral staircases inside and out. As beautifully minimalist as Mies van der Rohe's TD Centre is (and it is stunning), you'll never see crowds of people in its plaza, snapping photos of that paeon to "less is more". But I can honestly say that almost every time I jump off the Queen car at the McCaul loop, there is someone snapping away when they see that Allsop recreation of a fever dream. For myself, I thrill at ANYTHING that isn't another f**king glass box!
I wonder what the acoustic environment of that chapel in Robchamp is like. Is it pleasant to make music in, like churches and chapels have traditionally been?
I like some postmodern buildings and think others are a bit too much. One issue is: does the building “work”? In Toronto, the addition to the AGO definitely works and is wonderful. The addition to the ROM definitely does NOT work and makes the space inside terrible. There is already talk of tearing it down.
When I was younger, I loved Postmodern architecture. My first experience with it was in Montpellier, with Antigone. It was strange and humorous and daring. What originally drew me to architecture (in general) was that it was an art that (by necessity) is confined by functionality (in a way that painting and music, for example, aren’t). Over time, however, I came to see how much of the work of modern and postmodern starchirects as completely out of balance with functionality. This is where such buildings fail for me: they are expressions of an artist’s unmitigated genius without regard to how humans interact with the structure. They are inhumane building which disdain us. The “best” buildings are usually the least interesting ones, architecturally. There are group of buildings here in Montreal which started as factories, and were adapted as warehouses, then artist studios, then apartments. They can be retrofit to whatever is needed at the time. Are they “beautiful”? Not so much. Do they allow us to live our lives in a way which is human? Yes. We have other buildings here in Montreal which are architectural gems, yet at best don’t care about how people interact with them (Habitat ‘67) and others which fully prevent us from moving forward on our human adventure (Olympic Stadium).
Can we please start building cities again like we did before "modernism". Look at how nice the old cities in Europe are compared to anything new. There is nothing beautiful, romantic or pleasant to live around in "modernism". Look how well put together the architecture and how harmonious everything was before 1900, how you feel walking thru those streets compared to the cold, empty feeling you get now. We went backwards in our ways of building pleasant places to live in.
The modernists are intellectually shackled to an ugly style of architecture. They cannot escape their ideological bubble because it would admit they're wrong
I agree with you and I'm studying architecture, I would love for styles to come back, I think we need a movement if we really want those nice buildings again.
That reminds me of how Alexandre Cabanel was part of the Paris Salon which is a rigid academic group of people who define what and how certain art should be. However, not all his art pieces fit this standard quite the irony when many of his works were the pinnacle of what the Paris Salon strives for. It's like he was part of modernism but ironically made postmodernism by accident.
Horrible is the word you're looking for, not bizarre. In the search of allowing architects to express themselves through the medium of rebar monumental sculpture, society has allowed them to build an awful looking world for the rest of us.
I grew up with (and in) the Denver Art Museum, the only major American work by Gio Ponti. ...which i think counts. What a space for art! I don't love all postmodernism, or all modern architecture, but this building made me think, even as a kid.
Honestly, I love any form of art that adopts absurdity and ridiculousness. Dada always drew me in when I was studying art. My partner, some friends and I went to Mass MoCA while I was visiting the US recently and it's just so much fun to absorb yourself in the ridiculous. What I see is an artist having fun, not trying to follow a strict school of thought, practice and ideals :>
Really great video, lots of good information and images to help explain. Articulate and well-written as well. However; I found it difficult to keep up. I have a background in architecture (I got my architecture degree at Cal as postmodernism was getting rolling in '82) and I still had trouble keeping up. There were several times images were shown to illustrate a point, but they went by too fast to get a good look at to make the connection to what was said. Also quotes were shown several times on screen, but not read. I tried to read them while you talked, and couldn't do both and didn't have time to read the whole quote. So, I will again reiterate that the content was great and well thought out. But I would suggest slowing things down to. let people absorb the ideas. Assume your audience knows nothing about architecture (It kind of seems that you assume they do). Great start (I see this was a year ago), so I'll look at other videos also (I have subscribed).
Robert Venturi's buildings seem so understated compared with recent postmodernism. I think Frank Gehry changed things a lot, along with advances in technology. I was surprised that Gehry barely figures in this video.
Pluralism is the term I remember from college, over Postmodernism. The idea that everything old is new again, and the sometimes wonky mixing of styles in new and clever ways.
Nice view of the Gooderham Building and environs at 0:09:00 - maybe complexity works better aesthetically when it occurs organically at the scale of a neighborhood. I like Post-Modernism, but I think it was trying too hard sometimes
There are both good and bad... and ordinary, in all styles. When postmodernism hit the main stage it was more or less the same time punk hit music. I met Sotsass at the early 80d Memphis exhibition at the V&A in London and he seemed intrigued when I made a parallel wit the Sex Pistols with whom I had worked.
Some of the buildings can be interesting, and acceptable in small quantities. But if we want to build entire cities that are comfortable and calming to live in, the chaotic aesthetic, and not very practical design of these buildings isn’t great for most purposes.
These kind of buildings would be best if built at distance from eachother. So when you go through the city and maybe get a bit bored this buildings just awakens your curiosity. I can imagine how funny it would be if everything was built in postmodern architecture. Literally a fever dream!
I grew up at the end of 'brutal' modernism and saw the 'kid with a new toy' modernism, with the constraints of the former thrown out with the bathwater. The pastiche of postmodernism leaves those who don't know the designer's intention (i.e., 99%) or 'story' in complete mystery as to why, and then they often come to the conclusion of least resistance, which is frequently less than complimentary. When the designer dies, they take the story with them. Toy town post-modernism has dated, usually due to poor quality paint and coloured lime rendering being affected by UV and water weathering, all fading to a pastiche pastel (neither one thing nor another). Good postmodernism reflects technological experimentation and clever contrast to the old, not unlike good modernism (Coventry Cathedral). They become icons. But an icon, as we all now know, is often an icon due to its originality. In this case, being first only happens once. The reality is the fickle masses ultimately decide, and each generation rebels to the former, wanting to make their stamp in their age of the 'modern'. As an individual (and therefore a mere speck of dust in the machine of design) born in the early 1960s, I believe modernism was about an 'out with the old'; it was post-war judgments (both world wars and the 1917 Russian Revolutions and the rise of Constructivism) in the view of recent history. Post-war was rebuilding and slum clearances. So, the promises of modernism were in its title. The Postmodernism of the 1980s felt like the end of the Roman Empire, where there were no more battles to fight, and that war spirit turned inwards to a self-destructive decadence. We now seem to be in a post-brutal period, not because it is radical, but because it fits the commodified land market, meaning every square centimetre has to be justified in a number-cruncher shareholders report. I spend time on Derives (walking and taking in the spirit of place 'genus loci') in London; this purely commodified style leads to ground floor level built to the edge of the footpath (sidewalk), and because it can't be sold, becomes all service area leading to blank walls. The subsequent disconnect of building and place, empirically people walk faster, don't look up and don't want to admit each other existence, go to 5-storey former council houses set back at least 3 meters with green space, completely different feel and sense of place, people will nod to each other existence in this space, all of this is empirical*. *Ref: Buildings and Dwellings by Richard Sennent (academic but thoroughly well researched), Cities for People by Jan Gehl, this book is written and designed to be accessible for everyone, but it's all here! Other notable references are Anything by Holly Whyte, Jane Jacobs, and Eugene Ruskin. It's about people; forget the end user, and vanity will return, as designers are a service industry, nothing more. Less high and mighty, more humility ( I speak as a Bricklayer, Landscape Architect and LA lecturer). A well-crafted and informative video, this is just a mere addition to its careful neutrality.
there are two kinds of "style" involved here. the first is the kind that draws your attention; you want to experience it. like good music or eye-pleasing structure. the second "style" is the kind that SCREAMS at you or physically offends your senses, like shattering glass or huge piles of crushed tin cans in the bright noonday sun. i'll leave it to you to decide what appeals to most folks.
thanks for creating this video. At first, I do think post modernism is bizzare. However, I have a totally different perspectivee after watching this video. I think it‘s all the depends on the architrect’s idea. It’s interesting and inspiring to see how the architect wanted to present his/her piece and how he/she utilized different elements from the past to recreate. Love you video , please post more!
