Why does modern architecture suck?

Simple question.

Why is it that the only truly beautiful architecture made has been architecture from when engineering was still a rather primitive science?

And now that we're in the 21st century and engineers are smarter than they have ever been, the people who architect buildings are artistically lazy?

Great architecture back then, perhaps, was for the ruling religious and royal institutions of the time to show off their wealth, power, and influence, like a rooster dancing its colors in front of the hens.

So what's stopping multi-billion dollar international conglomerate corporations from investing in architecture that does the same thing? Sure, you have a skyscraper, but it's probably ugly, boring, or both.

i agree to a extent, but its quite a sweeping statement to make, i hate all those glass charactless buildings too but there are fantastic architects out there like Peter Zumthor who recently won a award of some kind

http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&am...sa=N&tab=wi

his thermal baths is probably his most famous building, stunning

http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&am...sa=N&tab=wi

good blog on architecture

http://nastybrutalistandshort.blogspot.com/

Of course, the modern architects who make those skyscrapers will insist that they do like their work, and think that it is beautiful.

I'd imagine that utility trumps aesthetics, cost being the deciding factor. Maybe the wealthy aren't nearly as frivolous as they once were?

  Root5 said:

Of course, the modern architects who make those skyscrapers will insist that they do like their work, and think that it is beautiful.

They can think what they want, but the moment they think of comparing their works as being equal in detail and aesthetic to churches/castles from medieval Europe and temples/fortresses from feudal Asia, they're fooling themselves.

Modern architecture for the most part looks and feels dominating, bureaucratic, and impersonal. The only place it really 'fits' the mood of the society it sits in is maybe in North Korea.

  Lascaille said:

I'd imagine that utility trumps aesthetics, cost being the deciding factor. Maybe the wealthy aren't nearly as frivolous as they once were?

Have you been paying attention to the news in the last year? Maybe they're too stupid and careless with their money to be frivolous about it.

I must also point out that I don't consider art deco to be ugly. That may have, to my limited knowledge, been the only time in the 20th century that the rich weren't shy at all about showing off their richness, even if it was during the Great Depression.

I dunno dude, there are some pretty amazing modern buildings and I'd say there are plenty of architects pushing the boundaries of design and using the technical advances of engineering to the fullest.

CCTV Tower:

Museum of Modern Art in NY:

Seattle Library:

And if you want crazy shit by billionaires, look at some pictures of Dubai

it's too modern"?????

erm, i learnt a bit about architecture in a modern arts history course i took and some of those houses i read about and saw are stunning. if i was rich... i mean RICH, i'd let someone design a house for me... all these curved walls step cases and open spaces. love it

  Marked x 0ne said:

I dunno dude, there are some pretty amazing modern buildings and I'd say there are plenty of architects pushing the boundaries of design and using the technical advances of engineering to the fullest.

 

CCTV Tower:

 

Museum of Modern Art in NY:

 

Seattle Library:

 

And if you want crazy shit by billionaires, look at some pictures of Dubai

Why did you edit out that ugly building in Seattle with the very narrow bottom? lol

There's a ton of great seafood restaurants surrounding that building, though.

I will say the Seattle Library is neat looking, but only as a science fiction fan, its slightly reminiscient of a Robert McCall painting -- but, still, much less detailed than the arcologies and space colonies he painted. If what modern architecture is trying to do is mimic science fiction art, it still has a lot of catch-up work to do.

The industrial revolution.

Mass production and the ability to transport made goods all around the world will always have a terrible effect on any sort of cultural style or taste.

Though I don't know, some of the new buildings can be nice. I for one really love skyscrapers. And although in some ways the buildings suit Vancouver, I'd be happier if none of those buildings were there really.

  my usernames always really suck said:

Why did you edit out that ugly building in Seattle with the very narrow bottom? lol

Because I don't know the name, if you know or can find it tell me. Seeing it in person is amazing, it blew my mind, it looks like it defies the laws of physics.

  my usernames always really suck said:

I will say the Seattle Library is neat looking, but only as a science fiction fan, its slightly reminiscient of a Robert McCall painting -- but, still, much less detailed than the arcologies and space colonies he painted. If what modern architecture is trying to do is mimic science fiction art, it still has a lot of catch-up work to do.

The Seattle Library really crazy inside too, hallways and escalators are brightly colored and it kind of does feel like you're in some sort of crazy spaceship.

Crystal Island

Well, consider that early architects offered their work in reverence to their gods and goddesses. They truly were built as testaments to the almighty or the pagan deity whose wrath they feared most. It might be that the god of currency is not nearly as inspiring as the creator of the universe. Wealth is impermanent and transitory; God is eternal and venerable.

  Lascaille said:

Well, consider that early architects offered their work in reverence to their gods and goddesses. They truly were built as testaments to the almighty or the pagan deity whose wrath they feared most. It might be that the god of currency is not nearly as inspiring as the creator of the universe. Wealth is impermanent and transitory; God is eternal and venerable.

indeed!

lol?

