What am I testing in this thesis?
- That modern architecture is singular, dead, restricted and insignificant. (Are those valid? Questions to ask myself, but a great source of debate in this topic can be found here.)
Note: This blog will occasionally act as a online sketchbook which hold a collection of fragmented and random thoughts. This entry is just one of the many that has been posted online.
3 Comments
1 selophane wrote:
Well, i think the real question you need to answer first is whether you are talking “Modern” or “modern”.
Capital “M” modern, as defined by the show curated by Philip Johnson, is definitely all of those things. The other, more general term, is in no way any of those things: it is multifaceted, alive in the works of the organicists and the data minders amongst others, it is inclusive of all work that is non-classical in nature, and it has played a huge role in the public sub conscious semiotic discourse (power is no longer held in stone buildings but smooth glass towers).
2 Nicholas Ng wrote:
I don’t think I disagree with “Modern” architecture being dead but I think what I was referring to was probably “Postmodern” rather than modern (of the present).
3 selophane wrote:
Again, I would challenge the statement that Postmodern is dead. Sure, Po-Mo may have come and gone and with it High-Tech, Brutalism, Deconstructivism, etc. But blob-chitecture, digitalscapes, neo-modernism and others are still alive and kicking and very much contributing to the architectural discourse.
Now, i would agree that what we are seeing in vogue right now is dying, and the current recession will help quicken that death. But I would argue that this is not through a lack of relevancy, but rather the limited opportunities for built work will allow more academic studies and an attempt to “purify” the architectural discourse.