{"id":130493,"date":"2019-07-05T03:49:05","date_gmt":"2019-07-05T03:49:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/?p=130493"},"modified":"2019-07-05T03:49:08","modified_gmt":"2019-07-05T03:49:08","slug":"has-modern-architecture-failed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/?p=130493","title":{"rendered":"Has Modern Architecture Failed?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Spahic Omer<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the midst of all the developments associated with the emergence of modernity, architecture as a system of thought and a physical framework that outlines and frames human lives, was significantly affected. That was due to a tenet according to which changes in social systems, in cultural maturity and in peoples way of thinking and their beliefs, inevitably lead to changes in ways people perceive, build and experience their built environment. The former is the cause, the latter the effect. Moreover, the latter represents an embodiment and physical expression of the former. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hence, the various domains of peoples built environment denote a depository of frozen ideas, initiatives and solutions, as well as a succession of exhibition pathways where the level of peoples artistic and architectural consciousness and creativity has been immortalised and permanently displayed. Architecture is an open book about people, affirming their identity and their cultural together with civilisational proclivities and achievements. Developments in architecture are symptomatic of wider general trends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Renaissance\nArchitecture<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, as soon as the age of the Renaissance, as a prelude to modernity, came into being, the above canon was set into motion. Renaissance architecture, just like the rest of its fine arts, drew heavily from Greek and Roman sources. That was the cause because the advocates of the Renaissance rejoiced in reviving classical civilisation and the cultural products of Greece and Rome. They wished to generate new cultural and civilisational outputs dissimilar from stale medieval Christianity-dominated civilisation. At the receiving end of their criticism were medieval Scholasticism and medieval culture in general. What was intended was integration of the best of classical civilisation and the best and most wholesome elements of Christianity and its civilisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Renaissance\narchitecture borrowed from the Greek sources columns – though only for\ndecorative purposes – and the idea of horizontal lines and symmetry as a whole.\nWhereas from Rome arrived the concepts of the dome, the arches and the emphasis\non the mass. This was a stark departure from the Gothic architecture of the\nlater Middle Ages, which was most widely used especially for cathedrals and\nchurches, and which featured and gave clear emphasis to plans that resembled\nthe ancient Roman basilica, rib vaults, flying buttresses, increased height\nboth absolutely and in proportion to the width as an aspiration to Heaven,\nstained glass windows, portals and the tympanum, towers and spires, lavish\nsculpture and decoration on religious themes, and pointed arches. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, Renaissance architecture, together with especially sculpture and painting, celebrated humanism in man and the intrinsic natural components of life. The human being: his life and ultimate destiny, emotions, capabilities, talents and terrestrial backgrounds and milieus wherein he lived and performed, has been put on a pedestal and glorified. The themes and styles were ever more humanised, secularised and naturalised, rather than divinised and spiritualised. The spectacle and pageantry of Christianity and its institutions, rites and teachings \u201c at least as depicted through the prism of medieval art \u201c were losing their allure by the day.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

St. Peters Basilica\nin Rome, Italy, as an example of Renaissance architecture<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/St._Peter%27s_Basilica)\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Baroque\nArchitecture<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next\nis the Baroque style of architecture which grew directly out of the Late\nRenaissance. The Renaissance has led to an enormous loss of power and influence\nby the especially Catholic Church in many fields. Large parts of Europe had\nconverted to Protestantism, which originated with the 16th<\/sup> century\nProtestant or European Reformation, and the emergence of modern science had\nproved the fallacy on which many of the fundamentals of the Catholic faith were\nbased. Needless to say that the Renaissance and its profound humanism played a\nnotable role in the Reformation. The Church had also lost its monopoly in\neducation, and the religious building had relinquished its position as the sole\nsource of authority in architectural development.