35 Unfortunate Pics From “Culture Critic” Showing How Architecture Is Becoming Increasingly Sad
There are some buildings on the planet that will simply take your breath away: the Taj Mahal, La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, the Colosseum, the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, and the Sistine Chapel, among others of course. These are true testaments to the incredible structures that humans can create when they have the vision, energy and resources.
Nowadays, however, it’s rare to find a new building that makes visitors say anything other than, “It’s alright.” And one Twitter account that’s dedicated to calling out lackluster modern architecture is Culture Critic. Below, we’ve gathered a list of pics from this page that might make our ancestors shudder, so enjoy scrolling through, and be sure to upvote the ones that make you wish you had lived several hundred years ago!
This post may include affiliate links.
Awful eyesore. This is a terrible planning decision to allow it to be built.
Does anyone know why there's a giant butt-plug in the second picture?
The Culture Critic Twitter account has only been around since 2020, but it’s already made quite a name for itself on the site, amassing an impressive 718.4k followers. The page has a simple description, stating, “Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.” And over the past few years, it has shared nearly 1,400 tweets celebrating amazing art and architecture of the past, while also calling out some of the most disappointing pieces and structures of our modern day.
Of course, everyone is allowed to have their own preferences when it comes to which buildings they consider the most impressive or most amazing in the world. But if you take a look at almost any list featuring the planet’s most breathtaking structures, you’ll quickly find that many of them were built at least a century ago. Plenty were even built several hundred years ago! So why don’t we create buildings like we used to anymore? Clearly, we still find them beautiful, so what happened to ornate churches and stunning state buildings? First, let’s take a look at Gothic architecture in particular.
This is my ADHD brain getting distracted half way through.
According to Newspire, you don’t see Gothic buildings popping up in your city today due to several reasons: these structures are incredibly expensive to build and maintain, the style isn’t really in fashion anymore, and there aren’t enough skilled stoneworkers to create the intricate designs today. Building planners would be required to pay a pretty penny for these kinds of structures, and they don’t always have the resources or time needed. Also, no matter how much you may love the Notre-Dame, this style of building has been deemed outdated.
The peak of Gothic architecture was around the 12th and 13th centuries, and since then, the Renaissance and Baroque styles pushed these designs out of the forefront of architects' minds, and they have rarely been revisited since. And nowadays, it would be extremely challenging to find builders who are familiar with and skilled enough in the construction techniques needed to perfect a gorgeous Gothic building.
I'd rather go to school in a building that looks like the prison.
But of course, Gothic structures are not the only gorgeous buildings that we don’t see anymore. So why are modern structures so ugly? Well, according to Nader Sammouri at ADF Magazine, a lot of it comes down to today’s architecture being a business. There’s not as much of an emphasis on aesthetics or creating a beautiful structure that will complement a city. Architects are often given small budgets and strict time constraints, so they make do to earn a paycheck. Plus, there are many other factors at play today, including government regulations, safety codes and political agendas that may impact how much freedom an architect actually has.
They quite possibly do, but not necessarily in the same way.
Despite being eyesores, many modern buildings are actually terrible for our planet as well. John Barham wrote a piece for Medium explaining how the materials used nowadays make buildings last for much less time than their predecessors. “Switching from wood, bricks, and stone, to concrete, composites, and plastics is a big part of the issue, as these new ‘low maintenance’ components often really mean ‘un-maintainable’ and so become destined for landfills,” Barham writes. “For example, while a wooden sash window will need regular repainting it can last hundreds of years, but a plastic window once damaged will need to be completely thrown away.”
Barham also notes that the ideology behind modern architecture is a problem as well. He notes that architects today argue that because beauty is subjective, they don’t need to worry about intricate details or trying too hard to make a structure stunning. “When they find themselves bored by the dullness of a sheer glass and concrete façade of a pastiche Minimalism, they turn to irregular, incoherent, asymmetric shapes, or uncomfortable cantilevers,” Barham writes. “They claim their brief is to shock with ‘originality’ or to ‘challenge’ the public. The results are anti-human buildings that do not ‘spark joy’.”
