# The best architectural ornamentation?



## Paper Ninja (Feb 7, 2008)

*Alwyn Court *









http://www.flickr.com/photos/mulmatsherm/2925887248/in/photostream/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/mulmatsherm/2925886724/in/photostream/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindus/4891067087/


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Sandstein said:


> *Baroque*, what else?
> ...................


That's Nordic baroque, right? German or Austrian, I would suppose. It's interesting for me, I absolutely adore the original baroque, which is the 17th century Italian Roman baroque (Bernini, Borromini, Pietro da Cortona etc), which is clever and dry. At the same time, I kinda hate Nordic baroque, which I find excessively decorated, for decoration's sake. Some such stuff makes me puke. :nuts:


----------



## dexter2 (Apr 5, 2009)

^^ It's rather matter of a peroid in architecture. Baroque evolved from bright, but still pretty steady renaissance into very expressive, wavy and (for me) a little bit kitchy rococo.
And that Is generally what you see in Sandestein's post.


By the way, Its' the first time I hear about Nordic Baroque... And why It supposed to be in Austria or Germany if It's Nordic?


----------



## CF221 (Mar 17, 2009)

Paper Ninja said:


> *Alwyn Court *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


MARVELOUS. :cheers:

really appreciate this post.


----------



## Sandstein (Oct 12, 2012)

alexandru.mircea said:


> That's Nordic baroque, right? German or Austrian, I would suppose.


Well, that's not absolutely correct. I've posted a little selection of South German, Portuguese and Spanish Baroque churches.



alexandru.mircea said:


> It's interesting for me, I absolutely adore the original baroque, which is the 17th century Italian Roman baroque (Bernini, Borromini, Pietro da Cortona etc), which is clever and dry.


Italian Baroque architecture can certainly be very lavish and "excessively decorated", too.


----------



## Caravaggio (Oct 17, 2009)

The Baroque style can run the gamut from excessive decoration where no surface is left bare to the more restrained and simple. The baroque style in France is far less elaborate than that found in southern Germany or parts of Italy.


----------



## White House (Apr 23, 2012)

An impressive gothic structure: The Milan Cathedral


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Gothic is my favourite architectural detailing, though I like buildings without ornamentation more.
The Duomo Cathedral, in my opinion, is the epitome of such architecture, since I never found Art Deco as appealing, Art-nouveau was bleh... and whatever that style was that Gaudi built was just...gaudy...*ba dum tss*

Unfortunately, pressure from the architecture Taliban led to some really awful examples of postmodernism being built. If a building wants to revamp old styles, they should stick to one style only, and not blend them like the postmodernist buildings do. Either modernism done right, or classical done right. A lucky few make it out nicely, like Pelli's earlier work.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

dexter2 said:


> ^^ It's rather matter of a peroid in architecture. Baroque evolved from bright, but still pretty steady renaissance into very expressive, wavy and (for me) a little bit kitchy rococo.
> And that Is generally what you see in Sandestein's post.


I would rather disagree, for example the Baroque of Bernini, Borromini and Pietro da Cortona never evolved into highly decorated stuff like what we're seeing here, Roman baroque always stayed more dry and less decorated. I think that what we see here is rather the own version of Baroque of other artistic schools with different traditions and creative types. For example, if for Southern Germany you're familiar with their Gothic sculpted wooden altars, then their version of Baroque is not going to surprise you. 



dexter2 said:


> By the way, Its' the first time I hear about Nordic Baroque... And why It supposed to be in Austria or Germany if It's Nordic?


There isn't a Nordic Baroque school per se, it's just that Austria and Germany (which had their schools of Baroque) were Nordic countries. Up to the modern era, anything North of the Alps was considered "Nordic". 



Sandstein said:


> Well, that's not absolutely correct. I've posted a little selection of South German, Portuguese and Spanish Baroque churches


Thanks for that, I'm not at all familiar with Spanish and Portuguese Baroque (with the exception of Spanish Baroque painting). Are they worth investigating?



Sandstein said:


> Italian Baroque architecture can certainly be very lavish and "excessively decorated", too.