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a corollary of those earth-shattering events, the Church embarked on an initiative to respond to the sweeping Protestant Reformation. The move is called the Counter Reformation or the Catholic Reformation, and was a period of general Catholic revival. It was the advent of the Counter Reformation that was to exert the main formative influence on the development of Baroque architecture. \u0153Like secular power, religious power was seen as absolute and its legitimisation a matter of divine right. Baroque architecture set out to tackle the task of representing both authorities on a suitable scale and with due ceremony, using similar methods in the representation of both. The idea was to dramatise the power and to appeal to the sensuous perceptions of the observer. The express aims of the new style were to confuse and overpower.\u009d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Baroque style was a direct outgrowth of absolutism: the two go hand in hand. Baroque was the symbolisation of opulence, wealth and the power of the upper classes. Its buildings and paintings were a reflection of the close interweaving of the Church and secular power, aimed to support and sustain each other.[4]<\/a> It is no accident that the main emphasis of the style fell on the religious institutionalised buildings, such as churches and monasteries, together with the government-related buildings, such as palaces and princely residences, and secular buildings designed to impress the beholder. \u0153It was, after all, the court, the aristocracy and the clergy who commissioned the work.\u009d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nfirst phase of the Counter\nReformation<\/a> had imposed a severe, academic\nstyle on religious architecture, which had appealed to intellectuals but not\nthe mass of churchgoers. The Council of Trent (held between 1545 and 1563 and\nlabelled as the quintessence of the Counter\nReformation<\/a>) decided instead to appeal to a\nmore popular audience, and declared that the arts should communicate religious\nthemes with direct and emotional involvement.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Baroque\nart was essentially concerned with the dramatic and the illusory, with vivid\ncolours, hidden light sources, luxurious materials, and elaborate, contrasting\nsurface textures, used to heighten immediacy and sensual delight. Ceilings of\nBaroque churches, dissolved in painted scenes, presented vivid views of the infinite<\/a> to the worshiper and directed him through his senses toward\nheavenly concerns. The dome illustrated the union between the heavens and the\nearth. The inside of the cupola was lavishly decorated with paintings that\ndepicted vivid religious themes, giving the impression to those below of\nlooking up at Heaven. Baroque architects made architecture a means of propagating<\/a> faith in the church and in the state. Baroque palaces expanded to\ncommand the infinite and to display the power and order<\/a> of the state. Baroque space invited participation and provided\nmultiple changing views. Renaissance space was passive and invited\ncontemplation of its precise symmetry. A Baroque building expanded in its\neffect to include the square facing it, and often the ensemble included all the\nbuildings on the square as well as the approaching streets and the surrounding\nlandscape. Baroque buildings dominated their environment; Renaissance buildings\nseparated themselves from it.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Saint-Bruno Des\nChartreux Church In Lyon, France, as an example of Baroque architecture <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(https:\/\/www.thoughtco.com\/baroque-architecture-basics-4141234)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hybrid\nArchitecture <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Baroque\narchitecture thrived in Europe from the early 17th<\/sup> to the mid-18th<\/sup>\ncentury. It was followed by the Rococo style which, as an outstandingly showy\nand grandiose style of decoration, is regularly defined as the final example of\nthe Baroque architecture school. At times, however, it is simply called \u0153late\nBaroque\u009d. The Rococo style was succeeded by Neoclassical architecture styles,\nreceiving inspiration from the classical art and culture of classical antiquity\nknown as the Greco-Roman world, something like what happened during the\nRenaissance. The main Neoclassical movement coincided with the 18th-century Enlightenment<\/a> and its age of reason, and continued into the early 19th<\/sup>\ncentury.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore,\n\u0153Romantic architecture appeared in the late 18th<\/sup> century in a\nreaction against the rigid forms of neoclassical<\/a>\narchitecture. It reached its peak in the mid-19th<\/sup> century, and continued\nto appear until the end of the 19th<\/sup> century. It was designed to\nevoke an emotional reaction, either respect for tradition or nostalgia for a\nbucolic past. It was frequently inspired by the architecture of the Middle\nAges<\/a>, especially Gothic\narchitecture<\/a>.\u009d[9]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

