The modern architect pretends to have talent. The traditional architect has talent.

@Takeru9292

5 жыл бұрын

Same with modern art. We should return to traditional art

@discordmarauder

4 жыл бұрын

MGTOWTakeru exactly, I’ve seen the following in an art museum: a bunch of rope and blocks of wood painted rusty orange covering an entire wall, a pile of broken glass, and an orange rectangle.

@TimSlee1

4 жыл бұрын

​@@discordmarauder Modern art is literally a joke taken too far, one of the earliest pieces of modern art is a urinal. The joke is that the artist couldn't be bothered to paint the urinal or represent it in any unique way so they literally took one and put it in an art museum.

@DarkWallay

3 жыл бұрын

You're not an architect.

@TimSlee1

3 жыл бұрын

@@DarkWallay Should the average citizen not have an opinion on architecture? It's pompous to believe that only the architects should have an opinion in the matter.

Architecture used to be Engineering. Now it needs engineers.

i swear in the first 47 seconds of this video i taught i was watching a parody

@nachorodrigueze9197

2 жыл бұрын

same

@VOLightPortal

2 жыл бұрын

nope. that's literally how architecture is done nowadays. One of the reasons I quit architecture studies early on, it's no longer the fine craftsmanship it once was.

@chromebook1794

2 жыл бұрын

I though I was as well! I though this video was a legit joke lmaooooo. I'm not even kidding I though I was watching a parody as well!!!

@javierpacheco8234

2 жыл бұрын

@@VOLightPortal sorry that you quit architecture dude. It is frustrating for me as well becuase in college we also study modern architecture ecuacation and i hate there is no respect to what beautiful is. I prefer more to design traditional style when im an architect and want to create my own firm. Im still studying architecture and im not quitting becuase i believe it can come back in the future.

@Aurora-pi6jr

2 жыл бұрын

@@javierpacheco8234 I support you 100%, I wish for your success on your dream

🌹🌹🌹 😝😝😝 That mindless is just so impressed with his garbage! Total absolute inversion. Then the beautiful harmony of timeless brilliance, higher order, and true glory. As above so below

I bet very few people are heart-felt inspired when they are around modern buildings. There's no charm that puts us in an inspirational mood.

So.... Modernist architects get their inspiration from literal rubbish... Got it. I'd take traditional any day.

@amansrivastava1068

5 жыл бұрын

u stupid... its just like turning rubbish into something beautiful... go and learn

@amansrivastava1068

5 жыл бұрын

atleast in first clip he was designing and not copying like the 2nd one

@danieldmyers

4 жыл бұрын

Aman Srivastava yeah, don’t care. Nobody is impressed with his paper wad that a 3 year old could “design.” Take your eccentricity to your own home and get that blob architecture school shit outta here. We are fucking tired of that depressing shit. I say it’s time for public outrage and bulldozers, and for a rise of *real talent* like craftsmen and woodworkers.

@goognamgoognw6637

3 жыл бұрын

I'd say they get their inspiration from frustration at their own lack of artistic talent. Parody is an attempt at soiling the significance of Art that they're incompetent to produce or compete with. It makes them feel better. This movement didn't suddenly come out of nowhere. I think it was a gradual deconstruction of real art. Piccasso was probably the most instrumental at opening the door to degenerate art. He was a joke taken very seriously. Inverted meaning, inverted merit, those are the signs of degenerescence.

@DarkWallay

3 жыл бұрын

Where do you think traditional architecture got its inspiriation from? This comment is sssso stupid.

It's rather freightening to understand who have been designing our buildings of late.

Timeless architecture all the way!!

@javierpacheco8234

2 жыл бұрын

Same

This is why we should support traditional architecture, modern architecture has no respect for symmetry, geometry, and looks very confusing and has no craftsmanship which gives the architecture its quality. Beauty matters and it reflects on our cities.

'That's the way architects get ideas', that's scary

@ohcaptainmycaptain3478

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah the second guy is scary good

@DarkWallay

3 жыл бұрын

Architecture is literally just geometry. Holy shit, is it rocket science to you people?

