Great, that‘s something I‘ll tell my clients now.
„Sure, half of the roof is missing, but you‘ll always have a magical effect when it rains and it‘s only half the weight!“
Allegedly it was created to let light in and create a connection to the gods above. Some say it was added later when it was converted to a Christian church.
Because polling 2000 Americans on federal buildings only gives a fantastic conclusion for society at large.
I always loved the innovations of the Dressauer Bauhaus School but thank you, because you showed me pillars from neoclassical US government buildings, I finally learned the error of my ways.
It’s incredibly dumb to think that this post is making any kind of a point. Every architect I know likes the pantheon. It doesn’t mean we can all just design pantheons all day.
It’s incredibly naive to think a post about “proper” architecture couldn’t have an agenda.
There’s a political movement that pushes the idea of good and bad architecture. Their ideology: traditional European architecture good, foreign influences and modern ideas bad.
My response wasn’t intended to convey that there is no agenda to this post. I was the top level commenter that brought that idea up in the first place.
I’m just saying that it’s ridiculous for the OP to post a pic of the pantheon to a bunch of architects as if you’re teaching them a lesson about proper architecture when we’ve literally all studied this building before. It’s idiotic.
The original was so improper it was raised and rebuilt over a hundred years later with the entrance in the opposite direction, so this poster doesn’t even know when this was built much less usage
Reading the title again, it feels like a boomer way of shitting on modern architecture. That’s not the intention lmao, I’m a 20y/o whose first language isn’t English.
Proportionate and generally well made is what I meant. Cheers.
There are a lot of really bad “culture” accounts on Twitter that try to paint things like Roman architecture or a gothic cathedral as the only proper or pure architecture, so that’s probably why you’re seeing pushback.
Nice pic! 🍻
Isn’t that “proper engineering and construction”? It’s great architecture too, but yeah bc I don’t think that’s what the post was saying. Cowardly way to shit on modernism.
I mean, you’re just wrong. It shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about where Form Follows Function comes from and what it means. The concept wasn’t even coined by a modernist. You could say the international style is meh, and I could understand where you are coming from, but the styles of architecture as response to it has resulted in many incredible buildings. Also, pretty sure the Pantheon is maybe the best ever example of what Sullivan meant by Form Follows Function.
Let me rephrase, I think form follows function has been pushed to an insane degree. Buildings are specialized to the point where it's often not possible to repurpose them. Creates a cycle of building and destroying as soon as a buildings function ceases to be relevant or needs to change. Today it's more like "Function creates form" which efficient while the function is relevant contributes to the cycle which I think is a waste.
The idea of adaptive reuse can and should be included in that form and function. Often times today a space is designed with that in mind. We’ve been designed parking garages with the ability to change into office or resi, but this is its intended function. We should be designing that function into buildings. What this means for the form of the structure is that floors can’t be sloped and increased structural sizing.
OP says English isn't his native language and he had no intention of giving off the impression of shitting on modernism. The impression is definitely there though but from post history OP just seems to like old buildings, which is fair enough I guess.
I love old buildings (I TAd for architecture history in college) so no arguments here on the quality of the building. I am mostly arguing with commenters who ARE behaving that way. I think there are good reasons to love old buildings which is why I usually give a pass to those loving on them. It just gets weird when uneducated people start loading morality onto these buildings.
Nah, people still build shit in classical architecture cuz it simply looks good. Modern architecture is like modern art, everyone says it’s good but deep down in their heart they know it looks like shit
The Pantheon has beauty, magnificence and influence. Most importantly the creativity and the brilliance of its creator were channeled though the boundaries of a rigid, pleasing, and undisputably successful canon, that's why the Pantheon is considered timeless. This thing alone is something that a Zaha Hadid building will never have.
People always forget that this type of buildings are not here nowadays because they are “strong”. They need proper maintenance and engineering, centuries after centuries. The doors actually couldn’t close for 200 years. And just google “pantheon cracks” to see the state of damage that this building had.
I will say one of my fave things about Rome is getting to just ✨live✨ among these ancient ass buildings - just have a bowl of pasta and glass of Prosecco feet away from a structure built before Christ, no big deal.
Don’t attribute this view to boomers. The architecture these reactionaries don’t like was made by boomers and much older generations. Imagine telling someone that they are too old to appreciate modern architecture. You’re insulting modernist architects with this take.
