Distinguishing traditional from modern architecture in one easy step

[jaws]

This is the Villa Rotonda by the renaissance architect Andrea Palladio.



This is the Stata Center by contemporary architect Frank Gehry.

Gehry in his attempt to define a desconstructivist spatial form could have simply taken any traditional design and crumpled it up. However even in its reference to traditional buildings the Stata center is missing a critical feature that you will be able to easily identify on Palladio's building. That feature is edge detail.

Edge detail is detail that appears at the edge of a large undifferentiated mass. Villa Rotonda features large, flat white walls but the windows in the wall create an edge. This edge is meticulously detailed using classical forms. The columns as well are long, white, smooth sticks but at their edge, the base and the head, are finely detailed ornaments.

Edge detail is the property of a fractal pattern. The pattern breaks down into infinitely smaller patterns at the edge of the larger pattern. For example, here is the famous Mandelbrot set fractal.



Edge detail is universally absent from all strains of modern architecture, whether the old international style, the postmodern "revisionist" styles and today's modernist eclecticism. This makes modern architecture less sophisticated than traditional architecture and a retrogression in the architectural evolution of humanity.

[Masswich]

This is a great point- modern architecture often falls down, in my mind, not in its general concept but its inability to realize that a concept also needs to have details. Fractals are a good analogy.

For example, how often do you see brackets on a modern house?

[wahday]

Some years ago I saw some PBs documenntary about American architecture and I remember a discussion of Dallas in particular in which the interviewees were discussing how many of their dowtown buildings were designed to be seen passing through the highway interchanges at a distances of hundreds of yards and at speeds of 60mph. Get up close and personal, they noted, and these structures are very ungratifying because of this very lack of attention to the detail of edges.

There is also a nice discussion of the perceptual factors involved in creating outdoor "rooms" through the treatment of building facadem details in the "Squares" book i have mentioned by Mark Childs. It seems designers used to understand many of the principles involved in creating the illusion of volume and space that have been lost now. So many people want their buildings to be iconic rather than contribute to a larger whole by conversing and complimenting existing structures in the immediate area. This is all very frustrating and ungratifying for the user.

[BKM]

Interesting.

In looking at, for example, Miess' buildings, I myself see edge detailing in the treatment of column ends, beam ends, etc.

[jaws]

Interesting.

In looking at, for example, Miess' buildings, I myself see edge detailing in the treatment of column ends, beam ends, etc.

Could you show us?

[BKM]

I'm too lazy to scan in the pictures I have, but....If I have time.

[Luca]

Good post and good point Jaws.

Looking at those pictures I would add the other typcial differences between classical and 'modern' architecture.

> Readability (The Villa rotonda is not puzzling,Gehry's thing is purposefully, perversely puzzling)
> Symmetry
> Subtlety with which relief of mass and articulation are acheived (almost subliminal in Palladio's case, crassly cartoonish in Gehry's case-- and at elast gehry is umorous with it, not all earnest and self-important like Hadid-Koolhaas-Lieberskind)

[Big Green Scott]

I'm usually not much for modern architecture, but this thread helped me realize one of the features that I do like about modern style. That is the way Modern buildings often appear to float into the surrounding space... specifically the air space. Frank Gehry is of course the master of this "floating" form.

The lack of a defined edge is not a universal feature of the Modern form, especially when you consider some buildings with well defined edge enhancements such as the John Hancock in Chi-town (having a defining edge without artistic detail is still an edge...though not akin to the fractal pattern that is so appealing).

Gehry is really able to make his work float into the land/skyscape because of his use for curves, I however much prefer the work of Louis Kahn, who is able to build more boxy forms with out a defined edge, therefore giving the illusion of an older sort of weathered ziggurat where the edge detail has seemingly been eroded from the form.



sorry about the large image

[jaws]

Good post and good point Jaws.

Looking at those pictures I would add the other typcial differences between classical and 'modern' architecture.

