Jump to content

Talk:Modern architecture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ccharity. Peer reviewers: Liyahyow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4.1 - Cubist architecture (1910-1931) - International Style since 1932

[edit]

Between 1910 and 1931 nobody was talking about International Style. In the US Hitchcock and Johnson transformed the Dutch term "De Stijl" into "International Style" in 1932. For the artistic language, "De Stijl"-group used the term "Cubist", see poster by Theo van Doesburg (1920) and the video. In many articles about "De Stijl", the terms Cubist and Cubist architecture are used.

In 1932, the International Style suggested, that only one relevant style of Modern architecture existed. In 2017 there is a different view on Modern architecture. Today we see 3 relevant movements of the 1920s, depending on the great influence on the development of Modern architecture until now:

Cubist architecture, architectural language with cubist forms, still influential (part of the skyscrapers, housing projects etc.)

Expressionist architecture, architectural language with expressionist forms, still influential (Sydney Opera House etc.)

Constructivist architecture, architectural language with elements of construction, still influential (High-Tech architecture etc.)

The three terms Cubist-, Expressionist- and Constructivist-architecture are familiar, because they give information about the architectural form. In the term International Style, information about the architectural form is lacking.

My suggestion is, to use the title mentioned on top (for point 4.1) Leuk2 (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I don't think the term Cubist architecture is appropriate here: its not used in any source I've seen and it suggests a coherence and connection between cubist painting and architecture which I don't think really existed. Its an oversimplification and is misleading. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two different interpretations, a European and an American one. You are from California, I am from the country, where Ch.Jeanneret was born. I like the concept of the article Modern architecture you introduced a year ago. I think it's the most interesting article of all 44 versions in different languages. But until 21 October 2017, there was a missing part: No illustrations of the important and influential Dutch contributions on Modern architecture were added. (Perhaps the promotion of the term International Style in the US is stronger than the promotion of the Cubist architecture in the small country the Netherlands.)

Examples of Cubist architecture in Europe. In the article Arne Jacobsen the term "White Cubist architecture" is used in relation to the Weissenhof Estate in Stuttgart (1927), and in the article CIAM (1928) you can read: "CIAM promoted modern architecture in the 'Cubist style': the Bauhaus, Weissenhof, De Stijl et al." In Europe it would be incorrect to write, CIAM (1928) promoted the International Style.

Historical town and cubist architecture. In many (small) historical towns in Europe, conflicts arise by the mixture of traditional and cubist architecture, that often destroys the historical urban ensemble. In this situation we talk about the responsibility of the cubist architecture (not of the International Style).

Traditionalism. Beside the Cubist-, Expressionist- and Constructivist architecture is another influential style of the 1920s in Europe, called Traditionalism (architecture), see German and Dutch article. Today this traditional style is used for restoration of historical towns with the aim to get a more acceptable urban ensemble.

Coherence and connection. There are different Cubist movements in Europe; the most famous one was in Paris (painters) and another one in the Netherlands (painters and architects). In the Cubist movement "De Stijl" in the Netherlands, coherence and connection existed between the painters (Mondrian, van Doesburg et al.) and the architects (Oud, Rietveld et al.). The Cubist movement of "De Stijl" in the Netherlands was earlier than the Cubist architecture by Le Corbusier.

Oversimplification. In my opinion, the term International Style could be called an oversimplification. All three styles (Cubist-, Expressionist- and Constructivist architecture) are international styles and together they increase diversification. - Leuk2 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with much of this too. @Leuk2: What is your source that states the Steiner house in Vienna by Adolf Loos (1910), is one of the first prototypes of Cubist architecture? I find this dubious because technically Cubism did not exist as a term before 1911. And, the first Cubist house wasn't until 1912: La Maison Cubiste. None of the sources I've looked at make the same claim as you. Finally, you have not yet answered a similar question I ask of you at Talk:De Stijl (De Stijl, International Style and Cubist architecture). Coldcreation (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theo van Doesburg: The pioneers of "Cubist architecture" (1922)

[edit]

in the Netherlands and in Germany

Theo van Doesburg published an article in the Dutch magazine "De Bouwwereld" 30/1922 (see WIKISOURCE) with the title 'De architect J.J.P. Oud "voorganger" der "kubisten" in de bouwkunst?' (Architect J.J.P. Oud "pioneer" of the "cubists" in architecture?). In this article Van Doesburg criticized the recent work by J.J.P. Oud in relation to "Cubist architecture". Van Doesburg accepted only the Villa Allegonda in Katwijk (J.J.P. OUD in collaboration with M. KAMERLINGH ONNES) as an example of "Cubist architecture". At the end of the article Van Doesburg named 5 Dutch architects which "must be called the real pioneers of 'Cubist architecture' ":