The (relatively) new senior center in my town looks like a collection of hen houses and utility sheds pushed together higglety-pigglety. Sometimes the postmodernist philosophy works and sometimes it looks like a disaster aftermath.
Why can't we just build everything in the Art Deco style and call it done? It looked so cool and not like someone balled up a piece of tin foil and told the construction crew "Build that!"
The idea that Postmodern structures are populist, seems a bit like something the architects decided without much real grasp of what it is to be populist. Ask the denizens of a given neighborhood how they feel about some of these structures and i'm willing to bet you'll get some very polarized reactions. The buildings are the product of designers and approving boards that operate independently of any popular consensus, and the resultant works are often wildly unpopular - in some cases actually quite dangerous. They play at populism, but are almost always anything but, and their existence serves as a reminder within communities, both of how little actual say the people within have, and of how influence is deeply stratified along socioeconomic lines. Still, I'd rather this, than boring, reactionary neoclassicism. You can introduce new visual concepts without creating things that are visually repulsive.
Because modernism had so clearly lost the public, post-modernism is the ongoing attempt to reconnect. Sometimes it succeeds, other times it fails. Sometimes it commits the sins of modernism - alienation, corporatism, elitism, ugliness. As a layperson, I ask a building, "can I understand this?" Sometimes it's too geometrically busy, other times it is plain ugly. The best buildings make me smile. They cleverly quote the past, or have some humour, but the whole thing just looks good. I also think that colour, in and of itself, makes people happy. The brutalist embrace of bare concrete has a lot to answer for.
Hideousness is the calling card of most architecture since the War. It looks like interesting enough sculpture, but so many of these buildings, especially the add-ons to the stately old ones, were cringe inducing! It's just ugly, and that's the thing that always stands out. You don't have to teach someone to love an old building (as in pre-WWII), but it takes a fair amount of education to make someone at least appreciate modern and post-modern stuff, even today. I think that speaks for itself.
7:53 The building discussed here is a perfect encapsulation of the rejection of beauty. The idea that one builds a chaotic building to reflect the chaos of the city is good example of this style. Chaos is not something desired. The term is use as a pejorative. To add chaos to chaos is overtly destructive. Besides, the chaotic nature of the city is the result of clashing styles. To incorporate chaos in one building is to mock the normal urge for serenity.
In my area, huge polluting concrete structures are used to banish traditional beauty and practicality. It fights this way local identity that can cause trouble to a central government
Post modernism is varied and complex (sometimes just complicated for complicated sake’s to seem complex, much like many variants of modernism) so it’s hard to label everything under one name. The most important thing to come out of it was pluralism and killing off the modernist idea of a universal meta narrative. The biggest problem with PoMo was it’s comercial and ironic (borderline nihilistic at times) side, which with the economic system of the times produced in mass a lot of crap. The best things were the reaction to the modernists lack of care for the urban environment, communities and context. With it we saw the rebirth of a lot of vernacular architecture, better critical regionalism further detached from international models and the revival and acceptance of actual non-ironic classical/traditional architecture. If it wasn’t for PoMo we wouldn’t have great architects like Robert Stern.
Postmodern architecture is the way it is because just like postmodern theory it celebrates disorder and fragmentation and sees any attempt at unity or cohesion as inherently oppressive. It is interesting to me that with a few changes of wording, Venturi's statement at 3:20 would sound like a declaration of the so-called Social Justice movement. The gist of it seems to be that we need to abolish the aesthetic unity of previous styles to make buildings "inclusive," but actually what happens is the same as with SC ideology: the vast majority of people find the buildings alienating, while a small clique of specialists finds them empowering, just like the restructuring of language and culture feels empowering for certain radical activists but completely alienating to everyone else, including the minority people who were supposed to be empowered by it.
Firstly, thank you for this interesting video. My reaction to this topic is: what happened to beauty? Esthetics? Can't we talk about the artistic aspect of architecture? Am I just a simpleton for wanting to be surrounded by beautiful and esthetically pleasing buildings? Yes these are subjective concepts, but most of the public HATES and is alienated by much (but, no, not by all I will admit) of modern and post-modern architecture. Architecture is primarily public art and should therefore be designed primarily to serve our collective sensibilities, not those of the (egotistical?) architect.
There’s a book I would like to read but I can never find it at an affordable price. It’s called “ugly as sin“ and it studies beautiful churches that were revamped into horrible ugly places. There’s one such place at a Catholic college near me where they got the whole inside And replaced it with the most uninspiring furnishings, including removing the front doors and replacing it with slab doors.
Actually, post-modernism is not a philosophy, it's more a description of our current society. It's descriptive, no prescriptive, so it is easy to understand why the current architecture movement is post-modern. It would be like saying the renaissance is a philosophy.
It reminds me of the idea of a movement against something instead of being for something. because creativity has effectively been abandoned because there is presumably nothing objective to strive towards. There is only us and our permutations. Less is only more when it points towards the spiritual with the detraction of the physical.
Many examples of post-modernist architecture appear 'faddish' to me, as though their style will appear quaint and faintly ridiculous in just a few decades.
If Modernism has become so broad as to be difficult to define as a category, by its standing examples; why not define what isn’t Modernism, the chaff that makes up the bulk of contemporary buildings, whether residential or commercial? A word that comes to my mind is “expediency”. If form follows function and the elements of the building become what little ornamentation there is; no historical references allowed…. then expediency is the stuff that uses the stripped down, unornamented and boring to a fault elements of even the best modernism as an excuse to build cheaply and quickly, to extract the most profit from the least effort, to hell with urbanism and quality of life. Even the most boring pile of ego rising from its framing plaza that keeps the City at bay, will usually present visual elements that show the talent of the architect in executing a truly modern design even if his genitals got in the way of his talent. Seagrams and Pan Am do this in NYC. The chopsticks of Billionaires Row do not, at all. But, if there’s really a fault with Post Modernism, and there is, it becomes so evident in this video compared to your other ones. This video is choked with jargon; architectural, architectural manual, cultural maven etc etc etc. It makes me wish that Woody Allen was going to show up with an architect to pop the balloon. Did you realize you couldn’t talk about Post Modernism without turning to jargon? That says a lot about the form. Oh well, you have so many other videos, so much more to examine!!!
I can tell you right off I don't know all that much about architecture, but I know what I like and am fascinated by it. As a rule (of living) I like complexity as a method for d3ßliving as life itself is complex, but that's just being realistic or honest, which I prefer. So does that mean I have a preference for the post-modern? The examples you provided seemed to represent what's creative and more imaginative which seemed to discount function or at least placate it which in the end, is more complex
Initially, modernism in architecture was a breath-taking and exhilarating break with the past. All the clean lines, the lack of decoration seemed, well, modern. Over time, however. It came to seem that buildings were being formed by cookie cutters or turned out on assembly lines with no opportunity to differentiate them from all other buildings of the same type. So postmodernism seems to be a necessary corrective.
