Built between 1959-1961 the building was constructed by design with no ornamentation or structures to connect it with any particular purpose. Instead it was to be a human concrete and glass barn, a cookie cutter building known as Federal Building 6 to eventually be used for any purpose the Federal bureaucracy wished. Used by the Department of Education since 1979, in 2007 it was fittingly named after that father of useless federal expenditures, LBJ. An example of International Modernism, it is a tribute to ugliness and lack of imagination. When it is eventually torn down, the only regret should be that the demolition did not occur in 1961.
The issue wasn’t Modernist Architecture (which used reason and science). Modernist Architecture advocated for function over form, minimalism/lack of ornamentation, use of concrete/steel/curtain walls/flowing windows. There was value in the direction which Modernism took, particular with the lack of indulgence and clever use of material and the economic justification it used for why something was designed the way it was. Modernism has proved to be timeless, in the same way Classical Architecture has been (the operative being Classical and not the gawdy Neo-Classical). You would be surprised how difficult Modern Architecture, in its minimalist form, is to achieve. There’s no room to hide error. Walk into an Apple Store, as an example, and the junctions and how materials and planes fit together is quite difficult to pull off from a construction point of view. I love Modernist architecture (even the flawed examples with structural issues ie. Falling Water, because the results are clever and simple). The US have produced some amazing Modernist architects and designers. Charles and Ray Eames are just a single example amongst many, who I greatly admire.
The real problem has been Post-Modernism – which threw rationality out the window, along with objective truth and a set of guidelines to work within. It embraced the absurd “just because”. And in architecture Post-modernism has produced some eyesores. (IMHO- the Guggenheim Bilbao is an exception).
https://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/features/list/an-outline-of-postmodern-architecture
Post-Modernism in architecture, art, culture really hasn’t gone away. Unfortunately.
I rerely disagree with you, Ezabelle, but I find nearly all of their buildings to be ugly and self-consciously bizarre. You can keep your Modernism, whatever the field of endeavor may be. And yes, I know this strain of “Modernism” is not exactly the same as the theological Modernism condemned by Pope St. Pius X, and which all faithful Catholics should rightly reject, but it drinks from the same trough of eschewing true beauty in favor of Man’s hubristic notions of self-determination through reason. Function follows form, and idolizing function over form is a fundamental error, IMO. Obviously you see it differently, which is fine. Just don’t try to convince me that Modernist buildings are beautiful, because exceedingly few of them actually are.
Sorry, “exceedingly” was supposed to be “extremely.” Auto-complete plus poor proofing, my apologies.
Just don’t try to convince me that Modernist buildings are beautiful
I won’t. I promise. I respect your opinion on this.
Interestingly enough, Gary Cooper said it took some effort to speak the philosophy contained in the script as he was something of a Roosevelt Democrat. In the decades since, however, we can see that much of Rand’s beliefs in the direction of society and government seems to have been borne out and not for the better.
Actually Cooper was an ardent Republican. The speech at the trial was the one Cooper had difficulty with because Rand insisted that it be delivered ver batim from the novel and parts of it Cooper thought were crazy and didn’t make sense. Coop was right.
While wasted effort is always a problem, the signature programs of the Great Society (Medicare and Medicaid excepted) weren’t notable for uselessness but for destructiveness. (Medicare and Medicaid had structural flaws which have only been addressed with chewing gum and twine). Some of that destructiveness was anticipated by antecedent efforts between 1933 and 1961 (e.g. ‘urban renewal’, public housing, AFDC, bloated minimum wage regulations, an antagonistic industrial relations regime, &c).
(IMHO- the Guggenheim Bilbao is an exception).
The Air Force should turn anything designed by Gehry into a parking lot.
Ezabelle. Please don’t take this as a criticism of you, personally. You’re free to enjoy modern architecture and make whatever excuses for it you like. I find it off-putting both aesthetically and because of what it stands for.
But I love how you unwittingly and perfectly illustrated the leftist (i.e. progressive, socialist, atheist) disposition to divorce flaw from ideal. Would you have us believe that the post-modernists came along and runied a good thing – that a true modernist was driven by a righteous sense of economy and a pragmatic commitment to reason and science? Even by your own admissions, the modernist architect likely achieved little more than the appearance of economy. And I predict that a study of any of their works would prove this to be the rule rather than the exception.