@iltoni6895

2 жыл бұрын

@@DarkWallay no it is not

@javierpacheco8234

2 жыл бұрын

Gross right?

Here in Brazil we had many great architets in the 19th century during the imperial times some even called americas' europe and we had some distint styles like the colonial, sadly even in historical cities its being badly preserved and some weeks ago we had the imperial city petropolis flood and many people died and buildings collapsed, its really sad what has become if my great empire now a poor republic

Imagine allowing that charlatan to design our public spaces.

@DarkWallay

3 жыл бұрын

Look up "modern indigenous architecture." Damn I hate you people.

@iltoni6895

2 жыл бұрын

@@DarkWallay keep hating. It's still ugIy

I typed ancient "architecture vs modern architecture" in the search bar and this is exactly what i wanted to see.

look at frank gehrys wikipedia page and read the firs lines of the early life section lmao

@floydthomas4195

2 жыл бұрын

I dont even have to look at the ''early life'' section after watching this.

I keep coming back to this. And sigh.

I absolutely love traditional architecture and wish I was around when it was still here, but I don’t get the hate for modern architecture. Let’s compare the first guy compared to some people that believe a concrete box is good architecture. Idk I’d take the first guy any day. I am biased as an architecture student but the ability to visualize spaces in places you would find it (crumbled piece of paper), not a lot of people can do that.

@Nostalg1a

3 жыл бұрын

I mean you really shouldn't be looking for shapes and buildings in a crumbled piece a paper, but in Nature. Therefor your architecture will feel human and not random. That's why people don't feel alienated when walking trough a "traditional" neighborhood, but do near a Frank Ghery building. And I do agree with you, a concrete box is way worse, but a scrawl of glass and metal should not be the alternative.

@FelixIakhos

3 жыл бұрын

Am I glad to find this comment. The first is an architect going over a thought process, the second person might just as well be someone who is just good at drawing.

@goognamgoognw6637

3 жыл бұрын

You've been conditioned by academia that is supporting this nonsense because our society is in a hateful deconstruction phase, caused by a false elite fearing for its illegitimate tyrannic rule being threatened by sane, time proven, classic ideas. Their only way to keep their evil hidden is to spread chaos on legitimate culture and canons. There are several generations of brainwashed people, the youngest the worst to date. But the next will be even worse, i predict crime and genocide in '1984' Orson Wells fashion.

@FelixIakhos

3 жыл бұрын

@@goognamgoognw6637 Do you not see the irony in saying that people who don't think the regulated classical styles should be the only one are conditioned?

@obamabinladen6679

3 жыл бұрын

@@FelixIakhos your theoretical my-opinion vs your-opinion kind of debates can be handled in just one way. It's effects. Effect is that they feel unwelcoming.

I like both.

The first one is just a scrawl. My images are sort of abstract but I'm not designing buildings.

I like a wide variety of architectural styles, some more than others. One style all over gets boring. Attractive, functional, quality materials, and excellent workmanship is what I care more about.

@linkskywalker5417

2 жыл бұрын

@@charlestalks5638 Thing is, it's more expensive than modern architecture.

I thought the first clip was a joke lol.

No wonder where Ubisoft got their inspiration.

Guess everybodys born a mindless architect!

The first example is poetic in its own way. Drawing design from raw natural form and order, then perfecting it, versus the latter, which is drawing order from nothing. One is certainly significantly more time-consuming in regards to its specificities, but to call the other mindless is also being disrespectful to those that build directly from nature. The only mindless part of it is that of its basis, which is only mindless in that it does not directly stem from the architect, but is utilized by them.

@venus_envy

2 жыл бұрын

The way you describe the frist one t me sounds a lot more like how Art Nouveau architecture was designed, see the buildings in Spain from this design school, they are still beautiful. I don't think the Gehry method of designing buildings yields such nice results as actually observing and emulating nature the way the Art Nouveau people were doing it.

down with the modernists, postmodernists and brutalists!

what is the song's name?