Not the Roman Baroque I was talking about, no. There were other artistic schools in Italy that had a different take on baroque (and on a different timeline too), like those in Palermo and Turin. But they were different schools, with different characteristics and different backgrounds.


----------



## Jos68eph (Dec 18, 2012)

The crime is the theft of ornament and character.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I was hearing an interesting argument about how ornaments are obsolete at this day and age. They are like ultra-realistic renascence painting. Realistic landscape or portrait painting had its time and place when there were no other reliable forms to register images. Then, extremely impressive works by great masters of painting was meaningful and had a function.

After the advent of photography, realistic painting became obsolete, which in turn ushered in a number of changes and new styles in painting, once it was free from its reference of realism.

Likewise, in an era when people had few if any visual stimuli available to them, ornaments were a form or art that enriched the human experience. Thus, buildings and even clothes were had a lot of details and a visual overload of ornaments if their owners were rich enough to afford them.

Now that he have TV, computers, smartphones, cinema and all sorts of visual stimuli anytime we want, ornaments in buildings became moot. Thus, movements like modernism and even expressionism advanced architecture by stripping buildings from their obligation to be one of the few sources of detailed complex imagery people could face in a given day. Free of these obligations, architecture could then resort to use its monumentality and ability to dwarf human-scaled space projections and human-scaled visual sights to become much more free, unattached and creative on its larger scale, not on (now) irrelevant complex stone details on a spike.

By undergoing that process, architecture become a much more powerful form of art that can deal with scales previously unknown to men. Thus, it can impress men by playing tricks with their biological references of size, proportion and what else that come from thousands of years living in shacks and caves. Thus, architecture becomes more powerful.

In this context, ornaments became kitsch, appendixes that can be discarded and even removed from older buildings in certain cases, if they are not masterpieces, like an extremely talented realistic painter whose obsession was only to reproduce reality on a 2D canvas would be deemed "moot", since a cheap point-and-shoot camera does a much better job to attain that functional goal. It is moot to expect ornaments to play any function on the human experience related to buildings, because there are much better resources to attain that without putting a lame fixed detail in a façade.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Good theory, never thought of that.


----------



## Sandstein (Oct 12, 2012)

alexandru.mircea said:


> Thanks for that, I'm not at all familiar with Spanish and Portuguese Baroque (with the exception of Spanish Baroque painting). Are they worth investigating?


Of course!



Jos68eph said:


> The crime is the theft of ornament and character.


That's mostly true.


----------



## Chimer (Apr 20, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> By undergoing that process, architecture become a much more powerful form of art that can deal with scales previously unknown to men. Thus, it can impress men by playing tricks with their biological references of size, proportion and what else that come from thousands of years living in shacks and caves. Thus, architecture becomes more powerful.
> 
> In this context, ornaments became kitsch, appendixes that can be discarded and even removed from older buildings in certain cases, if they are not masterpieces, like an extremely talented realistic painter whose obsession was only to reproduce reality on a 2D canvas would be deemed "moot", since a cheap point-and-shoot camera does a much better job to attain that functional goal. It is moot to expect ornaments to play any function on the human experience related to buildings, because there are much better resources to attain that without putting a lame fixed detail in a façade.


Well, it all was totally right for a while - since 1920's to... let's say early 2000... But now we can see, that play with scale and forms only give limited opportunities. Build simple and bland huge glass cube? Well, it was fresh and magnificent first time. Not so perfect another dozen of times. But when we have full city of such cubes and boxes it is very boring. Look on Tokyo and you'll see what i mean.

Then architects started using weird form and lines, cracked and broken, making people feel disturbed and uneasy. But it will help not for long. It was interesting only while it was fresh idea, now it's coming to the end too. 
Now it is time to return to ornaments on a new level, to make our buildings not so similar, not so boring, with mood and character, isn't it? 

Sorry for my english, wish i could explain better my feelings about it...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ It's better to have buildings that look similar but are impressive than have a plethora of fake ornaments or "small scaled" buildings (such as an enormous block, structururally, whose façade is broken down as if it were 10 different buildings). 

Architecture should be imposing on overwhelming, not be in some "dialogue" wiith people using/passing/seeing buildings.


----------



## Hcrayg (Oct 12, 2012)

This is what I think.... Very simple


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

I actually love Tokyo's skyline. No details make it look very mature and modern. No bull, just business.