25 seconds in and I see a building from my university! LOL As for the topic - I appreciate the idea behind post-modernism as a big middle finger to the absurdly boring "modern" structures from the 50's onward. The designs are often playful, clever, inspiring, and fun to look at. Some look like a drunk piled some Legos together, to the extent that no one in the room shouted "The emperor has no clothes" when the design was presented to the board for approval. Personally, I'm a fan of classical architectural forms in general, and "adaptive reuse" of historical structures whenever possible (instead of tearing them down). But I like when a post modern design can take cues from the local landscape in order to build something pleasing to the residents as well as clever and fun.
I really enjoyed the rational layout of your program. This is just MHO, but there is nothing more mentally fun than a well done post-modern building, and nothing more appalling than a post-modern building that skimped on quality materials or level of finish. The last time architecture had a sense of fun was the Deco period, and there is a lot of similarities between the two.
Join the Discord if you wanna talk to some truly bizarre people 😜 discord.gg/4DWvahY94U
The labels with the names and architects at the beginning are a nice touch. But if you do that again in the future, maybe have all of them in a top corner, like Hotel Inntel, because those in a bottom corner get covered by the subtitles.
@@rolfs2165 good call thank you 👍🏽
Do you have a source for the image played at 9:55? it looks very interesting.
@@wheresmyeyebrow1608 yes I first found it in Charles Jencks’ 2011 book The Story of Post-Modernism. It’s also posted on his website: www.charlesjencks.com/post-modern-evolutionary-tree
@@ARTiculations Thank you very much for your quick response. Love the content!
My architecture history teacher said the best definition he heard of posmodernism is: to take something that fell into disuse and resignify it. It's a movement that didn't only affect architecture, but all arts. For instance, there's a music channel called postmodern jukebox that plays contemporary songs but with earlier 20th century music styles, like swing. I think the definition hits on the mark.
Thanks for PMJ, seems very interesting, watching rn. :)
Old buildings are ugly as hell. I don't want to live in the days of my great grandparents. I want to live in a modern society. Decrepit looking buildings are ugly. Their exterior is already ugly, their interior is extremely ugly. Looks like a haunted house, it's always so dark, it feels so sombre.
kpop seems to love doing this, i know a lot of songs that use swing elements in their production along with EDM synths and trap beats.
So vaporwave, hypnogagic pop, and lofi or bedroom pop related music genres, also ironic meme culture, analog horror
I think you give these architects more credit than is due. The use of previous styles is most likely a side effect of the artist’s lack of imagination as they putter around for something that selfishly eschews beauty. The architect won’t have to look at it and demonstrates a lack of concern for anyone who does.
Modern and post-modern architecture are blatant proofs that thinking too much is, sometimes, a problem.
Anyway, great video!
The great architects of antiquity were philosophers too. Would you rather have buildings designed by morons?
I totally agree! The fine grain that architects and designers in general, put on these styles are all well and good. But for us folks in the real world, who have to live with these things, it's clear what is a horrific scene from some dystopian nightmare, or at best, just painfully monotonous. There must be some middle ground between Dark Ages video games and Mickey's fantasyland.
Pick a lane, guys!
Hi I'm an American now living in Tbilisi Georgia. This city has a fascinating architectural heritage. And it is being decimated by contemporary buildings. I like in a section called Vake. If I look outside one window I am living next to a large brown office building tipped over at an angle. The outside windows all follow that design, but of course no one inside could possible work at such an angle. Across the street are double corkscrews, twisted rising up 40 or 50 floors, called the Axis Towers. Then down the street is a rather ominous massive, almost Brutalist, Hilton Garden Inn, which seems to be neither a garden nor anything as cozy and an 'inn'.
I live in a Stalinist era type of building from 1956, about 7 stories tall and set up as a series of connected buildings surrounding a courtyard. It's certainly not a masterpiece. And it's from an era where overbuilding was the order of the day. ( I do really appreciate the soundproof walls!) Further up the street are several late-Soviet apartment structures which are much too big and have a more totalitarian coldness to them. On the outskirts of the city are very 20+ story tall dark bleak kruschevkas, highly, and by Western standards illegally, modified by their residents, looking strangely patchwork now. And then there are new buildings going up everywhere with nominally Postmodern features, but really just workaday products of bad design and hasty contractors with cheap materials. And this sort of thing is mushrooming everywhere now.
And here's the point, I think contemporary construction is literally destroying humanity. Even the kruschevkas seem human by contrast to the blight of soulless buildings being foisted upon us. Starting with folks like Adolf Loos, and moving through what really seems like an elite cult of Modernists and then Postmodernists, it seems that my 1956 tank of Soviet Era building is far more human.. nay even the kruschevkas are far more human, than 85 percent of new buildings since the post-war period. (Not to forget that the materials used in contemporary culture are literally destroying the planet.)
To me it seems that nothing in our insane society will change until the architects can build livable conditions again. We have to abandon Postmodern irony, which is just as destructive to human flourishing as Modernism. And one way you can tell the Postmodern is the comic version of Modernism, is that both of them eschew all serious textures but the smooth. I gave a lecture several years back on the loss of natural texture in our flat environments, and moreover I also see the loss of traditional ornamentation, which was a feature of all traditional cultures up through Art Deco, and it's juvenile delinquent child Googie, and then slipped into a coma after the late-Sixties with the phantasmagoria of psychedelic art, which sadly was never incorporated into architecture.
So texture, ornamentation, and a human scale have to be rediscovered. I have made a very small step towards rethinking the texture problem by repainting a room in my flat with a highly unorthodox manner. (I made a video of it that you can watch.)
Anyway thanks for your discussion. I am coming at these issues through another door. But I appreciate your videos and have subscribed.
There are many bizarre buildings close to me (I live in Rotterdam). The cube houses, the Boijmans Depot, central station, the "Markthal" (Market hall). And there are several others. Some of these are weird but functional, the cube houses are cute but really unpractical.
More art than architecture? or Architecture as the medium for their art?
Disgusting, bizzarre architechture, I feel sorry that you have to witness that ugly postmodernist architecture every day.
You used a lot of Dutch examples! A lot of them clustered in Rotterdam, a city mostly rebuilt in the 50s to 70s after being bombed during WWII. Then had a bunch of new development from the 90s onward. The latter stuff often a response to the earlier rebuilding: instead of being done cheap and quick it was allowed to be luxurious again. Early plans for the Central Station would have been to make it look like 4 champagne glasses, for example (they eventually landed on a up-side down aluminum food-tray). So you see two responses at the same time: government and project developers wanting more luxurious buildings as a response to the "Architecture Done Cheap" and artists responding to the "boring, grey slabs of stone" with more color, glass and funny shapes.
There's a lot of fun to be had for students of architecture and city planning during a visit to Rotterdam.
What would you suggest for a student of architecture?
@@sirwand1507 Don't forget that the projects you do have a context, they are not sculptures, and that you design for people, not just for architecture critics, who often like very different things than ordinary people.
Your videos are consistently excellent, and this one is no exception. I still intensely dislike Postmodernist architecture, but at least I now understand the principles behind it.
First video of yours I've seen in 6+ months! Great to see another.
