Why is Modern Architecture Ugly?

[@RyanH-hp3lf]

This is why no one takes artists or creatives seriously anymore. Instead of just admitting that your ugly architecture sucks no matter what. You have to admit that its ugly but its ugly on purpose and if people dont pretend to "get it" then they're just not smart enough to understand. Using a bunch of terms like "authentic" can't obfuscate the fact that modern building design is less desirable.

[@leonk8875]

I don't think modern architecture sucks at all. You might not like it's facade or how the building looks on the outside which is justified but saying every part of modern architecture sucks would be very untrue. Modern architecture developed way more human-friendly floor plans and oftentimes takes into account the human experience way more than classical architecture would. That is why it's much easier to get around a modern building than it would be to get around a classical building. For example the Guggenheim museum in New York is a spiral so you can gently walk up the entire building without having to use cumbersome stairs. Also side note the Guggenheim building in nyc is a beautiful building.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@leonk8875 Thanks for both replies! It is indeed a hot topic this. My mission it to try and find a middle ground that takes the best lessons from both. I think the goals of the modernists where laudable, yet clearly in many cases too radical and produced inhumane spaces. I think post-modernism puts forth a critical discussion, but often times is mor concerned with taking things apart than putting them back together. I think architects needs to recognise this and find common ground with the public they serve.

[@bahamut149]

it's not about ugly or beautiful, it's about meaningful. The building showed here are iconic building, it's mean to be difference and memorable. Caixa forum has history on it''s facade, KAIT palaza has surreal space. Modern building can be beautiful if they want, Renzo piano's MUSE, Richard Roger's one hyde park. BTW, Modern architecture was dead alon gtime ago, it''s post modern time for quite a while.

[@furripupau]

Found the guy with an imploded brain who thinks complexity = better.

[@Minecraftzocker135]

​@@bahamut149is this... is this a serious reply ? This must be sarcasm right ? I mean you tried to lecture him on all the good things modern architecture brings while doing exactly what he criticized, hiding your ugly building behind words like iconic, meaningful and different. You just replaced the buzz words he criticized with new buzz words... The word post modern alone is just a prime example for the "you are stupid if you don't get it" elitism of architects. There can't be anything newer than modern...

[@AkraticElitist]

"Do you think buildings should be ugly?" is like asking "Do you think we should cause people pain?"

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

Haha indeed. Hopefully in the context of the video that question becomes a bit more complex though. But yea, I probably could've framed it a bit differently!

[@joshrogers2719]

Based on recent developments in neuroscience and experimental psychology, there’s now a strong argument that ugly urban environments genuinely make us anxious, which is painful. So basically architects are sadists.

[@christijanrobert1627]

I have often thought most of these modernist architects are no different than sociopaths. At least with a piece of modernist 'art' it is housed in a gallery and you don't have to look at it. Imagine Jack the Ripper as a city planner and that's what I often see with these monstrosities on display in our streets.

[@MrVorpalsword]

@@christijanrobert1627 you are 180º from the truth. They are nearly all very caring people, some aren't very good designers and a lot are very bad employers. Do you take an active interest in aesthetics, tell me what music you listen to, what paintings you do approve of, what car you drive, is it an old fashioned thing (I mean 100 years old, to match your 'taste' in buildings)?

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

I still think all these "modernist" (now classical) designs are super cool & interesting. The architects are going for cool, not pretty.

[@Chameleon1616]

The problem is the conversation itself. As you mentioned architectural styles have merely become points in a conversation no-one but the elite of an elitist profession are invited to take part in. This is unacceptable for a utility and art form that is completely embedded in public use and experience. Modernism has abandoned the emotional and aesthetic needs of human being which has ironically been scientifically proven, while post modernism has gone further in its mockery of all that came before to undermine the very idea of practicality in building's. Post modernism has rediscovered the power of aesthetics by using them abuse the publics sensibilities while also being materially wasteful. It’s completely unacceptable yet there seems to be so serious voice to remind the industry of who buildings are for. This has always upset me.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@Chameleon1616 thanks for the comment! As part of the architectural establishment I am trying to open up this very conversation. I wish to bring it beyond “I like this” and “I like that” though!

[@MrVorpalsword]

agreed about the mocking insincerity of Post-Modernist Classicism etc. BUT you are WAY wrong about emotional aesthetics being abandoned in the best modern architecture, think about great modern cathedrals, opera houses ...... even the best houses (I can give you a list of houses to explore on line if you want?), bridges and airports etc. etc. and think about how emotional people get over modern architecture, hatred is an emotion ..... as Libeskind examined at Berlin.

[@glorp_glorp_glorp]

@@ludvigInLegendaryLands beauty is somewhat objective. Is not about "I like this, I like that", is about what beauty for the human eye is.

[@sockpocketpre-alpha8258]

@@ludvigInLegendaryLands Beauty in environments and architecture is much more objective and agreed upon by the general public than you think.

[@VivekPatel-ze6jy]

I agree... But equally, architectural decisions have never been taken by normal people. Even older 'beautiful' buildings had their design dictated by wealthy patrons. Now, development is a numbers game. Only self builders see their vision from start to finish. Personally, I like the more playful modernism that respects the surroundings, like a lot of new buildings in central London that take elements from the surrounding, old architecture without becoming pastiche

[@xGOKOPx]

These reasons are mostly garbage. They all fail to consider something that in my opinion dwarfs all of them: Buildings exist in a space where people live, and people's mood and well being is affected by the aesthetics of their surroundings. By intentionally designing ugly buildings you're saying "I want people to have a worse living environment because I value my philosophical goals more than the well being of people who will use my building"

[@leonk8875]

No modern and contemporary building strives to improve the human experience. Modern buildings are oftentimes less restrictive especially on their interior which allows for better flow throughout the building which makes it easier for humans to get around. Also modern buildings tend to have more glass and views than classical buildings. Office spaces with more glass and natural light have been proven to produce better work and improve workplace productivity. So no modern buildings do take into account the human experience more.

[@xGOKOPx]

@@leonk8875 You don't have to make ugly buildings to achieve those goals. I'm replying to the video saying that architects are making their buildings ugly on purpose

[@thealmightyaku-4153]

@@leonk8875 You're really trying hard to defend modernist architecture in this comment section, aren't you? Well, stop. Modernism is terrible, aesthetically - _and_ functionally. They are unpleasant to be in, and only easier to navigate by merit of typically being empty - which is not only often an unpleasant experience, but also makes them expensive to heat & cool. Indeed, modern architecture is famously energy inefficient. Take the famous Farsnworth House by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. An edifice so terrible - yet built on the very same principles that you praise, with glass & light - that the client, Ms. Farnsworth sued van der Rohe for going against her wishes in the design, and wasting her money. The architecture world loved the house. _Real people_ who lived in it despised it. Which is a perfect encapsulation of the problem with modernist architecture. I wish I could find the original blog post that told me about it, or search up the the real house & its story, but there was another modernist architect who deliberately designed a house against conventional principles. The couple who lived in wrote a book about how tremendously awful it was to live in it. Modernist architects were & are guided by lofty ideals of human life - that are completely removed, divorced, from the actual practicalities of living and actual human desires. The only people who ever liked their works were ideological fellow-travellers.

