I think both have a place in our time, but I hated when modernism sought to replace beautiful older buildings in the 50's60's70's and even 80's of the last century. In Europe anyway.
I hear you. The Modernist drive to replace older buildings often overlooked the value of historical beauty. Their approach was too aggressive, missing the chance to integrate and respect existing architecture.
Great video. There seems to be an awakening in the world, a realization that beauty is paramount, especially in architecture. I see more and more content highlighting the failed experiment of Modern architecture, and it pleases me.
Thanks for the comment! It’s true-there’s definitely a shift towards valuing beauty in architecture again. Modernism had its flaws, and it’s interesting to see how perspectives are changing.
i could not go through the whole video. It’s too simplistic to view modernism purely as an egotistical or aesthetic movement. The rejection of ornamentation was deeply tied to the social, political, and economic conditions of the time. Post-war housing crises, technological progress, and a desire for egalitarian, functional spaces played a far more significant role in shaping modernist architecture than individual ego. While figures like Le Corbusier were influential, they were part of a much larger architectural shift driven by necessity and ideology. I suggest reading a bit more about the history, politics and sociology of the time period, since it really is important and very common question people have
There's also a famous edict taken by Stalin's administration in 1953 to abolish all architectural "excesses" during planning and construction, made with one clear goal in mind: to produce as much buildings as quickly and cheaply as possible for the war-torn USSR. That's when all the fancy stalinist architecture got replaced with simple commieblocks we know and love. The decision had some language around it going on about how the new style reflects the honesty and utilitarianism of the regime, but it was mainly taken just to re-settle all the people who lost their homes in WW2, and were literally living in basements and hastily built wooden ramshackles. After the immediate problem was solved, people and construction companies just gotten used to this barebones style. It was difficult to justify a new, more expensive, and slower to build model, just for the sake of style. Plus commieblocks really do look good once all the greenery sets in.
reject modernity return to tradition
I think both have a place in our time, but I hated when modernism sought to replace beautiful older buildings in the 50's60's70's and even 80's of the last century. In Europe anyway.
I hear you. The Modernist drive to replace older buildings often overlooked the value of historical beauty. Their approach was too aggressive, missing the chance to integrate and respect existing architecture.
-modern architecture-
postmortem architecture
Great video. There seems to be an awakening in the world, a realization that beauty is paramount, especially in architecture. I see more and more content highlighting the failed experiment of Modern architecture, and it pleases me.
Thanks for the comment! It’s true-there’s definitely a shift towards valuing beauty in architecture again. Modernism had its flaws, and it’s interesting to see how perspectives are changing.
i could not go through the whole video. It’s too simplistic to view modernism purely as an egotistical or aesthetic movement. The rejection of ornamentation was deeply tied to the social, political, and economic conditions of the time. Post-war housing crises, technological progress, and a desire for egalitarian, functional spaces played a far more significant role in shaping modernist architecture than individual ego. While figures like Le Corbusier were influential, they were part of a much larger architectural shift driven by necessity and ideology. I suggest reading a bit more about the history, politics and sociology of the time period, since it really is important and very common question people have
ugly architecture is actually bad for your health....thats what I am reading
So that's why schools and prisons in the USA look so similar, eh? Sounds about right.
Yes !!! Because it is truthful and honest for a school to look like a prison hahaha
@@archidots No arguing with that!
Beauty in architecture does not matter no more in today's society, only money does.
There's also a famous edict taken by Stalin's administration in 1953 to abolish all architectural "excesses" during planning and construction, made with one clear goal in mind: to produce as much buildings as quickly and cheaply as possible for the war-torn USSR. That's when all the fancy stalinist architecture got replaced with simple commieblocks we know and love.
The decision had some language around it going on about how the new style reflects the honesty and utilitarianism of the regime, but it was mainly taken just to re-settle all the people who lost their homes in WW2, and were literally living in basements and hastily built wooden ramshackles.
After the immediate problem was solved, people and construction companies just gotten used to this barebones style. It was difficult to justify a new, more expensive, and slower to build model, just for the sake of style. Plus commieblocks really do look good once all the greenery sets in.