Why Modern Architecture is SCAM
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 01. 2024
- I get really angry on this topic - forgive me when I am upset: I point out the obvious errors of “modern” and contemporary architecture
I am Sebastian - a German Architect and University Lecturer.
Subscribe me please! :)
Let me know in the comments if you have wishes for topics of new videos !
#architecture #modernarchitecture #bauhaus
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video. On your question at the end of the video, 'what are the new stories?' I think you already answered:
a. follow a universal grammar that integrates buildings within the whole
b. keep it organic and incremental.
c. keep it regional, adapted to the particularities of each place (weather, culture, custom)
The irony is that this does mean going back, because these principles are perennial and all pre-modern architecture embraced them.
Now there were several 20th century theorists who tried to adopt them; I think Rem Koolhaas tried to come up with an algorithmic design technique (superimposition, if I recall correctly) that simulates the effects of time and historical incremental change; parametric tools have also been employed to this end; with Houdini you can artificially age buildings and simulate wear and tear.
For the regional part, there was Kenneth Frampton's critical regionalism; as for discovering a universal grammar, Charles Jencks attempted to formulate it in 'The Architecture of the Jumping Universe', where by using fractal shapes, strange attractors, non-linear equations and other shapes inspired from nature, he claimed to achieve an even truer organicism than that of classicism.
Now we look at the actual designs of these people - Koolhaas, Jencks, Libeskind etc - and they are still horrendous and don't come close to the harmony and organic character of pre-20th century architecture.
So whatever we do to escape the hell of modernity, it has to be a serious break with the status quo; and I don't think architecture schools will ever listen to us.
Today I posted a link from Architectural Uprising on Linkedin and it got the following comment: "The “Architectural Uprising” is a sad group of right-wing, retrograde, superficial and very damaging group of people."
The only solution imo is to form alternative teaching institutions; atelier schools are a good starting point.
Your comment is really good and valid!
your suggestion (a, b, c) is reasonable as well. But still it is not a story in the "marketing sense". We need to answer the why: Why do people need to do that?
The "Modern tale" was a moral one, as it was linked to "leftist" ideology of that time: The good and the bad ones. The Hollywood motif, everyone understands it.
Terms for what I call for could be: a.) "Human centered" instead of centered around abstract theories. b.) "Social centered" in contrast to the egomanic centering around one architect. Also, it is c.) truely sustainable, because the buildings will be timeless. Extremely expensive icons of Zaha Hadid et al are out-of-fashion after 5-10 years, so they are totally not sustainable. Should have mentioned that in the video.
@@SebastianvonThaden all three points are valid, though again, every contemporary architecture studio claims to fully take them into consideration.
I think your question refers to two distinct aspects: how to market to the public and how to create a compelling moral narrative and claim legitimacy. I know that someone like Jordan Peterson (whose ideas I enjoyed quite a bit) would conflate the two aspects and claim that one can defeat modernity through private initiative only, so we can outcompete them in the marketplace of housing and ideas.
However, this is where I disagree with his views on politics. Communism is not the only subversive force in modernity. Liberal democracies are also prone to the same corrosive trends, only slower. Modern architecture won not only due to its compelling narrative, but also because it was best adapted to industrial modes of production. Corbusier drooled over "the machine". In a sense modern architecture is mere prefabrication and utility, quick to build, not reliant on skilled craftsmen or knowledgeable architects. CAD and BIM almost build themselves without the architect. So gaining legitimacy implies solving all these issues which are not overtly leftist, but over time select for leftism. And here you bump into a lot more actors who will be openly hostile to your project, not just the crazy critical studies ladies.
@@marcuscrassus5229 Well, you mention the main problem: contemporary architecture studios claim to consider my suggested points already.
although they clearly don't..
guess we have to obviously display both their contemporary approaches and pre-modern buildings next to each other,
to show that they actually lie.
this video here can maybe be a start of it ;)
@@SebastianvonThaden I'm obviously a big believer in marketing our architecture and finding popular support. As we know, common people detest modernism.
