Here in the Netherlands we had Berlage , Dudok and Brandes . These were architects that created houses and buildings for humans . It is perfectly human to make things look good , to decorate and to use bricks and wood and natural stone , or even wicker on a roof . Ask yourself , would I enjoy a good wine on a terras , surrounded by these modernist buildings , would that give the right feel ?
It would for me, I'm a person who likes looking at futuristic buidings, Everyone have different tastes, Don't expect everyone would agree on your opinion of what's beauty, Cause modern buildings are beautiful to me
@@mi12noMy country the Netherlands is extremely populated , but we had creative ancestors who knew how to built an inviting surrounding , just Google the Netherlands and see what I mean .
Good summary in the first half. I felt the concluding remarks were rushed and didn’t address the collapse of architectural theory over the last few decades. Also, btw, architects ‘get it’ that people prefer ornate textured buildings - it’s just that nobody wants to pay for them. Alas.
That is true. Every client I've done has limited budget and even if they want to put ornaments, the budget goes overboard. And those buildings with ornaments and other decorations got dirty and hard to clean after years at least in my country.
Interesting view and interpretation at 8:30. That is not how is feels to me at all 🤔 For me these buildings grow old pretty fast without maturing. They just age. I understand, why someone can feel weary of a lot of ornaments, especially when they stand for opulence and power. But this total cutback on ornaments radiates for me nothing but lifelessness. The total economization of architecture where the space for human playfulness shrinks. I am trying to understand what the point of this sobriety is so I don't get angry about it. But so far nothing could really change that. Maybe someone could help here. 🤷♂
I would tend to agree with you in some cases. It’s about the details. Because of its outward look some architects see modernism as an “easy” style to copy. These architects miss the way the walls meet the floor, the type of materials and so on. When those details are forgotten, you’ll find buildings that feel hollow. It could be argued that some modern architecture is more playful, because it doesn’t rely on the past architectural formulas. The playful mid-century houses in Palm Springs come to mind.
The Lever house inspired the former danish modernist architect Arne Jacobsen to build his SAS-hotel in central Copenhagen in 1960, at that time being the only skyscraper in all of Copenhagen. It became so iconic that it was since deemed worthy of preservation, and is now protected against any changes to it here in Denmark. Although, i find most architecture today utterly boring, where you're wondering if there is any thought behind any of it, i have always respected the modernist movement with their ideas and buildings. Great video as well!
Why do we likie what we like? When I was 5, each Sunday coming from church, I begged to go to the "funny looking" house. I found out the architect was influenced by Wright. My wife and I grew up in traditional homes but ours is very contemporary. We like it for different / overlapping reasons. She thinks it's clean, not messy, clear, etc. I love the mathematics, the lines, sharpness and lack of extraneous decor. Our home is a glass A-frame with the bottom of the three floors cantilevered from a hill where the house is partially inserted. It pleases us and that's what's important. Not a big fan of the International Style.
From this video it’s been cemented that European have always been minimalist and Americans have been maximalist. Being an individual and different is good.
Fantastic lecture, great presentation, and spot on analysis. While some younger folks may wish International Style is gone, as the presenter said, it lives on. Unfortunately, fewer folks study architecture today and a lot of people who analyze it, never studied architecture.
What defines modern architecture is abandonment of beauty and building what architects want even if the people hate it. That's why you need to justify with eloquent poetry. Without that, you're just left with ugly glass boxes.
Le corbusier was a narcissist, fascist, and misantrope. Philip Johnson was a enthusiastic nazi. He went to Germany to participate in a large Hitler Jugend show in 1932. He was so enthusiastic, that FBI had to monitor him in the entire 1930ties. Philip Johnson introduced modernism to USA. And he was destroying, together with his german bauhausler - socalled "fleeing" from nazi-germany, Americas proud and rich classical traditiion. You need to catch up, and read more. Start with the freely accessible paper "Hitler's revenge", recently published, by James Stevens Curl. Learn something.
@@georgeallen5590Really tho because I want to be an architect and i don’t want to design buildings that look like it belongs in a renaissance movie. I want fun shapes with points and fancy Cali girl vibes.
The single RULE of architecture was the baby thrown out with the batthwater of modern; the result is generations of incompetence - architecture is the design of space for people; as such, everything we can see is architecture - the RULE is the natural phenomenon that binocular humans assign an axis to spaces and to each piece of stuff that defines space; keeping those axis in balance, as they did pre-modern, is the essence of creating feeling = architecture - if i as someone to look out the window, they will stand in the exact center of the window because that is where you get the most information - all the original masters had this ingrained in their pedagogy - it was ceased in ‘52; the semester before i arrived at Cornell School of Architecture and it took me twenty years of trial and error after to find it; and to master it.
Modern architecture sucks . The more odd it is ,the more it's hailed as brilliant. It's all cheaply done crap that resembles a scifi movie set. It's like how modern art is hailed as brilliant even though it may be sht.
all the audio is panned to the left. if you were curious.
Here in the Netherlands we had Berlage , Dudok and Brandes .
These were architects that created houses and buildings for humans .
It is perfectly human to make things look good , to decorate and to use bricks and wood and natural stone , or even wicker on a roof .
Ask yourself , would I enjoy a good wine on a terras , surrounded by these modernist buildings , would that give the right feel ?