  42Orange said:

Crystal Island

that is incredibly ugly

i think it's beautiful//// lets fight asshole!

  funkaholic said:

  42Orange said:

Crystal Island

 

that is incredibly IDM

  yek said:

i think it's beautiful//// lets fight asshole!

bring it on! :devil:

there was a time when minimal and sleek was revolutionary. and then it became the status quo and lost all meaning. the same thing happened back in the day when they were building glorious ornate churches, and then they built meaningless exorbitant shit like versailles, which is just a bunch of fake, confectionary shit topped on more fake shit, which was a sign of the times that said that ornate, highly decorated architecture had lost its meaning and was misunderstood. so the modernists rebelled against it and, at the time, thought clean shit that looked like it was made by machines was beautiful. machine made architecture was about pushing the edge. it was the new zeitgeist. now we're in the post post modern era and there is too much clean boring shit. architects still working in the "modern" style dont really push the edge.

i recommend you check out some contemporaries like office da and morphosis. they are sophisticated firms and they make interesting commentaries on modern and old materials and building techniques. check out "tongxiang art center" by office da. they use brick, a classic material, in crazy, expressive new ways thanks to modern engineering.

  iamabe said:

there was a time when minimal and sleek was revolutionary. and then it became the status quo and lost all meaning. the same thing happened back in the day when they were building glorious ornate churches, and then they built meaningless exorbitant shit like versailles, which is just a bunch of fake, confectionary shit topped on more fake shit, which was a sign of the times that said that ornate, highly decorated architecture had lost its meaning and was misunderstood. so the modernists rebelled against it and, at the time, thought clean shit that looked like it was made by machines was beautiful. machine made architecture was about pushing the edge. it was the new zeitgeist. now we're in the post post modern era and there is too much clean boring shit. architects still working in the "modern" style dont really push the edge.

 

i recommend you check out some contemporaries like office da and morphosis. they are sophisticated firms and they make interesting commentaries on modern and old materials and building techniques. check out "tongxiang art center" by office da. they use brick, a classic material, in crazy, expressive new ways thanks to modern engineering.

Right then, it's a natural progression.

say what you want, but zaha hadid and gehry do some cool shizz despite their fame.

  my usernames always really suck said:

Simple question.

 

Why is it that the only truly beautiful architecture made has been architecture from when engineering was still a rather primitive science?

 

And now that we're in the 21st century and engineers are smarter than they have ever been, the people who architect buildings are artistically lazy?

 

Great architecture back then, perhaps, was for the ruling religious and royal institutions of the time to show off their wealth, power, and influence, like a rooster dancing its colors in front of the hens.

 

So what's stopping multi-billion dollar international conglomerate corporations from investing in architecture that does the same thing? Sure, you have a skyscraper, but it's probably ugly, boring, or both.

I don't know much about architecture but I do think that you're completely wrong dude. I don't think architects are lazy, i think you just don't like what they're doing.

Do you think the rich folk in Dubai and New York are just slapping together a few half-thought-out ideas and are not trying to impress people? There are just as many feathers being fanned.

The only building i'm going to name would be the shapeshifting one--there have been a bunch already named in this thread that basically kick ass.

I'm starting to think you've made this thread in jest.

  Franklin said:

  my usernames always really suck said:

Simple question.

 

Why is it that the only truly beautiful architecture made has been architecture from when engineering was still a rather primitive science?

 

And now that we're in the 21st century and engineers are smarter than they have ever been, the people who architect buildings are artistically lazy?

 

Great architecture back then, perhaps, was for the ruling religious and royal institutions of the time to show off their wealth, power, and influence, like a rooster dancing its colors in front of the hens.

 

So what's stopping multi-billion dollar international conglomerate corporations from investing in architecture that does the same thing? Sure, you have a skyscraper, but it's probably ugly, boring, or both.

 

 

I don't know much about architecture but I do think that you're completely wrong dude. I don't think architects are lazy, i think you just don't like what they're doing.

 

Do you think the rich folk in Dubai and New York are just slapping together a few half-thought-out ideas and are not trying to impress people? There are just as many feathers being fanned.

 

The only building i'm going to name would be the shapeshifting one--there have been a bunch already named in this thread that basically kick ass.

 

I'm starting to think you've made this thread in jest.

I'm saying they're lazy because, even if the building as a whole looks okay, if you "zoom in" there just isn't the kind of elaborate, ornate detail that used to be common in much older architecture.

Of course, it isn't just modern architecture that has a reputation for being ugly. The "Federal" architecture you see in the civil war era American South is one of the styles that irk me the most -- just red brick and white-painted wood, all flat and uninspired.

I also wonder if maybe laws and municipal codes might have something to do with the lack of very creative architecture. I'm sure there are plenty of people who went into architecture because they wanted to make beautiful things, but circumstantially cannot. Every town and city has its share of busybodies who want to control land values -- either keeping them low or high depending on who it is and where it is -- to prevent licensing of any architectual design that's too "different" from everything else in the municipal landscape.

Modern architecture sucks because you think it sucks. There's your modern answer. Sadly you're in the pitiful minority if you think that architecture reached its peak in the medieval period. How fucking blind can you be?

Also, "elaborate, ornate detail" does not equal quality. Nor does a lack of it denote a lack of quality. In architecture or art or music or anything. Jesus.

  Iain C said:

Modern architecture sucks because you think it sucks. There's your modern answer. Sadly you're in the pitiful minority if you think that architecture reached its peak in the medieval period. How fucking blind can you be?

You're not one of those people who think Jackson Pollock contributed more to art than Michaelangelo are you?

Like any art, aesthetic standards waned in architecture over the centuries.

  Quote

Also, "elaborate, ornate detail" does not equal quality. Nor does a lack of it denote a lack of quality. In architecture or art or music or anything. Jesus.

Let me guess -- Philip Glass is a better musician than Rossini. lol

yeah, usernames you're just way outta your league on this one. There isn't an evolution of taste you dolt.

well with that said, let's all check out the worlds first underground football stadium, being built in Doha, Qatar. It's dubbed the laptop.