On the other hand, 'the marketplace of ideas' is a strange hybrid of unholy public-private partnerships. If you want to succeed as an architecture director, you must play the credentialism game. This means:
a. you must get good DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) and ESG (environmental, social and governance) scores. This means hiring leftist komissars and fake experts who will outright kill any classicist idea you may have
b. you must impress the academia; architecture professors are the most spineless bunch imaginable, but you gain respectability through their blessing, publishing papers under their supervision. Obviously, they will not support any research that questions the contemporary paradigm
c. you must impress the journalists. even harder, because they have all the biases of academics, plus the desire to gain clout by exposing 'retrogrades'
I agree, logic doesn't work on most people. What works is telling emotional stories. I think you put it best... first we should start by designing a functional building using basic shapes like squares, circles, triangles, rectangles, etc to make a functional building in the location it is being built. For that to happen, the architect should study the site, the community, the people, the weather, the resources, the buildings, the culture, etc. Then we should ornament the buildings so that it has 80% of the local community character and 20% of the architects "new" ideas because people will have to look at them for the next 100+ years. It wouldn't make sense to tear down buildings after 10 years because it no longer fits into the community, that would be a waste of resources ( time, money, effort, etc ). Next there needs to be a story told about the building that weaves in the past, present, and future. All three aspects of time should be seen in a building, a plaque made with the story, and dedications / celebrations that tie to the building.
Sad that we never got to experience a grand international airport in classical architecture. I have always loved being in and around classical railway stations and loathed both airports and modern railway stations.
There are a few art deco ones with strong classical connections
That’s not by coincidence. Modernity brought about advancements in fields like aviation. Sure, they could retroactively design an airport to a classical style but at that point, it’s no different than Disneyland and devalues the architecture
@@bv32ification You are mixing too many concepts and have reached an illogical conclusion. Just because we can build rockets does that make cars futile? Also you are mixing technology with aesthetics, they have little to no relation outside subjective modernist dogmas.
I liked the one in Berlin Tempelhof.
Great work! Keep it up, especially featuring more older ideas that still work better to solve all-time problems (like minimizing maintenance and repairs due to weather effects) than newer but not better ideas.
yes, I forgot to mention that also the "roof overhang" of classical gable roofs
protect the facade from rain.
modern "functional" roofs make the house look more boxy, but the super-functional plain-white facades look dirty after one autumn
Great take and spotlight on the functionalism or lack-of regarding Bauhaus and its implementation on industrial design. Still, currents and design schools like Bauhaus among others can still be great for certain markets or niches like commercial, utilitarian or business related buildings, structures more so than residential especially en-masse, just like i.e. Miles Van der Rohe or Frank Lloyd Wright’s.
That’s the key aspect for me, differentiating the ultimate goal and function of a structure. A brutalist structure is dreadful, depressing for people to live in but if it’s a warehouse, a train or bus station then its dreaded basic, barebones design could be seen as utilitarian and be actually a pro especially in relation to cost-benefit and speed of implementation, construction.
yes, for industrial buildings "pure" functionalism makes sense, if they a.) do not stand within an intact urban environment and b.) the company doesn't want to express / marketing itself individually
Great video! When you were talking about flat roofs and rain i heard you mention snow once. Flat roofs in places where its snows is very bad. if you get a lot of snow on a flat roof it will cave in the roof from the weight of the snow. Like you said that is why they made pointed roofs to protect the roof, it was functional.
@12:20 I was so sad when you said that beautiful building was torn down and replaced with such an ugly one.
Nice rant! I agree with you! 😅
As for what to do.. if you’re lost, you need to go back to your last way point. In the case of architecture and design it was Art Deco.
And we need to start from there?? 🤷🏽♂️🤷🏽♂️
Haha, I like your approach: "If you’re lost, you need to go back to your last way point." Yes, I will think about it !
When I was in architecture school, all the 'theories (so-called) of architecture' were about the pointless arty rhetoric of the modern movement and its spinoffs. We didn't have a real theory that provided a structure for us to tell socially meaningful 'stories' with our buildings that would be comprehensible to those who moved in and around the building and made sense in the social and built context. Architecture is the practice of producing socially meaningful shelter: about people and their occupations (ie activities) and pursuits. Traditional architecture is very good at this. Modern, 'machine for living' buildings ignore people and do little for them.
E Michael Jones criticises this very aptly in Degenerate Moderns. I look at the farce of 'open plan' living; which turns an expensive house into a one room barn. Or the bland tedium of buildings that ignore how people approach, use, move through and, one hopes, enjoy them...but not usually.
yes, so, since I assume from your message that you have graduated in architecture: do you work for an architecture firm or do you have the chance to pursue "classical architecture" somehow ?
How about a lecture about the 1% architecture?
Jeffrey Kippnis also mentioned 'bad buildings all over town'.
Thanks for your work Sebastian, great content you have.
What is that?