There's a Frank Geary building in Las Vegas that i finds absolutely fascinating. It's dedicated to mental health professionals, and the shape of the entrance/exit facades reflect this. You enter through his typical crumpled paper awning and exit from a bunch of stacked blocks. Essentially, you go from disorder to order, much like the patients' minds (hopefully). When i was in architecture school, i thought this was the best designed building in the valley, and there's a lot to choose from. Runner ups are the UNLV library and Clark County administrative complex, though the resorts have their own fascinating architectural design of course. I redesigned the El Cortez's entrance and parking/pedestrian access to the Welcome Sign, plus helped move the origin Little Chapel of the West, so I've got a reason to like those
tbh I don't care for the Lou Ruvo centre. It seems like an unfunny joke. It would be one of my exceptions to generally liking PM architecture.
fantastic direction you are heading! this is your best video yet!
Thank you so much that’s really nice to hear! 🥰
My perspective on architecture is based on respecting local traditions and forms of building, and being able to improve them by identifying its biggest strengths and exponentiate them to make them more functional and efficient. Not exact replicas, but not erasing everything and starting from scratch. One could think that this definition fits perfectly with how Postmodern Architecture has been defined, and on the surface it seems to be that way. But when I see what´s usually the final result of the so called Postmodern thought... I just don´t think it is what I am looking for. Instead of taking the best parts of modern and classic forms or architecture, they seem to take the worse, and use them to create something either tasteless and boring or just a big "Look at me!" sign that breaks all harmony and balance with its surroundings. In my head, architecture should be as flexible as possible and adapt to different circumstances. Some buildings can be grandiose and monumental but others need to be more discreet and personal... And all of them need to represent the people who inhabit them. That´s why architects like Luis Barragán and Ricardo Legorreta may be my favorite ones from my country, because they were able to understand the essence of Mexican architecture and translate it into the modern in a very elegant, sophisticated and rational way.
Postmodernism architecture is ugly and an abomination of architecture, that causes a loss of inspiration and confusion. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder is another lie we've been brainwashed to believe. Sure there might be a few odd people that believe something to be "beautiful" but the majority is quick to recognize what is beautiful or not.
Modernism is just an empty canvas and PM is just throwing 50 different paint buckets at the canvas.
t'as réussit à exactement mettre les mots sur ce que j'essayais de formuler, merci @eduardof7322, je te citerais dans les remerciements de mon mémoire #tropleboss #samplingspatial
Great video! I studied architecture for years and I learned a lot from this. When I was in school in the ‘90s it was just: “Postmodernism is facile and Deconstructivism is profound”. This is the first time I’ve seen anyone draw a through-line from the late work of Le Corbusier to the present. Well done!
Any lecture done at university was like this back then, even before, at least within art history these subjects are core. Mannerism and parallels through history is a favorite. If you have the chance to look up British Architectural Review from the years around 1950, you get a different look on modern architecture, at least how it is thought about and dealt with.
Um are you sure you just didn’t party a lot and miss a lot of lectures? This is standard architectural history, that would be taught on any undergraduate program. I won’t lie, I was one of those students, its only when I got older, I started to realise the importance of tradition and read the university reading list fully. The profs expected us to have done it and would expand on the basics during lectures, many of which went over my head because I was too busy partying and missed the basic reading.
I like those branches of postmodernism that arent the bizarre messy eclectic collages, typical for 90s. For example many Rossis buildings, some of the latter more regionally oriented postmodernist buildings and so on.
Surprised to see the Stata Center in the context of serious architecture that fits purpose and community; as just one example, it took decades to fix some of the basic failures (especially around Boston, the primary task of a building is to keep the weather on the *outside* not the inside...)
1:38 tbh those apartments there on the right looked sick as hell - I'd definitely live there
09:53 Does anyone know where I can find this graph?
I've always liked postmodern styles, and growing up in the '80s and '90s I could see why. People just plain got bored with the minimalist modern forms of the '50s and especially '60s, so it was only a matter of time before "extraneous" decoration made a comeback. But I also agree that pretty much _any_ style can be executed well or badly -- and that personal tastes can vary a lot in where the line is for various factors.
I've also read (digests of) some of Robert Venturi's and Denise Scott Brown's ideas, about architectural elements often being symbols of other things* -- which is partly why they never really went away in private homes or on retail commercial strips, even at the height of the modernist era.
As a note, I like that expression of "revolution" in the sense of "coming back around" -- and add that you're farther down the road once the wheel has revolved, so you're not in the same place as when that bit was on top before.
And speaking of coming back around... Modernist styles have been around long enough to see revivals and reinterpretations of their own -- with some postmodern sensibilities incorporated in. Like the Art Deco revival of the '80s, and how it brought glass block into style again through the early '90s. Or how elements of the '50s version of streamlined modern started coming back around in the '90s and '00s, but with more natural wood. Or how some fast food restaurants of the 2010s and '20s -- especially McDonald's and Taco Bell -- mixed in elements of midcentury modern for a more "high style" look to compete with fast-casual restaurants.
As for Frank Gehry... I always have liked his work, especially his abstract sculptural metal buildings like the Guggenheim Bilbao in Spain or the Weisman Art Museum here in Minneapolis. But I'm also glad it's not _everywhere._ 🙂
* like how suburban houses had coach lights and columns to evoke prosperity and tradition, or fences and grassy front lawns to evoke larger country estates
There's various postmodern buildings near me, but the two I think of most are the Ex-Cárcel Cultural Park and the National Congress of Chile, both in Valparaíso, Chile
The first one is widely loved, made mostly out of rough concrete in a former jail playing off the old jail building and the brick containment walls that line the site, and the second one is universally held up as ugly and an eye-sore, being a sort of pink arc de triumph rising high above the rest of the city totally more interested in how it looks than how it feels
In the end I feel that's what differentiates good architecture from bad architecture, if it looks good but doesn't feel good or will never really feel good, and the opposite is just as true
Great video - excellent primer - I learned a bunch.
Postmodernism is a prime example of what happens when you completely ignore any real functionality and practical use of a buiulding in favour of form. They are just giant, tacky, sculptures made without care about how they are going to be used or maintained and are peak of architectural hubris.
yeah, it seems like their creed is "We do it because we can... and we're rich"
@@igelkott255 Exactly. Architecture should still be primarily (and I would argue exclusively) functional. If aesthetics of your building inhibit its practical use, you've made a bad building
I personally think they’re an elegant solution to the inherent same-ness a lot of modernist architecture tends to fall into. Obviously it doesn’t work for every building, and I don’t think anyone is envisioning a future where everyone has their very own postmodern house, but for cases like museums or other important buildings in central metropolitan locations they break up the otherwise monotonous scenery. I would be very happy to live in a neighborhood with a postmodern community center or something similar in it
They also are a way for cities to regain an identity, as globalization and modernist principles have smoothed out a lot of the “imperfections” that gave different regions their own unique look and identity via their architecture. A lot of the most talked about buildings are postmodern ones, and they also indirectly draw attention to the location they’re built in too, driving tourism and interest to the city
I tend to agree, it seems like a lot of this buildings are trying to go for the shock value more then anything else.
We need to start creating architecture like in the past, modernists for some reason always want to ignore the past designs because they believe contemporary or anything that's crazy is better. They don't know that their crazy designs are doing nothing good except making architecture disrespectful. We need to create again in the styles so the future can be beautiful again.
Great to see you back! These videos are fantastic.