----------



## Chimer (Apr 20, 2006)

ThatOneGuy said:


> I actually love Tokyo's skyline. No details make it look very mature and modern. No bull, just business.


I agree about skyline part of Tokyo. Skyline, air view - this all really look impressive, especially by night. But if you walk down the street there is absolutely nothing to stop your eye there. All buildings are quite similar and almost no one of them have really unique look, which couldn’t be found anywhere else from Cape Town to Oslo, except some very few old buildings.

I mean, the city in the whole *have* the unique look, but not the separate buildings in it.

Now the question is… Do we build cities for the great view from long distance, impressive night wallpaper, or we build it for people who live there every day and for those, who should come here looking for something interesting to view? Of course, it's a matter of taste, but for me it's look not mature and modern, but very boring and heartlless.

And “just business” – is it really good? Build something just to make money – what does it have with art? It can’t be count as architecture at all.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Why did this thread have to go from people posting a bunch of beautiful buildings, to a bunch of tasteless anti-ornament freaks. 

Anyway, back to the good stuff that 99% of the population enjoys


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

And the architecture taliban strikes again.


----------



## Paper Ninja (Feb 7, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> Architecture should be imposing on overwhelming, not be in some "dialogue" wiith people using/passing/seeing buildings.



So something like this is correct, but something like this is wrong?


----------



## Paper Ninja (Feb 7, 2008)

Hcrayg said:


> http://diogenesmarcondes.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/templo-bahai-da-india.jpg
> 
> This is what I think.... Very simple


That building is essentially one giant ornament upon the face of the earth.









http://india-tour.us/india-places/lotus-temple/








http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-59173858/stock-photo-lotus-flower-stone-carving.html


----------



## Paper Ninja (Feb 7, 2008)

ThatOneGuy said:


> And the architecture taliban strikes again.


are referring to yourself?


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Some interesting points above on the role of ornament in the context of contemporary architecture. Myself I would like to note that while buildings have lost, these days, the ornament in relief (sculpted, plastered, etc.), some have gained the use of colour as an ornament. Think of Torre Agbar or the building bellow that I've just seen in a post here:










(source)




indosky said:


> Part 2


Colour as ornament isn't new at all, many monuments that we now know as "white" were partly of fully coloured, like Greek temples or mediaeval churches.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

^^ I love it when people repaint ornament in many gentrified american cities these days









In my opinion, buildings cant get much better than that


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

ThatOneGuy said:


> And the architecture taliban strikes again.


 The boring is beautiful "Taliban" have already struck. I'm not advocating for the ornament cramming of every building in the world (though that would be nice), like they are advocating for the stripping of beauty and character from buildings. 

We were having a peaceful little thread showing the types of art we like displayed on our buildings, and the "Taliban" came and blew up our thread.


----------



## Paper Ninja (Feb 7, 2008)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nerradk/6692221165/








http://dkphotos.me/2012/01/18/albany-ny-capital-building-million-dollar-staircase/img_9800-hdr/








http://www.flickr.com/photos/happycuties/3818984173/


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

^^I was in Albany a few years ago and got to see that staircase. Absolutely beautiful.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

I love some of the cast Iron ornamentation in lower Manhattan


----------



## cnapan (Jul 14, 2006)

Kiboko said:


> The best ornamentation is no ornamentation. Most of the time i see the ornamentation on ceilings as unnecessary clutter which should be removed. I'd rather see a thoughtful designed ceiling, with the spreading of natural and unnatural light as its main target.
> 
> Like this beautiful modern ceiling in the Louvre:


Two points...

1) There is ornamentation in that design. Why have slats at all. They could have just had a transparent flat ceiling... So by minimalist standards, it is incredibly fussy.

2) This ceiling will never be one of the ceilings which tourists seek out. The reason is simple. Art. Any fool can draw a box. Any fool can build a flat featureless wall. They are boring. They say nothing. This ceiling says nothing. They come to see the pictures lit by the ceiling. And that is all.

