Conservatives against the masterpieces of modern architecture

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Some houses, without exaggeration, can be called a work of art, others simply do not notice, but there are such structures that do not leave anyone indifferent. This is especially true for objects of modern architecture, it is they that cause a strong emotional response and not always positive. Despite the fact that architects strive to create ideal spaces for work, play and human life, their works are subject to constant criticism and sometimes complete rejection.

Architecture has long gone beyond the definition of such a concept as art, because thanks to it, it is possible to create space and decorations that reflect the cultural characteristics and technical capabilities of the time and place where a person is. Considering the centuries-old history of the existence of mankind, on the streets of our cities and villages you can find buildings of all eras, which architects created in different styles and directions. And if some arouse admiration, then others - complete rejection.

The concept of "modern architecture" includes several styles and trends that have been formed for over 100 years. For such a long period, unique works of architects have appeared. Most importantly, no matter what direction they create, whether it is pure modernity, brutalism, constructivism, deconstructivism, minimalism, high-tech or neo-modernism, everything is of great interest. Moreover, the opinions of people, both ordinary people and experts, about a particular object, are fundamentally different.

If we take into account the indisputable fact that the newly created objects are better suited for organizing the most comfortable space for people to live, then the question of the inevitable change in the existing appearance of cities fades into the background. But no one has yet canceled the aesthetic perception of the surrounding space, and if a modern object is discordant with an established architectural picture, then it causes a storm of discontent, and sometimes active protest of local residents and luminaries.

Reference:Modern architecture emerged at the beginning of the last century, when architects argued that creative expression should be free from historical baggage and that architectural forms should rather obey functionality rather than generally accepted dogmas. The architects tried to avoid unnecessary details in the design, believing that simplicity and ordinary elements can be beautiful too. Proponents of classical rules argued and still do that modern architecture with its philosophy is complete bad taste, dullness and impersonality.

But this is which side to look at. If we take, for example, the implemented projects of Frank Loyd Wright and Rudolf Schindler, who stood at the origins of modernism, then there is simply no "neither monotonous nor inhuman" in them. And the language will not turn to call these creations "faceless and gloomy", although in their appearance you will not find either carved arches, or pompous columns, or luxurious elements, etc. They have not only practicality and functionality, but also a special beauty (with the absolute minimalism of the decor!), Which is simply breathtaking.

Yes, they, like many other modernists, have departed from the generally accepted rules in architecture, their work shows an individual style and vision. At one time, someone immediately fell in love with the simplicity and practicality of the houses they built, and the adherents of classical norms and rules criticized them mercilessly. But in spite of everything, these creations occupy a worthy place in modern architecture, because they have become iconic structures and a real attraction. And this is because the authors managed to combine practicality and simplicity with the surrounding landscape, both urban space and natural areas.

Unfortunately, not everyone manages to find such harmony and the necessary points of contact, and then rather awkward objects appear that clearly stand out against the general background of urban architecture.

Of course, adherents of creating a single, albeit miserable in their imitation, pictures of the general style will be delighted, but such a building will never become a landmark (just an example of how you can not build!). Scientists have proven that "good" or "bad" architecture directly affects the quality of life and the nature of the surrounding space, uplifting or suppressing the human spirit.

Of course, if you take the massive development of residential quarters with faceless massive high-rise buildings that have no aesthetics, and often no comfort either, then you can really hate such "modern architecture" and consider these objects as complete crap, killing even the most optimistic outlook on life. Although the mass construction of multi-apartment high-rise buildings is difficult to call architecture, and sometimes even impossible.

But everything does not look so deplorable if really professionals get down to business, not chasing the deadlines and the number of residential meters. In this case, the sleeping areas look no less attractive (according to current trends in fashion) than the historical centers, where the Victorian style or the Empire style prevails, which were also fashionable at the time they were being built.

Agree, in our time to build multi-storey buildings in the Gothic or romantic style would be complete absurdity. This should also be understood by those who do not want to perceive and accept modern architecture as an inevitable phenomenon of human society.

Of course, the situation is different if skyscrapers, public buildings, sports complexes, airports and train stations were built in the Art Nouveau style. Here, modern architects cannot be blamed for being impersonal. Due to the fact that new materials and technologies are actively used in the construction industry, and this makes it possible to increase the number of storeys of buildings, increase the scale of arches and the area of windows, complicate the shape of buildings, etc.

Even in the first objects of modern architecture, interest in unobtrusive decor is noticeable, and the brick itself becomes a bright detail of the facade design, not to mention the fashion for tiled cladding (majolica panels) and the presence of forged metal structures. This is what concerns the external side of architectural structures, in the interior, first of all, attention was paid to comfort and functionality with simplicity of forms and a minimum of decor.

In the post-war years, architects began to gravitate more towards brutalism and monumentalism. The search for new means of expression through rough and massive concrete structures is most criticized and rejected. Despite the fact that this craze faded very quickly, the remaining objects are still actively rejected. Although in modern buildings you can increasingly see massive concrete elements of a cubic shape, but such a vision of the beauty and practicality of the authors of the projects and they also have a right to exist.

Opponents of the trend in modern architecture argue that the buildings built by brutalists by this time are almost all abandoned, because no one wants to live in such "ugly" houses (if they are residential buildings). If these are museums, institutions or train stations, then they were abandoned because "they evoke horror."

As it became known to the authors of Novate. Ru, these statements are pure speculation of those who criticize the works of brutalists in everything. In fact, some buildings and even residential neighborhoods were abandoned, but for completely different reasons and have nothing to do with their appearance.

The words of the architect and designer, owner of many professional awards, Hadi Tehrani, explain in the best possible way why failures in construction and complete rejection of some objects appear: “Modern architecture fails when it does not correspond to human existence and its integrity. It should give a person all the components of his life well-being, which, like a puzzle, consists of various and equally significant details, such as ecology, economic aspect, adequate living space, light, texture of materials, form, emotions and aesthetics."

And the most interesting thing is that each country and even locality has its own vision and understanding of modern architecture and what is acceptable and what causes opposition. This is due to many factors - from mentality and standard of living to forms and materials for buildings. Therefore, if during construction modern architects take into account the perception of the aesthetics of the population, the geography of the area, culture and traditions, then there will be no confrontation.

Even if this building is made of concrete, glass and steel and it has a simple, technological form without obvious decorative elements, the structure will cause increased interest, but not protest.

As practice shows, what modern architects in Germany create (if all of the above was taken into account in the project), the majority of Germans perceive it as an absolutely normal phenomenon - in Russia, these objects will certainly cause indignation, a flurry of indignation and condemnation. Or what looks very organic in Japan - Americans will never accept and will consider it impersonal and simply nothing.

Naturally, over time, the term "modern architecture" has become much broader than it was originally, because many trends and branches have appeared, which change priorities every day. But this is understandable, the new pace of life, innovative materials, frequently changing fashion trends dictate their own rules and needs, and the public will not be able to appreciate all the creations of architects and designers.