The Stata Center is probably the most famous post modern building near me and it definitely sticks out when compared to other buildings in the area. Its looks really catch the eye and that's not a bad thing either. A building is supposed to stay in it's spot for a while so it might as well be interesting to look at. Great video!
Your videos are criminally underrated, please keep up the good work, I've only just found your channel and i love it
What fun to see the U of D's Trabant Center included! I did a mild double take my first time there... I love learning about its context. I live near the University. I attended Hunter College in NYC in the 1980's. But I grew up in Delaware and am happily ensconced here again. Love your content!
I grew up in Newark and went to UD, so I was pleasantly surprised to see it, as well!
Your architectural videos are very educational and interesting.
I have one more question: why does such a large portion of the examples come from The Netherlands? You showed Groninger Museum, Bonnefantenmuseum, Hotel Inntel and the Mauritsweg in Rotterdam with a view on the Centraal Station. That's four shots in the first 100 seconds - about half of the shots I counted!
Edit: also found the Markthal in Rotterdam behind "Legacy".
I moved to the Netherlands from Seattle, and I was amazed at how much post-modern architecture there is here! Even compared to other countries I have visited, NL seems to have a ton of non-conformist architecture.
I was really happy to see Fed Square in my home city of Melbourne, Australia. We have some wonderful examples of postmodern architecture ( the redevelopment of RMIT University is a prime example), but we also have some absolutely dreadful examples (such as some of the dreadful new skyscraping ‘student residences’ popping up, that are more brutalist inside and out, but with dreadful splotches of ‘colour blocks’ to pretend to be postmodern.
There is a bus station in Hanley (Stoke on trent) that I would describe as post modern. It has a weird slanted roof and looks like one of those neckpillows you get at the airport
This is great. Such a concise explanation of a complex topic.
Glad to see you're still making videos! And on such a great topic no less.
Great to see you back! 1) Ah, PoMo. Just like modernism it was responding to, it can be done well, and it can be done poorly. (Which is true of about everything, I guess :P) 2) That does seem to be the cycle amongst all the arts (and societies), doesn't it? Things get codified, "rules" are created, the rules get overhyped, and then there's a reaction/pushback to them. 3) I have diverse tastes and I enjoy diversity in architecture. Not always when they're mashed together in one building, though... 4) I had NO idea that the TD buildings were once lit up with Less Is More on them! That's neat! :) Thank you for the video!
some of them looked cute, like the building that looked like old houses piled one on top of the other. the others seem inspired by the cabinet of dr. caligari.
@@christianmillendez1992 saachi baat bole che
It began in the late 70s and petered out in the 90s, and we can associate it with a certain formal language, despite the eclecticism. Perhaps one could say that, whereas Modernism suffered degradation at the hands of commerce, Post-Modernism, itself a hybrid, in the ensemble was a bit of the good, the bad and the ugly; at its best, a playful deconstruction, reworking of neo-classical forms that I absolutely adore. It seems that subsequent generations have once again become quite doctrinaire in their rejection of any form of historicism -- here in Berlin, there was a long battle between advocates of "reconstruction" and those who would only accept "contemporary" work, whatever that meant. In this particular case, "classical" Post-Modernism would have been a happy compromise. I've never understood why there is always supposed to be just one, "right" way of doing things.
Same with everything, there are good and bad examples, in my opinion. I do like it when it is done with humour or a wink and a nod. Near where I once lived, on the cnr of Boundary & Vulture Streets in West End, Brisbane there is a post-modern building done with cartoonish ionic columns. It's an area that is eclectic mixture of styles and the columns give a nod to the large Greek community in the area. In furniture I'd define Memphis and Droog as post-modern with their humorous design, again my opinion. Keep up the interesting orations.
This is my favorite style of building.
I grew up among google LA, in Downey, and our local neighborhood McD’s was the original at Florence and Lakewood.
Thanks!
Thank you so much for your support John!!
Some postmodern buildings are pretty interesting to look at, but they look like they are horrendously difficult to build. I'd be interested in what people from the construction trade think of them.
I'd be willing to bet the first impression would have been the money they made off of them cuz I bet they made off decent considering the unorthodox shape. Considering your question I would bet it's skewed towards them finding it silly. Basing that off of the demographic of men most likely to be working construction Crews. They don't care so long as they're getting paid but they wouldn't build their own house like that.
The end graphic of Gehry’s Disney Hall reminded me of his “binocular bldg” in Venice CA. The facade is all that matters. From there enters into a literal wind-tunnel lobby, which then opens into an utterly unremarkable “open plan” office space.
Thank you, that was a very informative piece. There seems to have been a time around the 1980s-2000s when architecture was allowed to be fun - colours and joky references all over the place. So much of what we see now is flat-fronted and done on the cheap. During the video I made a note to the effect that "Modernism: form follows function; Post-Modernism: form really follows function" - i.e. allows for the messiness of human scale. I'm reminded of Stewart Brand's book "How buildings learn: what happens to them after they are built." Pleased to see that you covered exactly this point - of buildings needing to be flexible and PM allowing for this - at 8:09.
The most significant post-modern building in my region is Helmut Jahn’s Thomson Center in Chicago. It’s been the subject of both love and hate commentary since it was built. In recent years, cash-strapped Illinois state government whose Chicago offices were housed there, explored a number of alternatives to “unload” it and move to other, more conventional (cheaper) quarters. Much popular opinion favored tearing it down and it looked like that would likely be its fate. Fortunately, Google, looking for office space in the city, saw in the building the value of a building with a strong architectural character and reputation as the kind of place they wanted for their office needs. Their purchase of the building will ensure this iconic structure will continue to stand and draw visitors to its amazing spaces. As a fan of the building, I’m very pleased.
I think a big problem is that we never got to a universal definition of 'modern' architecture and in the desperate lunge for everything to be postmodern a lot of the basic underpinnings of social planning went awry.
One bizarre but very clever building was actually the Villa le Lac near Vevey, designed by good'ol Corbusier. From the outside, this house just looks like a box with shiny foiling. But on the inside, you could see different layers of influence and choices made by Le Corbusier. In retrospect, his greatest talent to cleverly combine broad influences into a clever mix !
I think the adjective for the video is not bizzare but ugly. The three rules of aesthetics are color, harmony, rythm (for music, is melody, harmony and rythm-I wont' go to all arts, please read some books). The postmodern buildings, were created from architects demonstrating personal narcissism instead of user requirements. Thankfully, the quality of materials as well as political-social situation will render these buildings uninhabitable.
Everyone has different tastes and it's all relative. There were some cool, interesting looking designs in this video. It's not about narcissism, it's a legitimate critique and rejection of modernism and problems of the modern world. I think that traditionalists, modernists, conservatives may feel threatened by postmodern ideas and styles.
@@pongop First of all happy new year. Very few people understand aesthetics and the aesthetics need some amount of experience. After 1945 on the pretext of political correctness as well as under the influence of the Soviet Realism in building construction, the lectures of aesthetics were abandonded or replaced with color-theory which was not color-theory but everything the professors assumed to be correct. Most of the political groups that you refer, have very few understanding of art, but as far I am concerned, everyone will prefer to live and work in a classical building rather than a postmodern building. The narcisism that I am talking about is very real and the new buildings reflects the inner world of the architect in aspects such as lighting (buildings with insufficient natural or even electrical lighting), very narrow paths within the building, luck of organic decorative elements to name just a few. Take care yourself and the people you love, ugly days are coming.
@@christopherneufelt8971 Interesting!
