well thats an angry and populist article, but i see where it's coming from. It's pretty telling how easy the authors mix up modernism and postmodernism imo. I think it's easier to understand in the historical context, for example how classic pre-WWII modernism was pretty human-orniented (how dare they just write off Gropius as a misanthrope) and how popular housing projects from that era still are. And how after WWII you couldn't just start to rebuild everything in a traditional style, as just about every system that shaped that old world had catastrophically failed. I totally get sentiment of just trying to reinvent everything, mocking of the past, and doing away with all kinds of lavish facades to hide behind. That being said i completely agree with the authors about most things that were put up after like the 80s of so. These fucking soulless mallscapes everywhere, and still so much empty spaces and fear of density.
hi_i_post wrote
well thats an angry and populist article, but i see where it's coming from. It's pretty telling how easy the authors mix up modernism and postmodernism imo. I think it's easier to understand in the historical context, for example how classic pre-WWII modernism was pretty human-orniented (how dare they just write off Gropius as a misanthrope) and how popular housing projects from that era still are. And how after WWII you couldn't just start to rebuild everything in a traditional style, as just about every system that shaped that old world had catastrophically failed. I totally get sentiment of just trying to reinvent everything, mocking of the past, and doing away with all kinds of lavish facades to hide behind. That being said i completely agree with the authors about most things that were put up after like the 80s of so. These fucking soulless mallscapes everywhere, and still so much empty spaces and fear of density.