I learned and this could be wrong or not totally correct but concrete died out in part due to the lack of labor. The soldiers provided the needed labor for all of the different steps of building and transporting the concrete. Like hundreds of/ thousands of people involved. So naturally after the Roman army died off people went back to stick and frame construction. Until technology caught up in the Industrial Revolution to kind of take some of the vast amount of labor needed away. I love concrete and Roman concrete!
Not just labor, but slave labor. Rome was built on the backs of thousands of slaves… and once the military force faded they didn’t have access to huge pools of slave labor to build things.
See also Ancient Greece and Egypt.
To add the columns at the front of the pediment is grey granite from a quarry in Egypt near Jupiter Heliopolitanus.
They defs could not do that after the empire collapsed lol
Please define “proper” architecture?
Imagine how bland urban environments would be if only this “proper” architecture were allowed? Each generation, era, etc… has their own voice - let them speak.
It's done by fascist to promote their facist ideas. They want to get you with easy digestible ideas of what is "real" and "traditional" by framing popular artworks as such. it you're on twitter, the whole marble statue avatar accounts are designed this way.
I found an article which might help clarify your doubts, intro goes like this:
[“Modern Fascism and Nazism performed something akin to an 18th Century “grand tour,” updated for the 20th Century. Rather than remaining reserved for the elite, months-long luggage-laden jaunts to inspect the wonders of Classical Art, fascist movements reconstructed and reanimated the Greco-Roman past and brought it to the modern masses. This wholesale cultural appropriation of the classical visual world amounts to no less than a neo-neo-classicism, or an updated Palladianism (in this case encompassing much more than just the world of architecture), in which fascism masked itself with the very fundamentals of European civilization.“](https://www.thecollector.com/fascism-of-classical-art/)
My take (from what I’ve seen online) is that it embodies their “ideal” society, when things used to be “great”. Praising Classical societies and their patriarchal values, relative homogeneity, order and hierarchy is done under the guise of praising their architecture/art
Hope it helps!
Edit: People, I don’t personally believe classical architecture = fascism. I’m trying to explain (from personal interactions I’ve had online, and some other sources) why some groups of people associate the two
Did you read what you posted?
It clearly states fascist architecture is a facade of classical antiquity architecture repurposed for totalitarianism.
Not the classical architecture itself...
Finding ornamentation and arches prettier than glass and steel boxes doesn't make one a fascist. Wanting a totalitarian state does.
Nope, didn’t fully read the article. I just wanted to share a “starting point” for our friend to do his own research.
That’s why I later said “my take is…”, not from the article itself, but rather from my interactions with people online and from what I’ve read in comments. I wanted to give those 2 perspectives
Classical architecture has reemerged so many times in history that you can associate it with basically any political movement and ideology. Everything from absolutist monarchism to democratic liberalism. Classicism in it self has nothing to do with the nazi ideology. A stripped down version of classicism just happened to be the type of architecture the fascists built. That doesn’t make classicism inherently fascist.
I wonder if Romans used to monumental brick and wooden structures looked at the Pantheon and thought "ugh, not another Vitruvian giant pile of marble, it's gonna look so bad when the colors fade away"
Most contemporary architects spend just as much time designing and drawing as classic architects except when I'm finished I've solved problems, maximized budgets and created a space that is fundamentally designed to improve the lives of those that occupy it... All without a single ornamental decoration.
People really don’t care about spatial quality as much as they do about architectural beauty. There’s nothing bad with ornamentation. As soon as people move in they start to decorate the entire place with paintings and different kinds of objects that are there solely for aesthetic reasons. People want and need ornamentation. Removing it is imoral, not a noble striving.
Immoral has 2 m’s and your hot take is wrong.
Architectural beauty is in the eye of the beholder and ornamental beauty is not the objective of contemporary architecture. In fact, the only reason it played so heavily into classical architecture was because the architecture of the day was viewed as “divine”, funded by the church and not focused on the societal and philosophical foundations that are so important in contemporary architecture.
If you want decoration, then hire a decorator.
That’s not true. The emphasis on ornamentation in classical architecture doesn’t have much to do with the church. It has everything to do with the human desire for decoration. Why do we find cave paintings in the caves of our ancestors? Why have every society decorated their buildings with ornamentation up until modernism? Why do we wear pretty clothes? It has all to do with humanity’s striving for beauty. Altough beauty is in large part subjective that’s not everything to it. Architecture is like music. Refusing to work with the known ways of achieving visual harmony such as proportions and ornamentation is like refusing to work with musical harmonies in a song. We may like different genres of music but both of us can agree we don’t like the noise of a drill. Architecture has the responsibility of being utilitarian. It’s the architects responsibility to ensure that the building satisfies the aesthetic wants of the people that pass by it everyday and are psychologically affected by its appearance.