Creating buildings while solely being concerned with function also does a disservice to future residents or occupants, as they will no doubt want to renovate or rebuild. If the structure isn’t timelessly beautiful, there’s no reason to preserve it. And the cycle of tearing down and using resources to rebuild continues. So the solution to this, Barham suggests, is to actually build structures intended to last forever. He notes how many pre-modern buildings have been homes, offices, retail spaces and gone back and forth between all of the above simply because the spaces were so beautiful and timeless that there was no desire to alter them.
“FLAT. IT NEEDS TO BE FLAT. sorry for my outburst, but it needs to be so that if giants invade, they can sit down comfortably, without something spiking up their a*se.”
According to ScienceNordic, beauty in architecture can even be used as a strategy for sustainability. Nicolai Bo Andersen, associate professor at the Institute for Architecture and Culture at the Royal Danish Academy for Fine Arts, School of Architecture, says that it’s important to focus on aesthetics and ensuring that buildings can physically stand the test of time. “It’s a question of how we experience architecture,” Andersen says. “A building’s form, color, proportions, materials, and daylight, directly affect the human body and give a feeling of connectedness to the world. Beauty may be understood as the uplifting feeling experienced through the body and the senses.”
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
We’re not saying it’s impossible to create a beautiful building today, but obviously, structures like the Sistine Chapel don’t pop up every day. It’s important to keep enjoying and preserving these amazing buildings, and perhaps one day we will have another creation on par with the Taj Mahal. And if not, at least we can continue admiring the one and only. And roasting all of the ugly, lackluster modern buildings on Twitter!
It has been destroyed during war. They weren't able to rebuild the church, since the material was needed elsewhere. But when they did have the resources, they didn't want to rebuild it (since it wouldn't be authentic), but to build something to remember the lost beauty. Because of that, the new building is kept simple and the arc + round window are slightly off. (The bomb destroyed the building above the arc through the window, and the arc by itself leaned a bit to the side.) Today it's like a canvas, at least for me. I see the pictures of the original building, and can easily imagine as a layer above the new one, since it is so simple - nearly plain - but in the correct location.
Are these pictures making you ashamed to be living in modern times, pandas? Unless you’re an architect with an unlimited budget, don’t beat yourself up. It’s not your fault! But we hope you’re enjoying these reminders of how amazing old buildings are and that we should do everything we can to preserve them. Keep upvoting the pics that hit home for you, and then if you’re interested in checking out another Bored Panda article featuring questionable modern architecture, look no further than right here!
Why? Rich people don't buy are to look at. They buy it because it's got a high value that will likely keep going up. It's a way to store their money.
The sponsored this restoration so... also they did it for its historical and artistic value, nor because of its religious purposes since many Europeans, including the French, are blatant atheists or agnostics.
Last time I was back home, this was still in existence at Markham Moor, Nottinghamshire. It is disused, but still standing.
Not driven by there in a few years, so not sure if it still stands. I believe it is listed, so protected. geograph-1...4dddd4.jpg 
It's the city hall of Stuttgart, wich was severly damaged during a WW2 bombing raid.
This is one where I disagree. The new structure is not experimental brutalism, but a very practical attempt to make a pleasant indoor environment. Behind and to the left, you see an even more modern building which attempts to be beautiful while allowing for an all-glass exterior. I do find beauty in many modern architectural works; while Lloyd's is horrifying and Tate looks like it Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here was exalting what it damned, the Shard and the Gherkin have their own beauty.
While I really love old architecture, the reason why we don't build these super intricate buildings anymore is partially for good reasons. In pre-victorian times, labour wages were so low compared to material costs that ornate detailing was not that much more of an expense. Nowadays, labour costs are the majority of building costs (not saying that we pay all workers fairly, but at least more than they used to) which makes it really expensive to replicate those styles. And let also not forget that the buildings that stayed, were not representative for what most people lived in😉
Also, so many of the old buildings were completely inaccessible for disabled people, almost impossible to retrofit with modern wiring, plumbing and computer access, offered little in the way of security, etc. The costs of refurbishing the buildings and keeping them to a modern standard are often many times the cost of starting over.
Load More Replies...
This culture critic feels one step adjacent to old man shouts at clouds kids today grumble grumble grumble things were better in the past etc. vibe
This is more about the state of corporate utilitarianism. That fish one is a good example. Architect comes up with an "interesting" design. But the client wants as much floor space as possible so all the cool lines are taken out and it becomes a bloated bubble. A huge glass cube gives you the maximum sqm per £ spent. Look at all the carving on the cathedrals, modern clients would not tolerate that amount of decoration/expense without utility.