> Readability (The Villa rotonda is not puzzling,Gehry's thing is purposefully, perversely puzzling)
> Symmetry
> Subtlety with which relief of mass and articulation are acheived (almost subliminal in Palladio's case, crassly cartoonish in Gehry's case-- and at elast gehry is umorous with it, not all earnest and self-important like Hadid-Koolhaas-Lieberskind)

These aspects are not exclusively absent from modern architecture the way edge detail is. They appear and vanish at the whim of the architect, which makes one believe that the architects don't care about them, as opposed to edge detail to which they are hysterically opposed.

[Luca]

You know, Jaws, I have to confess I find you pretty insufferable. You have made some good points and obviously put a lot of thought into your posts, but I find the absolutism a real put-off. I think it's a major mistake, rhetorically and logically, to make statements in the absolute. When people point out exceptions, you quibble about definitions.

I'm sure an expert architectural historian can find a 'modernist' building with hedge detail. If you look at my statement, I mentioned differences that 'typically' occur. Not, always, or only, but typically.

[jaws]

You know, Jaws, I have to confess I find you pretty insufferable. You have made some good points and obviously put a lot of thought into your posts, but I find the absolutism a real put-off. I think it's a major mistake, rhetorically and logically, to make statements in the absolute. When people point out exceptions, you quibble about definitions.

I'm sure an expert architectural historian can find a 'modernist' building with hedge detail. If you look at my statement, I mentioned differences that 'typically' occur. Not, always, or only, but typically.

Typically can't be used to tell the two apart because typically is only a taste preference of the architect. Easily discriminating between modern and traditional was the purpose of the post.

You have confused absolutism in my statements with precision. I certainly had considered symmetry to be a possible factor but had to discard it because it was imprecise. Even if I had kept it I would have made it clear that it is vertical sub-symmetry that is the identifying factor.

I would again be extremely interested to find a modernist building which uses edge detailing, as I asked BKM to provide. Otherwise I have to assume that the theory is correct.

[Luca]

perhaps you need to elaborate your definition of 'edge detail' of "precise" one.

[RSW]

Hello, everyone. Some interesting statements above.

But, first of all, I'm not sure anyone has much difficulty distinguishing modern architecture from traditional architecture. As with anything, one could quibble about definitions, but that does not mean that most people cannot easily distinguish one from the other. And if I were to construct a definition of traditional and modern for some reason, it wouldn't center on edge detail in particular.

Secondly, why does an edge need any more detail? An edge is already an edge and we don't have to be reminded "Hey, look out, here is an edge - let me really over-pronounce a molding so people don't miss it." Indeed Mies, the example above, has some of the most beautiful edges and beautiful details in general; part of their beauty seems to me to be centered upon subtlety, minimalism, a lack of superfluous tacked-on decoration or bric-a-brac, and, in short, a real understanding and expression of the essence of the materials and how they come together.

It is unlikely modern architects somehow forgot that an edge could have an ornament nailed to it. More likely they are against the idea of applying ornaments. This begins to address a more general difference in philosophy between the modernist and the traditionalist.

I am aware that this was not the intention of the original post but I would argue that a more meaningful debate of the merits of traditional versus modern architecture ought to center upon the rationale behind each rather than asking the leading questions so prevalent on this forum such as "Why didn't so-and-so stupid modern architect put windows at street level?" Included in this discussion might be the notion that when several centuries of history have passed, and civilization and culture are vastly changed, buildings might reflect this rather than remaining entirely stagnant and conservative unlike every other type of art form.

I will mention as an aside that it is happily beyond the scope of this topic to address the fact that many buildings (of any style) built today lack details for the simple reason that they are expensive and people want to build buildings cheaply (partly for purely financial reasons and partly because the program and spatial needs will likely be changing quickly so that large initial investment is not seen as justified).

Lastly, I will just state that I love traditional buildings and that I agree with the assessment of Gehry above as "cartoonish" - but these are simple personal preferences and probably are neither here nor there.

Rob

[Luca]

...I'm not sure anyone has much difficulty distinguishing modern architecture from traditional architecture...And if I were to construct a definition of traditional and modern for some reason, it wouldn't center on edge detail in particular...

