Not sure there is actually an argument here... Im pretty sure this is what you get taught in the foundation year of an art degree, to my memory probably even before that.
Modernism did not start with Mid-Century Modern, if Formby actually had a Scooby he would know this, but given as he likes to lift little snippets of info from the web without any understanding of the broader context proves to me that 1. If anyone is mentally unsound its someone who spends their time going through wikipedia trying to win arguments on internet forums and 2, he's not even very good at it.
Anyone remember when he tried to school Acton on sound engineering, Acton is one of the best sound guys in the world and is too modest to say what he does or who he works with but rest assured he is pretty much one of the best in the business and that's not me over egging it.
Anyone with an ounce of knowledge that gets drawn into a discussion/argument with Formby on a topic they know about probably then has to suffer what is the most pathetic attempt from him trying to not loose face...why he starts these things in the first place is beyond me.
Last edited by Bop (2016-10-06 11:51:36)
Also.... saying America didnt embrace Modernist values.... are you kidding me...you realise American society was engineered by people like Edward Bernays completely on the modern psychology of his Uncle Sigmund...
You guys have not got a clue....
Last edited by Bop (2016-10-06 12:44:05)
Modern American society was shaped by the politics of John Wayne.
I can thoroughly recommend Nikolaus Pevsner’s 1936 book ‘Pioneers of Modern Design: From William Morris to Walter Gropius’ as the starting place to learn more on this subject. I’ve an old Penguin copy but keep meaning to invest in the 2005 Yale University Press edition.
Last edited by stanshall (2016-10-07 11:26:40)
This is a really interesting essay on geometric fundamentalism in modern architecture and how it has detracted from a posistive experience with our immediate environment through the application of rational shapes.
A sensation I think we can all understand when look at or enter some buildings and describe them as being inhuman, cold and stark.
The essay is written by biourbanists so of course is going to be quite biased..however using geometry in my work as well as studying nature and classical proportion.. I think we can be lead to believe that nature does have a preferred pattern of growth but a strict mathematical reinterpretation of this does not lead to beauty as much as it'd suggest. If nature was perfect all would be perfect so only by imperfection do we share a natural experience in our aesthetic language something recognised in Japanese and Indian artistic tradition... rational geometric shapes although appealing to a rational mind lack depth and emotional response and probably why so often its use in our urban spaces has a dehumanising effect.
http://www.biourbanism.org/vision-architecture-sum-parts/
A short film about when Le Corbusier got the chance to design a whole city - Chandigarh, capital of the Punjab.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38145408
Funnily enough I have been reading a fair few books on early modernism, such as the one by Christopher Wilks and the excellent one on British Modernism pre-1939 by Alan Powers. There are also good books such as Austerity To Affluence that document the WWII evolution to the early sixties.
The Isokon building and associated furniture by Breuer and other Ernest Race are great examples of very early British modernism.
Perfect Ivy in clips of Eero Saarinen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKRN6gvfx8Q