1. ROBERT VAN 'T HOFF - 1916, Villa Henny in Huis ter Heide

2. JAN WILS - 1921, Papaverhof in The Hague

3. GERRIT RIETVELD - 1921, Shop Kalverstraat 107 in Amsterdam

4. PAUW and HARDEVELD - 1921, Betonwoningen in Rotterdam

About the architectural development in Germany Van Doesburg was writing: "Since my stay and activities in Germany, the principles of 'De Stijl' are influential on architects such as: MEYER-GROPIUS (Theatre in Jena), FORBAT (Bauhaus-Siedlung), HILBERSEIMER, MENDELSOHN (Houses in Charlottenburg) and other architects." ... "For many young German architects, the Dutch architecture provides a new direction."

The conclusion of these statements is, that the European interpretation by Theo van Doesburg (Cubist architecture, 1922) should be combined with the American interpretation (International Style, 1932) by Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson. This combination would exclude a falsification of architectural history in Europe of the 1920s. The correct title in the main article should be formulated in the following sense:

4.1 Cubist architecture (1910-1931) - International Style since 1932

Leuk2 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent citations about "cubist architecture"?

[edit]

The text cited, if I understand correctly, is from 1928. I've not seen any reference to cubist architecture in any of the recent histories of architecture and modern architecture cited in the article. Can you cite any recent recent book of architectural history that gives cubist architecture equal billing with modern architecture and modernism? Can you indicate some buildings which are described in recent books as examples of cubist architecture? SiefkinDR (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That Wikisource link utilizes quotes when referring to "so-called" "cubist architecture". It also states that "no so-called "cubist architecture" has been put into practice" and "The complexes of houses, with how much consultation and sense of good relations have also been put together, can not be used as examples of "cubist architecture"". I therefore agree with SiefkinDR that modern citations by qualified historians must be found, if any exist, before the expression cubist architecture is used here, or in the De Stijl article.
In a search for "cubist architecture" at GoogleBooks this came up: Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Architecture, edited by Stephen Sennott. Note: In relation to Czech "architectural history... the notion of Cubist architecture simply does not exist." There is a confusion between "cubist" and "cubic" in the relevant literature, as pointed out in the above link at the bottom of page 333. I suspected this might be the case, and that this confusion between "cubist" and "cubic" has blurred Leuk2 picture of modern architecture. Coldcreation (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This too may be of interest: Modern Architecture in Czechoslovakia and Other Writings, by Karel Teige: "...cubist architecture was not architecture but a second-rate, derivative form of applied art good only for sketching utopian monuments, which always remained on paper because of their technical impossibility." Coldcreation (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this: Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review, edited by Marc Treib: "And while neither a true cubist architecture nor a true cubist garden ever really existed, several noted designers did employ shapes and features in their work that reflected the influence of cubism and purism." Coldcreation (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cubist architecture in Europe, citations

[edit]

Czech Republic: Czech Cubism (Cubo-Expressionism), art and architecture movement, 1912-1914, see Wikipedia article.

France I: La Maison Cubiste by Raymond Duchamp-Villon, 1912. The architectural language of the Maison Cubiste is similar to the Czech Cubism (Cubo-Expressionism), see Wikipedia article.

France II: Cubist architecture by Le Corbusier et al. / "Indeed, the cubist influence is vividly evident in the various homes that Le Corbusier designed in the 1920s and is consummately realized in his Villa Savoye." - Steven Best, Douglas Kellner, in "The Postmodern Turn", New York-London 1997, page 141. / "Hejduk's analysis began with what one could see as expected readings of the Carpenter Center as a Cubist work of architecture..., that suggests a somewhat clear evolution of Cubism in architecture." - Steven Holl, in "House: Black Swan Theory", New York 2007, page 159.

Austria: Steiner House by Adolf Loos 1910, forerunner of cubist design principles of the International Style. / "Die kubistischen Gestaltungsprinzipien, die für die Entwicklung des »Internationalen Stils« der späten zwanziger und der dreißiger Jahre entscheidend waren, beim Haus Steiner vorweggenommen,... stehen in einer Linie mit den Tendenzen von Le Corbusier, der die Arbeiten Adolf Loos' kannte und schätzte." - Günther Feuerstein, in "Moderne Kunst in Österreich", Vienna 1965, page 16.

The Netherlands: "The earliest numbers of the review (De Stijl) published some of my works ... which I regarded as the first examples of a real cubist architecture…, also Dudok's cubism (brick cubism) derived from these works." - J.J.P. Oud, in Leonardo Benevolo, "History of Modern Architecture - Volume 2", Cambridge Mass. 1977, page 410. / "The architects Robert van 't Hoff, Jan Wils, Gerrit Rietveld, Pauw and Hardeveld must be called the real pioneers of 'Cubist architecture'." - Theo van Doesburg, in the Dutch magazine "De Bouwwereld" 1922 no.30, page 229-230.