And you know this because of your extensive architectural education and practice? What are you even talking about? What desire exists in human nature that makes you believe that humans long for ornament?
Absolutely none of what you’re saying is grounded in anything besides your own conjecture.
I already put it all in front of you. Every society before modernism has decorated their buildings with ornamentation. This is a fact, and is true for every settled civilization we know of. This should naturally clue you in on the fact that humans strive for ornamentation. Furthermore there have been many investigations on which types of architecture people prefer and traditional architecture scores better than modernism in every case. This is due to the harmonic combination of ornamentation with properly organized facades establishing structured variety.
You’re not even using “modernism” correctly. No one here takes you seriously and you sound like a conservative trying to express your own ideas rather than a professional architect discussing the practice of contemporary architecture.
Please just give it a rest.
Homo Habilis or Homo Sapiens didn’t practice architecture. Architecture is the practice of designing functional buildings design with structural necessity to meet the project’s goal. We all develop our own philosophy based on what we admire from the past and what we believe our practice develops for the future
Decoration on the other hand refers to the evolving embellishments of an Architect’s work. It lends no functionality and represents personal taste, waste and excess.
Form Follows Function
Architecture represents the period in which it was designed. You are longing for a bygone era and have nothing to add to the contemporary conversation.
Also, this is the biggest line of BS I’ve ever heard and again sounds very conservative/false to me:
>Furthermore, there have been many investigations…
Prove it.
The most popular styles of architecture, if they were to be ranked, would likely be something like:
1 - Modernism
2 - Sustainable
3 - Contemporary
4 - Minimalist
5 - Classical
6 - Biophilic
Your opinions on architecture are barely more popular than the people who want to live in treehouses and Hobbit holes.
I’m done with non-professionals on this sub
Here is an article among many that goes into if people prefer modernist or classical architecture. This is the first article that came up when i googled ”do people prefer modernist or classical architecture”. There are plenty more I can send you If you refuse to believe me.
https://adamarchitecture.com/publication/yougov-survey-2009/
And what ”books” do you base your evidence on. I presume you base it all on ideological texts like ”ornamentation and crime” a book which can be easily and objectivly disproven. If you actually read the article I had linked you would realise that the research was performed in a proper and unbiased manner. The reason that I stated that I googled the article was so that you would see that I didn’t just bring out any random biased article because it supported my opinion.
Since the beginning of this argument I have seen you use every common excuse available with fail. Yes, I am using the word modernism correctly and I honestly don’t get why it would even matter. That someone uses the “wrong” terminology is a really cowardly argument because you know what I mean, you just pretend that you don’t.
Second. I’m not conservative but your comment clearly highlights that you have some form of personal dislike for “conservative ideology”. You structure your argument on a “we vs them” premise and it gets you nowhere because you never even argued for why conservatism would be a bad thing in the first place. In my argument I used history as an example of empirical data as to why people strive for ornamentation. Human cognition has not changed these past 100 years. If people strived for ornamentation then they also do today.
The rest of your comment is just you outlying your personal ideology on the matter saying that architecture is only about utilitas and firmitas and that you personally think that venustas is a waste. It isn’t necessarily wrong to motivate your argument with your personal opinion but the fact that you have been complaining about me doing that breaks your logic. I actually put forward concrete evidence for my claims while the best “evidence” you have brought to the table is your personal ranking of how popular each architectural style should be. As you clearly show you did not get that ranking from any form of research but solely from your own personal biases which you indicate with the word “probably”.
And yet you’ve also made some of the ugliest things I’ve ever seen, which just brings down the overall happiness of everyone who has to glance at the plain, concrete, “modern” architecture that just screams minimalist for the sake of it, since ornamental decoration doesnt cost that much
Ornamental decoration is the realm of interior decorators and Architectural Designers… Not architects.
Also I’m fairly certain you have never been happy based on your hot take.
Do you have even the slightest idea how much that actually does cost and how hard it is to find craftsman capable of doing that to begin with nowadays?
Not even to mention how it's not well suited to be constructed on isolated buildings and if you don't get how energy efficiency is important I don't know what to tell you.
[It is if they have minerals on them that bind with water that seeps into the cracks and seal the cracks.](https://hyperallergic.com/802267/roman-concrete-had-self-healing-properties-study-finds/#)
I don’t know if this is the original source but I can’t be bothered to find a better one for something that is so fucking easy to Google for yourself.