Except it is not always the case. Architects may come up with an "'interesting' design," but it is the engineers that have get it built. And architects don't always design buildings with structural engineering in mind. Sometimes the design has to be changed so the building can be built and remain standing for more that 10 years.
Load More Replies... To be fair a lot of things around architectural taste come and go. A lot of Victorian buildings were destroyed in the UK between the wars as it was badly built or seen as ugly, draughty, etc. After a long period of hate, now some good examples of brutalist or modernist buildings are getting listed and people are starting to enjoy them for what they are.
And don't forget that the Victorian building often had problems with mice or were not accessible for less mobile people
Load More Replies...
There's a fine line between nostalgia and passeism, and this list crosses it a few times.
The brutalism that this reacts against lacks any consideration of humanity; the human soul is sacrificed for efficiency, and to label any longing for what brutalism lacks "passeism" or even "nostalgia" is to be unfamiliar with what it lacks. However, I will concede that sometimes OP seems to occasionally equate that which is historical with that which is humane or spiritual.
Load More Replies...
A lot of this is just criticism of brutalism or modernism, which I don't disagree with but like, it feels a bit 'off' when you take it all together, especially since the only 'good' examples are all the same kind of architecture. Like there is ONE 'good' example given that is what you might call googie or midmod but the rest are very old and as many pandas point out many were lost in world wars not torn down on purpose. while there's a LOT of valid criticism to be levelled at the 'I'm God's Specialest Boy' mentality rampant in modern architects, it's reductive to say that it's somehow a 'failing of humanity' or a sign that we as a species are somehow 'declining' (that's pretty eugenical doomery tbh) when the real cause is capitalism and is in fact TOTALLY FIXABLE.
Odd that you equate capitalism with brutalism; Socialist architecture is legendarily brutalist, and even in free nations, it;'s government-funded architecture that usually ends up the most brutalist. The problem is materialism; free markets are easily bent towards materialism, but Marxism rigidly demands materialism, holding everything else but materialism as an evil distraction.
Load More Replies...
All this is is one person's (Culture Critic) negative view of modern architecture illustrated by some of the worst examples they could find. There are plenty of good examples of modern architecture, just as there are plenty of bad examples of past architectural styles.
although i agree, they're not even all bad, some are really cool. And thats my opinion. At least i understand that not everyone likes the same things i do :-)
Load More Replies... 
Dear Bored Panda, please do NOT share anything by this so called Culture Critic. They have created a "click-bait" environment which does nothing for cultural exchange or even an educational discussion about modern art and architecture. I have very much disliked having to read through an immature imposition of "taste" and huge infantile dislike and lack of understanding of modern art and architecture.
Oh how do I agree... I'm an arts major, with a bachelor's in contemporary history of art. And this thing spreads the same misinformation I always hear, based on taste and that makes our study field not be taken seriously.
Load More Replies...
apart from the "old is always good, new is always ugly" vibe, some people seem to forget that a lot of these buildings were just destroyed in the war. They were not tore down to bring you down and rebuild with something ugly. Esp brutalism was considered extremely modern and cool back in the day. It just didnt work out. Theres a whole new generation of brutalism enthousiasts growing, that love the quirkiness and strangeness of many of these buildings. As a "strange architecture" fan myself, i sometimes even like new buildings better than old. Not everyone loves statues and marble, to each their own.
One of the most tiresome people on Twitter. Anything post 1900 is bad. “No ornament is a crime”, would have the whole world looking like some neo classical theme park.
Obviously art is subjective so that account is entitled to its opinion. But the arguments being made seem to be in bad faith considering there are plenty of examples of modern art and architecture that it would consider positively and plenty of classic art and architecture that it would consider s**t. Cherry picking examples to prove your point means you don't actually have a point.
I don't understand why any simple art disappeared from architecture. And now I'm not talking about big banks or churches, but in Prague when you look on old rental buildings, they are decorated. Not with huge statues and murals, but there are some details around windows, some lines, maybe few faces on the front and very often inside you have mosaic stone floor. Not amazing mosaic of heroic acts, just some patterns, but it is enough to not be bland and ugly. And that was build for rental.