During\nin particular the latter architectural movements, there was progressively more\nroom for borrowing and copying elements from other architectural styles which\nexisted beyond the European historical and geographical parameters. Jan Gympel\nwrites that \u0153technology and the natural sciences demolished one apparently\nunshakable certainty and permanent boundary of knowledge after the other: why\nshouldnt the limits of time and space also be removed from culture? Thus\nelements from Western architectural history were enthusiastically complemented\nby those from other cultures, which the European colonial powers encountered in\nthe course of their conquests and were keen to copy.\u009d[10]<\/a>\nEven Byzantine, Moorish and Oriental models appeared here and there throughout\nthe West during the period as the world was becoming \u0153smaller\u009d and was brought\ncloser together by rapid communications.[11]<\/a>\nIt was a \u0153free style\u009d, so to speak, where anything was possible.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Throughout\nhistory, most architectural styles grew naturally and out of expediency. Some\ndid because of the discovery of new building technologies, or because of the\navailability and use of certain building materials; and others did because of a\ndesire to stand still – like the pyramids of Mexico and Egypt, ancient Incan\ntemples in Peru and the Great Wall of China – or move forward – like the\narchitecture of the Renaissance which explored the past Greek and Roman\nlegacies but reworked them for new contemporary ends. However, it was\nincreasingly felt that the architecture of the 19th<\/sup> century was\nrapidly losing its innocence and direction. Such was not a momentary loss of\nconcentration and purpose. Rather, the situation represented the climax of a\nprocess that started with the regression of the Renaissance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Encouraged\nby the age of Enlightenment and its championing of human reason and its dormant\nability to prevail and bring about good to man, the current architecture was\nregarded as dishonest and corrupt. It was dishonest because it squeezed its\nfunctions into buildings that were meant to be temples and not houses, banks,\ntown halls, or railway stations; and corrupt, because such buildings were all\ntoo often encrusted with gratuitous and meaningless decoration.[13]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since\nthe architecture of the 19th<\/sup> century was hybrid whereby almost\nanything could go, it was time to pause, think and ask some crucial questions.\nWhat really mattered and what was needed, and really aspired? How should\narchitecture best serve society and, if there was a better society to be\nfashioned, what could the architect do to help jostle it along?[14]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was during Enlightenment when the marked secularisation of society took off, that the idea of basing architecture on some rational moral criteria was put forward. With that – it could be contended – the first seeds of modern architecture were sown, and its first embryonic physical manifestations also came to pass. The new and certainly most important age of architecture was about to arrive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From\nthen on, driven primarily by the power of reason, architecture no longer served\nreligion and even less so the feudal rulers. It was believed that the built\nenvironment could be used to have a positive influence on the spirit of the\npeople, and inspire them to behave in a manner based on reason and morality. To\nachieve this, however, architecture itself had to fulfil ethical-moral\ncriteria.[15]<\/a>\nThat is, it had to be free, just as philosophy and all sectors of life were\nbecoming liberated and free from the stifling shackles of religion and\ntradition. Architecture could be free and true to itself only when people: its\nperceivers, creators and users, become liberated from their \u0153self-induced\nnonage\u009d, as was the main aim of Enlightenment according to the German\nphilosopher Emanuel Kant (d. 1804). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some of the theories thus evolved and articulated were to the effect that architecture should be true to its purpose and materials, and therefore, true to itself; and that it should be \u0153honest\u009d in the sense that structure and ornament would again constitute a unity. Architecture, it follows, had to \u0153speak\u009d and express the ideas of the Enlightenment era and spirit. For example, Claude-Nicolas Ledoux (d. 1806), French architect and town planner, designed a house for the surveyor of the river Loue. The structure consisted of a horizontal cylinder through which a stream was directed, which then flew into the river as a waterfall, \u0153symbolising the mastery of the river by rational technical means.\u009d[16]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The US Capitol\nBuilding is an example of Neoclassical architecture <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_States_Capitol)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernist\nArchitecture<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Industrialisation and mechanisation in the latter 19th<\/sup> and early 20th<\/sup> century changed everything. It was a time when technical innovations were as unsurpassable as dynamic and relentless. The wide spectrum of new building materials, structural forms and building techniques were thus made possible and easily available. The period signified the peak of modernity as a way of life. Similarly, through subsequent decades, it characterised a stage in the rapid progression of modernist architecture as a foremost philosophy and style of architecture and design of the epoch. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The invention and wide use of structural steel, reinforced concrete and glass revolutionised architecture. The spirit of intellectual rebellion against the standards and values of the past dominated by religion and other traditional systems gave architects freedom to think and experiment like never before. Unparalleled wealth and opportunities brought about by the ongoing revolutions in science, technology, engineering and building materials provided architects with means to execute their ideas.[17]<\/a> They were able to bring those ideas from the orb of abstract concepts and theories to the orb of palpable solutions and results. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus,\nmodernist architecture as a universal style and school of thought was born, and\nthe sky seemed to be the limit. Architects were finally able to make their\ndreams a reality by fully breaking away from historical and traditional\narchitectural styles, and to invent something that was utterly new and purely\nfunctional. Architecture was to be a product of the now and here, and to echo\nthe ideas and achievements of modernity. The style was soon to be transformed\ninto a global phenomenon with an international appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps\nthe first example of modernist architecture was the Crystal Palace by Joseph\nPaxton. It was built in 1851 in London, and was destroyed by fire in 1936. The\nbuilding was an example of iron and plate glass construction. Examples of glass\nand metal curtain walls were to follow soon. The building was also seen as a product\nof the industrial and commercial boom which coincided with the Industrial\nRevolution. Then came steel-framed skyscrapers. The first example was the\nten-story Home Insurance Building in Chicago. It was built in 1884 by William\nLe Baron Jenney (d. 1907) and was razed in 1930. The iron frame construction of\nthe Eiffel Tower in Paris built in 1889 captured the imagination of millions.\nIt was then the tallest structure in the world.[18]<\/a>\nIt became as much the symbol of the city of Paris as of an age and its built\nenvironment ideology. A big boost to modernist architecture and its attempt to\nreach at once for the sky and for peoples hearts was further given by the\ninvention of the safety elevator in 1852, electric light in 1879, and the first\nmodern air conditioner in 1902.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ngreatest pioneering masters and icons of modernist architecture were: Louis\nSullivan (d. 1924), an American architect famous for his doctrine \u0153Form follows\nfunction\u009d and known as the \u0153Father of skyscrapers\u009d; Adolf Loos (d. 1933), an\nAustrian and Czech architect known for his belief that ornament was a crime as\nbroadcasted in his essay cum manifesto titled \u0153Ornament and Crime\u009d; Frank Lloyd\nWright (d. 1959), an American architect about whom some people say that he was\nthe greatest architect of all time; Le Corbusier (d. 1965), a Swiss-French\narchitect and urban planner, who made a great effort to provide better living\nconditions for the residents of crowded cities, and to whom is ascribed the\nmaxim \u0153A house is a machine to live in\u009d; Walter Gropius (d. 1969), a German\narchitect and the founder of the seminal Bauhaus School, who insisted that\narchitecture should snub historical and traditional orthodoxies and espouse the\ninnovative new ideologies of modern industry; Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (d.\n1969), a German-American architect who was a director of the Bauhaus and\nassociated with the modernist precept \u0153Less is more\u009d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nfollowing declarations of Le Corbusier summarizes the disposition of modernist\narchitecture: \u0153A grand epoch has just begun. There exists a new spirit. There\nalready exist a crowd of works in the new spirit, they are found especially in\nindustrial production. Architecture is suffocating in its current uses.\n\u02dcStyles are a lie. Style is a unity of principles which animates all the work\nof a period and which result in a characteristic spirit. Our epoch determines\neach day its style. Our eyes, unfortunately, don’t know how to see it yet.\u009d[19]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eugene\nViollet-le-Duc, a French architect and architectural theorist and historian,\nalong the same lines in 1872 advocated a complete break with tradition when he\nwrote: \u0153Use the means and knowledge given to us by our times, without the\nintervening traditions which are no longer viable today, and in that way we can\ninaugurate a new architecture. For each function its material; for each\nmaterial its form and its ornament.\u009d This thought is believed to have\ninfluenced some of the leading founding masters of modernist architecture.