Agree fully on both counts. I don't think it's useful to produce a formal 9Jaws would say "precise") definition of what is 'modernist' and what is 'traditional'. I do think it's useful to point out the archetypcal differences, though, to help us articulate our choices.

...Secondly, why does an edge need any more detail? An edge is already an edge and we don't have to be reminded "Hey, look out, here is an edge - let me really over-pronounce a molding so people don't miss it."...beauty seems to me to be centered upon subtlety, minimalism...

Aesthetically, regularity and complexity are more likely to please the eye than disorder and starkness. I believe (but that woudl be a long philosophical discussion) that almost no one instinctively likes bleakness (excess simplicity) but that they are trained to 'like it' partly as a signifier of erudition/cultivation and partly as an affirmation of (largely symbolic) nihilistic/thanatotic values.

[QUOTE=RSW]...a lack of superfluous tacked-on decoration or bric-a-brac.../QUOTE]

You say 'superfluous', but superfluous to what? to keeping the elements out? If that's all we want, we ahven't eneded architects or even engineers for decades. IF you conceive of a building as doing mroe than jsut warehousign thigns and people, then onament serves a very real and very valauvble prupose.

...a real understanding and expression of the essence of the materials and how they come together...

How is the lack of detail and finish (sometimes, fanatically, even to the practical detriment of the functionality of the building) show understanding of the essence of teh amterials? It's liek sayign that If I jsut serve raw pasta and (separately) unripe toamtos, on a steel plate, in the middle fo a warehouse I understand the essence of whea and tomatoes whreas if I cook them properly, mix them and serve them on fine china, in a nice dining room I'm bringing in superfluos details.. Minimalism is not based on understanding essential qualities, it is based on mis-understanding or, more accurately, underestimating, their essence.

It is unlikely modern architects somehow forgot that an edge could have an ornament nailed to it. More likely they are against the idea of applying ornaments. This begins to address a more general difference in philosophy between the modernist and the traditionalist.

Yes, of course. it is a very conscious choice. An inhuman one, or at least an anti-human one, but a choice.

I will agree with you that, comapred to the currently fashonable 'Disney on drugs' fractalism, 'classical' minimalism (Bauhaus etc.) is elegant and even fetching. The new stuff is right there with brutalism for aesthetic offense.

[bud]

The architecture of Palladio was modern in its time. I am not sure about Frank Gerry.

To be modern a building should be light and airy, it must push technology to its limits even effecting new invention in the process; to be architecture it must provide utility, stability, commodity and delight and all of this done in sympathy with Nature. Being novel is not to be confused with being modern.

I think architecture has been going backward since the mid 20th Century because the technology available at the time still has not been fully utilized, for example, space frames, and especially the engineering concepts of Buckminster Fuller, such as geodesic domes large enough to cover entire cities and his lightweight tensegrity towers; such technology is essential to conserve scare resources in order to assure economic growth, as well as to provide for increases in population.

Modern architecture is not and can not be financed because of the tendency to conform – creative architects may be ridiculed by overly conservative members of the profession so that the conventional client will balk at hiring such a one as that. The axioms, “Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise” or “the poor man’s wisdom is despised and his words are not heard”, i.e., “if you’re so smart why aren’t you rich”, may well apply. Conservatism can be a euphemism for cowardice.

It takes courage to move forward since the creative individual may be regarded as reckless or foolish and thus rendered unemployable; this is indeed a rare and therefore precious individual in a society if unnourished and neglected can only lead to social degeneracy and demise. There may be hope, since I hear the current trend is to a right-brained (creative) economic and investment viewpoint, see - http://danpink.com/

Also see - http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fna...positions.html - or - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...899422-4033717

[jaws]

perhaps you need to elaborate your definition of 'edge detail' of "precise" one.

Edge detail is fractal detail. It is detail that appears at the edge of a larger, crudely-defined space. It is defined not only by being detailed but also by its relationship to the larger part. It is thus necessarily hierarchical.

Stolen from Katarxis:




This isn't saying that modernist buildings can't have detail, but the spatial relationship of this detail is not edge detail.