Google Books citations. Leuk2 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've already mentioned La Maison Cubiste (1912) as the earliest example of Cubism applied to architecture. Also above, Czech Cubism (Cubo-Expressionism) in architecture was "cubic", not "Cubist". As stated by Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Architecture: In relation to Czech "architectural history... the notion of Cubist architecture simply does not exist." Even if these architects were inspired by Cubism, and I'm sure some were, the experiments were short lived. Le Corbusier is well documented. He was not a Cubist, but a Purist. His architecture was not Cubist, though arguably inspired by it. There is a difference between Cubist-inspired and Cubism itself. The Steiner House (1910) is not at all Cubist architecture. The article confirms that fact. Nowhere is it mentioned. Finally, back to De Stijl. While also an off-shoot of Cubism, inspired by, or a reaction to it, De Stijl was not Cubism. And you have still not cited a source to back your claims made here or at Talk:De Stijl. Coldcreation (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note too, here at Wikipedia we do not use Wikipedia articles as sources or references. Coldcreation (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leuk2: What is the exact translation in Dutch of "White Cubist architecture", and in which De Stijl magazine (date, issue number, page number) is it mentioned? Coldcreation (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Architect Oud was a prominent member of the De Stijl-movement. In the citation (9cm above) Oud was talking about two different cubist styles. The first term was "Cubist architecture" (=white cubist architecture). The second term was "Dudok's cubism" (=brick cubism with the colors of the bricks). - In the article De Stijl, the following architects (Oud, Rietveld, Wils) are presented as "Neoplasticists". In architecture publications (part of my job), nobody is talking or writing about "Neoplasticist architecture", because it is not useful in architecture. - The best translation of texts can be found in "Google Translate". - Leuk2 (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Leuk2: "Witte kubistische architectuur"? There is nothing on the internet about this, except related to some houses in the Greek islands, nothing to do with modern architecture or Cubism. You wrote: "The Dutch magazine DE STIJL (editor-in-chief Theo van Doesburg) promoted the "White Cubist architecture"". In which publication does Doesburg mention "Witte kubistische architectuur"? Please provide a reliable and verifiable source, with date and page number(s).Coldcreation (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...and here, white cubist architecture is mentioned in passing, but not as a particular style. It is not at all clear what that even means in the context of the article. Coldcreation (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cubist architecture (White Cubist architecture) - International Style

[edit]

The term "Cubist architecture" is used by J.J.P.Oud in the "History of Modern Architecture" by Leonardo Benevolo. The term "White Cubist architecture" is used by prominent CIAM member Josep Lluís Sert in the article Peabody Terrace: to "bring the color and life of the Mediterranean to the white cubist architecture of northern Europe." The term "White Cubist architecture" is also cited in the article Arne Jacobsen and "Cubist style" in the article CIAM. The Dutch magazine DE STIJL (editor-in-chief Theo van Doesburg) promoted the "White Cubist architecture" among other themes.

Brick Cubism

[edit]

The term "Dudok's cubism" (Brick Cubism) is used by J.J.P.Oud in the "History of Modern Architecture" by Leonardo Benevolo. - The Dutch magazine WENDINGEN (editor-in-chief H.Th.Wijdeveld) promoted different modern styles: Brick Cubism (Dudok, 4 issues), Expressionist architecture (de Klerk, 6 issues), Constructivist architecture (Van Nelle Factory, 1 issue), F.L.Wright architecture (8 issues), Traditionalist architecture and other themes. - In the Netherlands of the 1920s, two influential art and architecture movements existed: DE STIJL-movement (1917-1931) and the WENDINGEN-movement (1918-1931). - The term Brick Cubism is used analogously to Brick Expressionism.

Typical style of Modern architecture: Art Deco or Brick Cubism?

[edit]

Leuk2 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionalist architecture

[edit]

Architectural movement since the beginning of the 20th century in Europe: Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany et al. Traditionalist architecture is a parallel movement to Cubist-, Expressionist- and Constructivist architecture since the 1920s. The early work of Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe et al. was realized in a traditionalist style. At the Delft TU in the Netherlands, Traditionalist architecture was a dominant movement from 1925-1955, promoted by M.J.Granpré Molière. See German and Dutch articles Traditionalismus (Architektur).