The counter to this disposition can be posited as an irony that appears in most if not all leftist works: become who (or create what) you claim to oppose. These architects eschewed embellishment, yet put extraordinary effort into making every aspect of their design convey a message – a form of ostentatiousness that can’t be ignored. They condemned extravagance, yet likely spared no expense to achieve what would reflect the greatness of their government’s austere authority. They also likely did pontificate about science and reason as if they were first to wake from the ignorant piety that consumed their ancestors and political rivals – and yet what kind of foolish notions did they devote themselves to.
Nope. I don’t buy it. I don’t think the modernists are as far removed from the “post-modernists” as you suggest. I see no reason to believe that their devotion to science and reason was any less insincere. And considering the tides that were rising at the time of their influence, it seems just as reasonable to me to suggest that these people resented God or their fellow man or both, and that their innermost wish was that by depriving him of beauty they might make man forget God. And this denial of the transcendentals has countless examples across modern history.
Would you have us believe that the post-modernists came along and runied a good thing – that a true modernist was driven by a righteous sense of economy and a pragmatic commitment to reason and science?
Yes I do. You talk of science and reason as though it were a bad thing.
As Christian we believe what we believe by Faith and Reason.
Rationality is the quintessential element which makes Modernist architecture. Which in turn gives it the ability to be timeless. There has to be a reason why you do something in Modernism, you can’t simply schlap on a design element to hide a junction because you are too lazy to resolve it. You have to rationalise the problem in order to achieve a solution- and an unpretentious one. As a result, it takes away the unnecessary ornamentation which serves no purpose or offers little expression beyond a superficial one. That is bloody difficult to do. Drive through Bel-Air if you would like to observe maximum ornamentation with maximum expression all for the wrong reasons (flaunt wealth). It’s grotesque and ugly.
And Science, being the observation of the physical and natural world and why it works. Modernism observes the physical and natural world and produces an expression fit for the buildings purpose. Buildings should be for people not the other way around. And before you jump on me about Places of Worship, they too are still for people to worship their Creator. But without appealing to people you have no worshippers to inspire. Our Creator does not require our inspiration. We do.
These architects eschewed embellishment, yet put extraordinary effort into making every aspect of their design convey a message – a form of ostentatiousness that can’t be ignored.
Well so did Modernism. The effort and resolution it takes to achieve minimal, timeless modernist architecture and design is very hard. Ever heard the phrase “I try very hard to make this look easy”.
I have a BA in Design (interiors). I can attest to the fact that interiors (commercial not residential) which made use of modernist principles function better and elevate the user because of their minimal beauty. Even in a mundane commercial office fit out. Interiors which made use of Post-Modernist principles confuse the user, the interior is consequently not treated with respect and it becomes a costly exercise to update it when it no longer is “on trend”.
The same goes for Modernist designed furniture- it could have been made yesterday or 100 years ago- it retains a timeless quality and is easy to live with. It uses materials rationally and thoughtfully with minimal waste. The popularity of it today is enough to tell you if it’s commercial appeal. People choose to buy it because they love the honesty. No communist government is putting a gun to a persons head to buy a Barcelona Chair or an Eames recliner or a Saarinen Tulip table.
Modernism was a natural evolution for architecture given the advancements in technology we had in building, the fact that the global population grew, cities became more urbanised, and time became precious. We also have a commercial side to architecture and design we didn’t have during the Classical age. It’s not about a government building for the next 2000 years to show future generations the glory which once was. Most commercial architects are engaged by private or multinational firms who have a budget, a timeline and an army of employees to cater for. The game has changed. Whether you like it or I like it- we were always going to go down the path of Modernist principles in design.
And well Aesthetically, modernist architecture is strong, honest, and has proven to withstand changing trends and opinions. This is important because we don’t live in an age like say the Classical period which lasted 250 years. We live in a modern age where things last forever 10minutes and then tomorrow something new comes along and we are introduced to a new philosophy or way of doing things. With no appreciation or breather to what we were appreciating yesterday. All forgotten. Modernist architecture defies that. And yes, Modernist architecture is beautiful. It doesn’t bother me if you don’t like it aesthetically and by no way do I take your dislike of modernist architecture as a criticism of me personally! But to reduce it to the result of a communist ideal with minimal effort, no expression and a concrete box with windows is ignorant of Modernist Design.