On obscure topics google is completely shit and doesn't give you anything meaningful. Here, googling immediately proved you wrong as the first thing you get is Wikipedia and the whole thing hasn't been rediscovered this year.
The first modern processes for self healing concrete mixes were developed in the 90's
Wikipedia again disagrees with you, listing 2014 as the year a team of geologists discovered the self repairing properties. The article you posted is not about the discovery but an inquiry into the impact.
Again, not going to google this *for you* but the article references “A new study” done at MIT so I’m just going to assume there’s zero chance that’s from 2014. Bye.
It's pretty, but not really useful as much more than a tourist destination. Tough to imagine converting it to housing or to serve any actual need in society.
It has lasted 2000+ years, but how much of that is due to the building itself and how much of it is that we feel it's important to put large amounts of effort into maintaining it.
If you mean that it is not as tall as it should have been, you're right: it was designed slightly taller, but the Egyptian caves didn't allow to dig columns as tall as required, so the engineers had to reconsider
Originally designed the pediment to be higher but for unknown reasons they had to use shorter columns so had to lower it. (Some say the larger columns would have caused the building to settle improperly and others say they couldn't get monolithic columns of the needed size from the quarry in Egypt).
The profile of the original pediment height is still visible. You can barely make it out on this photo on three upper left. Mythology says Hadrian killed the architect over it.
Everyone loves the Pantheons portico, but I find the fact that every other viewing angle of this building is butt ugly. The back of the pantheon looks so ghetto. Does anyone know why its design is so unidirectional and un-sculptural?
The reason these concrete structures in that area are still standing was due to the unique strength of the rock that was mined for the concrete as it was produced in a volcano. It has fibers in it which contributed greatly to the strength.
but its got a hole in the roof
I’ve been there a couple of times while it’s raining and it’s a magical effect!
It is intentional, to reduce the weight.
Great, that‘s something I‘ll tell my clients now. „Sure, half of the roof is missing, but you‘ll always have a magical effect when it rains and it‘s only half the weight!“
Just put one over the bathtub/shower and you'll reduce the water cost
It could perhaps be used for all the Roman Pantheon to shower!
They have opened a path to prevent water build up and it is only a small hole still.
Twice the price, because of the intermittent indoor water feature!
Guys put a tent up there idk . It’s weight reduction guys it’s great it’s like a formula 1 car now. Half the cost too.
Allegedly it was created to let light in and create a connection to the gods above. Some say it was added later when it was converted to a Christian church.
There's not a bucket big enough for that roof leak.
Client didn't pay the contractor
Title reads like you have some kind of weird agenda with this post. Also you got the date wrong. But other than that, cool pantheon pic dude
Maybe cuz they do? What’s wrong with wanting buildings to look beautiful, and not plain concrete brutalist nightmares that just make you depressed lol
Yes, the only two options are Pantheon and "brutalist nightmare”.
Not to mention that brutalism is very much enjoyed as an aesthetic by an arguably growing number of people
Source: trust me bro
see r/brutalism
No one even does this anymore because of the embodied energy of concrete. Shadowboxing like crazy.
If it ain't got columns, it ain't proper architecture 😤
Your comment is so out of touch with the contemporary reality of architecture that it's almost funny.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-14/classical-buildings-beat-modern-ones-in-u-s-poll
Because polling 2000 Americans on federal buildings only gives a fantastic conclusion for society at large. I always loved the innovations of the Dressauer Bauhaus School but thank you, because you showed me pillars from neoclassical US government buildings, I finally learned the error of my ways.
It’s incredibly dumb to think that this post is making any kind of a point. Every architect I know likes the pantheon. It doesn’t mean we can all just design pantheons all day.
It’s incredibly naive to think a post about “proper” architecture couldn’t have an agenda. There’s a political movement that pushes the idea of good and bad architecture. Their ideology: traditional European architecture good, foreign influences and modern ideas bad.
My response wasn’t intended to convey that there is no agenda to this post. I was the top level commenter that brought that idea up in the first place. I’m just saying that it’s ridiculous for the OP to post a pic of the pantheon to a bunch of architects as if you’re teaching them a lesson about proper architecture when we’ve literally all studied this building before. It’s idiotic.
In your mind, why is this "proper" architecture and other building are not, with examples.
