I recently made a video on how and when Modern
Architecture began. While the video itself doesn’t make any
evaluations on whether Modern Architecture is good or bad, because that was not the point
of the video. However it’s clear that many people, as
demonstrated in the comments, have a strong rejection towards Modernism - seeing it as
monotonous, ugly and even dehumanizing. If you’ve seen some of my other videos,
you may expect me to now defend and make the case for Modern Architecture. But actually no. There are some valid and very compelling reasons
why many people dislike Modern Architecture. A point of clarification - in this video I’m
referring to Modern Architecture with a Big “M” - a formal architectural design movement
that was most prominent during the early to mid-twentieth century. The word “modern” with a small “m”
which describes things that happened recently, makes this kind of confusing. As in - a neoclassical-style building that
was completed in the last few years is technically “modern,” but it’s not “Modern.” I didn’t come up with these terms. To learn about how and why this terminology
got so complicated you can watch my other video. The thing is - Modern Architecture is not
just about how it looks. A truly Modernist design adheres to a strict
set of formal rules that upholds Modernism’s fundamental principal - Form Follows Function. In the 1940s and 50s, most architects and
designers embraced this principal. Many were followers of theorists associated
with the International Style, such as Walter Gropius, Mies van der Rohe, and Le Corbusier. They argued that architectural design should
be disassociated from historic reference, be free of unnecessary ornamentation, and
be simplified to the essentials of function. This radical approach is understandable in
a time that was recently plagued by two devastating world wars. Modern building techniques were cheap and
efficient, especially for the rebuilding of war torn urban areas, and why would people
want to retain characteristics of the old imperialistic empires responsible for all
the war and chaos? But in pursuit of this pure functionalist
approach - did we end up building empty boxes of nothingness? In 1968, two architects - Denise Scott Brown
and Robert Venturi, along with students of their research studio at the Yale School of
Art and Architecture - ventured out to study the design of the Las Vegas strip. At the time, especially to their colleagues
of the academic establishment out east, taking design lessons from a place like Vegas was
absurd. Las Vegas was seen as wasteland of urban sprawl,
rampant commercialism and kitschy decor. But Scott Brown and Venturi saw something
rich and meaningful in the vernacular architecture of ordinary life, and together with their
colleague Steven Izenour, they published the findings in their 1972 book “Learning from
Las Vegas,” which became one of the most influential and controversial architectural
texts of the twentieth century. Scott Brown and Venturi believed in learning
from history and evolving from traditional practices. They argued that “Learning from the existing
landscape is a way of being revolutionary for an architect. Not the obvious way, which is to tear down
Paris and begin again, as Le Corbusier suggested in 1920, but another, more tolerant way; that
is, to question how we look at things.” It’s important to point out that Scott Brown
and Venturi were not calling for a direct revival of historic styles. Their actual position was that sometimes it’s
necessary to “look backward at history and tradition” in order “to go forward.” One crucial historic lesson highlighted by
Scott Brown and Venturi is the importance of ornamentation and iconography - elements
that Modernist abhor. Egyptian hieroglyphics, Byzantine mosaics,
Gothic stained glass, and Renaissance frescoes would have all been written off by Modernists
as superfluous decoration, but they argue that decorative elements “make verbal and
symbolic connections through space, communicating a complexity of meanings through hundreds
of associations in few seconds from far away.” A barber’s pole dates back to medieval ages. It’s a “superfluous” piece of decoration
that definitely references history, and technically serves no architectural function. But it provides context and denote purpose. Scott Brown and Venturi really challenged
architects and designers to put away their egos, their idealism, their puristic concepts
- and take a hard look at the everyday realities of their actual surroundings. Las Vegas may have looked tacky and eclectic,
but it represented the speed and messiness of contemporary life. Sparkling signs may embody frivolity and excess,
but it reminded people of the fun fairs they used to go to as children and the glittery
things their grandparents would bring home for them. Modern Architecture neglects “an individual’s
need for intimacy and detail” while “five-eighth scale reproductions of Disneyland” satisfy
this need. Scott Brown and Venturi weren’t the only
ones criticizing formal academic institutions during this time. In fact they were very much inspired by Pop
Artists of the 1950s and 60s who challenged elite art establishments by appealing to popular imagery and mass culture. However, unlike the fine arts - it’s arguably
much more important for architecture to be in tune with the needs of everyday people
- as you can choose whether or not to look at a work of art, but essentially everyone
in modern society has to live with the built-environment. Architectural theorist Charles Jencks argued
that “architecture...faces the problems of modernism more directly than the other
arts” as “the dilemma of bigness, mass production, anonymous living” are the elements
of our everyday reality. However - in the 1950s - most American architects
modelled their designs from ideal cities like Le Corbusier’s Radiant City or Frank Lloyd
Wright’s Broadacre City, not from observations of real contemporary communities. This makes “Form Follows Function” an
idealist concept that often falls short in reality. How many buildings built a few hundred years
ago, 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago still house its original activities? Whether it’s a home, workplace, school,
shop, entertainment venue, or community centre - functional actives are always in flux and
programmatic needs are always changing. This is not to say okay screw design, we don’t
need architects and designers anymore. No because I’d be out of a job. But it does mean that designers needs to be
adaptive and flexible. A lot has changed since the 1950s and 60s. The Las Vegas Strip today is a very different
place from what Denise Scott Brown and Robert Venturi observed - but it is nevertheless
still an eclectic reflection of popular culture. Scott Brown and Venturi are also by no means
the only critics of Modern Architecture. Shots were fired as far back as 1961, when
Jane Jacobs published The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Aldo Rossi's the Architecture of the City,
and Hassan Fathy's Architecture for the Poor were also powerful critiques and challenges
to Modernist principals. By the 1970s, many followers of Mies van der
Rohe have also come to abandon his teachings, a shift symbolically demonstrated by Stanley
Tigerman in 1978 - depicting Crown Hall, one of Mies’ most iconic and revered designs,
sinking into the ocean like the Titanic. In fact - if the first half of the 20th century
is considered to be the age of Modern Architecture then the latter half of the century can be
defined by a continual, unrelenting assault on Modern Architecture. So why do people hate Modern Architecture? Because it erases historic traditions that
are meaningful and symbolic to us. Its purist approach is in conflict with the
complexities of contemporary life. Its utopian models fail to address the real
needs of everyday people. And its strict, formal principals cannot adapt
to the shifting needs of a changing society. The downfalls of Modernism is not in the glass and steel nor the straight lines and sharp angles. It’s not about what’s ugly and what’s
not, it’s in the problematic ways that Modernism has shaped our world. So what do we do now? Do we tear them all down and rebuild again? I’m sure that’s what some of you are going
to say in the comments but I honestly don’t think that’s right either. If we learned anything through all this - it’s
that there is value to in learning from the past - including from Modernists. The legacy of critics like Scott Brown and
Venturi is not in overthrowing Modernism, but in teaching us to be flexible and adaptive,
to gain an appreciation for the vernacular and the ordinary, to be more accepting of
diverse traditions, and to practice thoughtful evolution as opposed to radical revolution. What do you think? Are you a supporter of Modernism and think
“form follows function” should be upheld as a primary design principal? Or do you think decorative, symbolic, historical,
and vernacular elements are valuable to design and that architectural principals should be
more permissive and adaptable? Let me know in the comments below. If you liked this video, here are some more you can check out. And don’t forget to subscribe for more to
come. Bye for now!
