|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
David Owen
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 77
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:31 am Post subject: 2009 Stirling Prize - Modern design vs. traditionalism |
    |
|
By now, most of us know that Maggies Centre by Richard Rogers won the 2009 RIBA Stirling Prize.
But in the U.K., if the results of a recent poll are to be believed, public opinion seems to have soured on "modern" architecture, in favor of more "traditional" styles. And the conclusions drawn in several U.K. pieces just prior to the Stirling Prize announcement suggest that the RIBA, and most British architects in general, are ignoring public sentiment and clinging to modernism at all costs.
John Glancey, Guardian's Architecture Critic:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/oct/16/stirling-prize-architecture
Another in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/oct/17/stirling-architecture-prize-riba-robert-adam
The Independent's take:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/architecture/what-a-prize-mess-the-stirling-prize-1804385.html
And Architects' Journal:
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/public-favours-traditional-architecture/5209617.article
So, does the RIBA favor modern architecture to the exclusion of traditionally styled buildings? Do buildings designed in those more traditional styles have merit on that basis alone? Or should RIBA's awards jury (and those of other awards programs) be looking beyond the overtly stylistic, evaluating how well (or poorly) the building solves the problems of program, site, and budget?
What kind of role should a building's response to issues of environment, energy consumption, and future reuse or recyclability play in our consideration of its worth?
And if we accept this divisive perspective on architecture (modern vs. traditional) as still having any merit whatsoever, is either one inherently more beautiful than the other? Does the role of the architect then matter at all? Do we judge buildings solely on the basis of what they look _like_? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1187
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
could somebody define "traditional" architecture .... please.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
millennium club
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 1121
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Derived from the word, trade. To hand over. 
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1212
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are the Oscars awarded to the most popular actors? Is the Booker Prize awarded to the most popular author? Rarely!!
I can't see the problem with an architecture prize being awarded by a panel of experts in architecture, rather than a public telephone vote. The only criticism might be, like the Oscars, the winner is sometimes chosen because it is 'their turn'. Architects giving other architects a pat on the back, or a sympathy vote.
The real problem is that, for the UK, architectural quality is rarely good, often dominated by private finance or commercial development considerations. We don't have the compulsory design competitions that take place on the Continent. Good design almost happens by luck and consequently the public sees a great deal of mediocre modern architecture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 728
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps with global warming and the recession too, people are again rather scared of the future and seek solace in a safer past. An image of the past as something contained in the individual's imagination and memory rather than past reality as it actually felt and looked like at the time. At the very least, the idea that information technology and speed-of-obsolescence is 'out of control' lends currency to the notion that we're all heading in the wrong direction, blindfolded to any total conception of a future reality. As a cartoon framed in my wc states: "The future's not what it used to be, Dicky..."
In one of the linked articles (thanks for the links) I think it was Jonathan Glancey who proposes that giving the highest awards to buildings that haven't proved themselves any further than that they a) stand up b) conform to fashion is to focus on the wrong thing when it comes to an estimation of architectural quality. On the subsequent comments, someone argues instead that this is a good thing because it catalyzes development of new ideas and innovations important to our rapidly changing times. To my mind, that latter notion suggests that if a five-ten year-old building is now, in effect, obsolete for the purposes of discussing quality and appropriateness-to-purpose, today's new technologies will be similarly obsolete in a few years time, in which case we'd be better off building disposable techno-tents than anything more physically durable...
However, for all this, rhetoricizing reality into debates of 'traditional' versus 'modernist' and 'architects-in-the-know' versus 'facile public opinion' is to trivialise architecture and to trivialise people. It's gossip. It's entertainment. It ain't productive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
millennium club
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 1121
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read "traditional not sustainable" somewhere in those articles. Add that to a debate topics too. Not productive? It's good stuff for forums for sure.
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe we should all vote traditional design "most popular" and give it an award.
I agree with the first article (didn't read the others)
Perhaps they should rename the prize the 'Sterling Modern Architecture Prize'
(this would eliminate any confusion)
I think awards are fun but don't have much value beyond that.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1977
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am very drawn to this topic because I personally have struggling with this issue. Before I elaborate on that, the core of Mr. Owen's initial post is that public sentiment favors "traditional" architecture over "modern". IMHO, that is a reality that has never changed, even at the apex of the Modernist movement. However, it must be made clear that there is a very large difference between asking the public how they "feel" about architecture when applied to the design of their own homes and architecture for public institutions. The issues are totally different but one thing remains a constant: people prefer spaces that "feel" familiar.
