A building that works the way it’s supposed to is going to be a fine looking building.
“Ugly” isn’t the issue. Since beauty or ugliness in a building is a pretty subjective thing, then let us go with function.
Beauty is in the eyes of the observer. So I guess the question is, do a building’s observers find it beautiful?
That’s presupposing that we’re all aiming for all buildings to be beautiful…
Well, yes. Beauty is truth, and truth, beauty. Mankind should strive for beauty in all things.
That you’ve had to resort to quoting a Romantic poet demonstrates my point, I feel. This isn’t the 19th century.
Exactly. To return to the symmetry discussion, for example, I think artists/architects are not particularly interested in symmtery any more (and don’t find it beautiful) because culturally we don’t think of the human body as perfect and whole anymore nor nature as perfectly ordered (as they did in the Renaissance).
That you see acknowledgement of the past as a failing demonstrates mine.
Well said!!!
It’s possible to acknowledge it without pretending we’re in it.
Or that poetry from a past era is somehow a cite. Can I claim Dr. Seuss as a source for my belief that clothed cats are agents of the Devil? Or Babar as a source for my belief that eating bad mushrooms will turn you green and then kill you? Or either one for my belief that animals can talk?
I don’t believe we’re living in the past. However, I believe that we are descended from the past, and that we we must look backwards when we look forwards. Human culture is a continuum.
No, but if someone said something I agree with, and said it awfully pretty-like, can’t I use his words?
Of course. Would you say that the Schermerhorn example does this? Seems to me like it’s facing backwards, sat in a comfy chair, and falling asleep. With a ‘Best of Mozart’ CD quietly droning away on repeat.
Ironically what I like about non-modern architecture is its lack of truth. Most modern architecture is extremely honest, although sometimes pushes this so far as to be too pessimistic. Beauty, to disagree with Alessan, is actually lies.
For instance, the World War II monument in DC accurately portrays the brutal yet immense struggle of WW2, but it’s butt-ugly. If it were neo-classical like a lot of the other monuments it would still be as majestic but not as stark in its portrayals of the horrors of war and Dictatorial Collectivism (as someone else said on this message board, it’s a very even-handed monument, as rarely in war do you have monuments erected in the style of the loser.)
I think the point is that a liking for symmetry is deeply ingrained in human nature because of millions of years of evolution. It doesn’t really matter whether you consciously think the human body is perfect or not. There are other similar principles in most other disciplines and over thousands of years artists have through trial and error learned how to tailor their work to the innate structure of the human mind. Modernists have generally tried to overthrow these principles without really understanding how and why they evolved in the first place. Which is why their work often languish in neglect while the masterworks of earlier centuries still evoke delight and awe.
All this is fine for private works of art like novels, films, music etc. But when it comes to public architecture which is a part of the everyday lives of ordinary people there is a limit to the tolerance for buildings which many people find ugly and unpleasant. Hence the typically negative response to modern architecture in threads like these.
So basically you’re saying that human beings are hardwired to prefer the Schermerhornto Disney Hall? That there’s some objective reason why symmetrical buildings are superior?
If that were true we would expect to find symmetry dominating the visual arts. But it doesn’t. Does the lack of symmetry in Christina’s World make it an inferior painting?
I would argue that historically symmetrical buildings have been prefered because they’re simpler to build. You don’t need as much planning and in a pre-CAD world it’s easier to figure out whether or not they’ll stand up. But now that we have the capacity to build structures that are wildly assymetric, there’s no aesthetic reason we shouldn’t.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, but:
-
Nobody has shown this notion that “a liking for symmetry is deeply ingrained in human nature”, and there is plenty of evidence in the world to the contrary. (And anyway that was a side-discussion; asymmetry is not really a defining feature of modern architecture.)
-
Aesthetic appreciation can be learned (though nobody here seems to want to try).
-
I totally dispute that modern buildings disproportionately “languish in neglect”. (The neglected buildings from earlier periods are simply gone.)
-
There is no “typically negative response to modern archiecture”. There are the same 4 or 5 people flaunting their taste-preferences every time we do this thread, and the same reference to Kunstler. How many different people enjoy Disney Hall or Stata Center or Seattle Library every day?
But they SHOULDN’T, don’t you know … because liking modern architecture is unnatural. It goes against our fundamental human aesthetic impulses. People only pretend to like it out of perversity.
Obviously symmetry isn’t the only principle and not all symmetric buildings will be appealing. But in general I think people like a fair amount of symmetry and buildings which are strongly asymmetric like the “crumpled aluminium” one look ugly to most people. And yes this applies much more to architecture than painting. In general it applies to constructed objects: buildings, furniture, appliances etc where most people like at least a moderate amount of symmetry. Even in painting while the actual painting may be asymmetric usually the frame is not.
I believe that there are studies which show a human preference for symmetry when evaluating other faces or bodies. I don’t know of studies which show this extends to architecture but it doesn’t seem implausible. Certainly I have a strong preference for symmetry when it comes to most constructed objects like buildings, furniture etc.
As for the popularity of modern architecture I was referring more to other disciplines like music or where popularity is easier to measure. Honestly though I doubt that any modern architecture is popular compared with historical works like,say, the Taj Mahal or St Peter’s.
As for learning “aesthetic appreciation”, who do you presume has the authority to teach this appreciation. And what if ordinary people don’t want to bother with this “appreciation” why should they be forced to live with ugly buildings in their public spaces.
Sister Wendy.
They are free to protest as far as I know (but they probably don’t want to bother).