Modernity

[adailide]

It can be said that the Modern movement in the early twentieth century can be defined as a method of thinking that breaks away from history, uses self-referential signs, shows progressive expression of a building by movement and has a notion of volume.

With that said "Modern Living" is something of the past, we have progressed past the overused word Modern.

The real question of this forum should be what do we call living today and what are the aspects of it?

[aamp]

This is a really good topic. where was that quote from? i missed it.

Normally i'd want to be a smart a$$ about my comments on modernity, but this is serious business, and Im interested in getting to the bottom of how i feel for this topic.

Im going to be rhetoric, and you can join me in this and maybe we arrive at an answer to what we call our current point of being.

First are modernity, modern, and modern period / style, the same things? I think it's simply past, present, and present continuous tenses of the same word, or world. I don't agree that modernity breaks away from history, as it was part of history, and the moderne period is over, just as the sixties are over and the MOD era. But influences still remain, so therefore we still see IIT students in chicago continually recalling the ghosts of Mies vanderohe, and new furniture designers, all of them, have at least one Modern line of products.

But i have trouble explaining the idea of a modern design versus a contemporary design to my students, they, like me fall short at the visualization point. I think personally that modern living means, like the period that we are attempting to avoid being stuck in the past, and avoid living by formal presumptions in design. We're all Roarkians at heart in this topic, and we feel for his pain. But, did the modern period die out with Phillip Johnson? IF so, then how is contemporary different if you can still design a building in the modern style? Ok, now my head hurts... time for you to respond and feel free to use rhetoric...

by the way go tigers...me and my grandma are huge fans.

[adailide]

The quote is mine and was from a paper on the modern movement in architecture I did a few years back during my Masters studies.

[aamp]

none the less, i still believe that maybe at the time, most definitely in fact, the modernists were breaking away from history, but to say the same is true today fights the notion that the modernist period has ended.

[adailide]

The truth about many "modern" architects was that they did reference history, even though that style of architecture called for a break in history with its self-referential nature, looking onto itself for answers. Le Corbusier's use of the golden section and human scale ordering shows this is true.

A quote of Mies van der Rohe which is commonly misused, “Less is More”, the truth and purity is accomplished by the lack of that which is not essential.

I do believe that "modernism" was a style and you can not continue to call new styles modern because it is just not true.

Contemporary styles that immulate modern architecture do not follow the modernist movement, unless they are not immulating the style and are following the RULES of modernism, but history is hard to avoid.

[aamp]

Mies' statement is normally mis=interpreted as minimalism, good point. I always look to the modernists as adjusting to the attitude of the times. the industrial sense to their work, using only what was needed, although, with clever placement as they had, the architecture became something of a beautiful piece.

I feel still though, that saying it's a step away from history could be correct if referring to it, at the time it happened...maybe I was misunderstanding the tense or time period we were dealing with..saying that today we would include that in our historical references, but then, yes i agree, it was a huge break from what was being done...then the postmodernists were another story all together, one id rather not get into as i don't much care for it, but i'll amuse theories too.

Corbu's using of the Golden section, and classical mathmatical placement of, for example, villa savoie, shows me that they didn't totally turn their back on what was done before...

[lekizz]

You must realise of by now, adailide, that there is a difference between "Modern" (capital M), "Modernist" and 'modern'. 'modern' (small m) is simply an adjective in the English language that describes anything contemporary to our times. "Modern" and "Modernist" would be more correct for the architectural movement of the 1920's and '30's around Le Corbusier and Mies.

Though people have tried it, it is impossible to identify a modern (small m) movement while we are still ourselves living within it. That will be the job of architectural commentators in 20 years time

And even during the exciting years of the 1920's there were other paths taken by architecture that embraced decoration, expressionism and non-Modernist concepts but received (and sought) less public acclaim, therefore have been conveniently airbrushed from architectural history.

[johnhad]

The idea of modern should be relabled as functional architecture. McMansions are labeled victorian, french provincial, colonial, etc. In most cases, the finishes of the home is denoting the stye.

To me Modernist homes involve more than finishes into consideration. Although I see a number of "stock" plans available for modernist homes, A true modern home works to maximize the living opportunities of it's occupants.

The McMansions have formal living rooms (once called parlor and used for funerals, is that an irony) and take little into consideration other than space.

A home needs to be comfortable, affordable, durable and energy efficient today.

The modernist plans I see on the web are comfortable - at least to me, but the glass eliminates enery efficiency (unless the house is postioned correctly to take advantage of the sun) and affordability as to the construction cost of the home.

I am taking the approach in design where the home I design are functional in the respect to how people live and how they would like to live their lives.

Both modernists and the McMansion collections are designed to pigeon toe us into a sedentary existance.

A functional home should be designed to support our joys and creativity instead they are designed so we can cook and eat while watching television.

I am not blaming the architecturalworld, developers or builders for the sedentary designs that are the norm. The unconciousness of the US people demanding to be entertained by television.

Television is great for giving home improvement ideas (HGTV) and life improvement (Jerry Springer, Maury and Oprah - they really are all the same) information. However, if people don't wake up from the unconcious existance most home will be centered around television.

So with this said - modernism is bringing more functional living to the table, however as long as homes are designed around movie screen televisions our home will never be functional, much like the guests on the Springer show.

[bigmodern]

My definition of "modern", as it pertains to design, is your intention to make your creation more useful while cutting down the superfluous. I think modern means progress, in form and function. I enjoy architecture where every detail is not wasted, and has a purpose, whether aesthetic or practical. www.bigmodern.com

[lekizz]

Then your definition of 'modern' is at least 80 years old, bigmodern, Le Corbusier and Mies would have had exactly the same definition in the 1920's. I hope things have moved forward since then

[johnhad]

Modern homes need to be designed to accommodate the occupants and their lifestyle they desire to live. Most homes are designed to fulfill nominal living activities. Minimizing the quantity of space is only the first element. More importantly is the maximizing the use of the space.

It is easy to design a house around watching television or the more intellectual pursuit such as reading. The reality is our “modern” day lives are hectic and cluttered. Our homes are designed for us to observe life. Television, reading rooms and other sedentary spaces are key elements to most homes built and designed.today (modernist homes included).

I offer a line of homes labeled Core House: modern living homes. These homes take the activities and lifestyles people would like to have and design around them.

One Core House has a weaving loft, another has an activity center to do crafts, scrap booking, drawing or other fun stuff. These homes are designed for people to fulfill their lives with what they would like to be able to do.

Most people are not conscious of the activities they would like to include in their homes because their present home does not allow them to be conscious of their desires. Television is the modern dysfunctional norm. I believe life should be much more than observing life either in print or electronic media. Visit www.coremodern.com for Core House philosophy and thoughts.


[www.coremodern.com] [/url]