@@christopherneufelt8971 the fuck are you talking about lol
I like it. It looks unique, confusing and weird. It just awakens my curiosity to see all of its details.
As a structural engineer my grandfather would this this about his projects, "Projects are like children. Some are very talkative, some are very smart, some are very playful."
I have a bit of a bias, but I'd say the Lipstick building has always been one in my mind, and the O-14 Tower is really cool.
Postmodernism is interesting as a concept, but from people who aren't conversant in the architectural language the reaction to those buildings tend to be baffled incredulity rather than anything else. I think that sometimes architects forget that other people have no idea what they're referencing, or what symbolic meaning various things in a building are supposed to have. Which, of course, was the same in older styles: a lot of people wouldn't know, for example, what a Greek nymph was. But in that case you still had a pretty girl with a bucket of water, which is still easily identifiable for any human being happening to pass by!
People aren't that stupid, they just hate anything that's different from what they're used to.
@@fulalina9778 It's not about being stupid, it's about a style having so obscure references that you need a long education in order to know what to look for. it's like a code language made for the inner circle (architects), but they stubbornly inflict the results on a general publiv who couldn't care less that a set of uneven stairs is supposed to reference the winding stairs of old Greek villages, and have no way of knowing what to look for.
of course, even when you do know what to look for it's quite hard to see...
@@derivate_lang that's true for modernism, but at least in architechture(from what I can see in the video, im no expert in architecture) postmodernism is much more accessable. It's playing with simple, common elements but mixing, bending and distorting them. Even when it references something specific(like the stairs you mentioned) I'd say its not necessary to know the reference(other than the reference for normal stairs). It's stairs but in a skewed way.
At the end of the day art is not about "finding the answer" or knowing all the references but about experience, and in my opinion anyone can experience the way postmodern architecture plays with how a building should be.
@@fulalina9778 It's not that I don't think that postmordernism can't be interesting, though, but rather that distorted imagery might not be the best way to design the buildings that people have no choice but to live and work in and around.
@@derivate_lang Well that's another question. My point is just that post-modernism, in my opinion, is quite approachable. If you like it or not is ofc subjective, but you can understand if you want. Why people are mad or don't like it is because they don't want to understand, they don't like things that are different, they don't want to understand things that are different. Very simple, basic psychological fact really.
Loving your videos, and this has been a great explanation of something that had been confusing me for some time. Although I spend time in art-space (photography, 3d, etc) I'm effectively more a lay person - just a person that lives and walks around cities, sees these things, and they have to be a part of my environment. And as such a person I gotta say.. both modernism and post-modernism designs (more often then not) drive me nuts. The modernist ones because they just crush my soul almost as bad as subarbian layouts, making me feel like just another number being used and consumed by cities. The post-modernist ones because they feel like artistic m**********n by artists who were given a ton of money. (Wasn't trying to be gross, its just a call-out back to Stranger in a Strange Land and its take on writers that write for themselves and then wonder why no one wants to read their stuff). It isn't that they are 'weird', some weird can be super-cool. It is that they don't take into account the space and people around them. I mean they might 'add their interprestation of whatever' but they don't try to work within their ecosystems, to enhance the existing life and spirit that has developed and is developing in a city, to reflect the inhabitants. They just plop themselves in the middle of a space and demand attention. They're that one neighbor's house with trash piles on the front lawn, blazing music at 4AM, painted like a giant flamingo, with Christmas decorations out in July. Yea, its their 'aesthetic', and its their right to do that, and I'm not gonna burn down their house or anything.. but it also kinda hints at a lack of respect or care for any of their neighbors. Which, also their right, but then they can't expect those who have to live next to it to praise them for that or show them a respect they are not willing to give in turn. Be artistic... but fit into the space. Push it forward, but organically, from where it is.
The Histocrat is an astounding creator, very glad to see a reference from you.
There is an even earlier example of what could be defined as post-modern designed and built at the end of the fifteenth century near where I live in England. I can recommend anyone who is an architect or interested in architecture to have a look. It is Triangular Lodge in Rushton, Northamptonshire.
You asked if your viewers knew of any buildings that they felt fell into the postmodern category. Watching this video, it's apparent that you live in the same city as do I; Toronto. So I would just be listing the same structures as you showed on this one. In any case, there are a few I didn't see that are worth mentioning.
First in mind is what I call the "high flying crossword puzzle" on McCaul St. You know what I'm talking about! Designed by Will Allsop, it's a crossword puzzle page held high in the sky by brightly coloured, VERY long crayons. My reaction is always a chuckle. It's right 'round the corner from the Art Gallery of Ontario, sporting an amazing addition by starchitect, Frank Gehry, which some have described as the ribs of a huge whale. And don't forget the spiral staircases inside and out.
As beautifully minimalist as Mies van der Rohe's TD Centre is (and it is stunning), you'll never see crowds of people in its plaza, snapping photos of that paeon to "less is more". But I can honestly say that almost every time I jump off the Queen car at the McCaul loop, there is someone snapping away when they see that Allsop recreation of a fever dream.
For myself, I thrill at ANYTHING that isn't another f**king glass box!
After looking at a bunch of examples, I really like them. They're often very cozy and pleasant to have around, I feel.
I wonder what the acoustic environment of that chapel in Robchamp is like. Is it pleasant to make music in, like churches and chapels have traditionally been?
I like some postmodern buildings and think others are a bit too much. One issue is: does the building “work”? In Toronto, the addition to the AGO definitely works and is wonderful. The addition to the ROM definitely does NOT work and makes the space inside terrible. There is already talk of tearing it down.
I'm a first year architecture student and i'm in love with your videos!
11:28 small mistake. that's the Caixa forum from madrid
Oops thanks for noticing! I don’t even know why I put Barcelona lol 😅
@@ARTiculations you're Welcome. I live near the city, so I instantly recognised the building.
When I was younger, I loved Postmodern architecture. My first experience with it was in Montpellier, with Antigone. It was strange and humorous and daring.
What originally drew me to architecture (in general) was that it was an art that (by necessity) is confined by functionality (in a way that painting and music, for example, aren’t).
Over time, however, I came to see how much of the work of modern and postmodern starchirects as completely out of balance with functionality. This is where such buildings fail for me: they are expressions of an artist’s unmitigated genius without regard to how humans interact with the structure. They are inhumane building which disdain us.
The “best” buildings are usually the least interesting ones, architecturally. There are group of buildings here in Montreal which started as factories, and were adapted as warehouses, then artist studios, then apartments. They can be retrofit to whatever is needed at the time. Are they “beautiful”? Not so much. Do they allow us to live our lives in a way which is human? Yes.
We have other buildings here in Montreal which are architectural gems, yet at best don’t care about how people interact with them (Habitat ‘67) and others which fully prevent us from moving forward on our human adventure (Olympic Stadium).
Can we please start building cities again like we did before "modernism". Look at how nice the old cities in Europe are compared to anything new. There is nothing beautiful, romantic or pleasant to live around in "modernism". Look how well put together the architecture and how harmonious everything was before 1900, how you feel walking thru those streets compared to the cold, empty feeling you get now. We went backwards in our ways of building pleasant places to live in.
The modernists are intellectually shackled to an ugly style of architecture. They cannot escape their ideological bubble because it would admit they're wrong
I agree with you and I'm studying architecture, I would love for styles to come back, I think we need a movement if we really want those nice buildings again.