@ps-jy8mf

6 жыл бұрын

'Gloria in excelesis Deo' kzread.info/dash/bejne/rJycu6uTes2cos4.html

@skurt2881

4 жыл бұрын

Vivaldi: Gloria in D Major, RV 598: 1. Gloria in excelsis deo

This video is just a strawman comparing the very beginning stages of a designers process, to someone halfway done a drawing of something they are clearly looking at. Every designer find inspiration from different places. Yes, this dude crumpled up a piece of paper. But that is irrelevant.. what he is doing is putting down shapes and trying to find the forms. But this is something only an artist/designer will appreciate. Its apart of the process. I'd be curious to see if he came up with an end result. If so, this video cuts it out on purpose. Dont get me wrong! I prefer older architecture too. Ancient, Middle Ages, Renaissance, Victorian... I like the style. But this video is blatantly unfairly comparing two very different things. I would LOVE to see the designer behind the Notre Dame Cathedral's development drawings. I guantee you the sketches are loose. You may be surprised what they used as reference or inspiration for the forms. All the greatest architectural feats could not have been built from the builders imagination. Hive minds do not exist. There must be architects. The more complicated the architecture, the longer the development process. You dont have to like modern architecture. Very plain, clean surfaces, lots of glass, differently shaped rooftops... you don't have to like that. But there are people that do. And there are architects that have a passion for what they do. DO NOT mistake this first step in this one architects process as "modern architect dont care about what they produce.. its just garbage.". This man takes joy in the abstract forms. I guarantee he's designed some amazing feats of architecture in their own right. If you actually care about design, you'd understand that. But normies will try and invade these professions that they don't understand just so they can make a normie statement. Its popular to hate "modern" anything. Even when you literally have no stake in anything being discussed. You probably arent capable of hiring an architect anyway. You wouldn't choose a modern house if you could.. So why do you have to mock and purposely misrepresent the architect just because you dislike the modern style?

@milly-sy4bc

2 жыл бұрын

Ratio

@Georges_Haussmann

2 жыл бұрын

Problem is that modernist building won’t look any better with the end result, and about 80% agree with me, and we still build only modernist archietecture

As someone who likes old things. The new shit looks terrible.

@DarkWallay

3 жыл бұрын

As someone who likes meaningful things. The new shit doesn't tote imperialism.

so they're admitting that the inspiration for these buildings is ACTUAL garbage? lmaox200

The worst important architecture I've ever been in is Gehry's LA Symphony Hall. A stunningly ugly wasted space. Imagine the coat check buried inside the cafeteria. Ushers all over the damned place because you can't find the door to your seat. Has no relationship with the surrounding city. A deeply unfriendly and disorienting main entrance... OH BUT IT'S SO COOL!!! Give me a break. He's a garbage architect. All the starchitects are. And the vast majority of modernists. And don't get me started on Meier...

Civilisation

The first one is a space-filler for history. A tiny bit of something just shy of nothing.

Does the postmodern architecture have anything to do with cultural Marxism? I have a suspicion…

@MrToradragon

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe, maybe not.

@miketackabery7521

2 жыл бұрын

Oh yes. It's genesis is very well documented.

@velvet3784

Жыл бұрын

Modernism and its later supposed reaction postmodernism all have roots in bauhaus so I would not be surprised if that is the case

It's very obvious the architect didn't take Fine Arts as a base. You don't shadow on the right side of the pillar then shadow on the left of the other side!😳 Frank Gerry is a mindless architect. You don't need to explain what he does! 😳 And that's not how timeless architects get ideas! 😳

@IamPlainLazy11

4 жыл бұрын

Architecture isn't the same as fine art. 😳 Architecture is design not art. 😳 Architecture is among the top three most dropped out courses in the UK because people do not realise this... 😳

i don't know i kinda like the first one

@javierpacheco8234

2 жыл бұрын

Damm i wish you liked the other one. The 2nd one was put more time.

This is not even abstraction, this is word salad

Le Courboisier!! How much damage had you done with that idiotic notion of yours...

.