What you do find sometimes is a lack of ornamentation being used to successfully contrast with - and draw attention to - existing ornamentation. A good example of this is the pyramids in the Louvre. By themselves they would be anodyne and bland. Their success lies in the interesting contrast they create between the simple glass geometry in contrast with the ornate stone facade of the museum. The same technique is used in more traditional building, with areas of simplicity contrasting with areas of richer ornamentation...

Ornamentation may be seen applied to a structure - or, as is occasionally seen from the work of some great modern architects, the ornamentation is the structure. Take Calatrava or Hadid. Their buildings are a light-year from the fascist ideals of minimalism, and though expensive to build, are a delight, and far likelier to survive intact for a century as they aren't just enclosed spaces. They speak to us because art is about humanity.


----------



## cnapan (Jul 14, 2006)

CNB30 said:


> Why did this thread have to go from people posting a bunch of beautiful buildings, to a bunch of tasteless anti-ornament freaks.


They're here to remind us precisely why the architectural profession has largely lost the ability to create spaces we like living in. I'm not talking about the "grand projets", but the ordinary vernacular buildings most of us have to live or work in.

That isn't to say that there aren't some great modern buildings going up, but in my experience of buildings from the 20th century in Europe and North America, the vast majority of what goes up now has less appeal than the 'older stuff', and a part of the reason for this is the poisonous and irrational hatred for ornament or art in buildings.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ Very good point about using contemporary as contrast to classic. I'll disagree about museums, though, many people are interested also in the full experience of visiting a museum, not just in simply seeing the artifacts. It matters when a museum is in a building that is designed to interfere with the viewing experience, like at the Pompidou, or is excitingly developed in a reconverted building (like the Tate Modern), or when it is in a forward looking (architecturally) building like those by Zaha Hadid (Riverside, MaXXI) or Frank Gehry (Bilbao Guggenheim) and others. These aspects are integral part of what makes these museums so successful.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

It's called the architecture taliban because they call people who disagree with them 'freaks', as if they are infidels for having a different opinion or taste. And they put a jihad on modern styles and hate everyone who likes them. I think classical ornamentation is beautiful, but that modern, classy minimalist buildings are better. What's so bad, am I still a freak?


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Im not declaring a jihad on modern styles, I do appreciate them, but I just disagree with some of the modernist philosophies. If i was declaring a Jihad, I would be talking about wanting to tear down every modernist structure around. I am just disagreeing with certain individuals on this this thread, and dislike the removal of ornament does not mean I am some sort of Architecture taliban. 

I just think its crazy that someone would find this










to be architectually superior to this


----------



## Paper Ninja (Feb 7, 2008)

CNB30 said:


> I just think its crazy that someone would find this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


eh.. I think a comparison to this might be more fitting..










http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4814645907/


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

This tick is very old: whomever doesn't agree with one's aesthetic preferences is a "fascist", an "idiot" or some other pejorative designation of choice. That goes also with the worn-out photo-war trick in which someone appeals to some sort of universal (thus non mathematically/analytically describable) "taste" that would render any further discussion of the subject (ornamentation, in the case, but it could be height, density, clustering of buildings, volume etc) useless because "everybody knows what is best, just look at it".


----------



## Cyrus (Jan 28, 2005)

ThatOneGuy said:


> It's called the architecture taliban because they call people who disagree with them 'freaks', as if they are infidels for having a different opinion or taste. And they put a jihad on modern styles and hate everyone who likes them. I think classical ornamentation is beautiful, but that modern, classy minimalist buildings are better. What's so bad, am I still a freak?


It is interesting that you use the words "Taliban", "Jihad", ... to describe what you want to say, but the problem is that you yourself think like the Taliban, ornamentation means adding beauty to something, of course you can have different opinion or taste about the ornamentation, but you can't say no beauty should be added to a modern building! Taliban don't say classical anastole is better than modern fashion hairstyle or vice versa but they say people should not adorn themselves at all.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Here is some great Victorian design on display at the VMFA (ironically in an ultra modern building).