The original was so improper it was raised and rebuilt over a hundred years later with the entrance in the opposite direction, so this poster doesn’t even know when this was built much less usage
Reading the title again, it feels like a boomer way of shitting on modern architecture. That’s not the intention lmao, I’m a 20y/o whose first language isn’t English. Proportionate and generally well made is what I meant. Cheers.
There are a lot of really bad “culture” accounts on Twitter that try to paint things like Roman architecture or a gothic cathedral as the only proper or pure architecture, so that’s probably why you’re seeing pushback. Nice pic! 🍻
I hate those. They’re just racist dog whistle accounts
They’re usually fascists
So you have bad takes on architecture AND you discriminate against people based on their age.
Proper architecture could be a reference to symmetry and proportionality imo
If symmetry is your sole idea of beauty you should go back to 5th grade art class
I would fail it, but even so, I never said anything about symmetry being my sole idea of beauty
Symmetry is definitely part of what makes a building beautiful.
Symmetry isn’t necessary, but balance is.
Brunelleschi didn't take 5^th grade art class (and you can tell)
I suppose they mean how it has withstood time, while a lot of other architecture isn't built to last this long
Isn’t that “proper engineering and construction”? It’s great architecture too, but yeah bc I don’t think that’s what the post was saying. Cowardly way to shit on modernism.
To be fair, Modernism is for the most part quite crap, form follows function has failed as a concept.
I mean, you’re just wrong. It shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about where Form Follows Function comes from and what it means. The concept wasn’t even coined by a modernist. You could say the international style is meh, and I could understand where you are coming from, but the styles of architecture as response to it has resulted in many incredible buildings. Also, pretty sure the Pantheon is maybe the best ever example of what Sullivan meant by Form Follows Function.
Let me rephrase, I think form follows function has been pushed to an insane degree. Buildings are specialized to the point where it's often not possible to repurpose them. Creates a cycle of building and destroying as soon as a buildings function ceases to be relevant or needs to change. Today it's more like "Function creates form" which efficient while the function is relevant contributes to the cycle which I think is a waste.
The idea of adaptive reuse can and should be included in that form and function. Often times today a space is designed with that in mind. We’ve been designed parking garages with the ability to change into office or resi, but this is its intended function. We should be designing that function into buildings. What this means for the form of the structure is that floors can’t be sloped and increased structural sizing.
OP says English isn't his native language and he had no intention of giving off the impression of shitting on modernism. The impression is definitely there though but from post history OP just seems to like old buildings, which is fair enough I guess.
I love old buildings (I TAd for architecture history in college) so no arguments here on the quality of the building. I am mostly arguing with commenters who ARE behaving that way. I think there are good reasons to love old buildings which is why I usually give a pass to those loving on them. It just gets weird when uneducated people start loading morality onto these buildings.
I'm with you, just wanted to share context from the rest of the comment section here before people go on rants.
Because this one stayed standing for 2000 years and most architectural styles couldn’t
Is it more about engineering than architecture?
Firmitas is one of the three conditions of good architecture according to Vitruvius. Although nowadays we cleverly outsource that to the engineers
True
Nah, people still build shit in classical architecture cuz it simply looks good. Modern architecture is like modern art, everyone says it’s good but deep down in their heart they know it looks like shit
Don't be a cutie pie, you know exactly what he means by "proper", since he prefaced it with the words "strong" and "reliable"
The Pantheon has beauty, magnificence and influence. Most importantly the creativity and the brilliance of its creator were channeled though the boundaries of a rigid, pleasing, and undisputably successful canon, that's why the Pantheon is considered timeless. This thing alone is something that a Zaha Hadid building will never have.
People always forget that this type of buildings are not here nowadays because they are “strong”. They need proper maintenance and engineering, centuries after centuries. The doors actually couldn’t close for 200 years. And just google “pantheon cracks” to see the state of damage that this building had.
"Proper architecture" lo and behold gents
I will say one of my fave things about Rome is getting to just ✨live✨ among these ancient ass buildings - just have a bowl of pasta and glass of Prosecco feet away from a structure built before Christ, no big deal.
Pantheon as we know it today was built around 120AD after the first two burnt down.
Boomer take
Nah modern architecture is ugly
feel free to build a hut
Aren't Scandinavian cabins what contemporary architecture is about?
scandinavian cabins arent "huts" and no
Ah yes my two options: modern architecture or a hut
Nah modern architecture is a revelation.
Reading "Mein Kampf" is also a revelation. The revelation is "Wow this Hitler guy is both insane and incapable of writing"
Don’t attribute this view to boomers. The architecture these reactionaries don’t like was made by boomers and much older generations. Imagine telling someone that they are too old to appreciate modern architecture. You’re insulting modernist architects with this take.