[THX0097]

There are a few points to be made so far.
First in response to Jaws's title and point "Distinguishing Traditional from Modern Architecture in One Easy Step" my answer would be ...yes….examining how a modern architect and a traditional architect dealt with edge detail is certainly an easy way to distinguish between modern and traditional.....That's a moot point though and only reiterating the obvious....one could make a similar statement about painting....”Distinguishing Renaissance form Modern painting in One Easy Step”......brush strokes. Each movement has it's own philosophy and interpretations within the larger language of architecture/art. We could just as easily substitute any two movements in architecture and come up with the same conclusion. The discussion has a fatal flaw or an easy out based on this frame…..Yes of course the edge detail as defined by the renaissance’s definition is universally absent from the Ghery project and all “strains” (whatever they are) of modern architecture…all movements define this differently. It’s absurd however to think that modern architecture doesn’t define the edge detail at all.

Second, the use of traditional and modern are terms loosely being tossed around here. What is traditional and modern? Ghery is by no means a modern architect and doesn’t profess to be….But I guess we’ll put that aside because of prior posts…

Thirdly, I don’t believe Ghery was trying to make an exact copy of the Villa Rotonda….rather he was incorporating similar themes as those used in the villa…ie. relationship to the site, attitude towards views, movement through the space…etc. Each piece was designed and detailed within its place in history but the underlying ideals and beliefs maybe similar…

Fourthly, there seems to be a broader underlying current of those that are for “decoration” and those against. This all falls into the personal taste category.

“Aesthetically, regularity and complexity are more likely to please the eye than disorder and starkness. I believe (but that woudl be a long philosophical discussion) that almost no one instinctively likes bleakness (excess simplicity) but that they are trained to 'like it' partly as a signifier of erudition/cultivation and partly as an affirmation of (largely symbolic) nihilistic/thanatotic values.”……..What data do you have to support such a wide brush stroke?



“

...a lack of superfluous tacked-on decoration or bric-a-brac.../QUOTE]
You say 'superfluous', but superfluous to what?"
Superfluous to the program, to the budget, to the desired design....just to name a few...

"If that's all we want, we ahven't eneded architects or even engineers for decades."
so are you saying that the only use for architects and engineers is to add bric-aq-brac to spaces and if decoration is removed there is no need for them???!!!

"IF you conceive of a building as doing mroe than jsut warehousign thigns and people then onament serves a very real and very valauvble prupose.”…..ok I’ll bite what? What real valuable purpose does it serve?


“How is the lack of detail and finish (sometimes, fanatically, even to the practical detriment of the functionality of the building) show understanding of the essence of teh amterials?”
First off why such an extreme with you?
What do you mean by lack of detail and finish? Who said anything about lack of detail and finish? As a matter of fact I'd argue that there is more detail in a ghery building than the villa.
And to answer your question. Modern architecture sought to free materials and spaces from the boundaries of historical constraints of ornament and decoration. So rather than hide an edge (the place where 2 different materials meet) behind decoration modernism embraced this raw honest edge and enabled the true essence of the materials to be seen unrivaled by unnecessary decoration that would dilute the design. More to the point because of evolving technologies and materials ornamentation and decoration where not required or appropriate as much as in the past. So say for instance where a steel column meets a steel beam, a "traditional" response would be to "build up" some sort carved doric column head or cap???? Why? This is not only a superflous and rediculous detail but an added cost and to what end? A "modern" response would be true and adress the true essence of the materials. They would weld the 2 together or bolt them or whatever.