----------



## Paper Ninja (Feb 7, 2008)

http://mysticsartnouveau.blogspot.com/

























http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Palais_(Paris)








http://www.jetlife.co/2012/11/09/red-bull-skylines-2012-grand-palais-bmx-contest-in-paris/


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Cyrus said:


> It is interesting that you use the words "Taliban", "Jihad", ... to describe what you want to say, but the problem is that you yourself think like the Taliban, ornamentation means adding beauty to something, of course you can have different opinion or taste about the ornamentation, but you can't say no beauty should be added to a modern building! Taliban don't say classical anastole is better than modern fashion hairstyle or vice versa but they say people should not adorn themselves at all.


Clearly you didn't get it, I never said they shouldn't. Others, however, think that ornamentation must always be included, and that the ones who don't want it are freaks. I think beauty is elegant, clean lines and simplicity. Beauty to others might be decorations, but to me, they are over-the-top and can look too smothering, but I don't think they are freaks. Only the people who call others such names for their tastes are freaks.


----------



## Cyrus (Jan 28, 2005)

ThatOneGuy said:


> Clearly you didn't get it, I never said they shouldn't. Others, however, think that ornamentation must always be included, and that the ones who don't want it are freaks. I think beauty is elegant, clean lines and simplicity. Beauty to others might be decorations, but to me, they are over-the-top and can look too smothering, but I don't think they are freaks. Only the people who call others such names for their tastes are freaks.


I believe in modern times these kinds of thoughts have been imposed on us becuase of our mechanical lifestyle, it is true that we have many more important things to do than working on the details but it can't change the fact that we always enjoy not only the whole, but also the details.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

^^ But that's not what I'm saying. My only problem is people calling others 'freaks' for their tastes.

And btw it's not that details 'aren't important' it's just that, in my opinion, no details and simplicity looks better than overly-crafted buildings.


----------



## Cyrus (Jan 28, 2005)

ThatOneGuy said:


> ^^ But that's not what I'm saying. My only problem is people calling others 'freaks' for their tastes.
> 
> And btw it's not that details 'aren't important' it's just that, in my opinion, no details and simplicity looks better than overly-crafted buildings.


I don't know what you call people who see no difference between a simple stone and a stony statue, people like Taliban who have no respect for art and destroy these beauties, of course it can be said it is their tastes!


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

^^ those are hideous


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

^^ I don't care what you think of them. I only care that you stop calling others freaks for their tastes. This isn't the first time I've seen you do it. Even others are doing the same thing, it's disgusting. hno: 
@Cyrus I see anybody who insults or hurts people for their personal tastes as Taliban. Even if a modernist is calling someone a freak for liking ornamentation, he is like the Taliban. It doesn't matter.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

^^ I used that word ONCE on ONE thread a while ago.


----------



## tanklv (Mar 14, 2009)

CF221 said:


> *
> That's your opinion.* Nobody goes to Paris to go for modernism or just blank walls. Similarly, I'm sure the great majority of people who go to the Louvre go to see classical art, with all its rich ornamentation.
> 
> :cheers:


YES! Yes it is their opinion - just as yours is your opinion, which is not more valid than anyone elses. None is "better" than the other.

Now describe what defines a beautiful/ideal man or woman - I'm sure you'll get total agreement from EVERYONE...


----------



## tanklv (Mar 14, 2009)

ThatOneGuy said:


> And the architecture taliban strikes again.


That's just YOUR opinion.

Oh, when will everyone see that MY OPINION, and ONLY My Opinion counts, and all others are ignorant twaddle at best...


----------



## tikiturf (May 20, 2011)

Versailles 74 par shogunangel, sur Flickr


Versailles 68 par shogunangel, sur Flickr


Versailles. par Only Tradition, sur Flickr


Palace of Versailles par dbonny, sur Flickr


Versailles par koffiejunkie, sur Flickr


Versailles par Everyman Complex, sur Flickr


----------



## mapece (May 10, 2013)

somanathapur temple









sagrada familia (I know it's obvious, but it's impossible to not consider it)









and talking of louis sullivan









by the way, Adolf Loos produced such hideous sad things









If one sacrifices beauty on the altar of pure function, he's not considering that life is not just surviving, and beauty has a big part in life (or it should have).


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

^^ It's amazing how many classicists believe that modern architecture is based on function only.
It's not. It's based on the appreciation of clean forms and lines instead of that smothering ornamentation like in the upper pictures. Great function is just an appealing feature such a design creates.

