Out With the Old?

The other night Spencer Trombley and I had a discussion about the reluctance of those in the world of architecture to accept the progression from one style of architecture to the next, particularly from modernism to postmodernism. The modernist resistances against the ever-present shift towards postmodernism exhibits something about the ideals and presumptions inherent in the modernism style. I think that modernism is exposing itself as a limiting factor, as a boundary containing the amount of exploration and creativity permitted in the architecture world. Spencer and I discussed what our basic conceptions of post-modernism were and came to one broad attempt at defining postmodernism: the acceptance and celebration of all forms of spatial exploration (including modernism). What was interesting to me in regards to this present state of architectural style was the occurrence of resistance, and the reactions to that resistance towards deconstructivism. I believe that resistance and “thresholds of change” occur because of our ever-pressing search for conclusions, as a society and as a discipline. We start revolutions and write manifestos with the intention of changing the current state of things. We set goals, but in design rarely do we accomplish them. I think we are unable to reach our goals for three main reasons. Firstly, our goals are sometimes unreachable because of their associations with a utopia. These goals are blindly optimistic because they do not consider the greater context of things. Secondly, our goals are ever evolving and ever regenerating. With each new style of architecture and each new mind introduced to that style brings alternate perspectives, these perspectives are the catalysts for the manipulation of goals. Le Corbusier and Mies Van Der Rohe were both modernist architects but struggled for different modernist beliefs. Thirdly, the goals within each realm of architecture are often contradictory. For example, the Universal Style was intended to be a universal architecture to be accepted around the globe. But, the materials, form and functional program did not coincide with that agenda. Lastly, we never find closure or a sense of accomplishment in our work. Not once have I heard in my learning of architecture that “this building satisfies every aspect of the DeStijl (or brutalism, or Romanesque etc).” I think deconstructivism's proposal of a mosaic of styles and attitudes should provide for an interesting palette for reliving future designers from the burden of solving the ever pressing question of what is the best architecture?