Modern, Modernism and the Formalesque – Part 1
Part of the ‘Reveille! Earth calling Architecture!’ series, collected under ‘Pages’ on the right.
Architects in general are hopelessly, pathetically trapped by the word ‘modern’.
Within architectural circles, not to be ‘modern’ is to be beyond the pale, outside all normal, acceptable discourse.
And yet the de-facto definition, inside the architectural world, of ‘modern’ , is laughable, embarrassing. It basically means;
- no features that look purely decorative (features that ARE purely decorative, but don’t look it, can be accepted – are in fact the norm),
- flat roofs where possible (where pitched roofs are used, they must be deliberately odd in some way, so as not to look traditional),
- asymmetrical windows
- er, that’s it
- oh yes, it has to not look ‘dated’.
Anything else is fine.
Now, many architects, on reading this, will become apoplectic and argumentative. I welcome comments, and will seek to answer them as I can, but, dear reader, I hold firm to this claim.
Of course, the subject doesn’t come up much amongst architects, because architecture (I’m talking about the real world of architects who build things here, not the even smaller and essentially hermetic world of architectural theory) is essentially a closed shop. No-one who doesn’t subscribe to this laughable ‘code’ is accepted as an ‘architect’. It is only when an architect strays, that another will comment on a lack of modernity (either apologetically or aggressively, according to type). And this will be a wounding criticism to most architects, who will be set to scurrying about, either to change or justify their transgression. Because what they are really being told is that they are being judged, according to the code, as to whether they are ‘one of us’, or not.
Of course, as a nominally intellectualised class, architects don’t like to think of themselves as being ridiculous, or to be exposed as being laughably adrift from contemporary cultural discourse (which, as we will see, has long relegated ‘modern’ to the past), and so various cover-phrases, such as ‘contemporary’ or ‘of today’ are trotted out in public, so as to avoid the embarrassment of using the word ‘modern’. But in private, between consenting architects, ‘modern’ is the commonly understood shorthand.
Architects have of course had to accommodate themselves to the real world, accepting, for instance, that the number of ‘modern’ buildings in the world is far smaller than the number of ‘pre-modern’ and ‘vernacular’ ones, and that most people actually prefer these buildings, particularly the most attractive, to the products of ‘modern’ architects, and that there is work to be had in dealing with them. So there exists a tolerated sub-class of architects, called ‘conservation architects’. These are treated with an amused and gentle contempt by most architects, who view them as well-meaning but essentially sad cases, occasionally of use when one has to work on or near something old. [The conservation architects who want ever to be considered for work from the mainstream are careful to let it be known that they subscribe completely to the ruling dogma of 'modern' - see The Past in aspic]
But just try asserting that the whole of the history of architecture is the valid basis for contemporary work, that pitched roofs and symmetrical windows are just as valid as any other type, that decoration is a vital part of architecture, and see the reaction from most architects. Even worse, try arguing for these things at work. Kiss your career goodbye, or go into voluntary exile, seeking shelter with the outcasts, the architects who espouse ‘traditional building’.
And what do you find? That these outcasts are just as trapped by, in thrall to, the idea of ‘modern’. Except that to this small, embattled group, modern is everything that buildings should not be. Try suggesting a flat roof to this lot, or an asymmetrical facade.
Now you begin to discover what being an outsider really means.
How did this state of affairs come to pass? Have architects always been this foolish, this lost? Not at all – we have a chequered past, but not all of it is shameful. See the next instalment!