In regards to my own evolution, I always believed I was a Purist and worked to refine my methodology around that. But since the very first time I did not work on a big box project (a church restoration), I have been so greatly influenced by the craft and beauty of detail, materials and proportions of the old ways that I have come to greatly understand the emotional connection to these details. I have been employed to design a house for a friend and he wanted something youthful, masculine and open to the environment. I ended up designing something very "modern". It is still an evolving project but I can't shake this feeling to incorporate more of the traditional details and little by little the project is reaching some middle ground between modern and traditional, which is actually quite surprisingly nice. The client loves it and I think I have found a balance. It is not a surprise to me at all that the general public yearns "traditional" architecture...not to be confused with Post-Post-Modernism or Neo-Classical, s'il vous plait.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've always thought of myself primarily as a modernist -- from an early age. I'm now in my sixties. Yet I am fond of the Case Study houses, Wright's best early and later work, Craftsman bungalows, Richardson's warehouse and libraries -- all, equally. There are qualities in each that appeal to me, and always have. Honest use of material, strong formal expression, elegant detail, appropriate response (in most cases) to the requirements of use -- these can appear without regard to "style."
Is it relevant to ask if the annual clothing bazaars (not called "fashion shows" for nothing), and the yearly auto exhibitions, display virtually nothing but the latest designs, using the newest techniques and materials and ideas about what is appropriate for use, today ? Is it that these are not "durable goods" to the same extent that buildings are -- or used to be ?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1187
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
The public and the architectural profession are facing in opposite directions, hence the confusion.
The public favours the "familiar" over the "unfamiliar" - but the architectural profession has to fulfill its role as Soothsayer, as seers of the future.
The fashion and car shows do not merely allow for, but depend on rapidly changing tastes in styling. They require people to buy the latest style in clothes or cars. Buildings are not merely required to last longer - they also take far longer to prepare, plan and build, and cost vastly more than the latest jacket or family car.
But fashion and cars too have their extremes. The highly-priced Bugatti Veiron is a beautiful vehicle, with a beautiful price to match. It is a dream car.
The house-building 'styles' do try to cater to the current trends in styling, but for the architectural profession to twist and turn with every real or imagined alteration in public taste would be a nonsense.
Could anybody looking at the winning scheme of the Stirling Prize seriously dismiss it as oppressive modernism, as a snub to tradition and the culture of its surroundings ? I hardly think so - in fact, quite the reverse.
Does this mean that architecture has to tell the public what is good for them - to teach them when design is good and appropriate ? The answer is not merely "yes" - it has to be "yes", otherwise the profession simply cannot function and one would be left with the dire end of mass-housebuilding schemes, and the phrase which, in my view, puts Prince Charles's advisors where they belong: "Mock-Georgian".
Be grateful that Britain has produced a scheme as good as the winner - and that some of the runners-up were of such high standard.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1977
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I do not disagree with either of you. And I think you make valid points that are very important for all designers to grasp...we are in the business of leadership. We have the dual role of both providing and educating. We provide what is required (the program, if you will), which includes the topic of the "traditional", and educate what should be improved (the product).
However, the core of the issue remians that many architects/designers do not work to this end goal. This profession has become way to commodified that the role of leadership is often diminished by so many opposing parties (demanding client, greedy contractor, maniacal building official, etc). The Architect has been so undervalued for so long that many don't make the effort to seek excellence. Thankfully, this is only a generalization and those types of architects will forever remain anonymous, continuing to churn out "blueprints for permit". The minority that does work hard to stay ahead of the fray more oftens reaps the benefits.
That said, I do believe that Architects must not succumb to public polls however the day the Architect is out of touch with any given society is the day the buildings begin to look like odes to vanity. Traditionalism will always have its place, even when secretly laced within the large vaccums of modern museums, perhaps as a detailed door lever or other tactile element.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
We are already seeing nostalgia in the automobile market. (think Mustang)
Cars had to be different than the horse and buggy because of necessity but since then they have stayed fairly constant other than some superficial styling.
(I would say no more difference than a traditional house of 100 years ago and a traditional today)
Cars are modern because they are a modern invention. Houses on the other hand tend to be traditional because they are not a modern invention.
The public does not completely reject modernism but I think they prefer evolution to revolution.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1977
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In general, people prefer evolution to revolution. And evolution is a better way of saying "improving upon"...while revolutions are abrupt and major. Revolutions are essentially the rejection of the past, ie Modernism. But in keeping in line with what you mention, has traditional architecture truly evolved? I would argue that we can see examples of the revolution having met the evolution to create the Post-Post Modernism we see...resulting in something new. But is it better?
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
"But is it better?"
This is a subjective question. -better by who's opinion and or what standard?
Floor plans tend to be more open, windows are larger, we can see some modern elements creeping in, finishes are often applied, styles tend to be more mixed.
We are likely to see much more variation when we drive down a street today than we would have 100 years ago.
Was any period of classical architecture better than the previous or just different?
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
