Yes. Could you have picked a worse example, though? Cumbernauld’s perhaps the ugliest town in the country (perhaps you’re trying to fashion some sort of point out of picking Cumbernauld, though?). Nobody wants to live there, and with good reason—it’s a showcase in late 50’s architecture (just look at those poor women in the picture, it’s like march of the myrmidons). How could that possibly be good for civic improvement, when the town cannot attract people to move there?
From Cumbernauld’s Wiki entry:
And perhaps Edinburgh’s a special case for a reason? (i.e. the worst excesses of modernist architecture were kept out, whereas other cities and towns succumbed, and lost half their character, replacing old buildings with concrete travesties.)
It’s a good question, but I don’t think you can use the word “automatically” in that sentence.
IANA psychologist, but I believe standards of beauty are 99.9% culturally conditioned. If symmetry was so intrinsically important to our aesthetic pleasure, you’d expect more paintings & sculptures (from those historical periods you’re thinking of) to follow.
Also asymmetry is prevalent in Gothic, Victorian, and traditional Japanese architecture (+ others I’m sure).
Firstly, Edinburgh was a special case long before modernism appeared. Then there was the issue of cities which had had the shit bombed out of them, and needed rebuilding - yes, mistakes were made, but not all of them can be blamed on the style of architecture. Then, as Key Lime Guy has already pointed out, the Disney Hall did go through a protracted planning procedure, and it also does a really good job as a concert hall. And a lot of people do like the way it looks. I still don’t get what your point is, beyond ‘I don’t like the way it looks, so these things shouldn’t be allowed’. Should a pastiche of Carnegie Hall have been put there, instead?
Actually, I think love of symmatry is hardwired, at least to a degree. Much of what we find visually appealing is related to our perception of human bodues, adn particularly of human faces. A asymetrical face means an unhealthy face, so we instinctually reject it as a survival trait; a symmetrical face, OTOH, is reasuring. The same thing goes with other things our ancestors found in the wild. For instance, a symmetrical piece of fruit is probably better for you than an assymetrical one.
I’d also like to see some examples of unsymmatry in Gothic, Victorian, and traditional Japanese architecture.
You are demonstratably wrong. The fundamental elements of design are exceptionally cross-cultural. People do build their houses differently, partly owing to local conditions, but the basic issues of shape and proportion and decoration are remarkably similar from culture to culture. The differences are matters of degree and chosen elegance. Whereas, modern architecture aims for a cultureless, mathamatical design which explicitly denies character or
Second, who gives a damn? Even if architecture were solely a matter of culture, that wouldn’t mean it’s somehow wrong. Your argument could be compared to decided you want to just start using equations instead of words in speech, and walk around saying X=14*y-(8/3) instead of expressing yourself comprehensibly. Even if you were right in what you said, you still are wrong. You haven’t given yourself a chance.
Finally, you are provably wrong, because I’ve been exposed to this since childhood and it still looks like crap. And yet (somehow) I still love Chinese, Japanese, German, French, Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Spanish, Indian, Malaysian (etc.) architecture. They’re all infinitely different yet infinitely lovably and admirable. They meet, in different yet completmentary ways, the fundamental human needs and comfort of housing. The decoration is different, and present to varying degrees, but each works within its context. The proportions are different , yet the principles behind the proportions remain.
You have no idea what you are talking about. All of those use asymetry is deliberate, sparing fashion, but never haphazardly as is so common in modern art. Done right, asymetry helps the overall shape of the building, and is never the dominant feature. Moreover, asymetry is usually axis-based, and vanishes when viewing the building from another angle (even if that is not ). Finally, asymetry is often vastly more mild. Japanese houses or gardens may be slightly askew, but nothing like modern architecture’s rampant randomness. In fact, the asymetry (which is not always present) is very carefully placed and controlled precisely to
As a comparison, consider a portrait painting. The painting is not symetric - that is, it is not an absolutely head-on face despicted as being perfectly even. However, the slight differences or tilt are meant to enhance the overall depcition while maintaining the fundamental proportions of the subject, and keeping him or her within the central area of the frame.
BY contrast, modern art is like deliberately painting a very ugly person in garish colors, and sticking them off only on the lower left corner, with nothing else in the frame or even a black background, and having them not even “look” at the audience. Any one of these elements might be used to good effect. Using nothing but them destroys the very purpose the portrait was painted for.
In music, there is principle called Dissonance. It is a deliberate counter to Melody and Harmony (the “Consonance”). Now, some very awful music by very awful people tries to just use Dissonance and nothing else beside. The result is that it’s not music at all. It’s simply random noise. It might be interesting noise… but it isn’t music. Music can vary from moment to moment, have all kinds of character, and use Dissonance as an element effectively, but it has to have a unifying thread throughout. There are some people who have lost sight of what music is, and spend all their time trying to find the very worst because they’ve grown to hate real music. They’ve grown so obsessed and then jaded with music they destroy it.
