quondam @ archinect/79/7912u.htm
modernity/post-modernity
raj 2005.04.10 18:30
there is no question in my mind...indigenous architecture is "defeated" as the culture is defeated!! part of colonization must be a complete replacing of the culture...in the past forcing styles upon people was very characteristic of the defeat of a people.
isn't it still the same. we bring "modernization" to afganastan and iraq...so we can make sure they get their own episodes of survivor and jerry springer!!
international style was about the same revolution of ideals as was connected to communism-- replacing the layers of cultures by attempting to flatten it to one. is it colonialism?...i would say no. this is mainly because colonialism is more an establishment of the social layers usually with the external element on the top...and natives on the bottom.
i am very interested in how these two questions cause someone to dig deeper in the styles of the past...mixing the gov, politics, philosophies, culture, etc WITH architecture. my point in this thread has been that the question posed have been seperated from the surronding culture etc. that is why i asked about gehry...i think the typical arch history class is more involved in assigning titles to each building and arch. than really analyzing culture etc. with the architecture.
modernity/post-modernity
Rita Novel 2005.04.10 19:10
raj, can you elaborate a bit more on the nature of "international style" as you understand it?
(I may be wrong, but) isn't the International Style largely a Western European style?
You note the death of CIAM at 1968. European colonialism (primarily English and French) evaporated in the early 1960s. I suspect there are correlations still to be made between the International Style and late-colonialism even if the International Style is connected to communism.
|