Leuk2 (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the montage are not, unfortunately, improvements

[edit]

I don't think the recent changes to the lead montage are improvements. Why have a tiny black and white picture of Tatlin's tower, which was never built and never actually could be built, and leave out Saarinen's TWA terminal, which was one of the most influential buildings of the 20th century? It seems a little strange, and I don't think it accurately summarizes 20th century. I think the montage should contain a small number of buildings that were built and had a clear impact on architectural history, and where the images are big enough to be seen. It's a summary of the article. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, and will now proceed to revert it back to its original splendor. Coldcreation (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Coldcreation (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead montage not complete

In Modern architecture are three dominant styles:

In the existing lead montage are no illustrations of Constructivist architecture. Examples of this style are:

Leuk2 (talk), 12:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not every important piece or style of architecture can, or should, be shown in the lead montage. As SiefkinDR stated above, "the montage should contain a small number of buildings that were built and had a clear impact on architectural history." (Also, no need to start a new section every time you post: the subject already has a header). Coldcreation (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Years attributed to works

[edit]

Why are the years attributed to the works referred to in the article the year the works were completed? Wouldn't it make more sense to date the works according to the year design of them commenced? You can't say that a work is a particular style just because it came to exist during that period if it was designed in the previous period. No architect could foresee the style that would be considered prominent in the year their work would be completed. I give the example of Jørn Utzon and the Sydney Opera House. His early works were designed in the era and style of Modernism, and indeed the year in which he designed the Sydney Opera House was 1956, yet the year given in the article for the Sydney Opera House is 1973 (the year of its completion and after Utzon had relinquished the completion of the project) - outside of the recognised Modernist timeline (as given on the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_architectural_styles) and within the Post-modernist era, giving what I believe is a false impression that his work was intended to be in the Post-modernist style, a style which he could not have foreseen 17 years prior. I think it would be more accurate to label the works of each architect in the year or year span in which the work was designed. RiffRaffMama (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, this article is a mess. Works need to be put in appropriate style section. Sagrada Familia wont be considered contemporary architecture when its finished, it will still be Gothic/Art Nouveau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.31.234 (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You deff should correct it, I will see delete nonsense that are 2 sections - early modernism in Europe and USA, makes no sense to just pile on early works of completely different styles and add Art Nouveau.MrStefanWolf (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad chronology and readability of article along with casual mistakes

[edit]

Early modern architecture is definitely Art Nouveau which was in vogue 1890-1910 (section is unforgivably lacking, its only casually mentioned yet that is first modern style, Gaudi, Horta, Guimard not a single example given of those architects ). Birth of skyscraper should be in origin section. When sources are copied from Art Nouveau page along with photos style that follows is Art Deco. Inexplicably Art Deco is not dated unlike all other styles, it starts before WW1 and should therefore go before Bauhaus, expressionist, constructivist,international style (not even those 4 styles are in proper order). Article has overt American bias and focuses too much on American architecture and examples, especially in early origin, late 19th-early 20th century which are all in Europe. I assume that is why Art Nouveau is completely glanced over, it was called Tiffany style and there are little examples of it in USA. Théâtre des Champs-Élysées is not early modernism, it is early Art Deco and should be in that section. Stoclet Palace is Art Nouveau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.129.103 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early modernism in Europe

[edit]

There are massive issues with this article section in particular( I am sure some others have issues too). A lot of architects listed should be in separate Art Nouveau section that is not present in this article as of now, but I will make it while using some sources from this article and some from Art Nouveau. Antonio Gaudi, Victor Horda, Hector Guimard are not modernist architects. Art Nouveau was modern style as was Art Deco, but they are not modernist. If some more knowledgeable editor in architecture can improve article and correct potential mistakes along with better sources if they are possible I invite them to do itMrStefanWolf (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The work of Antoni Gaudí is Modernisme. Coldcreation (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, its modern in english term, there is confusion in translation of the terms. Also Vienna Secession is not modernist, its part of Art Nouveau and only modern. MrStefanWolf (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MrStefanWolf: Are you saying the work of Antoni Gaudí is not Modernisme? Coldcreation (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mister Cold, what you are linking is just local Catalan varient of Art Nouveau, along with many local variants of Art Nouveau. See Vienna Secession, Stile Liberte, Tiffany Style etc. All Art Nouveau which is modern style in todays understending, they are not modernist. MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion in terms modern and modernist

[edit]

Some old links from 1979 in pages of architects still call them modern, while today they would be called modernist cause distinction is made for purely functional architecture without ornament and new and modern architecture but with ornament like Art Nouveau and Art Deco. Modern and Modernist are not same and even Royal Institute of British architects that I link in external source makes the distinction. Many confusion in this article cause it mixes 2 term but it is clear that it only relates to 1 (modernist) like the year given of beginning of modern architecture 1920s (its modernist actually). Modern architecture begins with 19th century, also article has heavy bias towards modernist architecture while reducing early modern and postmodernist architecture to footnotes. Modernist architects should not have sections dedicated to themselves with exception of maybe Corbusier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 20:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the above. This article ia about the architecture of the 20th century which followed the Art Nouveau and the Art Deco. It is commonly called modern architecture. There are separate article on those other periods, and the periods that followed. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article is about modern architecture which starts in late 19th century. Modernist architecture is timeline that was given, which is factually wrong. I was thinking about starting Modernist architecture article, maybe someone can help me out with that cause i am not that knowledgebla about it ? MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy modernist and especially american modernist bias

