On 5/21/2011 12:21 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 21/05/2011 7:52 PM, stbenge wrote:
>> On 5/21/2011 10:57 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 21/05/2011 6:25 PM, stbenge wrote:
>>>> Who knows how the
>>>> modernist movement ever took hold :S
>>>
>>> I imagine it was just a reaction to what went before.
>>
>> What, like people burned out their aesthetic response, and just couldn't
>> handle the overload anymore? :P
>
> No, the new generation of artists wanted to do something radically
> different.
>
>> Modern architecture is so bleak and
>> hopeless, sterile and empty. I'd be tempted to find a prime example and
>> covertly deface it with some bit of fine art :D
>
> LOL, your idea of modernist is different than mine. I know what you mean
> though. In those days artisans and materials came cheap but today there
> are so many regulations the buildings have to be built to, Gothic is out
> of the reach of everyone.
> Still some modern buildings have their own beauty.

I was going from what I could find here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_architecture and also from the few 
buildings I've seen by Frank Lloyd Wright. There are some interesting 
ideas spanning many different styles, but by and large, most designs 
tend toward the utilitarian (form follows function) and simplistic. But 
I won't deny that there /are/ some buildings that manage to be useful 
/and/ look good.

As a person who loves detailed art and stylized geometry, I find most 
modern architecture boring and just a little soul-destroying.

Sam

Post a reply to this message