"It's liek sayign that If I jsut serve raw pasta and (separately) unripe toamtos, on a steel plate, in the middle fo a warehouse I understand the essence of whea and tomatoes whreas if I cook them properly, mix them and serve them on fine china, in a nice dining room I'm bringing in superfluos details.. Minimalism is not based on understanding essential qualities, it is based on mis-understanding or, more accurately, underestimating, their essence." Again with the extemes....how does the argument of decoration become a raw piece of speghetti and a tomato on a crate to you??? But again I will work within your argument...how about this...take the speghetti and sauce served on fine china in a nice dining room as a starting point for modernism because that would be a speghetti dinner no? that would be modernism, now by your own definition and framework of this debate you suggest that by adding more to it it becomes more human so we add some veal cutlets with peppers and muscles and red pepper and parmesian cheese and mozzerella cheese and garlic powder but wait now I can't really taste the speghetti anymore...was this a speghetti dinner or veal cutlet or seafood dinner I can't tell anymore because we have over decorated this dish rather than letting the speghetti be tasted unrivaled by the added flavors competing for our senses. ie lets decorate our meal so we can understand it more because that's how we'd understand what a speghetti dinner is all about based on your argument right we need to add more to it for us to be able to relate to it and make it a human experience correct?




"Yes, of course. it is a very conscious choice. An inhuman one, or at least an anti-human one, but a choice. "
How is it anti-human? So it's human to overdecorate?

I will agree with you that, comapred to the currently fashonable 'Disney on drugs' fractalism, 'classical' minimalism (Bauhaus etc.) is elegant and even fetching. The new stuff is right there with brutalism for aesthetic offense.

....what????

Edge detail is fractal detail. It is detail that appears at the edge of a larger, crudely-defined space. It is defined not only by being detailed but also by its relationship to the larger part. It is thus necessarily hierarchical.


This isn't saying that modernist buildings can't have detail, but the spatial relationship of this detail is not edge detail.

The major problem with your argument is that you're trying to define modern architecture with tradition definitions. Your definition of edge detail is actually more a definition of scale than an edge detail. Quite frankly it's ridiculous, are you suggesting that there's only one way to transition from one space to another and that's by a linear progression from larger to smaller?

[Luca]

Edge detail is fractal detail. It is detail that appears at the edge of a larger, crudely-defined space. It is defined not only by being detailed but also by its relationship to the larger part. It is thus necessarily hierarchical.

Stolen from Katarxis:



This isn't saying that modernist buildings can't have detail, but the spatial relationship of this detail is not edge detail.

You know, in its crudest form, I do think you could have / may have the kidn of detail as illustrated in those pictures on a modernist building; but thanks for explaining 'edge detail'. It's not too different to another definition of 'traditional' deatial I've seen which is "orderered and symetrical complaxity".

I am left, however, with the suspicion that, as in urban form, the difference between 'traditional' and 'modernsit' is more qualitative than normative (which makes it tougher to deal with, the old "I know it when I see it" problem).

What data do you have to support such a wide brush stroke?

I said it would be a rather long post... If I get around to it, I will try to do this justice when I get some time.

You ask for data...Look at the choices people make (the vast majority of people, in all countries, prefer traditional design when it comes to their own penny - you can see the evidence all around you: public and corporate buildigns modern - homes typically 'traditionmal' (otr an imitation thereof). look at the effect it has on the market (traditional buildings, other than decrepit ones, comand a hefty market premium over modern ones, there is a reason for this).

[THX0097]

"You ask for data...Look at the choices people make (the vast majority of people, in all countries, prefer traditional design when it comes to their own penny - you can see the evidence all around you: public and corporate buildigns modern - homes typically 'traditionmal' (otr an imitation thereof). look at the effect it has on the market (traditional buildings, other than decrepit ones, comand a hefty market premium over modern ones, there is a reason for this).[/QUOTE]"

ironically enough though homes built today not only incorporate more "modern" ideals but are constructed using "modern" techniques. Todays homes are more modern than they are traditional. Your "data" only supports my point.

not to mention there is no example of "edge detail" as jaws has described in todays homes. I'll say it again todays homes are more "modern" than they are "traditional".

[Luca]

ironically enough though homes built today not only incorporate more "modern" ideals but are constructed using "modern" techniques. Todays homes are more modern than they are traditional. Your "data" only supports my point.

You are clearly equivocating between 'modern' as in 'built today' and 'modernist' as in 'wilfully anti-traditional'.