[@bahamut149]

@@thealmightyaku-4153 One building to represent all modern architect ?. Van der Rohe did not know to make residental that a fact, he was about office. Like Tadao Ando is about museum and religion building. There are residental architect like SAOTA, if you want to criicize modern house then at least find some one like them.

[@thealmightyaku-4153]

@@bahamut149 One building to act as an ideal exemplar of the style's problems. Do you expect me to lay down a report on all modern architecture and its problems, here, in a youtube comment section? If you want wider & more thorough condemnation, go and find various reports and papers about the negatives of modernist architecture, both residential & commercial. About the negative psychological impressions of modernist architecture - ie. how modern architecture makes those who live & work amongst it feel bad, makes them depressed - about how almost no one likes them, and almost everyone prefers classicalist & traditional buildings, &c. Go look up how many problems these modern buildings cause, because of how short-sighted the designers were - two examples that immediately jump to mind are that curved building in London, which melted cars beneath it, & that Farnsworth house again, which was subject to severe flooding & leaked like a sieve. Go look up reports about how energy inefficient, wasteful, _all_ 'glass box' modernist buildings are. I can't do all the work goring your sacred cows. You'll have to do some work yourself.

[@tomaseire]

When buildings and spaces are of beauty, people naturally gather and congregate. We need beautiful buildings and spaces.

[@MrVorpalsword]

Ludvig uses an illustration of the Pompidou Centre in Paris, I think it is the most popular gathering place in Paris isn't it? Bilbao may be the same outside the Guggenheim (apart from the football ground). Sydney Opera House? ... they are very popular places and they are modern.

[@HNKZK]

@@MrVorpalsword Pompidou Centre is not the most popular gathering place in Paris by a long shot. And I doubt you'd hear people from Sydney or Bilbao saying they enjoy those spaces in fact they'd probably avoid them and see them as tourist traps... Which they are.

[@starmanjesus5679]

In the centre pompidou in paris and the maxxi in rome people are flocking every single day, your statement as this ridiculous video are out of the reality of facts

[@starmanjesus5679]

@@HNKZK the real tourist traps are the neoclassical buildings rebuilt in order to please the average ignorant tourist looking for the postal card

[@tomaseire]

@@starmanjesus5679in response to your ridiculous statement! Lol! You are referring to public spaces in the top two cities visited in Europe. You’re obviously not too familiar with much of Northern Europe, where post war rebuilding and bad urban planning has destroyed urban centres by making them sheer ugly!

[@romanpavliuk3081]

Quite unique presentation of material, never've seen video essay such as this. Impressive work!

[@far7261]

It’s like, innovative and creative, but I don’t want to live anywhere near one of those ugly “concept buildings”.

[@brokenrecord3523]

“I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like”. Orson Welles, I think.

[@malvarmarakontobro]

The fundamental problem of architecture is that it's gone from being a craft, where the goal is to satisfy the end user, to an art, where the goal is to elevate the artist. This explains why architects feel the need to make their buildings into these grand philosophical statements instead of just nice buildings where people live and work. Incidentally it also explains why Architecture is such a poorly paid profession.

[@furripupau]

This is not at all true.

[@JFeaser187]

You people have bizarre fantasies about what architects actually do.

[@jeremiah8836tvgo]

This isn’t the kind of architecture most people are concerned about being ugly. It’s the every day architecture like the bank down the street and the fast food restaurant. And the cookie cutter houses. The high-rise apartments that were slapped together in a couple months. Drop ceilings and drywall Popcorn ceilings. Plain straight lines where there used to be a decorative molding. The buildings that have absolutely no thought put into the way they look at all. And we have to live and look at them every day. 100 years ago every day buildings had some thought behind it and some pretty decorative ordinate details even in the most unseen places. Now we have drywall, popcorn ceilings, and Flat looking everything. The buildings you are talking about in the video are actually pretty interesting to look at, but of course they’re made by real architects within intention behind them and a lot of money. It’s the every day buildings that are ugly.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

You are definitely correct. However, my aim here is to point out the aesthical aspirations of architects and how it differs from the intuitions of the layperson. Those two conversations often gets conflated: Bad ‘normal’ architecture made by capitalist developers and big expensive, often public, buildings by starchitects.

[@sockpocketpre-alpha8258]

@@ludvigInLegendaryLands The buildings by the wacky architects are, as you said, so far gone into their own niche philosophical meanings that they can't even be discerned, they just look like someone is doubling down on the oppressive capitalist architecture this guy is talking about. It would do wonders if modern philosophical architecture were outright rejecting bad "normal" architecture because an established counter movement doesn't exist.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

I still think all these "modernist" (now classical) designs are super cool & interesting. The architects are going for cool, not pretty.

[@edwardfortae2350]

Ugly is easy. Thats it. Theres not another reason and no excuses can change the practicality of the issue. Ugly is easy for Architects and Engineers to build.

[@sockpocketpre-alpha8258]

And artists! Modern artists of all sort fail to understand it. This is why you get laughed at if you study art these days.

[@Jason-ti8zr]

I mean in order to fight this fight for more traditional and classical architecture the need for harsh has to increase. Critizing these very buildings at all costs, you'd be surprised at how many comments I've seen where those who fight against modernist architecture are insulted by the elitist architects calling them stupid because they don't know what they talk about or understand. For years look at Poundbury formed by the now King Charles III how his name was smeared by modernist architects. It's our time to hurt their feelings of course in a positive loving way, I view modernist architects as those super rich who live on the 89th floor of a high rise they put themselves on pedestals and view themselves as god like figures, that ends today.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

Thanks for leaving your thoughts! I am curious if you find it helpful to understand the architects' point of view and if there can be a middle ground? I visited Poundbury last summer with some architect friends of mine. While they did find it quite funny and needed a kind ironic distance to the project, none of us disliked it. I think the new generation of architects will find common ground with the public that hopes for more traditional buildings.

[@InTheRhettRow]

The great irony is that these Modernsit architects opt often to live in 19th century Victorian homes. Koolhaus being the worst offender.

[@-gemberkoekje-5547]

Modernism is something to be used in moderation, like all styles, where they fit appropriately. Like a wise man once said: "Its important to draw wisdom from many different places. If you take it from only one place, it becomes ridgid and stale. Learning from others will help you become whole."

[@l.s.11]

I think the issue is largely overstated. Most modern buildings are at worst boring, and/or uninspirational. I think there is a place for buildings that are weird, ugly, or impractical. Not every second house, but every 100th or 1000th one can be an experiment or a statement or a provocation.

[@stevenedwards3754]

Today's prevailing esthetic is that any notion of man-made beauty is outdated and effete, and that vulgarity and ugliness are bold and modern. Boston City Hall for all its in-your-face ugliness is nothing more than a sign of the times in which it was built. It isn't just architecture that is brutalist; it is the people and the culture that created it. Popular culture revels in vulgarity and coarseness. Does anybody really think that blaring rock music, shredded jeans, coarse manners, self vandalism in the form of tattoos, or graffiti scribbled everywhere are attempts to strive for beauty, refinement or thoughtfulness? Of course not. And if ugliness is the point, crude impracticality is its handmaiden.

[@coykto]

I thought "ugly" would refer to residential construction and boxy supermarkets

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@coykto they are indeed ugly, in the more colloquial understanding of the term!

[@centurion5210]

the motivation is different there. instead of fame the shoebox designer looks for profit maximization.

