Comments on: Hypotheses? http://www.498nm.com/archithesis/hypotheses An ongoing architecture thesis project blog Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:53:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: selophane http://www.498nm.com/archithesis/hypotheses/comment-page-1#comment-15 selophane Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:49:23 +0000 http://archithesis.wordpress.com/?p=490#comment-15 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. 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.

]]> By: Nicholas Ng http://www.498nm.com/archithesis/hypotheses/comment-page-1#comment-14 Nicholas Ng Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:22:54 +0000 http://archithesis.wordpress.com/?p=490#comment-14 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). 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).

]]> By: selophane http://www.498nm.com/archithesis/hypotheses/comment-page-1#comment-13 selophane Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:28:34 +0000 http://archithesis.wordpress.com/?p=490#comment-13 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). 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).

]]>