----------
> From: Lawrence Kestenbaum <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: BANG the 5 gal. pail LOUDLY
> Date: Friday, January 09, 1998 5:17 PM
>
> On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Dan Becker wrote:
>
> > I want to know why in the pantheon of modern poetry that it can no
longer
> > rhyme. Why can it no longer have a pulsating rhythm that seizes you
and
> > rushes you headlong down its slopes of meaning? It's like mountain ski
> > trails...
> The link here I see with architecture is the still dominant ethos among
> architects that "modern", "ahistorical" architecture is a moral
> imperative, and that (say) a dentil cornice is as verboten on a modern
> building as a rhyme and meter scheme is in a modern poem. (Venturi and
> the "postmodern" movement would allow it, if-and-only-if it's
> transparently fake, as an ironic gesture.)
I suspect that there is also an economic element behind modern architecture
limiting the grammar of adornment that cannot be found in modern poetry.
But I think that you are generally unfair to modernism in both disciplines.
I've made the argument elsewhere about poetry. But, as to architecture,
think for a minute how relatively short each of the "schools" of
architecture that flourished over the last three hundred years were. With
the exception of vernacular domestic architecture all before the modern era
were "revivals" of earlier forms, from classical to Palladian. Yet none of
those "revival" styles, encouraged slavish imitation of their inspirational
models. The "revivals" were filtered through the needs and sensibilities of
ther time. They were influenced by economic and cultural pressures that
were unique to their eras. Honestly, what would you think if Bill Gates had
spent his tens of millions on his new home to produce a structure like
those produced by the millionaires on 5th Ave in N.Y. during the latter
half of the last century? Or if modern institutional buildings chose
Bullfinch as a model?
As a furniture maker I find the opportunity to create pieces in period
styles satisfying and endlessly instructive, but creative? Not hardly. It
just does nothing to allow me to express myself as a child of my century.
As a furniture restorer and house restorer I achieve a somewhat different
satisfaction, but again it is not expressive of my sense of myself in this
time and place.
On the rare occasion when I am paid to express myself as a furniture-maker
in a manner of my own choosing I find it possible to achieve that creative
satisfaction, and it usually means building on my knowledge of old
techniques and styles to present my case in a recognizably "modern" form.
Put another way, I think that it is a pity that there seems to be a
complete cultural schism between those who pursue "traditional" design and
its material manifestations and the "modern".
That said- I honestly believe that if it were perceived as economically
feasible you would see the evolution of as new grammar of ornament within
contemporary architecture which would allow for much more surface
decoration. Maybe the key to this rests in the hands of the preservation
crafts. I don't get a sense that there is much communication between those
dedicated to preserving our material heritage and those shaping our
material future. Work gets bought and paid for all the time in preservation
that most contemporary architects would never dare suggest to their
clients.
>
> Some years back, many years ago now, a Greek Revival townhouse in
> Greenwich Village, NYC, was blown up by someone experimenting with bombs
> in the basement.
I knew those people. I was managing a bookstore on 8th St. when it
happened. They were not architectural critics.
Bruce
|