[@TheGrenadier97]

Too much pretension, authoritarianism and forced "meanings" in modern architecture. It gets heavy, tiresome and finally disgusting as time passes.

[@LSRising462]

Perhaps in this video it would have been best to define separately what Modernism, Postmodernism and Classicism is, particularly in the field of architecture, to provide context to the topic for those in the audience who aren't familiar with these terms and their implications? Then it would have made more sense to then discuss the values and principles of each movement, and thus their perspectives and standards concerning architectural aesthetics and their meanings.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@LSRising462 thanks for the comment! Indeed it would, but ones gotta draw the line somewhere. I wanted to explore quite a specific idea rather than give a general overview of architectural history. Other people are better qualified than me to do that. But I appreciate the feedback. It’s always a fine balance how much prior knowledge one should assume in order not to bore nor confuse the audience.

[@jamman7094]

Person: “Wow. Lost its beauty and its functionality” Artist: “yes” Person: “so… it’s just a pile of bricks?” Artist: “it’s just a pile of bricks… but work and or live in it tho…” Person: “seems like your mom had butter hands when picking you up as a child”

[@christijanrobert1627]

You can feel it in your gut when something is beautiful. Or when something is ugly, it is like a sucker punch to the solar plexus, like an insult. People living in their heads do not understand why every day people feel disdain for modernist architecture because they are severed from their hearts. This is what the academy often does, destroy the link with the soul. Look at the modified and beautified alternatives in this video to the works we see. We want the beautiful renditions and yet we get this puke every year. It is truly insulting to humanity.

[@diegohidafl]

meaning that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. There is at least one fundamental element that is shared among beautiful things. What is it? I do not know, but at least I know that Saint Patrick cathedral in New York is beautiful and the Walmart parking lot is not!

[@leonk8875]

You're focusing on only ugly buildings. There are plenty examples of beautiful modern buildings just open your eyes. Don't let yourself get sucked into this chasm of hate for modernism because you have one brutalist bank or you saw a couple 1980s skyscrapers that look like boxes. Modernism like classicism have multiple different style sets and all of them and produce various types of buildings both great and mediocre. Not all modernist buildings are ugly not all classical or vernacular buildings are beautiful just like the world buildings are diverse

[@christijanrobert1627]

@@leonk8875 The amount of attractive modern buildings is far and few between. I have faith that there are great architects coming out of the Univ. of Notre Dame. Meanwhile, the rise in depression, disconnection and loneliness in the world, while may not have a direct correlation with modernist architecture and I would say there is still a connection. Who wants to hang out amongst Brutalist buildings? Case in point, SFU in Vancouver compared to UBC. SFU's Brutalist buildings in Burnaby have been featured in films as dystopian corporations. Friends I know that went to SFU described the campus as absolutely depressing and ugly. As for UBC, the campus is far more welcoming and there are more beautiful buildings - many of which are classical and traditional.

[@christijanrobert1627]

@@diegohidafl Ornamentation is key. The human eye loves complexity yet contained in patterns. A building that is large or enormous is not welcoming - this is why people feel dwindled by a skyscraper. A Walmart parking lot is grey and vast and also diminishes a human being. Symmetry is another factor and a building that reflects the culture and climate is important. A flat-roofed building in Germany is an eyesore the way an half-timber house in Egypt would look ridiculous. But on a gut level, we know what is beautiful. A pseudo-intellectual will throw out a word salad why we should love 'modernist' architecture which to me has the same motivation of Big Brother telling us 2+2=5. Human beings know what is beautiful but academics want to convince us otherwise.

[@MrVorpalsword]

rubbish

[@azerotrlz]

In some sense architecture, predating the Industrial revolution, could be seen as more authentic since it was constructed at smaller scale by fewer people and the materials and labour were both often sourced locally, which meant the building had an idiosyncratic look which was in tone with its natural and urban surroundings. Despite spilling its guts in public, most modern architecture is inauthentic in that very sense as it lacks individuality and locality, it is "averaged out", much like how microlot food has more taste and authenticity than its mass produced equivalents.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@azerotrlz I think this is a really good point. And indeed it is the way many contemporary architects are thinking. Vernacular techniques and local materials is all the rage in architecture schools. It’s just quite expensive to build so we don’t see it much yet.

[@NickAndriadze]

I couldn't have agreed more. Not to mention the fact that older buildings were built EXACTLY out of what they showed from the outside (If it's made from stone or bricks on the outside, you best bet the entire hull is made from them), no disgusting glass or plastic cladding to be seen, that's so frequent in modern architecture.

[@BlackfeatherTanfur]

Pourquoi pas les deux? Why not both? Architects can be clever; it's not required to be ugly to be authentic. It'd be great to have a beautiful, authentic building.

[@DH-ts7xd]

As an architect, I am actually very interested in the fact that so many people are starting to voice their disagreement with the contemporary architecture and what this will bring. Architecture is a sort of a material manifestation of the society; in the case of our time - individualistic, eccentric and highly speculative (built for profit). No noble things can come out of such traits. No doubt architects have contributed their part, but all in all they are only a minor piece in all this. It is the general population that has to change, demand different solutions, perhaps even boycott ugliness. That is why this recent trend gives me hope. That said, the right path forward is definitely not some sort of a historic revival. Every age has to figure out its own appropriate architecture. It is not only aesthetics we are talking about, but the whole economic system behind. The challenge architects face in this system, is how to build something beautiful cheaper, faster and less labour intensive than ever before. Today it is simply not feasable for most people to build houses out of stone and pay artisans to handcraft beautiful ornaments into the plaster facades. If you are willing to pay for that, I will definitely not object. What architects usually object though is imitation. something that tries to be stone, but is clearly a cheap plastic copy. Beauty is in truth, simplicity and sincerity. And that is how good architecture feels like. Lets demand beauty! But lets also think more about what beauty actually is. Edit: I recommend a book The architecture of happines to anyone interested in a good introduction to the topic.

[@pawelabrams]

The question that will divide the public and the architects is: what if ornament comes cheap? What if the stone ornament is mass-produced by retired car factory robots, or moulded concrete is made fashionable once again? Will it be authentic? No faux materials, just their forms can be procedurally generated and the moulds 3D printed.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

Thanks for the comment! It is indeed a tricky and exciting topic. Glad you liked the video.

[@DH-ts7xd]

@@pawelabrams My thinking is that form itself is not enough to produce beauty. What fascinates people is the more subtle display of labour that went into producing something. When we literally feel that someone (human being) spent thousands of hours working on something we appreciate it, because we subconsciously relate to that person and their passion. Mass produced ornament (templates) is available for centuries already and doesnt really hold a lot of value. Robot produced ornament will probably loose its value as well if it becomes widespread. We want to relate to humans, and the buildings we build relate us to our ancestors and the future generations. The way out of this riddle will be uniquely designed ornament. People will therefore be able to appreciate the (human) work that went into designing the ornament. And that is probably in the realm of architects, or some other specialized ornament artists. I dont see the reason for the divide you are proposing. But it would surely mean a change to which both sides would have to adapt somehow. Thanks for the comment.