[edit]

Absolutely nothing warrants multiple sections for post war american architects. Why are there so many examples of numerous american architects with their section? I nominate some to be deleted, Richard Neutra and Charles & Ray Eames, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill and Wallace K. Harrison,Philip Johnson, Louis Kahn, I. M. Pei, Eero Saarinen.MrStefanWolf (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to delete major Architects because they're American. They played a central part in the architecture of the period Also odd that you should want to delete I.M. Pei, born in China, Eero Saarinen, from Finland, Richard Neutra, born in Austria, and Louis Kahn, born in Russia. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is, they are all representatives of modernist style, absolutly nothign warrants them having their own section, and Gaudi for example being a footnote. I would leave Pei cause he will switch to postmodernism which is another underrepresented section in this article. Some just have to go.MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist bias and bad order in front page pictures too

[edit]

I will be removing JFK airport and Chicago skyline pictures and replacing them with european example of Art Nouveau and American Art Deco skyscraper. Will put them all in chronological order.MrStefanWolf (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrStefanWolf:, The JFK airport (TWA building) and Chicago skyline are perfect examples of modern architecture. Coldcreation (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC
Agree with Coldcreation, JFK airport and Chicago skyline are classic and frequently cited examples of modern architecture. Please do not remove. SiefkinDR (talk)
Well we have to have more representative gallery of all styles, you choose what to remove then. Cause all thats representated is modernist architecture, nothing else. No Art Nouveau, Art Deco or postmodernism. 5 pictures of only 1 stlye, something needs to be removed. Corbusier and Franks then, they both have their own sections MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

[edit]

There's a great deal of confusion now in the article, particularly in the lead. The citation given, the book by Anne Bony, does not support the idea that Art Nouveau and Art Deco are part of modern architecture; she describes them as predecessors. One of the basic ideas of modern architecture, as described by Bony and other writers cited, is the absence of ornament. Art nouveau and art deco, of course, are all about ornament. Also, Bony and others state clearly that Art Nouveau was not an architectural style but a movement with many different styles, and it came to a complete end with the First World War. This should be made very clear in the article.

Also, based on the above, it doesn't make any sense to me to include images of Art Nouveau and Art Deco buildings in this article, other than as possible predecessors; buildings such as the Palais Stocklet and Glasgow School of Art, for instance. Gaudi is an entirely style of his own, and doesn't fit into modern architecture, unless you're defining all the styles of the early 20th century as modern architecture. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No they are supported, even in Art Deco section, opening line is that Art Deco is modern but not modernist (which was in blatant contradiction with entire article that no one was fixing). Written by mister Anwar. Modernist definition with link given supports your writing about modern architecture (confusion in names stems also from older literature). Art Nouveau is considered style with different local variations but style, nothing less. Here is good basis for starting purely modernist article
[1]  along with link from RIBA. All literature supports that modern architecture starts in late 19th century which is Art Nouveau and they mention Gaudi one best representatives of style. Maybe we need to find some better and more clear source than Bony?  MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Think you were right so I replaced it with Victor Anwar definition that is very clear and easy to understand, and hopefully wont lead to confusion.Also no offence to Anne Bony but she is not expert on Art Nouveau so its probably better to use sources from Art Nouveau focused booksMrStefanWolf (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist architecture article needed

[edit]