That reminds me of how Alexandre Cabanel was part of the Paris Salon which is a rigid academic group of people who define what and how certain art should be. However, not all his art pieces fit this standard quite the irony when many of his works were the pinnacle of what the Paris Salon strives for. It's like he was part of modernism but ironically made postmodernism by accident.
Horrible is the word you're looking for, not bizarre.
In the search of allowing architects to express themselves through the medium of rebar monumental sculpture, society has allowed them to build an awful looking world for the rest of us.
I grew up with (and in) the Denver Art Museum, the only major American work by Gio Ponti. ...which i think counts. What a space for art! I don't love all postmodernism, or all modern architecture, but this building made me think, even as a kid.
Thanks
Thank you so much! Appreciate your support so much! And apologies for the late reply. For some reason RUclips did't notify me about this.
Honestly, I love any form of art that adopts absurdity and ridiculousness. Dada always drew me in when I was studying art. My partner, some friends and I went to Mass MoCA while I was visiting the US recently and it's just so much fun to absorb yourself in the ridiculous. What I see is an artist having fun, not trying to follow a strict school of thought, practice and ideals :>
Not that there's anything wrong with classic art forms, they all have a place. Post modernism just has a place in my heart!
In general it shouldn't be like that, architecture should be respectful not be bizarre because it is disrespectful.
Really great video, lots of good information and images to help explain. Articulate and well-written as well. However; I found it difficult to keep up. I have a background in architecture (I got my architecture degree at Cal as postmodernism was getting rolling in '82) and I still had trouble keeping up. There were several times images were shown to illustrate a point, but they went by too fast to get a good look at to make the connection to what was said. Also quotes were shown several times on screen, but not read. I tried to read them while you talked, and couldn't do both and didn't have time to read the whole quote.
So, I will again reiterate that the content was great and well thought out. But I would suggest slowing things down to. let people absorb the ideas. Assume your audience knows nothing about architecture (It kind of seems that you assume they do).
Great start (I see this was a year ago), so I'll look at other videos also (I have subscribed).
Robert Venturi's buildings seem so understated compared with recent postmodernism. I think Frank Gehry changed things a lot, along with advances in technology. I was surprised that Gehry barely figures in this video.
Pluralism is the term I remember from college, over Postmodernism. The idea that everything old is new again, and the sometimes wonky mixing of styles in new and clever ways.
Nice view of the Gooderham Building and environs at 0:09:00 - maybe complexity works better aesthetically when it occurs organically at the scale of a neighborhood. I like Post-Modernism, but I think it was trying too hard sometimes
Very informative video.
Thank you!
How did the OACD in Toronto by Will Alsop not make an appearance here lol.
My professor designed that building I didn’t want to come off as biased 😜 jk I just forgot 😂
There are both good and bad... and ordinary, in all styles. When postmodernism hit the main stage it was more or less the same time punk hit music. I met Sotsass at the early 80d Memphis exhibition at the V&A in London and he seemed intrigued when I made a parallel wit the Sex Pistols with whom I had worked.
Hey, thanks for making another video! I like your content.
Great video. As an arch student, I’m glad I stumbled on your channel
Some of the buildings can be interesting, and acceptable in small quantities. But if we want to build entire cities that are comfortable and calming to live in, the chaotic aesthetic, and not very practical design of these buildings isn’t great for most purposes.
These kind of buildings would be best if built at distance from eachother. So when you go through the city and maybe get a bit bored this buildings just awakens your curiosity.
I can imagine how funny it would be if everything was built in postmodern architecture. Literally a fever dream!
I grew up at the end of 'brutal' modernism and saw the 'kid with a new toy' modernism, with the constraints of the former thrown out with the bathwater. The pastiche of postmodernism leaves those who don't know the designer's intention (i.e., 99%) or 'story' in complete mystery as to why, and then they often come to the conclusion of least resistance, which is frequently less than complimentary. When the designer dies, they take the story with them. Toy town post-modernism has dated, usually due to poor quality paint and coloured lime rendering being affected by UV and water weathering, all fading to a pastiche pastel (neither one thing nor another). Good postmodernism reflects technological experimentation and clever contrast to the old, not unlike good modernism (Coventry Cathedral). They become icons. But an icon, as we all now know, is often an icon due to its originality. In this case, being first only happens once.
The reality is the fickle masses ultimately decide, and each generation rebels to the former, wanting to make their stamp in their age of the 'modern'. As an individual (and therefore a mere speck of dust in the machine of design) born in the early 1960s, I believe modernism was about an 'out with the old'; it was post-war judgments (both world wars and the 1917 Russian Revolutions and the rise of Constructivism) in the view of recent history. Post-war was rebuilding and slum clearances. So, the promises of modernism were in its title. The Postmodernism of the 1980s felt like the end of the Roman Empire, where there were no more battles to fight, and that war spirit turned inwards to a self-destructive decadence.
We now seem to be in a post-brutal period, not because it is radical, but because it fits the commodified land market, meaning every square centimetre has to be justified in a number-cruncher shareholders report. I spend time on Derives (walking and taking in the spirit of place 'genus loci') in London; this purely commodified style leads to ground floor level built to the edge of the footpath (sidewalk), and because it can't be sold, becomes all service area leading to blank walls. The subsequent disconnect of building and place, empirically people walk faster, don't look up and don't want to admit each other existence, go to 5-storey former council houses set back at least 3 meters with green space, completely different feel and sense of place, people will nod to each other existence in this space, all of this is empirical*.
*Ref: Buildings and Dwellings by Richard Sennent (academic but thoroughly well researched), Cities for People by Jan Gehl, this book is written and designed to be accessible for everyone, but it's all here!
Other notable references are Anything by Holly Whyte, Jane Jacobs, and Eugene Ruskin.
It's about people; forget the end user, and vanity will return, as designers are a service industry, nothing more. Less high and mighty, more humility ( I speak as a Bricklayer, Landscape Architect and LA lecturer).
A well-crafted and informative video, this is just a mere addition to its careful neutrality.
there are two kinds of "style" involved here. the first is the kind that draws your attention; you want to experience it. like good music or eye-pleasing structure. the second "style" is the kind that SCREAMS at you or physically offends your senses, like shattering glass or huge piles of crushed tin cans in the bright noonday sun. i'll leave it to you to decide what appeals to most folks.
PostModern started as Mannerism, and - same as back then- evolved into Baroque :-) Style needed for VIP buildings.
Dear Betty: heartfelt Thanks! Your labels for each image of the presented building : PRICELESS. ... if only it caught on .. sigh!
thanks for creating this video.
At first, I do think post modernism is bizzare. However, I have a totally different perspectivee after watching this video. I think it‘s all the depends on the architrect’s idea. It’s interesting and inspiring to see how the architect wanted to present his/her piece and how he/she utilized different elements from the past to recreate.
Love you video , please post more!
The (relatively) new senior center in my town looks like a collection of hen houses and utility sheds pushed together higglety-pigglety. Sometimes the postmodernist philosophy works and sometimes it looks like a disaster aftermath.
Why can't we just build everything in the Art Deco style and call it done? It looked so cool and not like someone balled up a piece of tin foil and told the construction crew "Build that!"
We could but it should become a trend.
The idea that Postmodern structures are populist, seems a bit like something the architects decided without much real grasp of what it is to be populist. Ask the denizens of a given neighborhood how they feel about some of these structures and i'm willing to bet you'll get some very polarized reactions.