Why beauty matter by Sir Roger Scruton - discusses this very issue
In Nietzsche's Human, All Too Human in the 4th chapter about artists and writers, part 220, N writes how people stop creating great art when society stops believing in absolutes. Agnosticism is not new but having agnostic cultures is. It is the scale of the agnosticism that is new.
Oscar Niemayer is the maximum exponent of the modernism in Brazil. But really as a simple person from all different type of arquitetures from colonial on, modern arquiteture is the one that I fill less pleasant to the eye.
Yup, Brasilia is an insult to the human eye
I would like to know more about facade design, window composition, proportion, hierarchy, the mathematics and geometry. Also the link between the Greeks and the Egyptians, clearly the columns etc were derivative
I'm prepared to not agree that modern fails by default, but I appreciate the need for the discussion. I find much of it "de-humanizing". What's greatest is when what looks like an entrance has a sign "Use other door" It was before modern possibly that architecture and design lost it's way. Rococo was a fun sidetrack and maybe we never recovered. Then NeoClassicism maybe mostly worked, but then there was a lot of poor mimics of classicism. Thank you for this discussion! The creation of a "style" is something I had not fully thought through. But in that time of science and machines, don't you think someone MUST investigate a "machine" for living. Let's tell stories about all of us--not the sculptural fantasy of one man (it's usually a man).
Excellent talk, my congratulations. On your last question, I'd beg to differ in that going back is not a story, because, in my opinion, it has always been a story 'to go back' except for now, hence, the modern disaster. For example, the ancient Greeks went back to ancient Egypt and found inspiration there for their own architecture; ancient Rome went back to Greece and included some of their own adaptations; Renaissance architects and artists literary went back to Ancient Rome and started using what we may call 'classical' design again; after that, we had a Gothic revival; and after that we had a classical Greek revival; and so on. Similar things happened in non European countries, e.g., Mayan revival, Egyptian revival, etc. An important note that I think it's important to mention is that there's a very small number of institutions that have decided to teach non-modernist architecture and urbanism, such as the University of Notre Dame or Benedictine College and a surprisingly increasing number of independent INTBAU summer schools are teaching pre-modern arts and design ranging from Gothic, Classical and Vernacular architectures and urbanism. So, my humble answer would be: going back in order to later go forwards is an adventure on its own worthy of a story.
Your channel is fantastic! I'd be very interested to listen to your insights on navigating the practical aspects of managing clients and builders, addressing the economic challenges in construction, and finding a balance between being an artist and a service provider.
Well nostalgia does sell. It's a proven fact.
just came across your video, great video and great channel. keep it up! i will refrain from a long, drawn out detailed statement about architectural theory and why i agree with you, but not suitable for a youtube comment. I have discussions and debates about these topics all the time and for my work. great video.i too get very angry and worked up when discussing thjis stuff. will recommend your channel to friends. :)
I just wanted to say I found your passion enjoyable to hear. I agree that a new story has to be told. I think there needs to be a better way of describing the architecture needed than appealing to "tradition" or "classical" because while that is true, it is like saying we need to go backwards. And while there were good things in the past, and there are lot of bad things now, it is discomfiting to go backwards. It's like having to redo all your homework. I want to say we should let go of irrational architecture of most of the last 100 years, and work towards something like durable, rational architecture. Rational would mean that the same building that works in Jerusalem would be unlikely to be a good choice in Northern Europe. It should not rely on only 3 materials (glass, concrete, steel), that's like saying a good book can only endlessly repeat three words. We should insist on buildings that most people would want to live in or work in for at least 80 years, and not to be torn down. We should insist on buildings that weather well. We should especially insist that any public building not be an eyesore, and in areas of many buildings that have lasted for well over 100 years, they should not be able to build something that does not fit in with those. Because the older buildings have proven their worth. They should favour repairing buildings that are part of an area, and clearly belong, rather than tearing them down just because that's supposedly easier. That tends to be an excuse to put some abusively ugly building there. We should not concentrate one type of economy in one place, like for instance, public housing should not be concentrated, but dispersed. Public housing that is built with tax-payer money should be visual pleasing to taxpayers, that's better for the people living there, and the people that see it. I think with that, any public structure over a certain value must be voted upon, with an option of "none of the above" in case the powers that be only allow the same garbage as a choice. We should be forced to choose which type of garbage when it comes to art. And architects like to say that what they do is an art. Well, prove it. Gimmicks, twisted structures, may be some kind of art, but the artist should be embarrassed by it, as should the people that sponsor it, and accept it. Any public building should be made to be an attractive destination. Public buildings are not the place to be building eyesores, and things that destroy the functioning of an area.