There are many confusions with usage of terms, not being reduced by many languages in Europe. Modernist architecture is today clearly defined as architecture that starts in 20th century and has disdain for ornament. - The Viennese architect Adolf Loos believed that the decoration of functional objects was inefficient and wasteful. His manifesto ‘Ornament and Crime’ became a key modernist text, in which he argued that avoiding ornament was ‘a sign of spiritual strength’.- Art Nouveau and Art Deco dont belong to this type of architecture. They however do belong, to modern architecture which starts with use of new materials and rejection of classicism and Beaux-Arts. Should I start Modernist architecture to make clear distiction and avoid further confusion ? Do we have some some swedish speakers here ? Article Modernistik architecture is perfect for Modernist architecture in English.. Misters SiefkinDR and Coldcreation maybe you guys could be on it, and I think we should expand postmodernism section and include New Architecture and focus on sustainability that will dominate the profession since 1985. Think we should expand years of modern architecture to 2000 since I think thats widely accepted, 21th century is considered contemporary so we would not include that.Another useful article that explains key difference between modern and modernist, while also defining modernist as stricly without ornament [2] MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to highlight huge overlap that this article has with International Style (architecture) that warrants need to remove focus and invdividual architects of modernism. Corbusier, Ludwig Mies are explained there in depth so in same way we wont have deep dive about Gaudi here we should not have deep dive about them. All same examples when it comes to building, philosophy etc. This should focus and all late 19th and entire 20th century architecture, so I will be expanding postmodernism section with new architecture and removing dedicated sections to all but handful of modernist architects.MrStefanWolf (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion to add sentence to Corbusier and Mies sections about CIAM (1928) if you deem necessary cause I will be deleting that section - Modernism becomes a movement: CIAM (1928). Only reason CIAM was important was cause of Corbusier and Mies and they are already discussed in extensive manner.MrStefanWolf (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus on your drastic changes

[edit]

Mr. Wolf, there is no consensus on many of the changes you are making. You are completely rewriting the article and disregarding the sources cited and the opinions of other editors. This is not how Wikipedia works. Please stop and take into account the views of other editors. Discuss before you change. Get consensus. Otherwise the changes you have made will all have to be have to reverted andwe will have to start over. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Siefkin, all content is sourced, I have made numeruos topics and started many conversations that are very needed. Fixed numerous contradictions, critical chronological errors and some overt bias. I dont think that consensus is needed for those pressing issues that this article has. Also many commentators sadly do not know difference between modern and modernist architecture and think this article is for modernist architecture. It is not, International Style (architecture) is the style many are disscusing here. We have at least 3 subsections leading to that style, why? We have rise of modernism, than international style, then both postwar USA and postwar Europe all linking to international style. Aloso have made suggestions for postmodern section to be expanded, Vienna Secession can be added to Art Nouveau cause it will influence modernism, but do not know will that be overlap with rise of modernism. We lack sustainable architecture that will start in 1990(and in many ways dominate architecture to this day).MrStefanWolf (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MrStefanWolf: I agree with @SiefkinDR:. These types of changes (dealing with definitions of words such as Modernist, Modernism, Modernismo, Modernisme and Postmodernism, as related to architecture) are exactly why wikipedia functions by consensus. Until these and other issues are resolved, I will revert edits back to the last good version. Coldcreation (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you obviously dont want to make this page useful and live up to its name, instead it is just more in detail version of International Style (architecture). Type of changes were not dealing only with definition (it did among other things) it dealt also with lacking chronology, lacking styles and blatant contradictions that are already provide in article. Like - Art Deco (which does not even have chronology)- The Art Deco architectural style (called Style Moderne in France), was modern, but it was not modernist; it had many features of modernism, including the use of reinforced concrete, glass, steel, chrome, and it rejected traditional historical models, such as the Beaux-Arts style and Neo-classicism; but, unlike the modernist styles of Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe, it made lavish use of decoration and color- Yet article mistakenly uses modern and modernist interchangeably What about that ? I think I will nominate this page or International Style for deletion, probably this one (or large parts of it) cause it has so many inaccuracies. MrStefanWolf (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you will have to merge International Style and expand Art Nouveau, Art Deco and postomodernism cant tell yet or maybe this wil just be deleted and merged with Internatonal Style, cause Art Nouveau and Art Deco including post modernist already have their own articles.MrStefanWolf (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Art Deco, Art Nouveau, Bauhaus, Blobitecture, Brutalism, Constructivism, Contemporary, Critical regionalism, De Stijl, Deconstructivism, Expressionism, Functionalism, Futurism Googie, High-tech, International style, Mid-Century modern, Modernisme, Neo-Futurism ,Neomodern, New Classical, New Objectivity, Organicism, Postconstructivism, Postmodernism, PWA Moderne, Prairie School, Rationalist-Fascist, Stalinist, Streamline Moderne, Stripped Classicism, Structuralism - Just thought this is curios but small blue bar on bottom of all architecture articles that I checked gives all this styles as part of Modern architecture link.Maybe something to think about (some are not really styles but more of sub-styles yet Wikipedia thought they were important enough to be mentioned). Would also like to point out that Modernism also has its own separate blue bar yet in architecture section of it it only list architects.Food for thought MrStefanWolf (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, numerous styles are lacking, this entire article needs rewriting. Someone bold with a lot of time, patience and knowledge needs to take this on, it would probably take days, possibly weeks.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, afraid I do not have time for that.Already added certain styles that were lacking but (((some))) editors reverted it, good luck to brave soul that even tries it, big possibility it could just be waste of time cause it will get reverted.MrStefanWolf (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MrStefanWolf: you wrote above: "I was thinking about starting Modernist architecture article, maybe someone can help me out with that cause i am not that knowledgebla about it." That is precisely why your edits were reverted. That is why there is a talk page. Your text was reverted pending some form of consensus here at talk. So far, your merger propositions have met with little success. I would suggest making a list of proposed changes (potential improvements) in outline form. Or drafting a new version of the article in your Sandbox, then discussing it here. Coldcreation (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, then I saw there already is modernist article under name used in older literature - International Style. Yet that has nothing to do with modern architecture for which Wikipedia has already given all styles and sub-styles and links to this page. How can you not know that and still edit this page is beyond me. There is not even half styles that should be here, and you talking about modernist architecture is a cop-out. Cause I sure as hell always said I know about modern architecure, which is what this article is about. There is nothing to discuss, Wikipedia has already laid it out what they consider modern architecture (and if you look at timeline and what styles they consider all my changes on point). Best idea is to get uninvolved editors that will rewrite entire article, covering all styles and sub styles (it will take weeks for sure). Also I think you disqualified yourself by claims that Catalan Modernisme is modernist architecture (it is not) MrStefanWolf (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You must be confusing me with someone else. I wrote 'The work of Antoni Gaudí is Modernisme', (not that it is modernist architecture) in an attempt to understand what you were trying to say. Are you saying Modernisme should or should not be included in this article? Simple question. Coldcreation (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously should, Wikipedia lists it(as should Art Nouveau that I added but some removed along with Gaudi who I also added to introductory list of architects).MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Antoni Gaudí and others of the period surrounding Art Nouveau are mentioned already. And now Modernisme is added to See also. What is your point? Coldcreation (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point is that all listed styles and substyles should have their short sections with links to main articles. Mentioned in lead up to International Style (which is manner in which they are mentione) is not suffiecent and enough, otherwise Wikipedia would not list them all separatly. Dont even get me started on completely absent styles and wrong chronology (if modern architecture starts in 1920 as is given in article how can Art Nouveau be even mentioned), I think my point is crystal clear. I dont want to insult you but you seem incompetent on subject, no offense. MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well Mrsefan I can maybe add some style and fix some chronology but I really cant rewrite it all, hope some editors do that.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Revert to my last changes and let someone competent take over (I dont have time), mister Cold is sadly out of his depth and does not know what is he talking about.MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting behavior @AugustusMarbleBoy: for a 24-hour-old user account. Coldcreation (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Users that do not talk about improving article need to be aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrStefanWolf: This is unacceptable. Coldcreation (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coldcreation I have reported you stop spamming this page, stop edit waring the article and stop with personal attacks on me! I HAVE TOLD YOU TO TAKE IT TO YOUR OWN TALK PAGES MULTIPLE TIMES, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continue productive discussion starting here....

