Better ideas not worse, pls!

DSCN3059 copy.JPG

Sketch by Leon Krier, architect and planner. (Leon Krier)

Yesterday I sent in my monthly blog post for Traditional Building magazine, and today I’m thinking, well, I left out some really important stuff. My TB post was a reply to TB’s Forum in which the architectural historian Paul A. Ranogajec contended, in “Time on Our Side: Toward a Critical Tradition of Classicism,” that classicists do themselves harm by ignoring modern trends in thought, not just on architecture but on broader social and cultural issues. He cited such thinkers as Michel Foucault. If that’s his idea of the kind of thinking classicists have ignored, then I can only applaud the classicists.

And I said so in my post. But I left out examples of thinking that perhaps Ranogajec and certainly most modern thinkers ignore or are unaware of. For example, consider the research being done by Nikos Salingaros, Michael Mehaffy, Ann Sussman and many others. They are finding neurobiological reasons that explain why humans prefer traditional to modernist buildings. Briefly, it’s because of ornament. Traditional buildings embrace it, modernist buildings spurn it. But ornament – broadly speaking, the detail that animates traditional architecture at all levels of scale – tugs on humans’ longstanding desire for information about their environment. Today, enjoying the beauty of ornament reminds our subconcious of the relief humans derived in earlier ages from the timely perception of dangers (say, a tiger behind a bush on the savannah) or edibles (such as bananas amid a tangled jungle environment). The intricacies of visual, aural and nasal perception were of vital importance. People like to see detail today because it is beautiful. This is not just a matter of taste but the brain’s atavistic recollection of a matter of survival.

I do not think this is too far from what some of the thought leaders cited above are reporting. There is much more to it, and we have been seeing a lot of it in books and media these days. But unlike the thinking that Ranogajec points us toward, much of it seems to be explaining why we should place a higher value on our basic human instincts rather than on theories, like those of Foucault, that seem to emphasize deconstructing language or power in ways that undermine the structures of everyday life.

Often those theories are not based on scientific evidence but on the ideological proclivities of their proponents.

Ornament is both an expression of style and a requirement of utility – for example, some types of ornament prevent rain from penetrating inside buildings by protecting the seams between sections of wall and fenestration. A century or so ago, the founders of modernism decided to ditch ornament because it was not utilitarian (an obvious falsehood, as I’ve just pointed out) or because  the machine age required a machine architecture (another very serious error), or to flip the bird at the bourgeoisie, or because a roof gable represented monarchical rule that yanked us into World War I. Poppycock! War is bad! Blame it on the buildings! These are all classic examples of faulty – and in all likelihood essentially fraudulent – intellectualization. Freud must be ecstatic, or maybe he is rolling in his grave.

Again, these are theories invented out of whole cloth by intellectuals who were themselves alienated from the prevailing culture. Ornament and other aspects of traditional design, on the other hand, evolved over hundreds and thousands of years as practitioners found new methods to solve old design problems, or adjusted their practice to new materials or technologies. Mostly this sort of evolution involved slight changes in practice rather then entirely new conceptions of design. It was almost Darwinesque.

So here is some thinking that the modernists are obviously ignoring. Which is the better thinking? I will let the reader decide.

About David Brussat

For a living, I edit the writing of some of the nation's leading architects, urbanists and design theorists. This blog was begun in 2009 as a feature of the Providence Journal, where I was on the editorial board and wrote a weekly column of architecture criticism for three decades. Architecture Here and There fights the style wars for classical architecture and against modern architecture, no holds barred. My freelance writing and editing on that topic and others addresses issues of design and culture locally and globally. I am a fellow of the Royal Society of the Arts, and a member of the board of the New England chapter of the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art, which bestowed an Arthur Ross Award on me in 2002. I work from Providence, R.I., where I live with my wife Victoria, my son Billy and our cat Gato. If you would like to invest your prose with even more style and clarity, please email me at my consultancy, dbrussat@gmail.com, or call 401.351.0457. Testimonial: "Your work is so wonderful - you now enter my mind and write what I would have written." - Nikos Salingaros, mathematician at the University of Texas, architectural theorist and author of many books.
This entry was posted in Architects, Architecture, Architecture Education, Architecture History, Art and design, Landscape Architecture, Preservation, Urbanism and planning and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s