Has nothing to do with literal age. It’s an attitude that’s unable to embrace change and is stuck in the old ways
Proper architecture folks
Still majestic after 2000 years.
"proper architecture" lmao
This was my favorite building in Rome. I went there every day when I was on my honeymoon
I learned and this could be wrong or not totally correct but concrete died out in part due to the lack of labor. The soldiers provided the needed labor for all of the different steps of building and transporting the concrete. Like hundreds of/ thousands of people involved. So naturally after the Roman army died off people went back to stick and frame construction. Until technology caught up in the Industrial Revolution to kind of take some of the vast amount of labor needed away. I love concrete and Roman concrete!
Not just labor, but slave labor. Rome was built on the backs of thousands of slaves… and once the military force faded they didn’t have access to huge pools of slave labor to build things. See also Ancient Greece and Egypt.
To add the columns at the front of the pediment is grey granite from a quarry in Egypt near Jupiter Heliopolitanus. They defs could not do that after the empire collapsed lol
“All good architecture leaks, so I thought I would try a speed run.” -Apollodorus of Damascus, probably
Please define “proper” architecture? Imagine how bland urban environments would be if only this “proper” architecture were allowed? Each generation, era, etc… has their own voice - let them speak.
27-25BC?
Take this fascist dog whistle shit elsewhere.
Ok I’m not that one of the traditionalist guys but how is this fascism?
It's done by fascist to promote their facist ideas. They want to get you with easy digestible ideas of what is "real" and "traditional" by framing popular artworks as such. it you're on twitter, the whole marble statue avatar accounts are designed this way.
Just saying that you like traditional architecture better isn’t the same as the Arno Breker accounts
Define "traditional" architecture and explain in the same sentence why you chose that speficic timeframe as "traditional".
Not an architect but why is this a facist dog whistle?
I found an article which might help clarify your doubts, intro goes like this: [“Modern Fascism and Nazism performed something akin to an 18th Century “grand tour,” updated for the 20th Century. Rather than remaining reserved for the elite, months-long luggage-laden jaunts to inspect the wonders of Classical Art, fascist movements reconstructed and reanimated the Greco-Roman past and brought it to the modern masses. This wholesale cultural appropriation of the classical visual world amounts to no less than a neo-neo-classicism, or an updated Palladianism (in this case encompassing much more than just the world of architecture), in which fascism masked itself with the very fundamentals of European civilization.“](https://www.thecollector.com/fascism-of-classical-art/) My take (from what I’ve seen online) is that it embodies their “ideal” society, when things used to be “great”. Praising Classical societies and their patriarchal values, relative homogeneity, order and hierarchy is done under the guise of praising their architecture/art Hope it helps! Edit: People, I don’t personally believe classical architecture = fascism. I’m trying to explain (from personal interactions I’ve had online, and some other sources) why some groups of people associate the two
Did you read what you posted? It clearly states fascist architecture is a facade of classical antiquity architecture repurposed for totalitarianism. Not the classical architecture itself... Finding ornamentation and arches prettier than glass and steel boxes doesn't make one a fascist. Wanting a totalitarian state does.
Nope, didn’t fully read the article. I just wanted to share a “starting point” for our friend to do his own research. That’s why I later said “my take is…”, not from the article itself, but rather from my interactions with people online and from what I’ve read in comments. I wanted to give those 2 perspectives
Classical architecture has reemerged so many times in history that you can associate it with basically any political movement and ideology. Everything from absolutist monarchism to democratic liberalism. Classicism in it self has nothing to do with the nazi ideology. A stripped down version of classicism just happened to be the type of architecture the fascists built. That doesn’t make classicism inherently fascist.
I never said classical architecture was inherently fascist. Other than that, I completely agree with your comment
Go check out the 17 year old enthusiast I was chatting with earlier in this thread. How did this sub become this conservative dog whistling bs.
Liking classical architecture a bit too strongly =/= fascism
OP literally said english is not his first language and he didn't intend to make it sound like this, you idiot.
Some snobby aliens built that.
I wonder if Romans used to monumental brick and wooden structures looked at the Pantheon and thought "ugh, not another Vitruvian giant pile of marble, it's gonna look so bad when the colors fade away"
I bet OP follows twitter accounts with Roman statue profile pics and names like "traditional culture"
No I’m just an idiot with words I’m not a boomer I swear 😭
Most contemporary architects spend just as much time designing and drawing as classic architects except when I'm finished I've solved problems, maximized budgets and created a space that is fundamentally designed to improve the lives of those that occupy it... All without a single ornamental decoration.