See how it looks from outside (of course it is covered with modern ads now), picture from inside will be in comment. Screenshot...d9-png.jpg 
Prague is indeed beautiful, like many Central European cities.
Load More Replies...
A lot of hate on for brutalist stuff here. I'd say it really translates badly to the screen. A lot of its appeal to me is the way the space feels. Anyhoo. Architecture has been s**t since they let architects use colored pencils.
I liked most of the new designs. Not the paintings those were garbage and we all know it, but the buildings I like the modern designs.
I think that "Culture Critic" could stand to take a bloody art history class...
I think that's exactly the mindset they're reacting against. Schoenberg's twelve-tone series compositions are one hundred years old now, but still you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of a limited subset of academically trained musicians who appreciate them. However, the difference between music that requires specialist knowledge to appreciate and architecture that does is that you can turn music off, but architecture is always present.
Load More Replies... Personally I think what is more important than the style is consistency of style. Brutalism looks awful if it is dropped into Paris or Edinburgh with lots of quaint buildings around it. But an entire city done brutalists style would be awe-inspiring and quite overwhelming in its psychological effect, so... I say consistency is the issue.
i like brutalism in the middle of nice old buildings. Like the Standard across the street of the St Pancras in London. Fantastic!
Load More Replies... I don’t consider the shift towards brutalist architecture a bad thing (I hate the art though, an everyday person like me can’t admire it anymore because to ‘truly’ understand it, I need to know the nuance of the piece.) The brutalist style of building is this generation’s architecture, just as we had the Gothic style before that. Don’t get me wrong, I love Gothic buildings, but I respect that the brutalist architecture is the modern style, and eventually we will evolve into a new style. My city has a (gothic) train station that has been modernised to have a glass roof and a sleeker design, and the mixture between the two styles makes it one of my favourite buildings in the entire city, perhaps a brutalist-gothic coalition is what the buildings of the future will look like?
It really angers me when people who don't know anything about modern art think they have a right in commenting it. Architecture is something you have to see and often, if public, pay and I understand the anger. But "if you have to explain why it's pretty it isn't" for an artpiece that you can spend you're whole life not seeing and 's not paid with your money...Ive been studying art for 6+4 years and it's not as simple as "I don't like it". "It's easy to make" (no it's not). I get it, you're envious about the price, and if you want to complain for the price complain with capitalism and it's fetish for status symbols, not the artist. I'm tired of seeing ignorant people criticizing things based on their taste, as if they have the right to do so. As if its decorative art. As if it isn't an entire quinquennial study field, comprehensive of history, sociology and philosophy. Keep your uninformed opinions and taste for yourself. If you don't understand it, it's not for you.
Lots of these just infuriate me, because war destroyed it, not some whim. It makes me want to post things like Mount Rushmore and beautiful landscapes that have beed destroyed by buildings.
yeah i got extremely annoyed as well. Glad im not alone.
Load More Replies...
Number 23 shows an antique B&W photo of the old Boston City Hall and a new photo of the "new" City Hall. The older building was not torn down. It is still in use commercially, so the sepia-toned nostalgia was unnecessary. There is newfound appreciation for the newer building, including by me. However, I have heard from people who worked there that it is cold and uncomfortable, and having been in there myself, it is labyrinthine inside. So this may be an example of a building whose form surpassed its function. Number 18 shows two skyscrapers, the newer of which is completely unremarkable. The older one, however, which the OP champions, is hideous, a poorly proportioned skyscraper encrusted with Gothic/Romanesque/Federal (?) decoration. In my opinion. Several other examples I disagree with here, but some of which I agree with.
That account sounds a bit unhinged when it comes to architects. And bitter. And lots of the examples were severely damaged or bombed in WWII, and as strange as it may sound, building housing for people to live in the "Hungerwinter" was more important than fancy public buildings. And this comes from someone living in Edinburgh, who actually agrees that a beautiful city architecture is good for one's mental health.
All good and well, but how does he expect a city that was bombed into oblivion to be rebuilt like it was, when there was NOTHING after the war? Despite the Marshall Plan, there was food rationing for a long time, because of the bloody war.
Well, this was a pointless list made of entirely illogical pairings made by people with shallow thought processes.