Casual trash architect vs Chad designer

A style of architecture being "more complex" or methodical doesn't make it better. And I can obviously respect clasical architecture but it had it's time and place. I don't think it's a very productive use of time and recources fantasizing and emulating the glory of rome and such in our modern, industrial society. So called "Modern architecture" is a construct of our society, clasical architecture in a lot of parts around the world is a representation of inequality, imperialism and class struggle or clasical arichitecture was just an impractical waste of money, as in the societ union.

@tallyn2903

3 жыл бұрын

But it’s nicer to be around isn’t it? I think it’s classist to deprive the poor from beauty and force them to live surrounded by ugly blocks and devoid shapes. People aren’t trying to recapture the glory of Rome, they just want to be surrounded by beauty. And they aren’t representative of any types of inequality, imperialism or struggle inherently, they’re just beautiful buildings. If we delve only into utility and purpose we forget that humans are not robots, nor are we emotionless. We desire the useless because it inspires and beings us happiness and identity. There is no point to music yet we all desire it. The argument isn’t ‘complexity’ vs ‘simplicity’, but ‘beauty vs mundanity’

@fandangofonteinskalita1333

2 жыл бұрын

@@tallyn2903 and now we debate about ganre. I enjoy clasical architecture, yes, but it isn't objectively nice to be around nor is it more "human" than the functionalist blocks that are Oslo's city hall building. You're also making a very vauge point here that buildings inspired by modernity or the socalled "block buildings" are ugly? Look up the bauhaus in germany or the previously mentioned city hall in oslo, genuinely amazing works of art and great representations of the very HUMAN ideas durring that time. Clasical architecture is inherently used as a show of might and power by empires, it was often time subconciously or conciously built as a strong message for the "inheritance of rome" for example - social classicism was a show of the wealth of the soviet union, The washington capitol building was built to show off the american empires growth and that very same "inheritance of rome" I mentioned. It was the architecture of kings and emporors, not the people. And also Clasical architecture can be very mundane - imagine seeing the same style, the same greek gods on the same fronton isn't very exiting, or the same corinthian pillars on every senate house, every museum, every state building. Most buildings don't have am artistic value, and they're built for purley functional housing, but this is a discussion about art and what deffines beuty. in my oppinion, the reason why clasical architecture has stayed so long is because of that "glory of rome" stich, and why it's glorified above most styles is because of the conservative and contemporary belliefs of clasical art in general.

@tallyn2903

2 жыл бұрын

@@fandangofonteinskalita1333 The examples you point to are incredibly mundane though; boring, lifeless, and stilted. There is no character or art in the Bauhaus for example-it is a building and nothing more, coloured with the colourless accents of grey utilised to express the dullness of the shade. And furthermore, a building being a piece of art or expression is no requirement for whether that building is good, and in fact I’m more so opposed to architects who try use their architecture as any means of expression of their own ideas or selves; we are who and what we surround ourselves by, and we adapt to our environments accordingly, though the buildings you point out have no intrinsic meaning or value they inspire dullness and discontentment (if they inspire anything at all) and so will breed an environment equally as devoid-it should be the architects duty to try create environments that inspire a sense of identity, community and beauty. The architect should long to design timeless works, the types of work that will be respected for thousands of years to come. Your point on the ‘inheritance of Rome’ is incredibly narrow-though you can explain the great monuments and palaces to the emperors of Europe trying to capture a sense of glory and pride for their nations might, what then shall you say to explain the quaint beauty of the cottages and homes of England’s countryside? The traditional temples of Japan? Which are not to capture the might of an empire nor owe themselves to a glory of Rome-- but to instead to capture that feeling of home and beauty and pride, or show a loving commitment to a god, this same principle can be said for the cathedrals of Europe, which are not built to express an imperial force, but the works of communities for the things they worship and love. Not all beautiful architecture is of the same Romanesque fashion either, the majority of country’s most beautiful works are distinctly not so. Paris is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, Venice too, and they hardly flower themselves as ancient Rome. People love beautiful things, things that are distinct, made, and have a personality, the average person feels nothing for the glory of Rome which most likely enslaved their nations once, but instead share a passion for the beautiful and the inspiring. For the feeling of community and home. The sense of identity and place. These feelings which are an essential to our existence.