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\nand large, some of the main and most easily recognizable characteristics of\nmodernist architecture are as follows: lack of ornaments and mouldings;\nrectangular, cylindrical and cubic shapes; large windows set in horizontal\nbands; open interior floor plans with fewer walls; extensive use of reinforced\nconcrete, steel and glass; lines are straight and angled, rather than curved,\ngabled and carved; visual expression of the structure, rather than hiding\nstructural elements; following the \u02dcmachine aesthetic<\/a>s in the use of materials<\/a> produced by industrial processes; connection to outdoors;\npromoting the concept of truth and justice to the materials used and not\nornamenting or plastering them with some other artificial materials (what is\ninside should be reflected outside); the natural colours of building materials\nis the natural embellishment of buildings; simplicity to the core whereby\nsimple is always sophisticated and is the greatest adornment of buildings;\n\u0153Less is more\u009d which denotes all-round minimalism in buildings;  function is a key objective and drives the\noverall form of the structure, indicating that the built space is the result of\nthe intended meaning or purpose behind it (\u0153Form follows function\u009d);\nskyscrapers are generally sheathed in glass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The Seagram\nBuilding, New York, USA, by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe as an example of modernist\narchitecture<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(http:\/\/www.designbookmag.com\/seagrambuilding.htm)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assessing\nthe Main Dogmas of Modernist Architecture<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This way, modernist architecture endorsed and celebrated the secured human liberty and freedom of expression and experience. It recorded its victory over all forms of tradition and institutionalised religion. The past was left where it belongs: in the past, and the future was right here and right now. Both tradition and religion were forever buried under the rubble of their irreparable inadequacies and flaws, coupled with the damages their respective questionable legacies had caused to human mind and soul. Lest they come back, over their tarnished reputations and also their fast-decaying material residues, soaring skyscrapers were erected, and the continued spatial expansion of the cities and the increasing density of population and their built environment \u201c as epitomes of an ideology and its systems of thought and values \u201c were assertively stretched and laid out. As if the massive and ever expanding cities, which functioned as the physical loci of modernisation, which, in turn, served as the root cause of rapid and frenzied urbanisation, acted as the necropolises of tradition and religion, and the skyscrapers as their cenotaphs and tombstones. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernist architecture also fostered modern mans naturalistic tendencies. Man was perceived as part of nature, albeit in the sense that his own natural bodily pleasures were most important. Even though architecture promoted close interaction with outdoors, and doing justice to the natural building materials by not ornamenting them with some artificial ones, modern man thus wanted to parade his subjugation of and mastery over nature and its forces. As central to the modernist creed, it was held that an artificially created world with the built environment as its framework, which is completely planned and designed by man, had to be better than any natural one created by random natural forces. Buildings were \u0153machines for living\u009d. The natural world should always be in service of mans created and mechanised world. Mans physical progress and corporeal contentment were lifes raison detre. Man with his science and technology was its only deity, so to speak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernist\nbuildings were consistently regular and well proportioned, featuring almost\nexclusively straight lines and right angles. They were wide and bright with the\nelevations glazed from top to bottom. The only decoration both inside and\noutside was the pure effect of the materials used.[21]<\/a>\nSymmetry was their distinctiveness. That was so because nature, too, displays a\nstrong penchant for symmetry and repetitive patterning. Such is evident in\nanimate and inanimate beings as well as structures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Straight\nlines communicate messages and generate experiences. If they are horizontal,\nthey convey the meanings of stability, confidence and peace. Since they cannot\nfall over, horizontal lines draw attention to width, firmness, constancy and\nsecurity. By their association with horizon, they likewise evoke the notions of\nclarity and authority of vision, purpose and objective. They suggest the\ninfinity of inspiration, opportunities and vitality. Vertical lines, on the\nother hand, are strong and rigid, implying determination, ability and potential\nenergy. In their own way, they accentuate stability and combine it with\nperpetual dynamism. They stretch from the earth to the heavens and so, are\nconnected with ontological dimensions and feelings. Their tallness and\nformality give the impression of dignity, prominence and victory. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernist architecture was projecting itself as self-righteous. It exuded a sense of superiority that was reminiscent of Western colonialism.[22]<\/a> It possessed a missionary or proselytising attitude, and its architects personal visions were infused with a sense of moral superiority. They believed that the architects mission was to redesign the world in his own image, and his values applied to all. Less \u0153civilised\u009d people could only profit from adopting architects way of life. So important were the precepts and mottos of modernist architecture that they were regarded as articles of faith. They were \u0153rhetorical statements whose moral overtones made them as unquestionable as Divine Law.\u009d[23]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless,\nsince the form of architecture is the language of an architectural will and\nmovement, the modernist doctrines of simplicity, minimalism and visual\ntransparency reveal the absence of a meaningful and profound worldview in\nmodern man, apart from his rugged individualism, relativism, nihilism and\nscepticism. Buildings planned and built in such a fashion simply put across\nthat modern man and his architecture have nothing, or extremely little,\nconsequential to tell the audience. Buildings persuasively speak that modern\nman is unsure of his inherited value, is sceptical of his self and any system,\nand is reluctant to identify with any vision. He is one-dimensional, minimalist\nand superficial, and so is his architecture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernist\narchitecture is self-assertive and presumptuous. It carves out the space needed\nfor its buildings with might. It strengthens and solidifies the outside edges,\nright angles, its frontiers and the landscaping of space, in order to make sure\nthat the piece it has cut off does not re-join the rest of space. Buildings\nstand alone and autonomously, testifying defiantly to the presence and might of\nman and his victorious interference with nature and space. Thus modernist\narchitecture gives evidence of the assertion of man and human power in space,\nof the power of that power to act in space, to contend in the physical theatre\nof God, defying and challenging Him at the same time.[24]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally,\nhaving cut out and appropriated a portion of space, modernist architecture now\nseeks to express mans will, to enable man to live his victory, to enjoy his\nproperty as he enters and remains in the building. The idea which serves this purpose\nbest is \u0153enclosure\u009d. Space must be enclosed, trapped, if it is to be had, owned\nand enjoyed.[25]<\/a>\nIn point of fact, each building for modern man is his haven, yet his temple, as\nit were, for it is in them that he goes about demonstrating who he is and what\nhis life purpose is. It is in them furthermore that he becomes the prisoner of\nhis nihilistic and hedonistic inclinations, which he had to seek to\nrelentlessly quench without limit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At\nlong last, as a reaction to modernist architecture and the dogmas connected\nwith it, postmodernism and postmodernist architecture as a style, or styles, of\narchitecture and the decorative arts appeared in the late 20th<\/sup>\ncentury. The new style rejected the perceived austerity, formality, exclusivity\nand lack of variety associated with modernist architecture. It signified a\nvictory over and escape from the nihilistic, anti-traditional and misanthropic\nconcept of the modern architectural style(s) to an architectural style of \u0153old\u009d\nvalues.[26]<\/a>\nSome of the chief characteristics of postmodernist architecture are as follows:\nstructural variety, asymmetric and oblique forms, bright colours, variety of\nmaterials and shapes, literary allusions, classical motifs, historical\nreferences, rich ornamentation, complexity and contradiction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Postmodernist\narchitecture was a clever combination of \u0153old\u009d and \u0153new\u009d. It often blended\nastonishing new forms and features with seemingly contradictory elements of\nclassicism. The process has been described as a synergy between \u0153representation\nand abstraction, monumental and informal, traditional and high-tech.\u009d[27]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