I think that modern architecture can have its own kind of beauty, but not as rich as older buildings. Additionally, as many other comments have brought up, rich detail is a lot more expensive nowadays. That being said, I want to be an architect, and I want people to sue me out of business if I even reveal a single design for a completely flat box.
This makes me very, very sad. There have to be ways to modernize structures to accommodate the needs of today's world without destroying the beauty of the older buildings.
I fear for humans longevity.before we had creative peoole with actual talent now tge so calked talent lies with the shock or robotic factor.Just like comedians who do nothing but swear and tell tastless jokes.That is easier for less talented people to come up with,the other ways take time thought and real creativity.
For many government, council, and commercial building the architecture used to promote their wealth and success. It was a way to show the masses. Now, with the advent of modern technologies and communication, they can show this through share prices and don't feel the need to. They aren't bothered by beauty, or imposing buildings, they care about the bottom line figures. So long as they make profit the will work in a black/grey/brown box.
While a lot of modern styles look generic, boring and uninspired - brutalism for example never fails to fail -, there have been ugly building all along, it's just that the ugly old buildings were more likely to be discarded than the nice old ones. I'm all for keeping intact building instead of taking them down, but then again, it's not that everything new is bad or ugly and everything old is good or nice. Sometimes, the nice old buildings fail to meet a lot of standards in regard to accessibility, and therefore, disqualify from being used as public service facilities, or would need major changes built into them. Not to get me wrong, the brutalist replacements of old libraries shown here are a disgrace by all means, and brutalism ... let's just be thankful it wasn't in fashion long enough to devestate entire cities.
still some people absolutely LOVE brutalism :-) I saw a very nice brutalist church in Cologne the other week.
Load More Replies... While I really love old architecture, the reason why we don't build these super intricate buildings anymore is partially for good reasons. In pre-victorian times, labour wages were so low compared to material costs that ornate detailing was not that much more of an expense. Nowadays, labour costs are the majority of building costs (not saying that we pay all workers fairly, but at least more than they used to) which makes it really expensive to replicate those styles. And let also not forget that the buildings that stayed, were not representative for what most people lived in😉
Also, so many of the old buildings were completely inaccessible for disabled people, almost impossible to retrofit with modern wiring, plumbing and computer access, offered little in the way of security, etc. The costs of refurbishing the buildings and keeping them to a modern standard are often many times the cost of starting over.
Load More Replies... This culture critic feels one step adjacent to old man shouts at clouds kids today grumble grumble grumble things were better in the past etc. vibe
This is more about the state of corporate utilitarianism. That fish one is a good example. Architect comes up with an "interesting" design. But the client wants as much floor space as possible so all the cool lines are taken out and it becomes a bloated bubble. A huge glass cube gives you the maximum sqm per £ spent. Look at all the carving on the cathedrals, modern clients would not tolerate that amount of decoration/expense without utility.
Except it is not always the case. Architects may come up with an "'interesting' design," but it is the engineers that have get it built. And architects don't always design buildings with structural engineering in mind. Sometimes the design has to be changed so the building can be built and remain standing for more that 10 years.
Load More Replies... To be fair a lot of things around architectural taste come and go. A lot of Victorian buildings were destroyed in the UK between the wars as it was badly built or seen as ugly, draughty, etc. After a long period of hate, now some good examples of brutalist or modernist buildings are getting listed and people are starting to enjoy them for what they are.
And don't forget that the Victorian building often had problems with mice or were not accessible for less mobile people
Load More Replies... There's a fine line between nostalgia and passeism, and this list crosses it a few times.
The brutalism that this reacts against lacks any consideration of humanity; the human soul is sacrificed for efficiency, and to label any longing for what brutalism lacks "passeism" or even "nostalgia" is to be unfamiliar with what it lacks. However, I will concede that sometimes OP seems to occasionally equate that which is historical with that which is humane or spiritual.
Load More Replies... A lot of this is just criticism of brutalism or modernism, which I don't disagree with but like, it feels a bit 'off' when you take it all together, especially since the only 'good' examples are all the same kind of architecture. Like there is ONE 'good' example given that is what you might call googie or midmod but the rest are very old and as many pandas point out many were lost in world wars not torn down on purpose. while there's a LOT of valid criticism to be levelled at the 'I'm God's Specialest Boy' mentality rampant in modern architects, it's reductive to say that it's somehow a 'failing of humanity' or a sign that we as a species are somehow 'declining' (that's pretty eugenical doomery tbh) when the real cause is capitalism and is in fact TOTALLY FIXABLE.
