The perfectly crystalline squares and rectangles of ultra modern architecture make no special sense in human or in structural terms. They only express the rigid desires and fanatsies which people have when they get too preoccupied with systems and the means of theire production.
Christopher Alexander
A Pattern Language
I found this while I was in my instructor’s office (Regards Mr. Buzid), I couldn’t read much of the writing before and after to know whether the author quoted that or not. Anyway, I find that a bit exagerated in terms of criticising Modernism in a way or another; Modernism is rigid in terms of context, and too simple (or shall I say boring) to one’s taste, for example If I show Mies’ Farnsworth House to some Domes-and-Castle-like-villas fan he’d probably mock it’s simplicity and rigidity rather than understand its revolutionary style and the architectural development caused by such attempts. To that it’s ‘anyone could’ve made a rectangle’, but that’s totally wrong to me; it’s purity, it’s out-of-the-box, it’s a contribution to the development of architecture. Can I say that ‘Perfectly Crystalline squares and rectangles’ are a result of a cultivated approach to simplicity?
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Dull
- » Last Registration
- BROWSE / IN I Came Across..
- « Pay To Play ‘Dead’
- » The Coffee Table Book
COMMENTS / 4 COMMENTS
wala2 said on Jan 30 07 at 11:40 pmhi haitham …i think that the transformation point is the critical point in everything not only in architecture…but the thing which is not approve when someone give a critique in mockery … cause the taste is not one of two (right or wrong) NO.. its created from the environment ,teaching..ect.) so it depends on the culture so we shouldnt gibe on others taste even if we dont like it …the good thing we can do is to develop it , cause this is the reason our existence , what do think?
nashwa said on Jan 31 07 at 11:09 amyes, i think so…but what i wanna say that squares and rectangles are the original shapes,so i think it should be respected…crystalline shapes once they r used it reflects feelings of transparency and purity…and if it comes to me,i’d realy love living in such a place..but the problem will be that i should find an unoccupied island first then have that place there
Haitham said on Jan 31 07 at 4:44 pmHey wala2, the author wasn’t mocking modernism or Mies, he was referring to the individuality of modern architecture. I asked Mr. Buzid about it, and according to him, the quote refers to the weak relation between modern architecture, and the surrounding nature.
Speaking from my perspective what I said is true to some extent, but on a wider scale, an urban one, that is an irrelevant issue; the point is simply the pattern used to form the urban fabric, he was referring to the urban langauge rather the architectural style.
Hey Muhandise! Hmm, isn’t the square artificial? Gotcha!
nashwa said on Feb 01 07 at 9:55 amoooops…yup ur right
ADD YOUR COMMENT