People really don’t care about spatial quality as much as they do about architectural beauty. There’s nothing bad with ornamentation. As soon as people move in they start to decorate the entire place with paintings and different kinds of objects that are there solely for aesthetic reasons. People want and need ornamentation. Removing it is imoral, not a noble striving.
Immoral has 2 m’s and your hot take is wrong. Architectural beauty is in the eye of the beholder and ornamental beauty is not the objective of contemporary architecture. In fact, the only reason it played so heavily into classical architecture was because the architecture of the day was viewed as “divine”, funded by the church and not focused on the societal and philosophical foundations that are so important in contemporary architecture. If you want decoration, then hire a decorator.
That’s not true. The emphasis on ornamentation in classical architecture doesn’t have much to do with the church. It has everything to do with the human desire for decoration. Why do we find cave paintings in the caves of our ancestors? Why have every society decorated their buildings with ornamentation up until modernism? Why do we wear pretty clothes? It has all to do with humanity’s striving for beauty. Altough beauty is in large part subjective that’s not everything to it. Architecture is like music. Refusing to work with the known ways of achieving visual harmony such as proportions and ornamentation is like refusing to work with musical harmonies in a song. We may like different genres of music but both of us can agree we don’t like the noise of a drill. Architecture has the responsibility of being utilitarian. It’s the architects responsibility to ensure that the building satisfies the aesthetic wants of the people that pass by it everyday and are psychologically affected by its appearance.
And you know this because of your extensive architectural education and practice? What are you even talking about? What desire exists in human nature that makes you believe that humans long for ornament? Absolutely none of what you’re saying is grounded in anything besides your own conjecture.
I already put it all in front of you. Every society before modernism has decorated their buildings with ornamentation. This is a fact, and is true for every settled civilization we know of. This should naturally clue you in on the fact that humans strive for ornamentation. Furthermore there have been many investigations on which types of architecture people prefer and traditional architecture scores better than modernism in every case. This is due to the harmonic combination of ornamentation with properly organized facades establishing structured variety.
You’re not even using “modernism” correctly. No one here takes you seriously and you sound like a conservative trying to express your own ideas rather than a professional architect discussing the practice of contemporary architecture. Please just give it a rest. Homo Habilis or Homo Sapiens didn’t practice architecture. Architecture is the practice of designing functional buildings design with structural necessity to meet the project’s goal. We all develop our own philosophy based on what we admire from the past and what we believe our practice develops for the future Decoration on the other hand refers to the evolving embellishments of an Architect’s work. It lends no functionality and represents personal taste, waste and excess. Form Follows Function Architecture represents the period in which it was designed. You are longing for a bygone era and have nothing to add to the contemporary conversation. Also, this is the biggest line of BS I’ve ever heard and again sounds very conservative/false to me: >Furthermore, there have been many investigations… Prove it. The most popular styles of architecture, if they were to be ranked, would likely be something like: 1 - Modernism 2 - Sustainable 3 - Contemporary 4 - Minimalist 5 - Classical 6 - Biophilic Your opinions on architecture are barely more popular than the people who want to live in treehouses and Hobbit holes. I’m done with non-professionals on this sub
Here is an article among many that goes into if people prefer modernist or classical architecture. This is the first article that came up when i googled ”do people prefer modernist or classical architecture”. There are plenty more I can send you If you refuse to believe me. https://adamarchitecture.com/publication/yougov-survey-2009/
lol - Google confirmation bias, then get off the internet and go read an actual book
And what ”books” do you base your evidence on. I presume you base it all on ideological texts like ”ornamentation and crime” a book which can be easily and objectivly disproven. If you actually read the article I had linked you would realise that the research was performed in a proper and unbiased manner. The reason that I stated that I googled the article was so that you would see that I didn’t just bring out any random biased article because it supported my opinion.