Odd that you equate capitalism with brutalism; Socialist architecture is legendarily brutalist, and even in free nations, it;'s government-funded architecture that usually ends up the most brutalist. The problem is materialism; free markets are easily bent towards materialism, but Marxism rigidly demands materialism, holding everything else but materialism as an evil distraction.
Load More Replies... All this is is one person's (Culture Critic) negative view of modern architecture illustrated by some of the worst examples they could find. There are plenty of good examples of modern architecture, just as there are plenty of bad examples of past architectural styles.
although i agree, they're not even all bad, some are really cool. And thats my opinion. At least i understand that not everyone likes the same things i do :-)
Load More Replies... Dear Bored Panda, please do NOT share anything by this so called Culture Critic. They have created a "click-bait" environment which does nothing for cultural exchange or even an educational discussion about modern art and architecture. I have very much disliked having to read through an immature imposition of "taste" and huge infantile dislike and lack of understanding of modern art and architecture.
Oh how do I agree... I'm an arts major, with a bachelor's in contemporary history of art. And this thing spreads the same misinformation I always hear, based on taste and that makes our study field not be taken seriously.
Load More Replies... apart from the "old is always good, new is always ugly" vibe, some people seem to forget that a lot of these buildings were just destroyed in the war. They were not tore down to bring you down and rebuild with something ugly. Esp brutalism was considered extremely modern and cool back in the day. It just didnt work out. Theres a whole new generation of brutalism enthousiasts growing, that love the quirkiness and strangeness of many of these buildings. As a "strange architecture" fan myself, i sometimes even like new buildings better than old. Not everyone loves statues and marble, to each their own.
One of the most tiresome people on Twitter. Anything post 1900 is bad. “No ornament is a crime”, would have the whole world looking like some neo classical theme park.
Obviously art is subjective so that account is entitled to its opinion. But the arguments being made seem to be in bad faith considering there are plenty of examples of modern art and architecture that it would consider positively and plenty of classic art and architecture that it would consider s**t. Cherry picking examples to prove your point means you don't actually have a point.
I don't understand why any simple art disappeared from architecture. And now I'm not talking about big banks or churches, but in Prague when you look on old rental buildings, they are decorated. Not with huge statues and murals, but there are some details around windows, some lines, maybe few faces on the front and very often inside you have mosaic stone floor. Not amazing mosaic of heroic acts, just some patterns, but it is enough to not be bland and ugly. And that was build for rental.
See how it looks from outside (of course it is covered with modern ads now), picture from inside will be in comment. Screenshot...d9-png.jpg
Prague is indeed beautiful, like many Central European cities.
Load More Replies... A lot of hate on for brutalist stuff here. I'd say it really translates badly to the screen. A lot of its appeal to me is the way the space feels. Anyhoo. Architecture has been s**t since they let architects use colored pencils.
I liked most of the new designs. Not the paintings those were garbage and we all know it, but the buildings I like the modern designs.
I think that "Culture Critic" could stand to take a bloody art history class...
I think that's exactly the mindset they're reacting against. Schoenberg's twelve-tone series compositions are one hundred years old now, but still you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of a limited subset of academically trained musicians who appreciate them. However, the difference between music that requires specialist knowledge to appreciate and architecture that does is that you can turn music off, but architecture is always present.
Load More Replies... Personally I think what is more important than the style is consistency of style. Brutalism looks awful if it is dropped into Paris or Edinburgh with lots of quaint buildings around it. But an entire city done brutalists style would be awe-inspiring and quite overwhelming in its psychological effect, so... I say consistency is the issue.
i like brutalism in the middle of nice old buildings. Like the Standard across the street of the St Pancras in London. Fantastic!
Load More Replies... I don’t consider the shift towards brutalist architecture a bad thing (I hate the art though, an everyday person like me can’t admire it anymore because to ‘truly’ understand it, I need to know the nuance of the piece.) The brutalist style of building is this generation’s architecture, just as we had the Gothic style before that. Don’t get me wrong, I love Gothic buildings, but I respect that the brutalist architecture is the modern style, and eventually we will evolve into a new style. My city has a (gothic) train station that has been modernised to have a glass roof and a sleeker design, and the mixture between the two styles makes it one of my favourite buildings in the entire city, perhaps a brutalist-gothic coalition is what the buildings of the future will look like?