The buildings are the product of designers and approving boards that operate independently of any popular consensus, and the resultant works are often wildly unpopular - in some cases actually quite dangerous. They play at populism, but are almost always anything but, and their existence serves as a reminder within communities, both of how little actual say the people within have, and of how influence is deeply stratified along socioeconomic lines.
Still, I'd rather this, than boring, reactionary neoclassicism. You can introduce new visual concepts without creating things that are visually repulsive.
Because modernism had so clearly lost the public, post-modernism is the ongoing attempt to reconnect. Sometimes it succeeds, other times it fails. Sometimes it commits the sins of modernism - alienation, corporatism, elitism, ugliness. As a layperson, I ask a building, "can I understand this?" Sometimes it's too geometrically busy, other times it is plain ugly. The best buildings make me smile. They cleverly quote the past, or have some humour, but the whole thing just looks good. I also think that colour, in and of itself, makes people happy. The brutalist embrace of bare concrete has a lot to answer for.
Hideousness is the calling card of most architecture since the War. It looks like interesting enough sculpture, but so many of these buildings, especially the add-ons to the stately old ones, were cringe inducing! It's just ugly, and that's the thing that always stands out. You don't have to teach someone to love an old building (as in pre-WWII), but it takes a fair amount of education to make someone at least appreciate modern and post-modern stuff, even today. I think that speaks for itself.
Can u explain me how many kind architecture postmodern?
7:53 The building discussed here is a perfect encapsulation of the rejection of beauty. The idea that one builds a chaotic building to reflect the chaos of the city is good example of this style. Chaos is not something desired. The term is use as a pejorative. To add chaos to chaos is overtly destructive. Besides, the chaotic nature of the city is the result of clashing styles. To incorporate chaos in one building is to mock the normal urge for serenity.
But it looks beautiful.
In my area, huge polluting concrete structures are used to banish traditional beauty and practicality. It fights this way local identity that can cause trouble to a central government
Post modernism is varied and complex (sometimes just complicated for complicated sake’s to seem complex, much like many variants of modernism) so it’s hard to label everything under one name. The most important thing to come out of it was pluralism and killing off the modernist idea of a universal meta narrative.
The biggest problem with PoMo was it’s comercial and ironic (borderline nihilistic at times) side, which with the economic system of the times produced in mass a lot of crap.
The best things were the reaction to the modernists lack of care for the urban environment, communities and context.
With it we saw the rebirth of a lot of vernacular architecture, better critical regionalism further detached from international models and the revival and acceptance of actual non-ironic classical/traditional architecture.
If it wasn’t for PoMo we wouldn’t have great architects like Robert Stern.
Postmodern architecture is the way it is because just like postmodern theory it celebrates disorder and fragmentation and sees any attempt at unity or cohesion as inherently oppressive. It is interesting to me that with a few changes of wording, Venturi's statement at 3:20 would sound like a declaration of the so-called Social Justice movement. The gist of it seems to be that we need to abolish the aesthetic unity of previous styles to make buildings "inclusive," but actually what happens is the same as with SC ideology: the vast majority of people find the buildings alienating, while a small clique of specialists finds them empowering, just like the restructuring of language and culture feels empowering for certain radical activists but completely alienating to everyone else, including the minority people who were supposed to be empowered by it.
Firstly, thank you for this interesting video. My reaction to this topic is: what happened to beauty? Esthetics? Can't we talk about the artistic aspect of architecture? Am I just a simpleton for wanting to be surrounded by beautiful and esthetically pleasing buildings? Yes these are subjective concepts, but most of the public HATES and is alienated by much (but, no, not by all I will admit) of modern and post-modern architecture. Architecture is primarily public art and should therefore be designed primarily to serve our collective sensibilities, not those of the (egotistical?) architect.
This is such an excellent video!
There’s a book I would like to read but I can never find it at an affordable price. It’s called “ugly as sin“ and it studies beautiful churches that were revamped into horrible ugly places.
There’s one such place at a Catholic college near me where they got the whole inside
And replaced it with the most uninspiring furnishings, including removing the front doors and replacing it with slab doors.
Actually, post-modernism is not a philosophy, it's more a description of our current society. It's descriptive, no prescriptive, so it is easy to understand why the current architecture movement is post-modern. It would be like saying the renaissance is a philosophy.
Thank you for this video. It made me want to learn more about architecture.
It reminds me of the idea of a movement against something instead of being for something. because creativity has effectively been abandoned because there is presumably nothing objective to strive towards. There is only us and our permutations.
Less is only more when it points towards the spiritual with the detraction of the physical.
Many examples of post-modernist architecture appear 'faddish' to me, as though their style will appear quaint and faintly ridiculous in just a few decades.
If Modernism has become so broad as to be difficult to define as a category, by its standing examples; why not define what isn’t Modernism, the chaff that makes up the bulk of contemporary buildings, whether residential or commercial? A word that comes to my mind is “expediency”. If form follows function and the elements of the building become what little ornamentation there is; no historical references allowed…. then expediency is the stuff that uses the stripped down, unornamented and boring to a fault elements of even the best modernism as an excuse to build cheaply and quickly, to extract the most profit from the least effort, to hell with urbanism and quality of life. Even the most boring pile of ego rising from its framing plaza that keeps the City at bay, will usually present visual elements that show the talent of the architect in executing a truly modern design even if his genitals got in the way of his talent. Seagrams and Pan Am do this in NYC. The chopsticks of Billionaires Row do not, at all.
But, if there’s really a fault with Post Modernism, and there is, it becomes so evident in this video compared to your other ones. This video is choked with jargon; architectural, architectural manual, cultural maven etc etc etc. It makes me wish that Woody Allen was going to show up with an architect to pop the balloon. Did you realize you couldn’t talk about Post Modernism without turning to jargon? That says a lot about the form.
Oh well, you have so many other videos, so much more to examine!!!
Your channel is awesome 🌟
Great video, love the content!
I can tell you right off I don't know all that much about architecture, but I know what I like and am fascinated by it. As a rule (of living) I like complexity as a method for d3ßliving as life itself is complex, but that's just being realistic or honest, which I prefer. So does that mean I have a preference for the post-modern? The examples you provided seemed to represent what's creative and more imaginative which seemed to discount function or at least placate it which in the end, is more complex
RUSHING and being IMPATIENT in an erratic world (facilitate by fast technology) is the culprit.
Love love love love this video. Damn good topic! btw did I mention I love this video?
Initially, modernism in architecture was a breath-taking and exhilarating break with the past. All the clean lines, the lack of decoration seemed, well, modern. Over time, however. It came to seem that buildings were being formed by cookie cutters or turned out on assembly lines with no opportunity to differentiate them from all other buildings of the same type. So postmodernism seems to be a necessary corrective.
25 seconds in and I see a building from my university! LOL As for the topic - I appreciate the idea behind post-modernism as a big middle finger to the absurdly boring "modern" structures from the 50's onward. The designs are often playful, clever, inspiring, and fun to look at. Some look like a drunk piled some Legos together, to the extent that no one in the room shouted "The emperor has no clothes" when the design was presented to the board for approval. Personally, I'm a fan of classical architectural forms in general, and "adaptive reuse" of historical structures whenever possible (instead of tearing them down). But I like when a post modern design can take cues from the local landscape in order to build something pleasing to the residents as well as clever and fun.
I really enjoyed the rational layout of your program. This is just MHO, but there is nothing more mentally fun than a well done post-modern building, and nothing more appalling than a post-modern building that skimped on quality materials or level of finish. The last time architecture had a sense of fun was the Deco period, and there is a lot of similarities between the two.