I beg to differ, not on support for craft and ornamentation, but on how to produce it. Software, technology, automation, and industrial methods will not reproduce true craft, which requires human labor. See my hero, William Morris for thoughts on that.
Technology cannot by definition solve the problem. We appreciate a hand-carved statue or ornament precisely because it was hand-carved. Hence John Ruskin's first principle of architecture being sacrifice — things should be costly (either in materials effort) because it proves love and sacrifice went into it.
This post addresses a different form of craft, relating purely to how a pragmatic approach be taken on a large scale. In an ideal world, these solutions wouldn't be necessary...
Thanks for a great essay - gives me hope. Form follows function ignored the function of aesthetics, which, I feel, is paramount to a society’s well being.
In my opinion, it goes a little deeper than that. The fact that ornaments and decorations create meaning also presupposes to a certain extent that we are receptive to meaning and symbolism in the first place. But this also has to do with philosophical, ideological, and religious issues. The modern, technical world view has forgotten how to understand symbolism. It asks for function, but no longer for meaning. That's why I fear that the return of ornamental elements will only produce façades that are not filled with content, as was the case in the architecture of old churches, for example. Perhaps ornaments and decorations also disappeared in the 20th century because they had already become devoid of content.
While touring Budapest, our guide described how the local government in the 1920s-1930s required builders to put 20% of their money into the façade of the building. What happened was a beautiful city. She then lamented that when the Soviets took over after the war, they put 0% into the façade. The style that took over was classic Soviet Architecture -Brutalist. Very ugly.
In Eastern Europe, this shift from useless beauty to living in ugly concrete blocks and embracing everything made from plastic happened during communism.
But...but...we want CURVES! CURLIQUES, FANCIFUL EMBELLISHMENT, ART, CREATIVITY ON A HUMAN SCALE! WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE THESE ELEMENTS TO SCALE WITH COMING AI POTENTIALS, NO?
It just so happens that I myself have written a short article on this exact same topic, but I admit that it does not go into as much detail, or offer example of people bucking the architectural minimalism trend.
CC, I’m a complete rookie at all this, but I must say I absolutely adore your posts as they make me a more knowledgeable and well rounded person. As we say over here “mabrook saidi”.
I beg to differ, not on support for craft and ornamentation, but on how to produce it. Software, technology, automation, and industrial methods will not reproduce true craft, which requires human labor. See my hero, William Morris for thoughts on that.
Technology cannot by definition solve the problem. We appreciate a hand-carved statue or ornament precisely because it was hand-carved. Hence John Ruskin's first principle of architecture being sacrifice — things should be costly (either in materials effort) because it proves love and sacrifice went into it.
This post addresses a different form of craft, relating purely to how a pragmatic approach be taken on a large scale. In an ideal world, these solutions wouldn't be necessary...
Thanks for a great essay - gives me hope. Form follows function ignored the function of aesthetics, which, I feel, is paramount to a society’s well being.
In my opinion, it goes a little deeper than that. The fact that ornaments and decorations create meaning also presupposes to a certain extent that we are receptive to meaning and symbolism in the first place. But this also has to do with philosophical, ideological, and religious issues. The modern, technical world view has forgotten how to understand symbolism. It asks for function, but no longer for meaning. That's why I fear that the return of ornamental elements will only produce façades that are not filled with content, as was the case in the architecture of old churches, for example. Perhaps ornaments and decorations also disappeared in the 20th century because they had already become devoid of content.
While touring Budapest, our guide described how the local government in the 1920s-1930s required builders to put 20% of their money into the façade of the building. What happened was a beautiful city. She then lamented that when the Soviets took over after the war, they put 0% into the façade. The style that took over was classic Soviet Architecture -Brutalist. Very ugly.
In Eastern Europe, this shift from useless beauty to living in ugly concrete blocks and embracing everything made from plastic happened during communism.
But...but...we want CURVES! CURLIQUES, FANCIFUL EMBELLISHMENT, ART, CREATIVITY ON A HUMAN SCALE! WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE THESE ELEMENTS TO SCALE WITH COMING AI POTENTIALS, NO?
Why do we take it for granted that carbon-neutral is a real thing and a real goal? (Looking at that Neutral blog... )
I believe both the integration of human creativity and technology is needed to out-do ourselves in-order to beautify this earth.
Magnífico artículo, muy profundo e informativo y da algo de esperanza
It just so happens that I myself have written a short article on this exact same topic, but I admit that it does not go into as much detail, or offer example of people bucking the architectural minimalism trend.
https://substack.com/@jlmc12/p-142058703
Turned useful
CC, I’m a complete rookie at all this, but I must say I absolutely adore your posts as they make me a more knowledgeable and well rounded person. As we say over here “mabrook saidi”.