Why is most modern architecture so shit?
Why is most modern architecture so shit?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Because everything is made as cheap as possible instead of thinking of esthetism
Because it was pioneered by Germans and Scandinavians.
because its hard to replicate the achievements of the classics, so you just go for broke
Spiritulism is completely dead
2deep4u
t. Artist
deliberate to remove any sense of identity
you can just look at old architecture and replicate it just by it's looks
What are you going to do to make it better?
tends to be pretentious faggotry
complain on Jow Forums
Ugh, stupid frogposter
Shut your brown ass mouth.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with modern architecture
rare
but that would be meaningless artistically, they need to make a statement and redefine current attitudes
Jews did this.
that is hideous
Because today's art is like a butthurt child that can't take criticism
>asian
>no taste plebian
it's ok in 2100 you're gonna get modernism too
The Spanish were the best at at IMO. I mean, look at this shit.
It's a lamppost made by a prominent Catalan architect, but it's the coolest lamppost I've ever seen in my life. He put so much thought behind something as irrelevant and unimportant as a lamppost.
Why is it hideous?
it would still look better than this transformers shit
that looks fine but it looks out of place when a bunch of normal building are near it
how would you advance or build on the traditional/old stuff?
>top: dresden reconstructed opera house
>bot: new hamburg opera house for the low low price of €700m :):):)
the reconstruction of dresden is probably the only decent thing germans have ever done
this
look at older building and take inspiration from that
Call me a tasteless idiot if you may, but I think the one at the bottom looks good.
its an artistic statement, simply replicating existing models won't cut it
>not posting best Zaha's project
"inspiration."
This, but the other reason is mass production which came about after the industrial revolution. Everything looks the same nowadays because it's all made in the same factory. Glass panels, prefab pieces and precut steel are just assembles like lego to make modern buildings, architects just arrange the pieces in different shapes. Sometimes the overall forms are interesting, but there's no craftmanship involved in the actual materials of the building.
It is? I see many improvements in my city come from modern architecture and city planning. I am a big fan of classic architecture, but modern architecture is very cool and can uplift the look of cities.
I am very grateful for it.
easy to say, hard to achieve.
Beyond building say a gothic revival with revised materials, what can you structurally modify?
I really like the mix of traditional and modern architecture (if it's well designed ofc)
don't understand what problem some people have with it
it's not like people in the past said "no we can't build new stuff, it's unconventional". Had they been like that we'd still only have mud huts
I'm not sure but i'm sure someone can figure it out
Why were Soviets the only ones to get modern architecture right?
Modern buildings are built for profit. A glass or concrete facade is much cheaper than the detailed facades on traditional buildings. Architects have become small celebrities and the only way to boost people's knowledge about you and your works is building something eye catching and then you have those posh award shows who will reward the ugliest eyesores because they are different and 'forward-thinking'.
Don't tell me that is a Norwegian city.. That looks like Russia
because being truly creative lies in simplifying things, not overcomplicating them
is this the mythical Sudanon?
>I really like the mix of traditional and modern architecture
Same, I think it works a lot better than a lot of people would expect
I think the reason why some people think past looks prettier is because its different, our eyes get used to seeing the same shiny buildings all day every day.
HOWEVER, I think that if you were to take someone from history into a modern city they would think its beautiful. Beautiful skyscrapers shining in the sun. Modern city would be like a fairy tale to them.
its poorly worded yes but isn't that the point of any contemporary art
That's nice, but I like this one more
it's not even subjective, modern architecture is for autists who want to feel small and unimportant
You move to America and this man comes towards you and calls you a nigger what is your response?
What I usually do in situations like this, look awkwardly, attempt to reason with him and then move on
Unless its a Jow Forums tier day where I reply with inane material designed to bring something wacko out of him
The reason why most people find *post*-modern architecture revolting is because it's intentionally violently asymmetric and arrhythmic. We evolved to find too much asymmetry revolting because in a face it implies the person may have a disease or a genetic disorder.
You why crush him by sitting on him with your 6'7 body?
That would be assault. It would be a cartoonish real-life Jow Forums insult-battle that would be too good to pass, I want to get him to shout other stuff and record it
Its a bit difficult to understand if you don't like absurd/dark humour
nice
No it is not, it is typically more uniform than anything from historic periods. And I question what you are writing in your second sentence, this seems to be some Jow Forums talking point where you try to project some theory of symmetrical structure of the human into architectural direction. Is the symmetry of Paris more preferable than the unsymmetrical building pattern of Wien? I think this would be a matter of subjective taste.
I also question your idea that most people find modern architecture revolting, the picture in my building for example is liked by most people i have talked to. Never heard of anyone calling it revolting. Personally I don't like the color scheme, but if you lived here you would understand why the colors were chosen.
We also thought that spirits and not bacteria mysteriously killed people en masse, I'd rather suffer the asymmetry of an implantable pacemaker than die of a fatal arrythmia
Don't fall into that trap of inane/forced conservatism, its the intellectual parts that are very powerful
This
>let's bring up Jow Forums to discredit what I said
en.wikipedia.org
What does a pacemaker have to do with the aesthetics of buildings? What do spirits and bacteria have to do with evolutionary psychology?
I am saying it was an early evolutionary indicator to what is now codified medical science, it doesn't necessarily mean it should be aesthetic on that basis
Because (((they))) want to eradicate all national culture and architecture is a big part of the culture of a folk.
It is actually pretty fucking cool.
The lower part is an old storage building the the harbour and on top the build the most modern opera hall in the world. Which btw is pretty cool looking inside as well.
>pic kinda related, the roof of the old house
Sorry. I don't get it.
No I have poorly structured English because of Autism
I am just begging to consider a new aesthetism that doesn't necessarily need symmetry
I originally claimed that we have some encoded aversion and attraction to certain forms that isn't up to some debate in which you can convince the other person a certain form looks good or bad. Same goes for smells and sounds.
incredible generalisation
because it isn't
it's just your taste
Hafencity is arguably one example of contemporary architecture done right, if you ask me.
the worst thing about this picture is that the left building would be fantastic as a "standard" as impoverished as it is.