continuing on with the months of thinking about post-modernism and the conditional reactions to the modernist shift at the turn of the 20th century. i stand on the side of modernism, believing the utopian ideals were manipulated and never expressed in fullness - which culminated in the defiance of the purposes hoped for in the manifestos declared during the modernist movement. breaking apart a whole for its parts does not create something greater.... nonetheless these are thoughts of the early morning while enjoying mass transit:
the modernist movement torn down the past because it failed to function or create a city/homestead that represented equality, health, + wealth - and no, not wealth the way post-modernists [and everyone else] defines it: income/consumption and lots of it, wealth was meant to be measured in happiness, which was not achieved by objects themselves, their mere existence/presence, but rather their utils, how they affected the order and the abilities to live effectively [modernists believed they were breaking with the past by starting fresh, but they didn't fully comprehend the intensity and radicalness that would be necessary in order to achieve such ideals in mass culture while working against the mass propaganda, or perhaps they were unaware of the propaganda rising and sneaky pieces of the ideals in order to create a quilt for the masses to sleep, unaware, under]. Modernist may have failed but Le Corbusier, and even earlier modernist, FLR + E.Howard whom may have differed from the contemporary definition of a 'modernist', wanted a life that was beautiful by nature which meant effectively dispersing wealth to all - each in their own way: tower/broadacre/town+country but they tried/purposed/succeeded in putting ideals out there because what they had in front of them was not working - this is why people still look to this movement, for better or worse, because people are fascinated by individuals who have tried to do something in response to crisis, to try and
deal. criticize if you must, but planning today [not necessarily
city planning but authoritative planning, generally speaking] is segregating society, a polarization with the majority failing, and modernism is being faulted, despite nearly 50 years after the branch of post-modernism began to appear. the ideals of modernism were not meant for us, they had concrete order and often were mere representations of how equal + healthy life could be if we all tried a bit hard to achieve something that was not being accommodated by the past. these ideals were not meant for us to pick apart.
*an interesting note:
Utopia=no place, so when people use the term they realize the limitations of never being able to achieve such a place but that does not, and should not, stop one from dreaming and trying to achieve a place of equality.
modern means living with, not against, nature. realizing the importance of nature and our ability to survive because of it. modern architecture, all architecture, should become apart of its landscape and adapt accordingly, giving back in any way possible. FLW falling water is an easy example.. and while i dislike the vast majority of skyscrapers [mainly because of the necessary use of the elevator which i firmly believe is the ultimate waste of energy] the design of these buildings are a response to the small amount of land in a given area, e.g. nyc, and the high demand for living quarters. architecture shouldn't live in a city, a city [i.e. people, because really what is a city without its inhabitants?] should live in its architecture and the building should be more than just a place to rest.