[@NickAndriadze]

As an aspiring architect, I totally agree with you! Architecture, together with modern values, have become very corporatized and sterrile, with it just being a way to flex one's richness and not one bit for one's aesthetic needs. And who said that we can't build masterpieces anymore? We just need to flip the capitalist mindset upside down, at least in the realm of architecture. It's simply insulting to our modern civilization that technologically restricted people built creations orders of magnitude superior to what we build now, without innovative technology like the steel-reinforced concrete or constructin cranes, that had EVERY excuse to make buildings even more grand and beautiful, but didn't manage to obtain it. Also one thing I've noticed, Socialist mindsets value artistry and beauty in architecture much moreso than Capitalist ones - very evidently seen by how the best looking newer buildings have come from Communist states - The Seven Sisters of Moscow, basically every single construction of the Stalinist movement, the Palace of Parliament of Bucharest, the list goes on. While the truly beautiful and aesthetics-focused modern architectural styles in the west have been basically limited to just Art-deco, the Soviet Union made its entire existence atop gorgeous high-rises and monuments alike. Unfortunately, Khrushchev disbanded the school of neoclassical architecture after Stalin's death, however even the newer Soviet buildings mostly looked great, examplified by structures like the Russian White House, the highways ministry building in Tbilisi and so on.

[@eggballo4490]

What I absolutely despise about modern architecture is how it's so grey and depressing as well as the lack of proportion and symmetry.

[@sunmarsh]

I find it hard to believe that hundreds of thousands of people visit the Gugenheim Bilbao because it is ugly… It is an architectural sculpture. I think we can see the humanity in it for that reason, even if it’s materiality is entirely foreign (uniform metallic surface). In fact, I would argue Gehry follows the prior model of designing the facade/exterior and then working out the plan… even though he claims the forms are dictated by the program.

[@LisenbourgPotato]

i don't understand why videos like this receive only this amount of views.

[@elha7982]

The dancing house looks so neat.

[@MrVorpalsword]

Simple flat façaded buildings (i.e. modernist) are cheaper to build, Corbusier may have thought that he was journeying into modernism following Picasso's journey through paint ... but the invention of photography had wrecked the painter's profession, so, getting paid a decent wage had all but eliminated skilled stonemasons from building sites in the early 20th century. 19th century slums were just as ugly as anything from the 1960s and until you have spent some time in a modernist house, you are unqualified to judge what it is like to live in them. Yes, if you can afford to live in a vast Paris flat by the Place de la Concorde or the Marais, I'm sure they are fantastic, but at an affordable level, the space and glazing of modernist flats and houses leads to a FAR superior way of life than a little fake historical house. If you don't believe me, think about the car you drive or even the tram you take to work .... would you swap your modern car for a horse and cart from the 1890s or a shaky tram car from 10 years later ..... because if you think you hate modernist architecture, that is the comparison you make, probably unthinkingly.

[@MrVorpalsword]

what do you think of them?

[@RonRobertson-lafrance]

They are only temporarily cheaper to build. They degrade faster than historical architecture does, and often cannot be repurposed, and then have to be torn down and something else replacing them. Old buildings go through all kinds of changes in use, because they are adaptable, NO modernist building is going to survive for hundreds of years, at least not without massive amounts of money to fix the structural problems that continually plague them as they age. Talking about slums in the 19th century does nothing to fix the problems of ugly architecture today. There have already been numerous studies that show that these so-called starchitects and modern architects are indoctrinated to prefer these hideous edifices. Then they tell everyone else they are ignorant or uneducated for disliking their novelty for novelty's sake impositions to the landscape. No, it's the architects who are blind. And I happen to live in France, and lived in an older building that was beautiful inside and out. It was not a vast apartment, but it was comfortable and a nice experience to live in. At the time it was built it was not a high-end flat, but buildings were still expected to be nice for the middle classes. Aesthetics has a drastic effect on the mind, and those ugly buildings tell everyone they don't matter, that it's OK to abuse their senses, that it's OK to be confronted by ugliness everywhere. That's the obscenity of modern architecture and modern architects, architecture schools, modernism without humanity and their bullshit. I, and many others are tired of it, and tired of being told that we just have to live with it because despite everything, it is NOT better. A few conveniences don't make up for hideousness.

[@Hugo-hghdesignstudio]

Dude! This video is a master piece. From the content to the transition, all the aspects are professional. My favourite part is how you use ai to show the chronological change of architecture, very creative and refreshing. Well done, cannot wait to see your new video.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@Hugo-hghdesignstudio Thanks man! Very kind of you! Check out my other videos in the meantime. Quite different topics, so I’d be interested to see if you like those also. I haven’t quite decided what this channel is about yet, haha!

[@OrafuDa]

As someone who is now mostly housebound due to severe anxiety(*), oh boy, I can tell you that I find beautiful and practical architecture from the 19th century or before WAY more soothing than any of the modern cold and brutalist architecture. The outside is just as much a space to live in as the inside. Thankfully, I am living in a mid-sized relatively historic town that wasn’t destroyed during WW2. And the “organically” grown town, with lots of walkable narrow spaces as well as some wider streets and many old buildings is more or less ideal to feed my soul, and make me love many places here. In contrast, when I have to go to the new shopping centre, with wide open spaces, stone, metal and glass, bridges with grid floors to see through, outside elevators that force the gaze into the wide open … boy I am having cold sweats and anxiety attacks. This is an anxiety management parcour for me, and it often overwhelms me. - Not to mention how much more the wind blows through the centre: it is often really cold, and moving from one shop to the next requires a closed jacket. In some places people get exposed to rain, with no protected alternative path. No wonder that in the time of Internet shopping many people prefer not to go to shopping centres. I used to love London, and it still has beautiful historic places. But I find the modern architecture that is being built there appalling, especially in the West of London. Ok, some of the skyscrapers in the financial district are at least somewhat pretty: the gherkin and the mobile phone shaped ones, maybe. But I would never want to work there. Too much stress, no place where someone can unwind and relax, being protected by the building itself. And my anxiety includes fear of heights … which doesn’t make all of this any easier. If the goal of Modernism is to expose, be raw, and, by extension, provoke … then, yes, that kind of architecture did a pretty good job. I find it revolting and unmanageable … bravo!, I guess? People who do not have my anxiety may not feel this as strongly. But when I asked the husband of my wife’s friend the other day what he thinks about the modern architecture, he said that it has “no heart”. I agree. I have been to the Barbican Centre in London. For a brutalist architecture, I must say, it kind of still manages. It is not that I love it. I had to avoid passing over the bridge across the artificial pond, because it is too high, and I cannot avert my gaze, or find comfort in a corner. And I find the exteriors of the centre uninviting. But on the inside, it manages to create some protected spaces, while being relatively open. And the seating in the theatre is much better than the pictures suggest: an ideal stacking of seats, while staying relatively shallow, with comfortably cushioned seats. Functional in a good way. But when I think of modern architecture done better, I think of the Studio Ghibli building in Tokyo, and in particular the Ghibli Museum in Tokyo. A functional building, arguably Modernist or even brutalist in places, but with greenery, pretty shapes and nice spaces. Not ideal, there are a couple of too open spaces there too. But it is more or less ok, and even comfortable in a lot of places. I do not think that outsides should expose the functional structures or the insides of buildings. Nor should outsides be “raw”. If I can see nothing that feels warm or uplifting while walking through a street, that makes me feel dull and unloved. And in my case, claustrophobic, suffocated by the sheer blandness. Of course, it is also possible to be overwhelmed by ornaments. But I do believe there are ways to find a middle ground between the extremes. And ways how people can express that they are there, with flowers outside of a building or window decorations or lights. And it seems possible to find a good mix between styles. Not every building needs a classical facade. And thick facades may not be a good answer in many places either. Which doesn’t mean that “rawness” or “no facade” (ie. the opposite) is right. The human body finds a good balance between a beautiful face and / or body and lots of inner workings. And there is a lot of variety amongst humans, while they all are somewhat similar as well. I find this very inspiring. To comment on your comparison with Dorian Gray: should the inside be exposed rather than hidden by a facade? Maybe yes, sometimes. But to stay sane, we cannot always be confronted with the inner workings of everything. It can make sense to remove a facade when needed. But all in all, we need facades so that we can focus on other things, and look below a facade only when needed. I am not saying that we should ban this style. But it is more of a style for special occasions or places, rather than something to be used everywhere. I have always thought that Modernism is in some ways the result of building cheaper buildings, to catch up with growing populations at an affordable price. But now I think that does not seem to be the case. And the building materials may not be as time-resistant as people may have thought: concrete does not last forever, brick walls may be better. (*) My condition is the result of decades of living with untreated ADHD and unaccommodated autism. Being “on display”, having to be in wide open spaces, and exposed to weather or car traffic are some of the factors that feed into my anxiety. I might need help, but people don’t understand my conditions, and help may not be available or simply not given. Old architecture is often more protective against the weather, opens up routes where walking people do not come across vehicles of all sorts, and windows and walls are giving a nice balance between protection and sunlight. This really helps. I cannot help but think that people before modernism were more in touch with these human needs. Now it takes an anxiety disorder to be much more in touch with this.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