@fandangofonteinskalita1333

2 жыл бұрын

@@tallyn2903 I don't know if you looked up the oslo city hall or even know what the bauhaus and brutalism is, but what you said is incredibly biased and just wrong lol, you not liking it doesn't make it mundane, as in lacking interest or excitement; dull. Oslo city hall is decorated with statues and reliefs all across the walls and ceillings of the collosal and genuinly forboding or even intimidating building, but if you've ever been inside the building then you'd see genuinly amazing works of art all across the walls - colourful murals, paintings, rooms made filled with shades of blue yellow and green. Bauhaus is just a ganre thats very simmilar tu brutalism, and brutalist architecture is incredibly interesting - habitat 67, geisel library, the sorgane housing complex, I can give MANY more example, but I don't have to, since the reason why my examples were mundane is because you have a bias towars them. clasicism doesn't objectively radiate good emotions or raise the beauty of a place. There's a magnificance to it, sure but that some magnificance also applies to the previously mentioned oslo city hall or habitat 67. You thinking that it looks bad, doesn't make it bad. And also you really need to get your definitions in order. Clasical architecture is not an all incompassing field. Paris has art deco and art neuvou, brutalism, gothic architecture and venice has it's own style entirely. And about europes csthedrals - romanesque churches try to emulate greek and roman styles, and actual clasical churches - thats the hagia sofia and the pantheon, built by the romans. Clasical architecture is an imitation of GREEK and ROMAN architecture, by definition. Also, just so we ain't at eachothers throats - no ill intentions against you in this debate, I respect your oppinion, this is not an argument, we are shairing ideas to eachother, and making eachother use our tiny little human brains

@tallyn2903

2 жыл бұрын

@@fandangofonteinskalita1333 "Colossal and genuinely foreboding or even intimidating building" is not anything I want in a community, to create a sense of home. I am arguing on the side of good architecture, not classical architecture only but beautiful architecture as a whole. brutalism has even in it's name: 'brutal'. My philosophy is that I would rather a community built to be "Homely and genuinely comforting or even welcoming" rather than how you describe the Oslo City Hall-- which is littered with kitsch and tacky reliefs across it placed with no coherence to each other. Architecture serves a greater purpose than being art, it is that which surrounds us. A city is a home of people, not the canvas for a selfish architect to express himself. None of your examples every inspire anything positive, never are anything you can stop and look at with awe: they are intimidating, kitsch and mundane. To describe the grey blocks and glass of Bauhaus as such seems obvious for that is exactly what it is. Grey. I must ask why you want such foreboding and intimidating buildings to surround you and what is wrong with positive and welcoming architecture that can invoke the sort of movement and romance that Paris' does? Why is surrounding ourselves by depressing negativity worth doing?

Both styles are outdated. Classical architecture and modernist architecture both suck.

@xas22

5 жыл бұрын

@M C Post modern aka troll architecture is the ugliest of all.

@luisrincon7819

5 жыл бұрын

Abad Daim Wrong, only modernist architecture sucks, Classical Architecture is glory.

@xas22

5 жыл бұрын

@@luisrincon7819 I disagree. Just because its old and classical doesn't mean it is wonderful and timeless. It was good for its day but we shouldn't emulate it. We know better. Modernist is altogether different, its just lazy, mindless and tasteless. I won't even bother with it. On the other scale, making classical architecture out to be some hallowed art is also cheesy, and simplistic. I believe we should raze old buildings may be preserve extremely rare ones like say the Parthenon, angkor wat, etc. But preserving whole medieval cities is ridiculous. However I don't want ugly glass and steel modern alternatives to replace them. I admire the work of Hausmann in renovating Paris.

@Nostalg1a

3 жыл бұрын

@@xas22 Hausmann is profoundly classical and traditional. I too do not wish for pastiche neither glass boxes, but beauty and creativity.

@xas22

3 жыл бұрын

@@Nostalg1a Hausmann is classical? It is not, it is not traditional either. For me classical architecture is the architecture of ancient Greco Roman temples and public buildings.