I don't have anything against classical architecture, but the propaganda the classisicts write against modernism is amazing. 

Answering the thread question, my favourite ornamentation is the tre/quatre-foil


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

ThatOneGuy said:


> ^^ It's amazing how many classicists believe that modern architecture is based on function only.
> It's not. It's based on the appreciation of clean forms and lines instead of that smothering ornamentation like in the upper pictures. Great function is just an appealing feature such a design creates.
> 
> I don't have anything against classical architecture, but the propaganda the classisicts write against modernism is amazing.
> ...


It is also sad how many modernists think that ornamentation on a building is always restricted to certain classical/Gothic types and sizes


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

I am also appalled by the way that the blandness of blank sides in modernism is referred to as "clean", as if making a side appear interesting, and worth looking at made it less perfect, instead of the other way around.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Actually, if a building has detail, it should do it in a refined manner, like classical buildings do. Unless a new style is invented that would fit in seamlessly with architecture from a long time ago, details should stick to gothic and art deco and so on.
Architecture is about looking good, it's not limited to being 'interesting'. Modernist and classical architecture can do this. 










This is modernism with superficial detail (postmodernism). Would anybody really want this? Whacky gehry-style architecture of the 2000s is becoming dated now, and is being replaced with more clean elegance of simple forms.


----------



## mapece (May 10, 2013)

ThatOneGuy said:


> ^^ It's amazing how many classicists believe that modern architecture is based on function only.
> It's not. It's based on the appreciation of clean forms and lines instead of that smothering ornamentation like in the upper pictures. Great function is just an appealing feature such a design creates.
> 
> I don't have anything against classical architecture, but the propaganda the classisicts write against modernism is amazing.
> ...


I don't consider myself a classicist, actually my favorite architecture is that of the twentieth century and I like a lot of decidedly modern buildings. But to me that kind of white boxes above that Loos (or Le Corbusier and other modernists) did is just absolutely ugly.


----------



## socrates#1fan (Jul 1, 2008)

Cyrus said:


> That is also a type of ornamentation, I think everyone likes symmetry and harmony, for this reason a flower is beautiful:


Nature is itself quite ornate.


----------



## socrates#1fan (Jul 1, 2008)

To me the best ornamentation is BALANCED. Beautiful, intricately detailed in all of the right places while also allowing blank space.


----------



## socrates#1fan (Jul 1, 2008)

CNB30 said:


> I am also appalled by the way that the blandness of blank sides in modernism is referred to as "clean", as if making a side appear interesting, and worth looking at made it less perfect, instead of the other way around.


I've always thought of calling it "clean" being like calling a body stripped down to the bones "clean". 

I don't find it clean, I just find it deprived (starving even).


----------



## Highcliff (May 4, 2006)

one good example
joão domingues de araujo building in são paulo








http://www.panoramio.com/photo/2052165


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

socrates#1fan said:


> I've always thought of calling it "clean" being like calling a body stripped down to the bones "clean".
> 
> I don't find it clean, I just find it deprived (starving even).


You might not like it, whatever, but my problem is when people (mainly fundamentalist classicists) write stupid and untrue stuff about modernism like that their architects didn't care about their designs, or they were lazy, or they were doing it only for function.


----------



## socrates#1fan (Jul 1, 2008)

ThatOneGuy said:


> You might not like it, whatever, but my problem is when people (mainly fundamentalist classicists) write stupid and untrue stuff about modernism like that their architects didn't care about their designs, or they were lazy, or they were doing it only for function.


I don't think they were being lazy and I believe some modernist architects genuinely believed in modernism. 

There is a lot of anger amongst classicists because of the abuse modernists have inflicted upon us. The oppression, destruction, etc. leaves a very bitter taste in our mouths.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

What, from like 40 years ago? I see nothing but comments bashing modernists and the classicists are far louder and abusive towards modernists in the past years despite never hearing anything bad back about classical architecture. In London, for example, nothing but modernist architecture has been demolished in the past years and you still complain of classical building destruction hno: 
Also, what oppression? How can architecture have anything to do with oppression? Unless you think modernism is solely about social housing blocks in which case you couldn't be more wrong.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Frank Furness designed some amazing details on his buildings


----------