the difference between modern and premodern architecture : you need to be a talented architect to produce a beautiful modern building whereas a rather beautiful building can be designed by a mediocre architect (and most of premodern cities and villages were built by craftmen who never went to school or even illiterate peasants). Style and well established rules prevailed individual creativity. Look at haussmanian Paris : the standard haussmanian building was designed by architects who simply applied neoclassical beaux arts style learned in academies, adapted to the needs of the bourgeois way of life (function was taken into account in fact). Most of them had not the talent of Charles Garnier, the starchitect of that time. But the city they built is beautiful.
This video has some very substantiel arguments, it should be shown to architecture students. But the teachers would probably object.
Thank you! And yes, you are probably right... !
My story of modern (not modernistic :D) architecture would be to create buildings, which are open to not only the visitors, but also the entire city. Buildings, which will invite people, buildings where people coreate the space. For private buildings, they should express the owner, they should express the desire to live within a city, to live with other people. There should be semi private spaces for its people to socialise with their neighbors. Isolation from street in whichever direction is not acceptable. Buildings should create streets and blocks are to be designed smaller for good pedestrian connectivity. Also buildings in a street have to create closed spaces, some small, some big, but all should be enclosed with buildings. Flat roofs should be used only for recreational uses and for green roofs. Buildings should have vertical and horizontal division and a plastic structure on the facade for a human scale and detail. Also when in existing context, the building must have a similiar type of language, should use some of the elements unique to that locarion and should react to them not overpower them with new concepts. These are my ideals for a new, functional and also beautiful buildings. I think we can't really create anything that bad this way. Or can we??😂😂
well, basically you summarised (correctly) what I called "social" pre-modern buildings, that are part of an urban environment and "selfish" / asocial modern buildings.
@@SebastianvonThaden Yes, exactly the difference between extracting the city and enriching it. Anyway, great video!
Interessant, war vor einer Weile bei einer Lesung von Claus Wolfschlag "Linke Räume", der die weltanschaulichen Fundamente dieser Architektur beleuchtet hat. Es wäre interessant, Sie beide mal zusammen zu sehen.
Klingt spannend. Kann im Internet nur das Abstrakt des gleichnamigen Buches finden.
was hat er denn in der Vorlesung so gesagt?
@@SebastianvonThaden Ich kann das Buch nur empfehlen, ist sehr kurzweilig. Speziell ging es um den Einfluß der Frankfurter Schule auf die universitäre Prägung der Nachkriegsarchitekten und den Gedanken, daß durch Schaffung einer Tabula rasa mittels des alliierten Flächenbombardements der Bruch mit der NS-Vergangenheit und Reedukation der Bürger möglich sei.
Klingt spannend!
Every architect considers himself to be a designer. Every building should have a relation with everybody who looks at it. Postmodernism has a nice ring to it but the name suggests nothing good... As an architecture student in the 90's "Deconstructivism" was the new fashion. But that name doesn't sound very positive as well. Nowadays, architecture doesn't exist anymore. Every building is supposed to make money, beauty is something of the past.
I never graduated, there are too many architects already...
Where does Frank Lloyd Wright fit in? He was fixated in both functional and ornamental architecture. :)
I see him as a transition from "classical" architecture to modern. Similar as Sullivan
@@SebastianvonThaden is his style something you appreciate? I like it just because its a good mix with new and old but still not the modern box house.
@@MyllerSWE I personally like Sullivan !
Modern architects are bad artists, which is a shame because architecture is art. It's simple really, things that look good make you feel good, things that look bad make you feel bad.
When you make a building that building is something that the public will have to see on a daily basis, the way that building looks will affect the mood of the people around it, it will affect people's performance, the desirability of the building and the area around it as well. The looks therefore literally become a function, which in this case is uplifting the spirit of the people looking at the structure, improving self esteem, improving traffic to the area, etc.
When I look at photos of old cities with extravagant buildings decorated with beautiful ornaments it makes me feel like a part of something bigger than myself, it makes me want to strive to improve myself and the world around me and leave something positive behind. When I go outside and see the disgusting, blocky, brutalist architecture around me I become depressed, I don't want to spend time outside and look at the ugliness of the place I'm living in and I don't feel like I want to contribute anything to society either, I just want to get away from the area.
Buildings should be made by people who understand basic art fundamentals, shapes, colors, values, etc. Every part that the building that can be seen by people should be made to look presentable.