Merger proposal International Style (architecture)

[edit]

I propose that International Style (architecture) be merged into Modern architecture and think that is reasonable action to take cause it meats all requirements as listed by Wikipedia: 1. Duplicate (same topic really) 2. Overlap, like it says in given reasons wikipedia is not dictionary and there is no need for separate entry for every concept. 3. Text, International Style (architecture) page is pretty short and could easily fit here and I think even elevate the quality of this article Quick look at both pages will make extent of overlap obvious, even same photographs are used.Would like to hear everyones opinion, especially if there are genuine architects.MrStefanWolf (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. International Style is a subset of the more general Modern architecture. International Style is notable enough, as evidenced from the literature on the style, to bare its own article. A merge would result in an exceedingly lengthy article, both can be expanded into longer cross-linked articles, the topics warrant their own articles, per WP:OVERLAP. Coldcreation (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure WP:OVERLAP is in favor of keeping separate articles, cause this article goes in much more depth than International Style (architecture) while repeating same subject. But lets see what everyone has to say, discussion is just starting. Thank you for your input Mr.Coldcreation. MrStefanWolf (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dated sources in direct contradiction with other sources. Please improve

[edit]

Found reason why certain users that we wont name have engaged in very heated argument, it had gone to the point of flat out insults. Source quoted in opening of article (Tietz 1999) is dated (new consensus in 21th century for definition of modern) and in direct contradiction with rest of sources used in this article. Please replace it with reliable and up to speed source and check and verify all sources used if possible (could be more contradictions). I ask users not to tag me and drag me in, in their personal vendettas. Thank you all and have a good day.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded allegation. What is your 'new' source? Coldcreation (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SiefkinDR I would also like to ask you to revert all sections you deleted, and if something is not clear about why they are modern architecture I am here to help you.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coldcreation My source is Bony Anne, most quoted source in this article. My father is architect so I have a lot of architecture literature.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jürgen Tietz. Coldcreation (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid i find this link useless if you can make your point a little bit more clear, that would be helpful.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jürgen Tietz is a reliable source: Here are some of his publications. Coldcreation (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His book from 1999 is not WP:AGE MATTERS. AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For a user account created 15:03, 11 October 2018, you sure learned how to WP:EDITWAR in a flash. Coldcreation (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will now report you for WP:VANDAL. I dont have malicious intent, unlike you and your sidekick.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to agree with mr. Augustus. Would also like to see my changes reverted by (((some))) users cause it looks like I was right all along MrStefanWolf (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscrapers

[edit]

Early skyscrapers are in Neo-Gothic and Beaux-Arts style which article clearly defines as NOT modernist so I will be removing it , plus article skyscraper is clearly separate topic where it is covered. If anyone wants to make case thar Beaux-Arts and Neo-Gothic are modernist they are welcome to try but I am afraid there is no argument to be had cause this article is clear. MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

[edit]

Please don't make any more drastic changes to the article unless you get consensus from other editors. Any changes without consensus will have to be removed. That's now Wikipedia works. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rudolph??

[edit]

Any thoughts on the incorporation of Paul Rudolph into the article? Paul_Rudolph_(architect)

Unexplained deletions

[edit]

Dear new user Marsianas: please do not delete entire sections, with citations, without any discussion first on the talk page. The origin of skyscrapers is an important part of the period. Also, please explain why you added the templates saying that the article is unsourced (it has a great many citations) and that the sources given are unreliable (they're standard and commonly-used sources). Unless you have a justification, these tags should be removed. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of article

[edit]

Major rewrite of article is needed. It has poor in-line citations, uses plethora of dated 20th century sources and relies heavily on Anne Bony-"L'Architecture Moderne". Outdated sources should be replaced, it should have better in-line citations аnd should not as heavily rely on single author.I tried to improve it incrementally but gave up on close inspection of work required.Koralvion (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are the "Insufficient" and "Unreliable" citations?

[edit]
Please give specific examples of "unreliable" citations in the article. Do you consider that all books about architecture written in the 20th century are "unreliable?"
The article currently has about seventy citations, many of which are multiple; that seems about right for an article of this length. Please explain what parts of the article you think need more citations.

Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced tag

[edit]

I'm adding this tag because there is seemingly arbitrary choice of which styles are covered and which are not. Quick example would be Art Nouveau, Futurism, Brutalism, etc. Another complaint is architects covered, why not cover Louis Sullivan, Antonio Gaudi? Considering extent of this article someone will always be left wanting when it comes to architects, so it's maybe best idea to focus on styles. Also, article doesn't follow chronology.Sourcerery (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See section 'Consensus' above. Coldcreation (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is adding tag considered drastic change?Sourcerery (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to make poll or voting if it's even possible but here are what it would be - First is I'm adding unbalanced tag, because of reasons already listed. Second I am adding expand by translating from German and French because those articles have more information than this one, especially combined, they would fill the gaps. Third we are not changing a thing, article is great as it is, no improvements needed. Fourth is none of those three and you add your own suggestion. I'm asking because I'm making some articles and I would link them to this article so reader can go on in-depth exploration. Problem is, styles on articles in question while modern, they aren't on this article.Sourcerery (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other minor changes

[edit]

Corrected factually incorrect statement: "The RCA Pavilion featured the first public television broadcasts" to "The RCA Pavilion featured early public television broadcasts" in the section on the New York World's Fair. The first public television broadcasts were made three years earlier by the BBC from Alexandra Palace in London. Tdb36 (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with montage

[edit]

The montage with its new additions doesn't represent the full range of modern architecture. Each image is supposed to be an iconic image that illustrates an important aspect of modern architecture. That's why the skylines of New York and Chicago were included in montages. How can you possibly have a credible montage on modern architecture without a single skyscraper? Please fix.SiefkinDR (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No montage of 6 photos is ever going to completely represent "the full range" of modern architecture. It was previously less representative - 4 of the 6 images were of USA subjects, and there was certainly no need for two US city skylines, which were both poor quality photographs and didn't illustrate anything of value. I have now added a good photo of the Empire State Building, and the montage now has photos of iconic buildings from Brazil, Germany, France, US (2) and Australia, and of those we now have two houses, a government executive admin, an opera house, a factory and a skyscraper - that is a more diverse representation than it was before. Note also that some of the info in the caption was wrong - Fallingwater is not in Pittsburg 86.56.92.163 (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Modernist architect" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Modernist architect and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 18#Modernist architect until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Modernist architecture" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Modernist architecture and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 18#Modernist architecture until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Writings in Architecture

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2023 and 31 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ellie Ntumba (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Berry2799 (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modern_architecture&oldid=1211992874"