In more populated countries that’s just not feasible to a lot of people
It would for me, I'm a person who likes looking at futuristic buidings, Everyone have different tastes, Don't expect everyone would agree on your opinion of what's beauty, Cause modern buildings are beautiful to me
@@mi12noMy country the Netherlands is extremely populated , but we had creative ancestors who knew how to built an inviting surrounding , just Google the Netherlands and see what I mean .
My left ear feels so lonely
Good summary in the first half. I felt the concluding remarks were rushed and didn’t address the collapse of architectural theory over the last few decades. Also, btw, architects ‘get it’ that people prefer ornate textured buildings - it’s just that nobody wants to pay for them. Alas.
That is true. Every client I've done has limited budget and even if they want to put ornaments, the budget goes overboard. And those buildings with ornaments and other decorations got dirty and hard to clean after years at least in my country.
Interesting view and interpretation at 8:30. That is not how is feels to me at all 🤔
For me these buildings grow old pretty fast without maturing. They just age. I understand, why someone can feel weary of a lot of ornaments, especially when they stand for opulence and power. But this total cutback on ornaments radiates for me nothing but lifelessness. The total economization of architecture where the space for human playfulness shrinks.
I am trying to understand what the point of this sobriety is so I don't get angry about it. But so far nothing could really change that.
Maybe someone could help here. 🤷♂
I would tend to agree with you in some cases. It’s about the details. Because of its outward look some architects see modernism as an “easy” style to copy. These architects miss the way the walls meet the floor, the type of materials and so on. When those details are forgotten, you’ll find buildings that feel hollow.
It could be argued that some modern architecture is more playful, because it doesn’t rely on the past architectural formulas. The playful mid-century houses in Palm Springs come to mind.
An aesthetic atrocity and a crime against humanity.
Based
The Lever house inspired the former danish modernist architect Arne Jacobsen to build his SAS-hotel in central Copenhagen in 1960, at that time being the only skyscraper in all of Copenhagen. It became so iconic that it was since deemed worthy of preservation, and is now protected against any changes to it here in Denmark. Although, i find most architecture today utterly boring, where you're wondering if there is any thought behind any of it, i have always respected the modernist movement with their ideas and buildings. Great video as well!
I don’t know what to
This was an interesting video. I liked it 👍
Thank you, I’m glad you like it.
What is modern architecture?
Me: Dung.
That was a huge help for my assingment! Thanks.
Awesome, I'm glad to hear this.
Go back 150+ years. WOW! Totally unbelievable architecture.
Destroyed! Why?
That's your next assignment!
Why do we likie what we like? When I was 5, each Sunday coming from church, I begged to go to the "funny looking" house. I found out the architect was influenced by Wright. My wife and I grew up in traditional homes but ours is very contemporary. We like it for different / overlapping reasons. She thinks it's clean, not messy, clear, etc. I love the mathematics, the lines, sharpness and lack of extraneous decor. Our home is a glass A-frame with the bottom of the three floors cantilevered from a hill where the house is partially inserted. It pleases us and that's what's important. Not a big fan of the International Style.
From this video it’s been cemented that European have always been minimalist and Americans have been maximalist. Being an individual and different is good.
Why is audio panned right
It was a technical glitch
Fantastic lecture, great presentation, and spot on analysis. While some younger folks may wish International Style is gone, as the presenter said, it lives on. Unfortunately, fewer folks study architecture today and a lot of people who analyze it, never studied architecture.
eh thats really relagaten to millenials, i see gen z friends who hate so called modern architecture think mies seagram building is cool
Temporary roofs over our head. The rest is complete bs!
Nice video ❤❤❤
💖✨
Interesting
What defines modern architecture is abandonment of beauty and building what architects want even if the people hate it. That's why you need to justify with eloquent poetry. Without that, you're just left with ugly glass boxes.
…..beauty is in the eye of the beholder
@@georgeallen5590Wrong. There are certain things that are objectively beautiful. Symmetry, ornamentation, structure.
@@georgeallen5590No it is not. It is the greatest Lie of all time
Le corbusier was a narcissist, fascist, and misantrope. Philip Johnson was a enthusiastic nazi. He went to Germany to participate in a large Hitler Jugend show in 1932. He was so enthusiastic, that FBI had to monitor him in the entire 1930ties. Philip Johnson introduced modernism to USA. And he was destroying, together with his german bauhausler - socalled "fleeing" from nazi-germany, Americas proud and rich classical traditiion. You need to catch up, and read more. Start with the freely accessible paper "Hitler's revenge", recently published, by James Stevens Curl. Learn something.
@@georgeallen5590Really tho because I want to be an architect and i don’t want to design buildings that look like it belongs in a renaissance movie. I want fun shapes with points and fancy Cali girl vibes.
The single RULE of architecture was the baby thrown out with the batthwater of modern; the result is generations of incompetence - architecture is the design of space for people; as such, everything we can see is architecture - the RULE is the natural phenomenon that binocular humans assign an axis to spaces and to each piece of stuff that defines space; keeping those axis in balance, as they did pre-modern, is the essence of creating feeling = architecture - if i as someone to look out the window, they will stand in the exact center of the window because that is where you get the most information - all the original masters had this ingrained in their pedagogy - it was ceased in ‘52; the semester before i arrived at Cornell School of Architecture and it took me twenty years of trial and error after to find it; and to master it.
Modern architecture sucks . The more odd it is ,the more it's hailed as brilliant. It's all cheaply done crap that resembles a scifi movie set. It's like how modern art is hailed as brilliant even though it may be sht.