Hello wake up boys :D
We all have our opinions
I suspect that the architects designing these ugly buildings are obsessed with being "artistic" and "creative". To come up with something that's never been done before.
right!
it is often more about the architect than about the building.
You sound a bit like the JORDAN PETERSON of Architecture. Haha... !
I take this as a compliment! ;)
if you want ideas for new architecture movement and you say "facts tell, stories sell" - you already have the story in your video, and in the architectural revival movement of today - in online communities and in buildings across europe and beyond. for brevity's sake: explain the history and failure and flawed, blinkered view that informed the bauhaus/modernist/postmodernist eras - then how they are anti human, unsympathetic to urban fabric and their environment, and how in fact, they are hypocritica; indeed, rather than classicaly informed buildings - like baroque influenced, or rococo as you said, being "fancy" or from heirarchy of society, or :bourgeouise" - it is IN FACT THE OPPOSITE - the postmodern melted slug balls and ridiculous distorted shapes of postmodernism are stem from an elitist, snooty, self satisfied artistic/architectural elite which has complete disregard to the common people in the city - the every day patrons of a library, or city square or hospital etc. It is built without any regard for their human mood or needs, but is done by having an attitute of smug self satisfaction - it is only to show off to fellow post modernists, Thereby, the architectural revival movement of pre modern forms, seeks to wrestle away control from these elitists, reform cities to their organically balanced forms - build sympathetic structures that fit in with the vide of the city. i work in this field and you can ask someone with no knowledge of architecture history which building they prefer - a 19th centuray beaux arts, or a post modern glass blob and 9/10 will prefer the classical building. therefore postmodernist/contempo are elitist and self involved, whereby pre modern is generally well liked by laymen and common people. It is actually about eliminating elitism and returning to balance and harmony.
Yes, I agree!
do you want to share what is your work?
architecture and history tours with some university background in those topics. @@SebastianvonThaden i talk and debate about all these topics all the time. but yeah i think a good thesis is "Postmodernism as Elitist Authoritarianism: How The Ideologue Elite took over the Western art and architecture space and made it a free-for-all playground to their own egos, rather than an exercise in balanced urban sculpture'. These idiots always try pretend they are "of the people " or "abolishing hierarchy" when all they care about is smugly conforming to their own elitist post modernist contemporaries. And looking down on everyone while doing so.
... and judging the "common people" as dumb or uneducated if they state that the new works are not charming or ugly....
Great video.
Thank you! :)
I disagree completely. I lived in East Asia and I find modern cities like Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo and Bangkok beautiful.
Yes, ideologues of modernist architecture went too far and were very inconsistent (they also chose certain forms that had nothing to do with function, and they dismissed the importance of aesthetics).
But it seems to me that this extreme has self corrected, but your approach swings too far to the other extreme.
Besides, it's not true that people prefer to live in old buildings. When you actually look at the housing market, you'll find that modern residential buildings are in high demand, because they offer advantages, such as balconies, larger windows, more space between buildings etc.
If you really get 'that' upset by modernist design, you better step back, take a good breath and actually begin using the basics of writing and designing your story. And you will find that also you can do both, evolve in an ever continuing process, yet using some very basic design principles and you will find that you are both correct and maybe not so correct anyway. There are always examples to find that show your point, no matter if it is in favor or against the principal you want to defend.
Still every so often we humans think we can be both better than nature and better than those humans before us. We try, some things work others not, and we have created the next style as we not longer where content with the situation we started from. We wanted something new. we wanted to use some other or even new materials or combinations of those, and from there we build up.
We get from using the most basic eventualities, to copying what our ancestors did, to engineering building by the laws of nature, physics and trade all the way to where aesthetics come in play.
At that last stage it will get very tricky as aesthetics try to go beyond what is necessary, it tries to result in something pleasing for humans... but what you might find pleasing could be my worst nightmare...
You cannot just say that modernism or any other -ism failed. It always need a set of criteria to judge a work of design by. Without criteria it will be no more than your personal opinion or preference. I can directly disagree with you that contemporary house design in northern Europe after traditional concepts is a 'better house' because the roof slants to drain rain water away.
Yes the basic function of a house is to protect us humans from the weather, that in itself doesn't dictate or prefers no specific form other than that it has a sort of shell in which we humans can live in relative safety and comfort. It could be a sphere or a cube, the first would be more climate efficient, the second more easy to build. And you can go on.
