Committee on Design

 What ever happened to Beauty?  The last month or so of this blog is my first acquaintance with the COD, and I found it both engaging and bewildering.  When I began reading it I thought I was witnessing a rising rejection of the modernism dogma that has held the profession in thrall since the end of the Second World War.  With enthusiasm I wrote an article for Philadelphia's "Construction Today", the quarterly journal of the General Building Contractors Association, a link to which is enclosed herewith.  I would welcome comments pro or con on the ideas I have put forward.  

My enthusiasm has waned in the last few weeks as I see the arguments grow increasingly abstruse. And where "Form follows Function" is endlessly debated, I grew increasingly critical.  For me, as a "modern" traditionalist, I deeply regret the loss of Beauty as a fundamental requirement of good architecture.  In the Vitruvian formulation, Firmitas, Utilitas, Venustas, only Form and Function remain today.  And the result is very clear to see. 

If you thought the gulf between the hyper-rationalists and the artists was bad, it's perhaps nothing compared to the gap between the modernists and the traditionalists. I have to watch my tongue on this one, because my sense of humor will probably get my in real trouble if I don't tread with a little care. 

I read your article. I think anybody who has ever lived or owned an old building will tell you they are typically far more maintenance than a modern building. I grew up in a family that restored old buildings, so I've been there. Wood windows need far more work than aluminum. So I'm not sure I can agree with you that modern spells worse longevity. Any building, old or new, will live by the quality of it's detailing, and by the quality of it's spec.  Sadly, a lot of things these days are just not built to any 50 year spec, so you get what you pay for. Some people want a tent, others a rock. It's not always the fault of the architect if the owner insisted on a tent.

I got out of residential architecture decades ago because I refused to drop to the level of the average competitor, and the clients didn't really care that my homes would last longer. They just wanted a bigger closet and more bells & whistles. That is one of the reasons I work in health care today, because I grew weary of developer architecture, designed to last only 5 to 10 years, waiting to be turned over like a cheap suit. Hospitals don't like to relocate, the specs are strict, the quality remains high, so I can feel secure that I can be a real architect, doing real details, working in that niche. The rest of the profession scares me because it feels more like a game of short term theft by nomads with no real long term stake in the game.

As to your summary of modernism (probably accurate in many ways), modernism always gets a bad name because frankly it's very hard to do, and all that bad stuff out there ruins the credibility. But if you don't find joy in Corbu or Koolhaas, well, too bad. That's not just form/function. It's not easy being innovative, but somebody has to do it. Plus, I consider Michelangelo to be just as radical was Corbu.  So I'm not even sure I appreciate the divide the old masters from the new ones. 
 
The "beauty" argument you wish for is not broad enough for innovation, and being modern is about innovating. If we work totally from the mental construct of beauty, then we are working with the 'familiar' and the 'known.' To ask for beauty is the equivalent of asking that all movies be love stories with happy endings. The other ranges of human emotions get excluded from the picture. There's more to life than any single emotion. If we stuck to beauty, there would be no Eiffel Tower, because its innovation frightened the average citizen of Paris when it was first built. New ideas are going to challenge emotions as a necessary evil to innovating. That's just part of our biology.

Innovation is not always comfortable, not always instantly received as beautiful. The Fender guitar sounded like complete noise to your parents.  But personally, I think a guitar solo from Pink Floyd is quite beautiful.  Should we stick to banjos and acoustic instruments and just call it a day? Most serious art departments do not operate from a "beauty" construct, because it's simply not intellectually deap enough to allow the appropriate amount of creativity to take place. You won't find a painting of a sail boat with a rainbow behind it in any university art deparment, no matter how beautiful you think that is in real life.

We could apply the same argument to those that preach 'comfort' all the time. If we compare innovation and creativity to exercise: Excercise is very good for you. It might hurt at first. But it takes work, discomfort, but the results pay off. You'll get something newer and better if you do it. A lazy boy with an HD TV is far more comfortable, but it just makes you fat and lazy if that's all you ever want.

Was that abstruse enough for you?

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Architect
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------

Alvin,

Thanks for your post, and for the article. While I am completely sympathetic to your point of view, I think the article you shared is a form of wish-fulfillment journalism: If I say something is so, it will become so. Sadly, I disagree with you that anyone in the academy or the architectural press (except Clem Labine) is saying "Move over, Modernism." What I hear more consistently is "Good riddance, PoMo, now what's Zaha up to?" Sadly (for me, anyway), the conversation about beauty, which necessarily involves consideration of traditional architecture, is a small conversation taking place in an obscure corner of our profession. The front ranks are still completely sold out to a Miesian (or Corbusian) vision of a bright, white, antiseptic future where all the surfaces are perfectly smooth and made of glass or metal.

In short, I wish your article were true. I'm afraid that wishing won't make it so.

-------------------------------------------
David Greusel FAIA
Overland Park KS
-------------------------------------------