Thanks for leaving such a long and honest comment. Maybe you do value the authenticity of modernity after all 😂

[@Artorius_Primus]

While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I believe buildings should reflect the cultural norms and tastes of the area they are built in, rather than the preferences of the architect or any single individual. That being said, I do love the aesthetics of Mont-Saint-Michel and many traditionally beautiful European churches and castles since they are majestically foreign and mystical to me as an American who has only seen boring Brutalist architecture my entire life

[@diegohidafl]

should I conclude that the US should keep and further develop the boring Brutalist architecture you saw during your entire life, because "buildings should reflect the cultural norms and tastes of the area they are built in"?

[@NickAndriadze]

You say ''Boring Brutalist architecture'' most definitely because you haven't seen what _real_ Brutalism looks like. I feel like the real bane of modern architecture is all the ugly glass, not the texture and concrete of brutalism.

[@DarjanBar]

as someone coming from the field, I could say the building physics department made the world a huge disservice. What they did was invent the styrofoam insulation, make a huge lobby, and force it upon the whole sector of low to middle-high priced architecture. As a result, for about 7 decades the long lasting quality of lets say, full brick wall was replaced by reinforced concrete + pasted 20cm styrofoam insulation + finish, which lasts about 15 years until it must be costly fully renewed. Now, everybody is noticing that, so the first step towards pretty architecture is what we build it with - natural materials are inherently more beautiful than composite plastics, and age gracefully. But the true beauty of the beloved old european styles comes from old european culture, which is deeply rooted in greek-roman understanding of geometry and the then invented architectural elements. If you walk through a classic resident quarter in Vienna, those elements are telling you a story of a culture 2000 years in the making. This might sound conservative to you, but nevertheless it must be the truth. The polar extremes of the european classical styles vs modern international style, can only be understood through the ruling cultural ideology. That's why it's very hard to predict where architecture goes in the coming century. Anyway, a good step would be building with natural, easily made, well recyclable material like brick. Work on being ethical in that sense, nevertheless this issue is incredibly complicated with many variables. In old greece, truth, beauty, and what is good where synonimous. Today, that worldview is almost fully lost, architecture is being treated like a peace of "h&m" clothing...

[@tentontarantula7750]

Your thesis that Modernist architects thought of their buildings as 'ugly' is completely false, and you clearly know enough about arch history to realise this...the whole OW/DG thing as a way of explaining their approach or this period's aesthetic philosophies is also pretty mad. This is all well-trodden ground, why go to the effort of inventing this premise? If you think modern building are ugly, actually engage with the concepts of beauty/ugliness...wouldn't be harder to explore and wouldn't require you to invent your own art historical fiction? It's a shame as the production and execution of the vid is pretty interesting, though why you've not bothered to record the audio with the same quality control sticks out.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@tentontarantula7750 Thanks for leaving your thoughts! Indeed, I doubt they set out to build an ugly building, but the public would’ve have thought it was when it was finished. Just like expressionist painters breaking all the norms. That was the whole point! What do you mean with OW/DG? Beauty and ugliness are notoriously hard terms to define. I used ugliness as an aesthetic of authenticity: revealing the ugly truth etc. This is inspired by Mark Cousins and Hans Georg Muller. I’m not saying that this is correct, but I’m playing with the idea to try and see the architectural history in a new light.

[@ErikWJakobsen]

This is mind-blowing and yet highly informative. Superb!

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@ErikWJakobsen thank you!!

[@iThunNdEr]

Great analysis this was very informative! Not too heavy handed thank you for making this video

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@iThunNdEr thank you!

[@tamikabatalova]

mmm enjoyed how you've circled back to dorian gray in the end, makes the argument round and clear!

[@starrett9556]

but the answer unfortunately is not round and clear...

[@leonk8875]

As a architecture student currently I can tell you that beauty isn't taken into consideration. Usually we design buildings for people so we think about comfort in the design and how the building will relate to the site and how people will move through that site. Also what are professors particularly like is tectonic buildings this is when a building shows its structure an example of this would be mies van der rohe skyscrapers in Chicago. However I wouldn't call tectonic buildings ugly but that is just my opinion. In all I feel contemporary architects of today are not so much interested in whether or not a building is beautiful but whether it is interesting and creates a conversation. For example Zaha Gadid and Frank Geary.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@leonk8875 that is my experience as well!

[@JoshRichmanDesign]

Eras of design are over now. We are in a Post-trust society in the midst of collapse. It’s all hubris among the Anthropocene Extinction. The only things that matter now are appropriateness, environmental impact and cost.

[@coreywiley3981]

I like beauty, but I also like unorthodox and unique features in each building without throwing away the traditional and warm elements. (I also like buildings that completely replicate old styles too.) We can riff on traditional styles and more modern ones, leaning toward one side or the other, but there needs to be more character, like each building is a work of art and not just something thrown up for profit or strictly for function. I love balconies for some reason. I just like having little spots-cubby rooms, porches, balconies, rooftops-located all around, places to go outside, sit, and talk. I like odd spots scattered throughout, interesting ornamentation, and stairwells. But I don't like too many windows, though not too few either. I like privacy and a feeling of security and cover, but not a feeling of being confined.

[@80fff08]

It’s important to recognize that beautiful buildings are being made and it’s not all ‘ugly’.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

100%! I also think a good modern building is beautiful. Similar to how we find a Picasso beautiful, even though they break with the pre-modern beauty traditions.

[@leonk8875]

Totally agree

[@halnineooo136]

Extrusion is fast and cheap. Straight lines are fast and cheap. The new king to please is money. Fast and cheap. Everything else is lip service.

[@JoshRichmanDesign]

Pure function, engineered habitats for humans.