These would perhaps be easier to find if there weren’t the added concerns of structural integrity when building with pre-20th century materials (try making an asymmetrical arch out of stone!), and of religious symbolism.
BTW, Frank Gehry did a guest voice on the Simsons as himself. Marge wrote and asked him to desing Springfield’s new concert hal. Gehry took the letter and crumpled it upa and threw it aside, but when he caught a glimpse of the crumpled paper gets inspired and desings the concert hall that looks pretty much like the crumpled piece of paper. So he is not oblvious to the criticisms levelled against him.
BTW, I certainly think that a buildings design need to be reflective. It seems to me that an art museum, like the one in Bilbao Spain or the Concert Hall in Disney can certainly be more whimsical, avant garde and though provoking (good or bad) since they are homes of creativity. Now if something like a DMV office was desinged like that it would seem ridiculous.
And BTW, the buildings are not randmoly designed. The Guggenheim in Bilbao is supposed to evek a boat. The Disney Hall is supposed to evoke a white rose.
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, and I’m quite certain you’re incapable of defining the word dissonance in any meaningful way that can hold water for 5 seconds.* Also, there is no composer of name who remotely resembles your description.
In short, you are merely resorting to knocking over straw men, and flaunting your own lack of understanding.
*If I’m wrong, then start a MPSIMPS thread that addresses the following: in what ways has the treatment and definition of dissonance changed or evolved in history as exemplified by the works of the following composers:
No piece of art has meaning in and of itself. Rather meaning is *constructed *by the viewer/listener from the play of the artistic stimulus within his own internal aesthetic frame.
Different pieces of music are designed to function within different frames. Music that sounds random or pointless to you may merely be operating within a frame you’re unfamiliar with; it won’t necessarily sound random or pointless to others.
I thought Tom Wolfe nailed it in “From Bauhaus to Our House”. A fun and interesting read.
A friend of mine grew up in a house designed and built by Arthur Erickson. Arthur Erickson is God in Canadian architecture. He’s responsible for a lot of public buildings as well as residences.
My friend’s dad loved Erickson. He paid huge sums of money to have Erickson do his house. Although we live in The Temperate Rainforest, Erickson built the house with a flat roof that always leaked. It had the usual walls of windows, all of which failed as the sheets of glass were constantly expanding and contracting, enough that they were always popping out of their frames or cracking. The plumbing was totally inadequate. Erickson insisted on doing the interior design, choosing paints, carpets, wallpaper, etc., and it was hideous. My friend’s mum finally rebelled and did it over.
Busloads of people came to look at this house, they still do. The people who live in it now have reverently restored it to what it was like 30 years ago - and the roof still leaks, the windows are still problematic, the plumbing is still inadequate.
When Erickson (and some other architects, I hear) is confronted with the reality that his Art can’t be lived in by normal people leading normal lives, he tends to shrug and dismiss the complaints.
The reason people love “traditional” designs is that those designs ahve proven livable over many centuries. The interior fittings can be modern as can be, and usually are, but the reason we love the old houses is they look like home. It’s as good a reason as any.
A house is a machine for living in, Wright supposedly said. And that’s just what it should be. A functional machine, including the functions of being warm, homelike, and comfortable.
In general, there are several points to make in regard to the OP. First, modern architecture hasn’t failed; commercial buildings are mostly in new styles (where they are meaninguflly styled at all.) Major city centers outside Europe in all their shiny glory consist almost solely of modern architecture, especially the international style. Moreover, skyscrapers are so large that they have very different aesthetic concerns — how can a 100-floor building be personal? For that matter, how can a Big Box Mart or a 20,000-person stadium or a 200-foot concert hall connect to the same people it dwarfs? Modern architects make buildings that deal with their size by being playful and sculpted. I’m especially fond of Gehry’s IAC headquarters.
Of course, these problems don’t really apply to houses, which are much smaller, so the current architectural movements are less common and less directly experienced. Also, it’s pretty normal to have a big gap between the big and little buildings — castles and gothic cathedrals coexisted with mud huts, as did the pyramids.
Incidentally, I’m always amused by what buildings people cite as beautiful. Neoclassical architecture has soul? Really? Are you sure?
Incidentally, I can never help but notice that virtually all of the craziest architecture cited is from museums and concert halls — buildings which are rather intended to stand out, rather than be architecturally conservative. That prioritization strikes me as completely legitimate — it’s not like the Paris Opera House blends into its neighbourhood, either. Business complexes do tend to be more sedate, though.
Don’t forget the Gherkin, which I actually like from the photos I’ve seen of it. I don’t know that I’d like it that much if I had to live or work within visual range of it, or if I had some heartfelt connection to the City of London.
You are aware, I assume, that Chartres and other medieval cathedrals aren’t asymmetrical by design, but rather from a hodgepodge of factors including the fact that it takes a very long time to build a cathedral and fashions change, and that every so often parts would burn down?