[THX0097]

You are clearly equivocating between 'modern' as in 'built today' and 'modernist' as in 'wilfully anti-traditional'.

No, actually quite the opposite. I would use the correct term for "built today" that being contemporary. No I'm using "modern" by it's architectural definition and place in history. homes of today incorporate more modernist ideals than they do traditional, quite frankly the only remaining "traditional" (again whatever that means) aspects of new homes is the way they look and perhaps the romantic nature they are marketed, as if looking traditional is anything near being traditional. An idea you seem to be bogged down in.

[BKM]

You are clearly equivocating between 'modern' as in 'built today' and 'modernist' as in 'wilfully anti-traditional'.

Perhaps not. Open floor plans? check. use of industrial building techniques and materials? check. mass-produced pastiches of "traditional" detailing used in a cheap, out-of-scale, almost mocking way? check. Dominance of the automobile in the design of the house or commercial building? check.

There's not much "traditional" in today's "traditional" houses. Admittedly, this "problem" is probably much worse in the US versus Britain, but it seems like the "traditional" houses chosen by most people contain the worst of both worlds.

At least, that's my opinion. A perfect example in a house in Berkeley I observed this weekend. A brick clad "tudor" that was almost a joke in its emphasis on square footage at all cost, easy access to the front facing garage, faux brick trim, and poorly proprtioned detailing. A cool, pure Pierre Koenig box would be far better than this horrific pastiche.

[jaws]

What architecture needs is a "popular" class of architecture, in the sense of popular music and popular movies. An architecture meant to appeal to the masses. This isn't to say that what is currently being produced by homebuilders is popular architecture because in most cases there is no architect involved at all. The homebuilders are trying to create a house that is homely and comfortable, and architects today are completely opposed to that.

Popular music and movies are made by professional artists, but they usually follow simple formulas that the audience can easily understand and enjoy. Every architect today is taught to be and wants to be an experimental architect, but just as the market for experimental movies and music is extremely small so is the market for experimental architecture.

Traditional architecture appeals to regular people. Everyone loves the old buildings. Their appeal is obvious and does not require taking a course on appreciating architecture to understand.

Perhaps not. Open floor plans? check. use of industrial building techniques and materials? check.

Those pre-date modernism.

[BKM]

Those pre-date modernism.

Perhaps. But, I think a lot of people associate "traditional" design with the Victorian upper middle class predilection for multiple small, single purpose rooms where the women and family privacy can be protected from the cold hard world.

[THX0097]

[QUOTE=jaws]What architecture needs is a "popular" class of architecture, in the sense of popular music and popular movies. An architecture meant to appeal to the masses. This isn't to say that what is currently being produced by homebuilders is popular architecture because in most cases there is no architect involved at all. The homebuilders are trying to create a house that is homely and comfortable, and architects today are completely opposed to that.

WOW!!!! WHAT!!!???
You really need to get a grip on your generalizations, you're argument holds no merit because of them...
One could argue every movement in architecture is meant to appeal to the masses or certainly speak to them. I'd also argue that modernisim was an architecture that sought to be for the people and shed all of the preconceived chains of "traditional" architecture and most definitly post modernism sought to embody all of the masses with it's easily recognizable iconic design.
Also you assume that a building has to have an architect involved in order to be considered architecture. That isn't true.


Popular music and movies are made by professional artists, but they usually follow simple formulas that the audience can easily understand and enjoy. Every architect today is taught to be and wants to be an experimental architect, but just as the market for experimental movies and music is extremely small so is the market for experimental architecture.
Where are you getting this??? you mean EVERY architect is not only taught to be experimental but wants to be?!

Traditional architecture appeals to regular people. Everyone loves the old buildings. Their appeal is obvious and does not require taking a course on appreciating architecture to understand.

Regular people?!!? who is regular and who is irregular?! Everyone loves old buildings?...Really??? do handicap people love old buildings...do the blind? C'mon man you can't be serious.


Those concepts used as a whole certainly do not predate modernism. You have no idea what you're talking about, the only thing you seem to know is you're own opinion which you're having trouble explaining...