United Nations\nHeadquarters in New York, USA, as another example of modernist architecture<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 (https:\/\/www.wbdg.org\/additional-resources\/case-studies\/united-nations-headquarters)<\/em>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> Richard Sullivan, Dennis Sherman and John\nHarrison, A Short History of Western Civilization<\/em>, (New York:\nMcGraw-Hill, 1994), pp. 349-351. Christoph Hocker, Architecture, a Concise\nHistory<\/em>, (London: Laurence King, 2000), pp. 73-89.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Jan\nGympel, The Story of Architecture, from Antiquity to the Present<\/em>,\n(Cambridge: Goodfellow and Egan, 2005), p. 52.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Ibid., p. 53.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Christoph Hocker, Architecture, a\nConcise History<\/em>, p. 101. Bertrand Russel, History of Western Philosophy<\/em>,\n(New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2009), pp. 422-424.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Christoph Hocker, Architecture, a Concise History<\/em>,\np. 101.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Baroque<\/em>, (https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Baroque#cite_note-16<\/a>, 2019, accessed on June, 11 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> Henry Millon, Baroque and Rococo<\/em>,\n(Encyclopaedia Britannica, https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/art\/Western-architecture\/Baroque-and-Rococo,\n2019, accessed on June, 11 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Christoph Hocker, Architecture, a\nConcise History<\/em>, pp. 116-129. Jan Gympel, The Story of\nArchitecture, from Antiquity to the Present<\/em>, pp. 58-69.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> Romanticism<\/em>, (https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Romanticism#Architecture<\/a>, 2019, accessed on June, 11, 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> Jan Gympel, The Story of Architecture, from Antiquity to the\nPresent<\/em>, p. 74.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Richard Sullivan et al., A Short History of Western\nCivilization, <\/em>p. 602.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> Jonathan Glancey, The Story of Architecture<\/em>,\n(New York: DK Publishing, 2000), p. 152.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> Ibid., pp. 154-155.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Ibid., p. 155.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Jan Gympel, The Story of Architecture, from Antiquity to the Present<\/em>,\npp. 62-63.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Ibid., p. 63.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a>\nBrent Brolin, The Failure of Modern Architecture<\/em>, (New York: Van\nNostrand Reinhold Company, 1976), p. 14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Jan\nGympel, The Story of Architecture, from Antiquity to the Present<\/em>, pp. 73-97. Richard Sullivan et al., A Short History\nof Western Civilization, <\/em>pp. 602-603.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture<\/em>,\n(London: J. Rodker, 1931), (https:\/\/archive.org\/stream\/TowardsANewArchitectureCorbusierLe\/Towards%20a%20New%20Architecture%20-%20Corbusier%20Le%20_djvu.txt<\/a>, accessed on June, 12 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> Modern Architecture<\/em>, (https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Modern_architecture#Origins,\n2019, accessed on June, 12 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> Jan Gympel, The Story of Architecture, from Antiquity to the\nPresent<\/em>, pp. 96-99.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> Brent Brolin, The Failure of Modern Architecture<\/em>, p. 45.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> Ibid., p. 45.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> Ismail Ragi al-Faruqi, Islam and Architecture<\/em>,\ninside: \u0153Fine Arts in Islamic Civilization\u009d, edited by Muhammad Abdul Jabbar\nBeg, (Kuala Lumpur: The University of Malaya Press, 1981), pp. 99-117.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> Ibid., pp. 99-117.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> Christoph Hocker, Architecture, a\nConcise History<\/em>, p. 125.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> Postmodern Architecture<\/em>, (https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Postmodern_architecture,\n2019, accessed on June, 13 2019).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Spahic Omer In the midst of all the developments associated with the emergence of modernity, architecture as a system of thought and a physical… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":130603,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,65,11,8,3,20],"tags":[],"nelio_content":{"isAutoShareEnabled":true,"autoShareEndMode":"never","automationSources":{"useCustomSentences":false,"customSentences":[]},"followers":[12,124,5],"suggestedReferences":[],"efiUrl":"","efiAlt":"","highlights":[],"permalinkQueryArgs":[]},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/Skyscrapers-Urban-City-Skyline-Chicago-Illinois-1535678.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130493"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=130493"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130493\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":130593,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130493\/revisions\/130593"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/130603"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=130493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=130493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=130493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}