[@halnineooo136]

@@JoshRichmanDesign Pure products. Made as cheap as they can cost, sold as much as the client is willing to pay. Ad the decoupling of the client who's the owner from the user and you have... boxes.

[@marsco2442]

This argument falls apart at the high end of the market, and even at the low end. Classicism is primarily about simple proportion, and a few details are an incredibly marginal percentage of construction. Even here, you have provided a theoretical justification rather than a cost analysis

[@JoshRichmanDesign]

@@marsco2442we just said it. Cost over function. Not caring about the human occupants and implications. Just what is cheapest to say you have structure. Barely completing the requirements on paper, but in reality upon and over time use its flaws are on full display.

[@halnineooo136]

@marsco2442 It is all about marginal cost. Whatever architecture you design you'll be asked to make it a bit or a lot cheaper by getting rid of the decorum and by implementing standardized extruded stuff. Ornament is part of pre-modernist architecture. It's not only proportion.

[@nucleardragons]

Excusing mediocrity - no, thanks

[@awakening8887]

You earned yourself a subscriber. That was well done

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

Thank you!

[@bastiat691]

"Jokes on you I was just pretending to have bad taste"

[@vampireloveswerewolf2512]

Why can't a building be both: functional and beautiful? Living in Europe I rather adore the old buildings and cities: everything older than World War II. Or as a German would call it: Altstadt (old town). I also like some of the functional buildings and planned cities of the Sowjet era: high buildings in light colors / murals / mosaics, where people of every class lived together, wide streets, beautiful avenues, lots of trees and third places, statues and fountains. Those cities are not glamorous, but at least the architects thought about what the people needed.

[@pietervoogt]

One problem is that the market for big buildings doesn't correct the pretenses of the architects. When composers started to write atonal music in the 1920s, most people just moved to jazz. After all, anyone can be a musician, plenty competition from young people with guitars and drums. In suburbs the market kind of delivers, you will still see a lot of houses build in traditional styles. But bigger buildings need a lot of technical knowledge and compliance to rules and this is taught in architecture schools where ideology rules, not the market. Even when an architect leaves school with the idea of making what people like, she will not have learned how to do it. She has not developed the techniques, style and taste. And if she had, the artisans who could execute her plans are replaced by people who just know how to pour concrete.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

I still think all these "modernist" (now classical) designs are super cool & interesting. The architects are going for cool, not pretty.

[@noahinvero351]

If art is the spirit of the times then these buildings are showing we are more interested in ideas rather than the actual spaces architecture is supposed to house, I want architects to build a space they would actually want to inhabit

[@brendanfriskdubsky2722]

Good stuff! I think and hope that with improved automation beauty in architecture will see a renaissance due to decreased labor cost of ornamentation as well as increased appreciation of human aesthetics in contrast with purely instrumental function.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

I suspect this will be the case. Combination of easy and cheap digital fabrication techniques in combination with AI to draw up the designs, will allow people that like "beautiful" architecture to circumvent architects that prefer modern architecture.

[@pigeon_the_brit565]

@@ludvigInLegendaryLands Or, as is slowly happening, a new style of classical architecture is developing as classical architecture begins to be taught again, which might eventually replace the modern style by creating a sincere, diverse and evolving traditon that can design buildings that both fit their area and express the era in which they were built- in an entirely different way than the current style does

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@pigeon_the_brit565 indeed! That is partly what I am arguing/proposing in my other videos about elven and dwarven architecture: that decorative styles have been developing in fantasy and virtual worlds since the 30s. So we basically have many new decorative styles that we have yet to build.

[@80fff08]

Hi! Great video!! I think I think you missed a pretty big part in architectural history and its reflection to changing in styles which was the Industrial Revolution, capitalism, and automation. Also I think that after postmodernism and coming to the end of the starchitect era - right now we’re moving to a return of tradition and vernacular design in architecture overall. Really recommend looking at the buildings that are receiving the RIBA Dezeen awards !

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@80fff08 thank you! Indeed, the point of the video however was not to tell the entirety of the story, lots of other videos and books do so very well. I wanted to explore the shifting ideology of modernism towards authenticity as laid out by my favourite KZbin channel, Carefree Wandering. I want to try and understand how that shift happened aesthetically and I have landed on the term ‘Ugly’ after reading a book by the same name by Mark Cousins who was a lecturer at my school. Thanks for recommending the RIBA awards. I will take a look!

[@team-zracing7476]

"Now I want to hear what you guys think. Do you think buildings should be ugly?" What a horrible, awful, nonsense way to end the video.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@team-zracing7476 haha yea, you’re not the first to mention this. Could’ve phrased that better.

[@jamesjardinella7440]

A village of timberframe houses, a cathedral with pillars, flying buttresses, gargoyles, a Roman aqueduct...all showing their structure AND being beautiful at the same time. Nobody will ever talk about a storybook village of postmodernist architecture unless it is in a dystopia. And that's really the point...these architects hate people and reflect their opinion through their ugly buildings.

[@macleanhawley1742]

This was a fantastic video!

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@macleanhawley1742 thank you!!

[@gergokun7154]

Saying that the facade of the buildign is fake and an authentic building would be one with its frame and tubes exposed is like sayign that the authentic appearance of a human is the skeleton witha few exposed organs instead of the skin.

[@NickAndriadze]

I'd mostly disagree with the ''building plan first, facade second'' point that you made, because its incorrectness is very evident on the design of nearly every modern skyscraper: Half of their vertical size is useless aesthetic height, a lot of them incoprotate curvature in their elements which is EXTREMELY wasteful for floor space, etc. And who's to say that they've become more universally authentic, too? Most buildings that seem to be made from brick or stone have thin cladding behind their real, concrete internals, all the while older buildings' construction materials were always authentic - if the building's exterior was made of tuff, you could bet the entire exterior hull was made from it. No steel-reinforced shinanegans. And with that said, I *LOVE* Brutalism, most of it looks great and it still does use a lot of aesthetic elements and in Nikita Khrushchev's words ''architectural excesses,'' _(which was the entire point of him abolishing neoclassicism in the Soviet Union, even though in reality it just had the cynical propaganda reasons of condemning Stalin's preferred architectural style)_ but the problem is, it's the *ONLY* good looking modern architectural movement, and it has fallen out of fashion for a long time, instead taken over by the disgusting, sterilized and corporate GLASS and PLASTIC EXTERIOR CLADDING, which does even more to disprove the point about authenticity. Another point, and one of the main reasons I love Brutalism, is that it doesn't try to be too tacky and too in your face with its design elements, most of it are bold and squarish and monumentalistic, no ludicrousity or uncomfortable addons. When you look at Soviet Brutalism at least, it creates this feeling of coldness, yet coziness at the same time, but at least that's how I view it. And yes, I agree, very early modernism, such as Bauhaus, Constructivism and Art Deco are amazing. Back when modernistic constructions were still built with a healthy balance of bold and unique ideas, and aesthetic flare in mind. One of my favourite examples of modernism is bonkers Soviet construction plans that never managed to exist the drawing board - Tatlin's Tower and several renditions of the ''Narkomtiazhprom'' project are some of them.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

Thanks for reply! Great points you're making. The plastic curved skyscrapers generally post-modern though (especially the curved part) where indeed, my argumentation about authenticity becomes more rocky! My video is kind of just throwing these ideas out there and comments like yours are exactly what I'm after!