It really angers me when people who don't know anything about modern art think they have a right in commenting it. Architecture is something you have to see and often, if public, pay and I understand the anger. But "if you have to explain why it's pretty it isn't" for an artpiece that you can spend you're whole life not seeing and 's not paid with your money...Ive been studying art for 6+4 years and it's not as simple as "I don't like it". "It's easy to make" (no it's not). I get it, you're envious about the price, and if you want to complain for the price complain with capitalism and it's fetish for status symbols, not the artist. I'm tired of seeing ignorant people criticizing things based on their taste, as if they have the right to do so. As if its decorative art. As if it isn't an entire quinquennial study field, comprehensive of history, sociology and philosophy. Keep your uninformed opinions and taste for yourself. If you don't understand it, it's not for you.
Lots of these just infuriate me, because war destroyed it, not some whim. It makes me want to post things like Mount Rushmore and beautiful landscapes that have beed destroyed by buildings.
yeah i got extremely annoyed as well. Glad im not alone.
Load More Replies... Number 23 shows an antique B&W photo of the old Boston City Hall and a new photo of the "new" City Hall. The older building was not torn down. It is still in use commercially, so the sepia-toned nostalgia was unnecessary. There is newfound appreciation for the newer building, including by me. However, I have heard from people who worked there that it is cold and uncomfortable, and having been in there myself, it is labyrinthine inside. So this may be an example of a building whose form surpassed its function. Number 18 shows two skyscrapers, the newer of which is completely unremarkable. The older one, however, which the OP champions, is hideous, a poorly proportioned skyscraper encrusted with Gothic/Romanesque/Federal (?) decoration. In my opinion. Several other examples I disagree with here, but some of which I agree with.
That account sounds a bit unhinged when it comes to architects. And bitter. And lots of the examples were severely damaged or bombed in WWII, and as strange as it may sound, building housing for people to live in the "Hungerwinter" was more important than fancy public buildings. And this comes from someone living in Edinburgh, who actually agrees that a beautiful city architecture is good for one's mental health.
All good and well, but how does he expect a city that was bombed into oblivion to be rebuilt like it was, when there was NOTHING after the war? Despite the Marshall Plan, there was food rationing for a long time, because of the bloody war.
Well, this was a pointless list made of entirely illogical pairings made by people with shallow thought processes.
I think that modern architecture can have its own kind of beauty, but not as rich as older buildings. Additionally, as many other comments have brought up, rich detail is a lot more expensive nowadays. That being said, I want to be an architect, and I want people to sue me out of business if I even reveal a single design for a completely flat box.
This makes me very, very sad. There have to be ways to modernize structures to accommodate the needs of today's world without destroying the beauty of the older buildings.
I fear for humans longevity.before we had creative peoole with actual talent now tge so calked talent lies with the shock or robotic factor.Just like comedians who do nothing but swear and tell tastless jokes.That is easier for less talented people to come up with,the other ways take time thought and real creativity.
For many government, council, and commercial building the architecture used to promote their wealth and success. It was a way to show the masses. Now, with the advent of modern technologies and communication, they can show this through share prices and don't feel the need to. They aren't bothered by beauty, or imposing buildings, they care about the bottom line figures. So long as they make profit the will work in a black/grey/brown box.
While a lot of modern styles look generic, boring and uninspired - brutalism for example never fails to fail -, there have been ugly building all along, it's just that the ugly old buildings were more likely to be discarded than the nice old ones. I'm all for keeping intact building instead of taking them down, but then again, it's not that everything new is bad or ugly and everything old is good or nice. Sometimes, the nice old buildings fail to meet a lot of standards in regard to accessibility, and therefore, disqualify from being used as public service facilities, or would need major changes built into them. Not to get me wrong, the brutalist replacements of old libraries shown here are a disgrace by all means, and brutalism ... let's just be thankful it wasn't in fashion long enough to devestate entire cities.
still some people absolutely LOVE brutalism :-) I saw a very nice brutalist church in Cologne the other week.
Load More Replies...