As the word “Bauhaus” was said. I would think of the attempt of making the
best out of “Less is more” or “Minimalism”. The perfection that modern world is
craving for. The art of ‘nothing’.
Bourgeois, Bourgeois, Bourgeois!
Tom Wolfe is in favor of using this, "Bourgeois", word.
As well as the postwar modern architects, who despised the style of “Bourgeoisie” (ornamented style; with architrave, pediment, etc. … Somewhat quite unpopular for modern style.) According to Wolfe’s declaration, these American architects sure had their mind on avoidance of designing a bourgeois style. So they came up with so-called “International Style”, which might means the style that has no trace of cultural form or it could be said as the style that starting from zero. With no external ornamentation, of course.
Talking about anti-bourgeois style; Flat roof, flat everything, no curvy line, skeleton structure, purity of form, honest material, and earthy color, or some even expose ‘unpleasant’ structure of the building, it is the main contradiction between Wolfe’s preference and the famous architects, mainly Le Corbusier, Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe and Gropius, on his manifesto. Wolfe was clearly disgusted of this lifeless style. He pointed out that it was barely appreciated by the users of these designed buildings (he was not the only one who hated it!, as he claimed). He even called them cheap. In fact, it could be said so, it is cheap in the aspect of construction costs. Most of the materials were prefabricated and mass-produced. These machine made items were surely cost less than heeded handcrafted stuffs. This probably the consequence of the after war era, when the recession affected on everything and everywhere.
It seems like Wolfe viewed International style and Modern architecture of America as a demoniac thing. It is a little too overreacted. The Modern architecture is, in fact, clean and simple. Modern architecture has its own personality and uniqueness (even though a lot of the designs are easy to predict; pure form with bare materials, i.e.). As this simply beautiful style serves user's needs, then it would be halfway a good design! These architectures are beautiful in their own ways or at least functional.
The good thing is aesthetic is not always fixed in one perspective and standard. Some thing could be ugly in one’s eye, but perfect for the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
extra.
The weird thing is Modern style (architecture) now is what I would call "Bourgeoisie". It turns out to be even more luxurious and ornamented. The more 'nothingness' in the design, even gives the feeling of 'Haute'-style (luxurious sense). Is it because of the different meaning of "modernism" that people perceive? or is it just the trend of modern people to set this standard of being high-fashion in architecture?
Korapin A.
Bourgeois, Bourgeois, Bourgeois!
Tom Wolfe is in favor of using this, "Bourgeois", word.
As well as the postwar modern architects, who despised the style of “Bourgeoisie” (ornamented style; with architrave, pediment, etc. … Somewhat quite unpopular for modern style.) According to Wolfe’s declaration, these American architects sure had their mind on avoidance of designing a bourgeois style. So they came up with so-called “International Style”, which might means the style that has no trace of cultural form or it could be said as the style that starting from zero. With no external ornamentation, of course.
Talking about anti-bourgeois style; Flat roof, flat everything, no curvy line, skeleton structure, purity of form, honest material, and earthy color, or some even expose ‘unpleasant’ structure of the building, it is the main contradiction between Wolfe’s preference and the famous architects, mainly Le Corbusier, Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe and Gropius, on his manifesto. Wolfe was clearly disgusted of this lifeless style. He pointed out that it was barely appreciated by the users of these designed buildings (he was not the only one who hated it!, as he claimed). He even called them cheap. In fact, it could be said so, it is cheap in the aspect of construction costs. Most of the materials were prefabricated and mass-produced. These machine made items were surely cost less than heeded handcrafted stuffs. This probably the consequence of the after war era, when the recession affected on everything and everywhere.
It seems like Wolfe viewed International style and Modern architecture of America as a demoniac thing. It is a little too overreacted. The Modern architecture is, in fact, clean and simple. Modern architecture has its own personality and uniqueness (even though a lot of the designs are easy to predict; pure form with bare materials, i.e.). As this simply beautiful style serves user's needs, then it would be halfway a good design! These architectures are beautiful in their own ways or at least functional.
The good thing is aesthetic is not always fixed in one perspective and standard. Some thing could be ugly in one’s eye, but perfect for the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
extra.
The weird thing is Modern style (architecture) now is what I would call "Bourgeoisie". It turns out to be even more luxurious and ornamented. The more 'nothingness' in the design, even gives the feeling of 'Haute'-style (luxurious sense). Is it because of the different meaning of "modernism" that people perceive? or is it just the trend of modern people to set this standard of being high-fashion in architecture?
Korapin A.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น