[@NickAndriadze]

@@ludvigInLegendaryLands Glad to hear! Yeah I understand that modernism and post-modernism kind of split into separate branches, but considering Brutalism was also mentioned, I thought the argument generally revolved around ''modern architectural styles,'' so I ruled them all under one umbrella anyways.

[@matrixtourist]

The message is, "look at me and how different I can design" and is aimed at other architects. This is an ongoing problem with architects dating back to the late 19th century and is why we get these monstrosities.

[@gabrielradonich3891]

Great video - well done. I like your graphics a lot, particularly the transforming Mona Lisa. One thought I have on this topic: I think a problem with modern architecture is that it hasn't succeeded in developing a coherent and reproducible 'language' in the way that older architectural styles did. Individual architects with vision, talent and resources can produce interesting buildings in a modern style (e.g. the Barcelona Pavilion, the Guggenheim Bilbao). However, these are hard to reproduce for more ordinary architects working on more ordinary projects. The result is that the buildings most of us actually interact with on a daily basis, like housing or standard commercial buildings, are very ugly. Compare this to, for example, the Georgian architecture of 18th century London. You have a building like Somerset House, produced by a major architect working with a large budget, but its style can be reduced to basic principles that can be reproduced easily on a mass scale. The result is that the London of today is filled with thousands of these pretty Georgian houses, many of which were probably built by unremarkable architects working with ordinary budgets.

[@joshuayang0331]

art is meant to make people see beauty, architecture is meant to be comfortable to be around, yet modern artists and architect just gone mad on showing of ideas and so called creativity or revealing truths, they might work well sometimes, but most, well, they are just hard to stay around and in the end, considered ugly, most forms of art more or less is effective by these "creativity" trend, and forgot the true reason of their creation : to inspire beauty and provide comfort. god knows when they would realize what madness they have become, I guess only time would tell.

[@charlesz8531]

"Boston City Hall is the ugliest building in the world " Wow! How could a city with the smartest brains create such an ugly building, abandoning its aesthetical past?

[@stevemiller7949]

You raise many good points. Classical architecture appeals to me for many reasons. Boston City Hall fails IMO, because the ground floor lacks easy access. Forcing people to climb many steps before entering seems questionable to me, yet I see this device also used on many classical buildings -- what a shame. Perhaps ramps instead of stairs would mitigate this. The main entry is not very apparent or celebrated. The large plaza in front of BCH is hideously sterile, lacking trees, benches and other amenities--an absolute atrocity. These flaws stand out to me, and I assume there are other problems not instantly apparent. I adore and revere Frank Loyd Wright, but I dare to wonder if it wouldn't be better with more ornament and glass. I realize glass is problematic for museums.🙂🙂

[@helline9]

The field of architecture has deliberately ignored the needs of people. We require more than just physical shelter, we have a need for social, emotional and intellectual stimulation. In the past buildings did this by connecting to the history, culture and attitudes of its community. Modernism, post-modernism & brutalism detached themselves from art, community & culture instead entirely focusing on the conceptualised purpose of the building (without addressing the needs of the people using it). in other words, the architects failed to even do their job no less than if they had failed to install toilets an any building since the 1950s. People need more than drab colours, straight lines and hard surfaces to survive, we need art.

[@edlauc]

Ornament and Crime, Form Follows Function and Form Follows Finance, what’s next? Amazing video!!

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@edlauc form follows regulations? I guess that’s already the case. My suspicion is that with AI design tools, the developers and layperson can design themselves. All the architects can do is to design regulation.

[@MIMIK-Wiesbaden]

Nice Camera movement and good animations 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@MIMIK-Wiesbaden thank you!

[@user-eg4nj5mw1d]

Thanks for the video

[@JohnBorstlap]

The beauty of architecture relates to a deeply-embedded perceptive system in the human psyche, and that is related to mathematics, and the dynamics of order and freedom. Premodern architecture in Europe, and especially architecture before ca. 1800, had this fundament. That is why the old cities are beautiful, we recognize something in them that says something about ourselves, how we are made by nature. This also means that we are not free to design whatever forms whatsoever, there is a normal need to answer requirements of mathematical order and expressive beauty, the same we find in nature. And because this is only the fundament, there is enough freedom to shape things according to personal interpretation.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@JohnBorstlap A friend of mine is writing a paper on Beauty and evolutionary psychology right now. I might ask to make a video about that!

[@patrickcarpenter6258]

loved the video!

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@patrickcarpenter6258 thank you!

[@hagentrondheim3675]

Seems to me that "beautiful" in buildings has a fractal aspect. Can you make a video about it ?

[@dr_dave512]

The truth is only ugly to those who live in lies. And by no dout there where people who build fantastical almost breath taking beautiful builds that lived in lies. But people today more reather than less live in most lies. No matter what sort of drugs you have to take to make a build and leave the pipes out for the world to see. What is beautiful, true and good will reamin those things no matter how "authentic" you feel like when you reject them in favor of "your own beautiful" , "your own truth" or worst of all "your own good"

[@anirudh_s17]

while I believe that art is subjective, I believe your argument is misplaced. When people say “ugly architecture”, they are referring to the repetitive glass boxes or uniform tenement housing intended to keep costs low. I am someone who is partial to buildings like Le Centre Pompidou and Zaha Hadid’s wavy buildings compared to the buildings of European monarchies. Beautiful homogeneity stifles innovation, and architecture needs to keep pushing the limits of what is interesting instead of reverting back to trends from 400 years ago.

[@brokenrecord3523]

We choose how we see the world. Telling us that the world is ugly and that we have the problem if we choose to see beauty is pretty messed up/opportunistic/cynical/elitist and I might add, disengenuous..

[@shdhwhwidofb]

this video is produced crazy well, one of the best of these types of vids ive seen. subbed

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@shdhwhwidofb thank you!!

[@nlpnt]

Modernism embraced function in part as a reaction to the vernacular - programmatic architecture in the '20s/30s, the giant teapots, hot dogs and dinosaurs by the road, and Googie in the '50s/60s - buildings that was made to grab your attention at 40 mph in enough time to stop the car and go inside. High Architecture has since embraced that mindset, trying to get you to stop scrolling and take a look, maybe go to the city where it is and look at it in person.

[@Huriel97]

"The Barcelona Pavilion. And I bet the loudest haters of modernism struggle to call this building ugly" I sure can, it's some damn dysfunctional flat garbage. If anything, I'm amazed someone could birth this shit in 1929. Although it's interesting to show that it's not just because we advance in time that buildings become ugly. It's a deliberate choice by architects who are given too much freedom (or too less critics during their formative years)

[@londomolari5715]

I find the background music/sound annoying.

[@ArslanZhunusfilm]

Wow love it!!!!!!

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

Thanks friend!

[@intencityfan]

this is like watching a documentary about war criminals. You explain the "philosophy" of these pigs, and gives the impression they act in any good faith. They are talentless, spineless hacks. Either they are genuinely expressing their vision, which leads to a hideous structure. Or they are following the times, and they are cowards.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

Thanks for the passionate comment! I personally feel it's much more complex, but then again, I have been indoctrinated for five years in architecture school haha!