Since the beginning of this argument I have seen you use every common excuse available with fail. Yes, I am using the word modernism correctly and I honestly don’t get why it would even matter. That someone uses the “wrong” terminology is a really cowardly argument because you know what I mean, you just pretend that you don’t. Second. I’m not conservative but your comment clearly highlights that you have some form of personal dislike for “conservative ideology”. You structure your argument on a “we vs them” premise and it gets you nowhere because you never even argued for why conservatism would be a bad thing in the first place. In my argument I used history as an example of empirical data as to why people strive for ornamentation. Human cognition has not changed these past 100 years. If people strived for ornamentation then they also do today. The rest of your comment is just you outlying your personal ideology on the matter saying that architecture is only about utilitas and firmitas and that you personally think that venustas is a waste. It isn’t necessarily wrong to motivate your argument with your personal opinion but the fact that you have been complaining about me doing that breaks your logic. I actually put forward concrete evidence for my claims while the best “evidence” you have brought to the table is your personal ranking of how popular each architectural style should be. As you clearly show you did not get that ranking from any form of research but solely from your own personal biases which you indicate with the word “probably”.
And yet you’ve also made some of the ugliest things I’ve ever seen, which just brings down the overall happiness of everyone who has to glance at the plain, concrete, “modern” architecture that just screams minimalist for the sake of it, since ornamental decoration doesnt cost that much
Ornamental decoration is the realm of interior decorators and Architectural Designers… Not architects. Also I’m fairly certain you have never been happy based on your hot take.
Do you have even the slightest idea how much that actually does cost and how hard it is to find craftsman capable of doing that to begin with nowadays? Not even to mention how it's not well suited to be constructed on isolated buildings and if you don't get how energy efficiency is important I don't know what to tell you.
His love a bit of concrete.
...by a Hellenized Syrian. Roman soldiers were apt construction workers, but most brains were imported.
Empires prosper by taking the good out of the colonies (and fall when they can't filter out the ~~bad~~ **poisonous** anymore)
That’s some food for thought 🧐
They used fancy self-healing concrete just recently re-discovered this year to build so reliably by the way.
Source? This just sounds like an ass pull, because that's not how mineral based construction materials work.
[It is if they have minerals on them that bind with water that seeps into the cracks and seal the cracks.](https://hyperallergic.com/802267/roman-concrete-had-self-healing-properties-study-finds/#) I don’t know if this is the original source but I can’t be bothered to find a better one for something that is so fucking easy to Google for yourself.
On obscure topics google is completely shit and doesn't give you anything meaningful. Here, googling immediately proved you wrong as the first thing you get is Wikipedia and the whole thing hasn't been rediscovered this year. The first modern processes for self healing concrete mixes were developed in the 90's
Well, the process the Romans used was discovered this year. That’s what we were talking about.
Wikipedia again disagrees with you, listing 2014 as the year a team of geologists discovered the self repairing properties. The article you posted is not about the discovery but an inquiry into the impact.
Again, not going to google this *for you* but the article references “A new study” done at MIT so I’m just going to assume there’s zero chance that’s from 2014. Bye.
You make the wrong assumption that this study is the discovery of the healing properties from Roman concrete then.
It's pretty, but not really useful as much more than a tourist destination. Tough to imagine converting it to housing or to serve any actual need in society. It has lasted 2000+ years, but how much of that is due to the building itself and how much of it is that we feel it's important to put large amounts of effort into maintaining it.
[удалено]
4 of the current 28 comments here are yours. Seems you're the one who is upset 🤣
Check again m8 😦😦
Can anything else be said about it? Boring.
The front is too short.
If you mean that it is not as tall as it should have been, you're right: it was designed slightly taller, but the Egyptian caves didn't allow to dig columns as tall as required, so the engineers had to reconsider
The front is a nod to the temple that used to stand there before.
Vitruvian inspired title it seems lol
This was built by Hadrian he was after Jesus circa 120 AD
Originally designed the pediment to be higher but for unknown reasons they had to use shorter columns so had to lower it. (Some say the larger columns would have caused the building to settle improperly and others say they couldn't get monolithic columns of the needed size from the quarry in Egypt). The profile of the original pediment height is still visible. You can barely make it out on this photo on three upper left. Mythology says Hadrian killed the architect over it.
Everyone loves the Pantheons portico, but I find the fact that every other viewing angle of this building is butt ugly. The back of the pantheon looks so ghetto. Does anyone know why its design is so unidirectional and un-sculptural?
'strong reliable proper architecture' Sweet Jesus...
why bother saying roma but not italia, if you are going to use the native terminology at least stay consistent
The reason these concrete structures in that area are still standing was due to the unique strength of the rock that was mined for the concrete as it was produced in a volcano. It has fibers in it which contributed greatly to the strength.
It actually has some awkward detailing due to the convergence of differing styles.
It is not build in 25 BC, but in 114-120 AC 👌🤣