The sass this man has in his voice and use of words can only be generated by such disdain and hatred of the modernist movement. I love it, this man is a treasure.
A combative and perceptive speaker, I'm glad to have discovered Prof James Stevens Curl.He is a necessary dissenting voice amid the cultural complacency of architecture and the visual arts.
This is entirely wonderful. And though I won't live to see a return of beautiful architecture as a norm, I'm delighted that people who share my tastes and my loathings are around. I didn't think they were allowed to become architects, however.
The question is: What is beautiful? In the question auf old fashioned housing blocks, with ornate facades, but awfully small windows, it can be answered the following way: There is a lack of Light, Sun and air and you are forced to walk around the block next to the dirty street. The facade, while being ornate, lies to human. Is there such a thing as human scale present in a building that fails to provide air and light exposure? No! Is there any sign of human scale in a building that is overly oranate and oppresses the human trough the lack of reference to the human body? No! It concludes a deeply ugly building that disrespects the human what fooling people with its superficial „beauty“. In a lout world the therms of „less but better“ and „adequate architecture“ becomes more important than before. It’s like an supermodel with a personality beyond anything bad that can be mentioned publicly here without to begin to swear.
@@M.A.K.666 Abusus non tollit usum. Sure, it is not enough to have JUST a beautiful façade, and an ugly inside in the buildings. In general, we should strive for more beauty, be it the overall architecture of the house, the interior, in the understanding of space, colors, city planning, and in other areas: music, the fine arts etc. And this aesthetic beauty is allegorically related to the inner beauty of the soul which we should strive for most. And as Augustine said: beauty in this world us a relfection of the trinitarian God who is the paradigm of beauty.
@@rn9940 I was just taking about housing blocks for example in Berlin. The facade seemed more important than hygiene in the sens it was addressed through architecture after WW2. Of course the prime examples will always be beautiful, but what did that style mean for “common” people.
@@rn9940 For example Richard Neutras Buildings do not feature any Ornaments. Is this bad for the human health? Is this ugly? No. I believe that there is a certain variable in good architecture and it closely connected to good concept and execution. We don’t need ornaments without any function. We need better housing
Brilliant Conference! Let's hope people start using their eyes to see and less their ears...dogmatism brought us a desert and prisons ("carceri"!) , it is time to heal...
Love listening to this talk as ot really resonates with my soul. I have visited Europe from Australia a couple of times and seeing historical architecture was a highlight of my visit. I studied Fine Arts and can remember lectures on Le Corbusier being pushed down our throats as a significant influence with modern architecture. It never sat well with me and I am so glad I am not alone in my thinking. I try to avoid big modern cities as I find them so uninviting.So glad I live in a rural country environment and wouldn't swap my peaceful country landscape with anything bog modern cities have to offer .We have built our own home based on earlier historical design.Australia has a horrible attachment to modern dehumanising home environments. Modernism on Art, furnishings music etc look cheap and tacky with little to no aesthetic appeal. Our consciousness on beaty is being challenged.Where is it all heading?
I really really really dislike modern architecture and agree that the ideal of architecture is “stability”. But one point of its practicality is that it can easily be demolished to make room for new buildings. A new classicism needs to incorporate stability, geometry, verticality and a “heavenliness” without necessarily inducing a sense of millennial permanence.
That said, no one can deny that the Vietnam Memorial is the most emotionally moving, most profound memorial in Washington DC. Modern minimalist architecture has a long history too, not in this country but in Asia, notably Zen Buddhism.
One of the worst things to happen in the world... The structures are so ugly and depressing that few want to take the trouble and expense to maintain them. They are a blight wherever they exist and the product of architectural hubris.
Years ago I came across a book in our local library on the history of architecture and in it the famous Bauhaus architects were referred to as members of the "Glass Circle." This was apparently a name given to them because of their transparency. They were clearly interested in in a bizarre ideology that they hoped would get them commissions. When they started out they approached dictators and fascists to convince them that their modern ideas were the way to go. They didn't approach democratic leaders as they figured democratic leaders wouldn't buy into their ugly ideas. Anyway, the library has shrunk their collection and the book vanished. So I will be ordering James Steven Curl's book very soon. Thanks so much for the video. It gives me hope.
Pinnacle : Martin Luther King memorial in Boston ….looks like a monstrous collection of frozen dog poopies rendered in bronze.Contempt of people in particular .
Many timely criticisms underpinned by a professional historian's grasp of the fine-grain. I did, however, visit Poundbury with an open mind and thought it was an architectural morgue, inert and static.
I would agree, I dont really like poundbury for its mostly carcentric design, but at least it's a step forward. It is very easy for modernists to critisize newly built traditional buildings, cause they are fighting with an exception, but not with the whole classical institution, which was destroyed by them. Even poundburie is better then contemporary architect's proposals and they should not be ashamed for being traditional. However, we people standing on more classical side of aesthetical view are obliged to harshly critisize and improve traditional architects. My hometown Batumi (georgia) has very interesting newly built pseudo classical buildings, some of them are terrible, some are quite pleasant and whenever my modernists professors critisize them in my university, they are acting like 70 years of architectural degradation has not happened. It's a way for them to collapse experimental enviroment where classicism or traditionalism became acceptable, therefore started evolving and getting better, which is unaccaptable for current architectural establishment.