The Air Force should turn anything designed by Gehry into a parking lot.*
Hey hey. The effort it took to build a curved ribbon made of reflective metal should give you at least an ounce of respect for the building beyond deeming it a Parking lot. Gehry designed the Business Faculty Wing of my Almer Mater and it is spectacular peice of architecture and sits in dominance alongside the Brutalist main University building. It has transformed the entire part of the city it sits at in.
Post-war public and commercial architecture is unpleasant and a manifestation of decadence. Replace it with civilized architecture bit by bit.
Post-war public and commercial architecture is unpleasant and a manifestation of decadence. Replace it with civilized architecture bit by bit.
Ok- great. To what style and design philosophy?
You do realises your typed that statement on your modernist designed phone/tablet/computer smh whilst sitting in your modernist inspired home, with your modernist designed car parked in the garage.
Some of the modern buildings with curved glass surfaces act like heat ray mirrors reflecting damaging levels of solar radiation towards the ground.
Ezabelle.
I very clearly talk of people abusing the names of science and reason in order to prop themselves and those they admire up, and to justify acting out inner and often dark desires. Care to reflect on how you tortured “you talk of science and reason as though it were a bad thing” out of that?
I’m not maligning all modernist architects. I’m merely doubting the claim that collectively they were motivated so purely by science and reason. I see this sort of claim a lot. And I have as much reason to doubt it when I see it as I do the fervent atheist’s assurance of their “good” Catholic upbringing, rationality or – likewise – allegiance to science and reason. It simply doesn’t add up, and the efforts speak against the claim.
Ok- great. To what style and design philosophy?
You can drawn on anything you care to constructed between 500 BC and 1930 AD and any organic development you can deduce from them.
You do realises your typed that statement on your modernist designed phone/tablet/computer smh whilst sitting in your modernist inspired home, with your modernist designed car parked in the garage.
Irrelevant. We’re talking aesthetics, not technology. (Homes, vehicles, and appliances are also less attractive than they once were).
vehicles … are also less attractive than they once were
Amen! No modernist designed the 1958 Thunderbird! … A Jestons-esque futurist maybe …
Irrelevant. We’re talking aesthetics
Absolutely relevant, Aesthetics in architecture and product design go hand in hand. Architects design products. ALL of the Modernist Architects did. ALL. I’ve already used the Apple Store as the quintessential example of store concept (int arch) designed in line with the iPhone (product) down to the use of the Alvar Aalto stool (furniture). With all due respect Art you know a lot about a lot of things, but you would benefit to go off and do some research on the topic of architecture and design.
500 BC and 1930 AD
That’s a broad response. And yes that has already been done. It’s called Post-Modernism design and it can come out looking great or not so great- like a dogs breakfast.
Understand this- the Romans imposed their classical architectural philosophy and style wherever they conquered – it was never adapted to suit the local tradition, the local culture, the environment, the people in their empire etc…thats why the buildings all ended up looking the SAME wherever you see Roman Classical architecture still standing in Rome, France, Libya, Turkey, Croatia, Lebanon etc etc.. Funny that, since that is the SAME thing that Modernist Architects are accused of doing with their purist International style. And that can be said of nearly every modern Western Architectural Movement between 500BC and 1930 AD. That’s because the strongest of architects practiced by a strict set of guidelines. That’s also why the architectural movements are remembered in history. Post-Modernism won’t have that sort of staying power.
Where Modernist architecture works the best is when local traditions and forms and the use of natural materials are incorporated into the architects concept to produce a vernacular expression. Eg. Louis Barragán (Mexico), Tadoa Ando (Japan) Jorn Utzon (Scandi)
Again, I’ll repeat, Modernist architecture should not be reduced to the product of communist philosophy, if you really understand the breadth of what Modernism is.
Ps. The husband and kids gave me a Eames House Bird (designed by Charles and stay Eames) for my birthday because it’s something I had wanted to collect one of these days. My family thinks I’m weird to want something like that. But this Modernist bird ornament designed by 2 revered Modernist architect and designer, sits beautifully on the living room TV unit.
Absolutely relevant,
No, irrelevant
No, irrelevant
Only to you Art. Only to you my friend.
We drove by The Federal Building on our way out of DC Thursday afternoon. Depressingly ugly.
In contrast we also passed by the Executive Office Building. Built in the style of the Second French Empire, the architecture is1788-1789 eclecticism. Mark Twain, “The ugliest building in America.” President Harry Trumann, “The greatest monstrosity in America.” Historiian Henry Adam’s, “.architectural infant asylum.”