Can Postmodern Architecture ever be timeless?

Matchups I’d like to see #238:

Mies Van der Rohe v. Wade

If it’s pretty, it’s timeless. If you have to think about it, it isn’t.

I think “timeless” is an odd hurdle to set for a recent architectural style. Like any 20th century style, we identify it with a specific decade. We might think of the New Formalism (think Lincoln Center, Minneapolis’s Northwestern National Bldg.) as deliberately designed to be timeless, but at this point we still strongly identify it with the 1960s.

The idea that architecture should be “true to its time” was pretty central to the training of 20th century architects. Two decades earlier, architects might have used a neoclassical style that only experts could easily identify as 19th rather than 17th century, but that became a sin with the advent of the modern movement.

Possibly they mean the Guggenheim Bilbao. Which, yeah, is never *The *Guggenheim.

No, I understood you meant the NYC Guggenheim. Unquestionably Modernest. Bilbao is Expressionist.

That’s true to a degree, but I can think of some exceptions, for instance, International’s most longstanding legacy to the architectural world so far, the partly-to-totally open ground floor supported by thin pillars, which has been around for nearly 100 years and has not changed too much, which seems pretty timeless to me. I wouldn’t always call it pretty, though, because these days the ground floor is likely to be elevated so much that it reminds me of deliberately-imposing totalitarian architecture. In that way, modern corporate architecture is somewhat the opposite of Brutalism within the minimalist wing of modern architecture: Brutalism can sometimes look oppressive from a distance, but to me, up close it reveals its personal and ergonomic elements, whereas corporate architecture looks like an unchallenging parfait from afar but up close it looks like it is trying to impress you with its might.

Van der Rohe vs. quarterback Bill Wade has possibilities.

“Classical” architecture has a context: imperial power. “Naive” architecture has different contexts. PoMo architecture says “it was all a joke and so am I but give up your money anyway.” McFood outlets are functional PoMo masterpieces, right? Right.

*I *didn’t mean anything, I’m not the original poster. I was just trying to guess as to why they’d say “The Guggenheim” was post-anything.

Sure, it’s got a bit of that. Also Deconstructivism. I, myself, don’t think it’s Post-Modern per se (Deconstructivism and PoMo being in strong tension), but it often appears on lists of PoMo buildings just because it’s Gehry.

Of course, *Gehry *doesn’t accept *any *labels :rolleyes:

You’re talking to the wrong person here - I’ve never been intimidated by architecture. Other people may be cowed or by monumental buildings, but my reaction has always been, “Whoa - would you look at the size of that? Awesome!”.

My college’s library was designed by Modernist superstar Oscar Niemeyer. I remember looking up from the microfiche machine to the undressed concrete balconies and ceilings, and thinking, “What a beautiful and well-designed space; it would have been even nicer if someone had slapped a coat of plaster on it.” But then, I’m just a philistine.