Horisontal is rest or a symbol of death, when buired its in a Coffin that is horisontal in its placement. vertical is balansed and Jesus on the cross is vertical and ofcourse when you take away the arabesk, the flow is also a symbol of death bequse its not there to represent life.
Architecture is often subject to a battle, competition, or ever war, amongst “the upright”, “the wicked” and “the downcast”, and “the introverted” with their respective economies of capital, education and professionalism. This is why adherence, building codes, covenants, continuing education, licensure and zoning laws should be prioritised. Classicism and Modernism poses their respective beauty, stability and utility and their proper context. “Bad” architecture may come from “sullied” architects who were victim to poor choices, genes and environment or even bad clients. Long live, the bourgeois, classical architecture with its ornamentation and, when the economy is leaner, the stark, straightforwardness of well-designed modernism, each, in their proper context and season, and most importantly, to the comfort and providence of the building user.
Words such as beauty, good or bad as qualifying adjectives for Architecture should not be employed so lightly. What end goal are you judging it against? if it's simply against the commonly accepted taste, you might easily fall pray to dogmatic consumerism. The end goal is to enhance the well being of people living in those building, and in the city as whole. Modernism has no proof to show in that regard, Classicism does. But! I also refute your point about class or genes. Vernacular Architecture all around the world, in variant degrees of sophistication has also proved to be life supporting, aka to be "Good" Architecture.
I wish more people were “fanatical anti-communist” and I loved how he very clearly showed the connection of nazi or ‘national socialists’ and Mussolini’s extreme left tendencies. Not many people seem to be able to grasp that fascism/nazism are both different flavours of the same old socialist brand
I can only hope to, one day, be as good with words as this man is. The amount of disdain he conveys is just admirable.
The sass this man has in his voice and use of words can only be generated by such disdain and hatred of the modernist movement. I love it, this man is a treasure.
A combative and perceptive speaker, I'm glad to have discovered Prof James Stevens Curl.He is a necessary dissenting voice amid the cultural complacency of architecture and the visual arts.
This is entirely wonderful. And though I won't live to see a return of beautiful architecture as a norm, I'm delighted that people who share my tastes and my loathings are around. I didn't think they were allowed to become architects, however.
The question is: What is beautiful? In the question auf old fashioned housing blocks, with ornate facades, but awfully small windows, it can be answered the following way: There is a lack of Light, Sun and air and you are forced to walk around the block next to the dirty street. The facade, while being ornate, lies to human. Is there such a thing as human scale present in a building that fails to provide air and light exposure? No! Is there any sign of human scale in a building that is overly oranate and oppresses the human trough the lack of reference to the human body? No!
It concludes a deeply ugly building that disrespects the human what fooling people with its superficial „beauty“.
In a lout world the therms of „less but better“ and „adequate architecture“ becomes more important than before.
It’s like an supermodel with a personality beyond anything bad that can be mentioned publicly here without to begin to swear.
@@M.A.K.666
Abusus non tollit usum.
Sure, it is not enough to have JUST a beautiful façade, and an ugly inside in the buildings.
In general, we should strive for more beauty, be it the overall architecture of the house, the interior, in the understanding of space, colors, city planning, and in other areas: music, the fine arts etc.
And this aesthetic beauty is allegorically related to the inner beauty of the soul which we should strive for most. And as Augustine said: beauty in this world us a relfection of the trinitarian God who is the paradigm of beauty.
@@rn9940 I was just taking about housing blocks for example in Berlin. The facade seemed more important than hygiene in the sens it was addressed through architecture after WW2. Of course the prime examples will always be beautiful, but what did that style mean for “common” people.
@@rn9940 For example Richard Neutras Buildings do not feature any Ornaments. Is this bad for the human health? Is this ugly? No.
I believe that there is a certain variable in good architecture and it closely connected to good concept and execution. We don’t need ornaments without any function. We need better housing
This should be shown in high school.
Modernist architectures are like Borg from Star Trek. They transform every beautiful landscape into colourless cubes.
Brilliant Conference! Let's hope people start using their eyes to see and less their ears...dogmatism brought us a desert and prisons ("carceri"!) , it is time to heal...
Love listening to this talk as ot really resonates with my soul. I have visited Europe from Australia a couple of times and seeing historical architecture was a highlight of my visit. I studied Fine Arts and can remember lectures on Le Corbusier being pushed down our throats as a significant influence with modern architecture. It never sat well with me and I am so glad I am not alone in my thinking. I try to avoid big modern cities as I find them so uninviting.So glad I live in a rural country environment and wouldn't swap my peaceful country landscape with anything bog modern cities have to offer
.We have built our own home based on earlier historical design.Australia has a horrible attachment to modern dehumanising home environments. Modernism on Art, furnishings music etc look cheap and tacky with little to no aesthetic appeal. Our consciousness on beaty is being challenged.Where is it all heading?