[@pigeon_the_brit565]

@@ludvigInLegendaryLands it has been proved that architecture schools actually do indoctrinate people into liking modern architecture

[@louischen1280]

Buildings need to be lived, not used, even for fully functional ones like factories for metallurgy, because hundreds of workers do spend a good portion of their lives there. If they aren't living, what are they doing? Do they have to be stuck in between life and death? Builidings that don't recognise the significance of life don't respect life and living either, or shall we say, they don't care about anything at all, and they don't need to be cared or loved or lived, because they are already whole on the paper, in the perfect conceptual structure of the philosophers, academics geniuses. Not only a waste of time and money, but most importantly, waste of life that deserves a better living.

[@zekelerossignol7590]

What AI did you use to 'fix' the modernist buildings?

[@lawrencerutherford4260]

0:19 actually looks ok especially if the top pediment was reduced to only one floor and given a square column effect

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

Hehe yea it’s fun to look at those interim steps. That’s usually where I prefer the designs!

[@mudchair16]

Christ is Logos. Without the Logos, beauty in architecture, sculpture, painting, etc. is quickly lost. Old cathedrals are stunning for a reason.

[@wilfredruffian5002]

Domination,revenge, and signaling. I think that covers it.

[@qlum]

I feel like with every style there are great and there are ugly buildings, different is modernism has resulted in some truly dreadful ugly ones. But also quite a few gems, including my local town hall even.

[@antun88]

Sydney opera is beautiful I guess. If they built a 19th century style opera there it would look kind of dull.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

Yes! It’s interesting how some modern buildings are universally loved. Same goes for the Oslo Opera house. With the Sydney one, I think it’s something about how it’s just very honest about it’s engineering, like a bridge or the Eiffel Tower. Doesn’t try to do much beyond that.

[@captainfactoid3867]

The answer is that it is cheaper, types of labour have changed. Done

[@maxhodge7149]

Just subscribed!

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@maxhodge7149 glad to have you!

[@bencrawshaw3D]

Love it

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@bencrawshaw3D thank you!

[@Pan_Z]

If a design philosophy only produces ugly things, it's not a worthwhile philosophy. Future generations will look back on this era's architecture as confusingly self-absorbed & elitist to justify its hideous design.

[@achatcueilleur5746]

Architecture is a reflection of the situation. Modern ugly architecture reflects "The Last Day of Pompeii".

[@staffanwikstrom6874]

Why can't buildings just be beautiful on their own without words, words, words?

[@aktuellyattee8265]

What you don't seem to understand is that authenticity is _not_ a virtue. One isn't owed appreciation just for being oneself. One is owed appreciation for being good and virtuous. By serving others. An ugly disgusting building doesn't serve anyone. Authenticity is neither a virtue nor a vice; it is merely an axis, distinct from its actual virtue and vice, on which people may be either good or bad. If someone is authentically virtuous, they are vigorous, but if they are authentically immoral, then they're just prideful. By treating all authenticity, or all of any axis for that matter, as being virtuous, all you're doing is appealing to its lowest common denominator, which in the case of authenticity is unwarranted pride.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@aktuellyattee8265 you make a good point. But I think in modernism authenticity is a virtue. That’s why ‘be yourself’ and ‘follow your dreams’ are so commonplace. One can, I think the next generation increasingly do, disagree with the perspective. The KZbin channel Carefree Wandering talks about this and it’s extremely insightful.

[@aktuellyattee8265]

​@@ludvigInLegendaryLands As I did say, authenticity _can_ be virtuous. It just isn't virtuous in and of itself, and it's rather the case that virtue is independent of authenticity and that authentic things can be either authentically good or authentically bad; "just be yourself" and "follow your dreams" is, for example, terrible advice to give to a narcissist and a terrorist. Speaking as a 20 year old, to me, the entire modernist tradition and mindset, the notion of authenticity itself being a virtue, are, ironically enough, outdated things of the past that should be done away with.

[@aktuellyattee8265]

@@ludvigInLegendaryLands I do, however, think the Jewish museum was a good inclusion and a great contrast between the other buildings and itself, an actually virtuous one. This is since the ugliness of the Jewish museum actually serves a purpose, that of instilling the discomfort one should feel when discussing topics such as the holocaust. Which is, of course, not something the other ugly buildings can claim to be doing.

[@fossetti8216]

there must also be a correlation with material quality and labour and manufacture costs too. no one's going to build a beautifully ornamented stone structure if it costs 5 times as much in materials, and 8 times as much in labour, as a quickly built pre-fab and steel frame one. would the public hate a beautiful building more than an ugly one if the price of the beauty was an extra 3 years of construction noise and blocked road and pavements? who can say. and is there even the stone and stone craftspeople available in the quantities and qualities needed on the scales they would be needed anymore? for example a couple using Bath stone from an historic quarry in Somerset [UK] for their build on the "Grand Designs" tv show (a good few years back had) to wait a considerable amount of time for delivery, no doubt adding heavily to their build cost. And therefore doesn't that mean that beauty and quality then becomes only a choice for the wealthy? interesting to think about

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

Thanks for the comment! Yes, there is of course questions of practicality involved! But the examples I show here are all, especially the post-modern ones, expensive buildings. Ornaments can be mass-produced now and can actually cover up corners etc, whereas minimalist designs requires very precise corners. Point being that your argument is totally valid. It is in fact generally the argument which is made in this conversation. The point of my video is to point out that beyond the economic question, there is also an aesthetic and ideological one to be made as well.

[@alternateunreleasedshellac505]

This is why copyright law was a huge mistake

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

Would you care to expand on this? You mean that architects are forced to always innovate rather than reproduce successes of the past?

[@alternateunreleasedshellac505]

@@ludvigInLegendaryLands yes

[@reinpinebook825]

Just to ask, if we make a Beau-Art building or a Seven Sisters type and we need to say goodbye to them, is it worthy to demolish them? We can give them a new life but the "conservationists".

[@AlexChimpson]

good video

[@plumbthumbs9584]

Excellent presentation, thank you. Wasn't Mies a Classicist? Like all great artists, his work is often misunderstood and misinterpreted by his adherents, Frank Lloyd Wright being another good example.

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@plumbthumbs9584 thank you! I guess he has a somewhat classical tendency with his love of columns and order, but he is most definitely a modernist

[@plumbthumbs9584]

@@ludvigInLegendaryLands Modernism through the Classical lenz.

[@lolllololllo]

I find a lot of "old" buildings ugly, with no life and boring repetition

[@IIIIlllll000OOO]

the people that call them ugly, ask them what they want to replace them with. its always some shit in golden wrapper disneyland castle.

[@joem7819]

nice video flow

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

@@joem7819 thank you!

[@IDreamElectricSheep]

I simply beg to differ. Which part? The definition of "ugly".

[@ludvigInLegendaryLands]

That's fair enough! I have based my thinking on a book called "The Ugly" by Mark Cousins. And he actually have several definitions here. I was just particularly interested in one to view a particular side of modern thinking that is concerned with authenticity.

[@i235njoyer]

As is common, this videos and opinions resonate with people ignorant of history and of what this older colonial and absolutist architecture meant. This as material result of their circumstance embedded in a system we long abolished! Mind you. Its is not coincidence that european WW era fasicism chose it as its style over modernism. Perhaps most people here are unconsciously eager to going back to being a serf and serving their lord watching them live in beautiful palaces from afar

[@bradwalton3977]

Very interesting presentation. Thank you. I am skeptical of the analogy between ethical authenticity and architectural authenticity. I suspect that the analogy is bogus and misleading.