If you made this a coherent systematic work that shows why you think modern architecture did not work, by pointing out the needs and wants those modernist architects and designers tried to address first, then proving they did not work, you would at least made a decent video that was open for discussion.
The question should not be 'who wants to live in a house like this', as this is a personal question that only can result in a personal answer. Maybe questioning why so few people want to live in a modernist house toady, would be better. Researching if this is judgement was the same for the people these buildings where designed for, better still.
There are still tea and coffee pots made that will leak while pouring, and it has nothing to do with the -ism or styling of those, but with basic physics of liquids...
Flat roofs don't work here...then you look at the classical train station, with a 'flat roof'. So it is not only the modernists who introduced flat roofs or low pitches to northern Europe! Look at how Georgian is so close to vernacular Tuscan villas.
I don't like a lot of the Bauhaus style over function or post modern garbage (or buildings without any overhang- the bigger crime) but I don't think you can call Mies communist, his glass skyscrapers are the icon of capitalism! lol
And if you want to look at evolution, what of the evolution of materials? If shingled roofs led to steep pitches are we not allowed to have lower pitches with modern materials technology? Schinkel Neuer Pavillion clearly inspired Vogel architekten, as you said in a previous video.
I agree with your main thesis but many people are proponents of being a slave to tradition without any development or evolution. Also how can you say something failed because it is no longer used? For the longest time there was no new classical, so was that a fail? It was also clearly designed for a different climate, so maybe it should not be here also either? That is an inconsistency in your argument. Good video. Thanks
Yeah, there are some good arguments in your comment, thank you for that!
Well, I don't say modernism failed, because it was no longer "used".. I mean in the 1950s and 1960s it became clear that the big promises that early modern architects made wouldn't be fulfilled.
Both in urban design and in settlement / housing architecture.
I kind of like big promises, but the outcome of the "CIAM et al" vision was disastrous..
bauhaus is the biggest gastlighter after the guy that made men wear boring suits.
It’s not really a scam, but I feel you to a degree.
To me it is soulless anti-human and depressing to look at and be in
which building particularly do you mean?
I thought it is SCUM
Sir with all due respect your arguments reveal that your lack of thorough understanding of the real essence of the revolution within the western architecture civilisation, whose foundation is based Greek civilisation architecture. The essence of modern architecture is the liberation of architecture from mediocre design which depends on traditions to mask lack of imagination.
that is not correct.
you want to say that all classical building lack imagination?
and with what arguments can you prove that "modern" architecture is based on Greek architecture?
You talk about Modern Movement without citing Niemeyer. You just want to justify your rhetoric. The best of modernism wasn't in Europe, so it failed. That would suit your rhetoric more realistically
He already cited ugly
Arches and Columns are the fundamentals of architecture. Light and space are fundamentals of interior design.
don't confuse engineering for architecture. Architecture is the art of light and gravity.
I don't think you are considering the differences between traditional and modern architecture, and why they can't just be compared side-to-side. There are many types of modern design because it is, in essence, a reflection of our modern world, which changes at a much greater rate than we've ever seen in history. And modern design is also subject to capitalism, where people make cheap buildings - a decision which compromises good design. It doesn't mean modern design isn't beautiful or won't stand the test of time.
sorry, but most of that is not true.. !
@@SebastianvonThaden This is what I've learnt about modernism from having a degree in art. I currently live in a Victorian style house. I love the design - I really love both traditional and modern design. But I have decided that I will renovate it in a modern style as the currently style doesn't let in enough light. And ventilation is not good. So I will install floor to ceiling windows, skylights, and incorporate passive heating design to improve how we live.
@@jula3327 that's great! tip for you: of course a well-done mix of old and new can be charming too. But large windows can be also implemented as a "modification" of the original Victorian design. The contrast is possible, but not needed.
You can be an antiquarian without ranting about what you do not understand about the 20th century.
And communism and islam are religions of peace.
You’re wrong antiquarian are educated enough to know that the world was more beautiful decades ago before modernism became popular. Frank loyd Wright’s beautiful buildings were of the Art Deco and arts and crafts movement all of his modernist works are widely hated and he is the only famous modernist architect in the United States. Factories use to be beautiful neo Romanesque fortresses, train station were Victorian Crystal palaces, all that spender has been replace by ugliness and stupidity.
I think I do understand the 20th century well. Plus: you can be an antiquarian and still ranting about what you do not like :)
Attack the argument, not the messenger. Please elaborate
Accusing of "not understanding" simply because one expresses criticism is such a cheap argument.