Maybe its just me but the art and style movements of the first part of the 20th century (up until the sixties) are somehow more profoundly beautiful (in different ways), wholesome and memorable.
I don't even know what the "modern styles" are supposed to be. Maybe the time of coherent stylistic movements with a well articulated aesthetic is gone?
You pretty much delineated the “modernism” era and the era we are currently stuck in, “post modernism”. From the construction of the Eiffel Tower to WW2, you get rough markers indicating that era.
A great book regarding art in particular is called “The Shock of the New”. There’s also an 8-part (nearly 8 hours long) TV version of it you can find on YouTube.
I sort of have a problem with "post modernism". I'm of the belief that as long as the culture continues to persist we will always be in the modern era.
I see the modern era as directly linked to the machine age.
My thinking is that at this stage design is so democratic and available to anyone that we are in the timeless era. I believe that 'post modernism" was invented by the second generation modernist and critiques as a way to create an artificial distinction.
I think now we have gotten to the point where modern aesthetics are driven by everything the modernists where dealing with the addition of code compliance.
The machine age has become so regulated as to dictate a WAG of 80% the design decisions.
I identify as a modernist.
I will check out the YouTube as I'm hungry for long form design content.
> I see the modern era as directly linked to the machine age.
Agreed. I'd qualify further and say the mechanical machine age was to modernism as the digital machine age is to post modernism. From steam to screens.
> we are in the timeless era.
Yes, often referred to as the end of history. From Wikipedia:
The idea of an "end of history" does not imply that nothing more will ever happen. Rather, what the postmodern sense of an end of history tends to signify is, in the words of contemporary historian Keith Jenkins, the idea that "the peculiar ways in which the past was historicized (was conceptualized in modernist, linear and essentially metanarrative forms) has now come to an end of its productive life; the all-encompassing 'experiment of modernity' ... is passing away into our postmodern condition".
> with the addition of code compliance.
That's actually really funny and an astute observation I've never considered. IT sort of aligns well with the delineations as well as things like building code came into existence starting in the 1950s mainly and have evolved to encompass more and more of the process. The managerial state.
I was part of the first generation of designers to have access to desktop publishing and all the entails. I ended up leveraging my computer aptitude to the point where design firms kept me in the technical realm.
The digital production realm has greatly informed my design process thinking. Where I use "digital production" efficiency techniques in the analog world.
I see my place as a designer as the last generation that is aware to the analog world and able to use digital tools.
My hope is that I get a good 15-20 more years of output.
I can tell that we have very similar point of views and I would love to talk more about this area.
I see each new design aesthetic as embedding a new feature in the overall design constraints.
25 already I had a teacher telling we were in post modernism. I also never grasped the definition of it, if it has any. Can we really be that long in a same "era"?
Yeah I hear ya. I think it’s generally a lot of notions. The general zeitgeist and a bunch of other of Heidegger’s ideas and those he influenced.
I do think there are real distinctions though. You see it profoundly in literature. Modernist literature has many different concerns in terms of structure, narrative, form, etc. Postmodernist writing just completely deconstructed it and reformed it.
And I think that’s a big part of postmodernism - deconstruction. You see it in so many artifacts, social systems, and day-to-day life.
Saying that I think we are in more of a hyper modern world today which is an extension of post but even more broken down and individualized and virtual. A works where we have multiple identities and exist in multiple places at once in different forms.
Funnily enough I remember when deconstructionists hit Architecture. My school had a wild deconstructionists architecture department. Led by Larry Mitnick.
I have a friend in the program whose dad was a "Post-Modernist" Yalie architect horrified at what his son was calling architecture. Eventually he went to Yale like his dad...
I prefer to think of that period as deeper understanding of the patterns that humans in a society must endure while living in a totally built world.
I still remember him lecture me on up and down during a summer program in 11th grade. He also told me I should spend my life studying corners. Still inspiring words to this day but I knew I just had to be an industrial designer.
I have to give gratitude to HN for providing me a context to share my thoughts on deconstructionist and design.
This I'm sure drives my resistance to new terms. I see the simplicity of Modernism as the least number of rules. This provides the designer to conceive of the manufactured through the required parameters.
I wish architects could design decent residential houses at scale but alas, costs are often the overriding driver. Even still, it seems like many houses are designed from the inside out today.
Some of the ways post modernism has influenced these kids of things is via the new materials available. So we end up with a lot of things that are approximations of modernist and earlier things. Like doors and windows. A modern cheap door that is stamped plastic and filled with styrofoam is made to look like the way we remember doors looking. It may have fake wood grain to imply it's wood like doors were always made. It will have styles and rails like classic doors but they serve no purpose other than to look approximately like an actual door looked like.
Or corners, as you pointed out. A stone corner would use coining to achieve structural integrity. But now a stone veneer wall approximates that technique because we just think that's how stone walls should look. It just results in everything looking very inauthentic and I think that has an effect on us. Like comparing a real European town built hundreds of years ago to something that imitates one at a theme park. Uncanny valley territory.
Architects don't see or touch normal residential houses. They only get called in to work on high end custom homes.
Normal residential homes are designed and built by companies that are devoid of real architects and engineers, and specialize in doing things as cheaply and quickly as inhumanly possible and at mass scales. Production building companies are totally happy to break as many laws as they can in the process, so long as they don't get caught, or the fines are sufficiently low enough that it just becomes just a part of doing business.
An interesting question is whether the need for sustainable buildings will ever create an authentic solarpunk aesthetic. I notice various new apartment buildings now featuring green glasses (e.g. in balconies) for that entirely fake feel good factor. On the other hand new materials for insulation, new (old) techniques for cooling etc. certainly give enough ideas. There is even a new european bauhaus :-) [1]
What is funny about this is that ruthless efficiency in nature creates beauty. Ruthless efficiency in human development pushes the inefficiencies into another unmeasured cubicle.
I hope you enjoy it. It’s really great imo. I was stuck in the hospital for a couple weeks when I read the book. It’s remarkable and Robert Hughes was one of those rare critics that was a sort of teacher and philosopher who loved the things he was in task of critically analyzing.
For architecture, modern style seems to be focused on maintaining resale value and/or blending in, depending on whether we're talking about residential or commercial spaces. Post-modern commercialism as a style?
I wonder if this has to do with the fact that people don't live their whole lives in one place as often anymore.
If I think I'm going to live out the rest of my life in my house, I'll want to change it to suit my taste, maybe even multiple times if new artistic styles crop up and I like them better.
If I'm expecting I might need to sell the house in the next five years, I'm going to prioritize having the widest possible potential buyer pool.
What puzzles me (being a casual observer) is that post-modern commercialism does not seem to affect all design domains equally. I would say that e.g. current automobile design seems to have still fairly identifiable style propositions (whether I like them being a different matter).
The forces of safety/market standards that an automobile must conform to is combining with capabilities of the materials available.
This makes the easiest/safest answers pretty standard. Automobiles combine many disciplines which makes for long development time lines. This further reduces options.
Multi-dwelling housing above 5 units will also show this same phenomenon.
Coffee makers could be very dynamic market due to fewer dependencies.
I wouldn't say sixties necessarily, but I'd agree.
It toned down the glorious excess of the belle epoque, expanded away from classical tradition, but still preserved a timeless sense of balance and harmony. New technological advances also opened up the building, they could become light, dainty.
I don't even know what the "modern styles" are supposed to be. Maybe the time of coherent stylistic movements with a well articulated aesthetic is gone?