The Second World War intensified and magnified debates that had been current amongst architects since 1914. It also marks a fault line in English architectural history. Architects, supported by politicians, decisively moved away from tradition and sought to create a new language of architecture. Some loved it, but unfortunately the public grew to hate it.
This is a part of the lecture series, English Architecture: Into the Modern World.
Simon Thurley’s four lectures complete his survey of English building from the Saxons to the present day. The theme is modernity and tradition. This is the story of how British architects struggled to find an architectural language that met the needs and aspirations of a society in a state of rapid change while negotiating deep and popular traditions and beliefs. Two World Wars shook the nation producing the seemingly contradictory emotions of nostalgia and progress. Out of this has come the world in which we live.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/coming-to-terms-with-modern-times-english-architecture-in-the-post-war-era
Gresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently nearly 1,500 lectures free to access or download from the website.
Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gresham-College/14011689941
Gresham College
Source
modern art is rubbish, you could put a shit on a can named it artist's shit an it could be called art google;piero manzini
An ignorant and uneducated rant by the former two comments.
So regrettable that the first comment is so unscholarly and crude, even if there is a grain of truth in it.
I love the modernist and brutalist expressions. I find them refreshing and creative. The classical oriented stuff often looks busy and forced, not to mention predictable to the point of boring.
Modern architecture is lazy architecture, souless, boring and depessing just concrete and glass boxes. I wish we could go back to beautiful buildings which enhanced life and brought us down.
Should have said not brought us down.
Some modern and post-modern architecture does retain a sense of beauty, style and form born more of inspiration than function. The Guggenheim is a good example of this. Frank Gehry's Walt Disney Concert Hall is another good example, as is his Bilbao Guggenheim. The Sydney Opera House is a good example. But excessive use of concrete is deplorable as is "architecture" that is reducible entirely to boxes. Architecture that is reducible only to shelter for various activities doesn't require an architect at all. And as noted by the lecturer, much of modern architecture is so dysfunctional that it fails its most basic function as shelter.
1974 IM Pei addition to the National Gallery in Washinton DC has to be the first or second best museum of the post war era and has stood the test of time. it also a perfect complement to main building joined underground underground.
How right Kenneth Clarke was about the future of civilisation. I have no doubt at all that the computer could end up keeping the multitude subjected to the will of a small number. And I don't have a problem with the concept of genius either. Some people are more talented/gifted than others. Some are geniuses, some are not. London remains the greatest city in the world because it has so many amazing buildings they couldn't destroy enough to wreck the city totally. Because of that, many treasures still exist. I am not a style-bigot. There are a few great modern buildings, but apart from issues of taste, modernist buildings tend to decay and self-destruct in a very short time. They were not built to last. I love Liverpool's Roman Catholic Cathedral, but even that had major issues with the fabric of the building and needed vast sums spent on it. That would not have happened if Lutyens had finished his version.
Great lecture, thanks!
Modern architecture is redefining all the rules of architecture and therefore is prone to mistakes. Over time the architects will appreciate what is actually beautiful because of the longevity of the work. Beauty is not relative but it's rules are not written so they can only stand in the monuments that people love for hundreds and thousands of years. We must discover the true laws of beauty. The are not easy to find but it is obvious when they have been violated. Just like haphazardly pounding a keyboard only produces an unbearable noise. Haphazard design that try's to break all the rules is unbearable. No not all buildings need to be classical there are many stiles that are beautiful.
There is one more point that I would point out by example. I don't particularly like gothic architecture however it is absolutely stunning. The details and the craftsmanship will stop me in my tracks and stand in amazement for as long as I have time to look at it. Modern architecture has never stopped me except for the extreme height of the building. Why? I don't particularly like either style. It is obvious to the most casual observer that the skilled man hours of the craftsman that built the Gothic monuments far exceeds the grunt labor that it takes to build a modern building. Modernism has done away with carvers stonemasons and plasterers those trades don't even exist anymore but we stand up in absolute amazement when we see a carving that took thousands of hours to create. And those thousands of hours are validated by the hundreds of people every day that appreciate that building for hundreds of years. Part of what I appreciate in a building is the spirit of the craftsman that built it. Modern architecture is devoid of any craftsmen except for the occasional modern sculpture that took an unskilled laborer to create. It maybe was finished by a craftsman but there is no fine detail to any of their works. This leaves the public unimpressed.