I really really really dislike modern architecture and agree that the ideal of architecture is “stability”. But one point of its practicality is that it can easily be demolished to make room for new buildings. A new classicism needs to incorporate stability, geometry, verticality and a “heavenliness” without necessarily inducing a sense of millennial permanence.
That said, no one can deny that the Vietnam Memorial is the most emotionally moving, most profound memorial in Washington DC. Modern minimalist architecture has a long history too, not in this country but in Asia, notably Zen Buddhism.
Classicism is dystopia
One of the worst things to happen in the world... The structures are so ugly and depressing that few want to take the trouble and expense to maintain them. They are a blight wherever they exist and the product of architectural hubris.
It become depressing when it’s done wrong.
Many are designed without maintenance in mind.
very funny intro! and i really love the aggressiveness of Mr. Stevens!
Years ago I came across a book in our local library on the history of architecture and in it the famous Bauhaus architects were referred to as members of the "Glass Circle." This was apparently a name given to them because of their transparency. They were clearly interested in in a bizarre ideology that they hoped would get them commissions. When they started out they approached dictators and fascists to convince them that their modern ideas were the way to go. They didn't approach democratic leaders as they figured democratic leaders wouldn't buy into their ugly ideas. Anyway, the library has shrunk their collection and the book vanished. So I will be ordering James Steven Curl's book very soon. Thanks so much for the video. It gives me hope.
Pinnacle : Martin Luther King memorial in Boston ….looks like a monstrous collection of frozen dog poopies rendered in bronze.Contempt of people in particular .
Many timely criticisms underpinned by a professional historian's grasp of the fine-grain. I did, however, visit Poundbury with an open mind and thought it was an architectural morgue, inert and static.
I would agree, I dont really like poundbury for its mostly carcentric design, but at least it's a step forward. It is very easy for modernists to critisize newly built traditional buildings, cause they are fighting with an exception, but not with the whole classical institution, which was destroyed by them. Even poundburie is better then contemporary architect's proposals and they should not be ashamed for being traditional. However, we people standing on more classical side of aesthetical view are obliged to harshly critisize and improve traditional architects. My hometown Batumi (georgia) has very interesting newly built pseudo classical buildings, some of them are terrible, some are quite pleasant and whenever my modernists professors critisize them in my university, they are acting like 70 years of architectural degradation has not happened. It's a way for them to collapse experimental enviroment where classicism or traditionalism became acceptable, therefore started evolving and getting better, which is unaccaptable for current architectural establishment.
Horisontal is rest or a symbol of death, when buired its in a Coffin that is horisontal in its placement. vertical is balansed and Jesus on the cross is vertical and ofcourse when you take away the arabesk, the flow is also a symbol of death bequse its not there to represent life.
Architecture is often subject to a battle, competition, or ever war, amongst “the upright”, “the wicked” and “the downcast”, and “the introverted” with their respective economies of capital, education and professionalism. This is why adherence, building codes, covenants, continuing education, licensure and zoning laws should be prioritised.
Classicism and Modernism poses their respective beauty, stability and utility and their proper context. “Bad” architecture may come from “sullied” architects who were victim to poor choices, genes and environment or even bad clients.
Long live, the bourgeois, classical architecture with its ornamentation and, when the economy is leaner, the stark, straightforwardness of well-designed modernism, each, in their proper context and season, and most importantly, to the comfort and providence of the building user.
Miles Battle I’m not too informed about architecture. Could you tell me a little more about the upright, wicked, downcast, and introverted?
Words such as beauty, good or bad as qualifying adjectives for Architecture should not be employed so lightly. What end goal are you judging it against? if it's simply against the commonly accepted taste, you might easily fall pray to dogmatic consumerism. The end goal is to enhance the well being of people living in those building, and in the city as whole. Modernism has no proof to show in that regard, Classicism does. But! I also refute your point about class or genes. Vernacular Architecture all around the world, in variant degrees of sophistication has also proved to be life supporting, aka to be "Good" Architecture.
@@Malmsam Beauty is objective, modern architecture is ugly.
Great lecture, thank you!! #TRUMP2020 #Infowars #Artemis
look up the bonwit teller building and trump. trump is a barbarian.
Well, his fanatical anti-communism clouds his history a bit sadly. Besides that, I like all digs against the Bauhaus and its legacy.
Bauhaus and Communism are basically the same. lol
I mean, communism is evil, so...
Being "fanatically anti-communist" is exactly like being "fanatically anti-Nazi"; in other words: a very good thing to be.
Fantastic lecture from a switched on and erudite architectural historian.
I wish more people were “fanatical anti-communist” and I loved how he very clearly showed the connection of nazi or ‘national socialists’ and Mussolini’s extreme left tendencies. Not many people seem to be able to grasp that fascism/nazism are both different flavours of the same old socialist brand