Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Claims that only one kind of architecture is for the future are meaningless

Shutterstock 285971687
  • 7 Comments

The term ‘modern’ is riven with contradictions, and in architecture Modernism is practised within a century-old tradition, writes Robert Adam

The way we describe architecture has become a hot topic. The Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission is trying to pin down beauty and ugliness. The Traditional Architecture Group finds that ‘tradition’ alienates mainstream architects, who dismiss it with the standard put-down word – ‘pastiche’.

There is, however, a good argument that modernists themselves are operating within their own century-old tradition. Meanwhile in the USA the Trump administration weighs in on the subject of beauty and suggests specifying classical architecture for federal buildings, which makes the architectural establishment furious and American classicists very nervous.

Although these are just words, they matter. They express ideas and make things either clear or confused.

The one word that many architects use to distinguish themselves from tradition and indeed anything old-fashioned is ‘modern’. This is now so routine that it appears as a style description in newspapers as well as its synonym, ‘contemporary’. But this description is not at all clear and its association with one kind of architecture has a history.

In 1949 the title of Nicolaus Pevsner’s seminal book, Pioneers of the Modern Movement, was renamed, Pioneers of Modern Design. This marks the time when the architectural movements called variously, the International Style, the Modern Movement, Modernisme, Rationalismo, Neues Bauen, and Constructivism, were all rolled up into the word ‘modern’. In doing so, one architectural outlook made an exclusive claim to modernity. Since then, ‘modern’, has been used without qualification for one type of art and architecture. The word, however, has many meanings.

In the first instance, everything happening now is modern. It doesn’t matter what it looks like or the ideas are behind it, the fact that it’s taking place makes it a participant in modern life – how we live at the present time. This is how people frequently use the word. It’s sometimes called ‘Simple Modernity’.

Living in a suburb is typical of modern life but it came into existence about two centuries ago

The political geographer Peter Taylor has identified another type of modernity, ‘Ordinary Modernity’. This narrows down to those things that are typical of now. These don’t have to be exclusive to or invented in the present, only typical. Living in a suburb is typical of modern life but it came into existence about two centuries ago.

The idea that the present is represented only by things that are unique to its time is the core principle behind ‘Modernism’. This is not, as it is sometimes characterised, a particular outmoded style. It’s a theory of history which pertains to this day: each era invents new things and is defined by them.

This means that, although much survives from the past, the present time should be identified only by those things unique to it. It has become one of the definitions of ‘modern’. As a consequence, to be of your time, it is essential to be different, invent and innovate. The Mexican poet of Modernism, Octavio Paz, describes it as ‘cut off from the past and continually hurtling forward at […] a dizzy pace’.

Two further variations of Modernism are being for the future and being the future. Jürgen Habermas, in the Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, says that ‘the secular concept of modernity expresses the conviction that the future has already begun’. Daniel Libeskind tells us he’s ‘building the future’.

Claims that only one kind of architecture is for the future are meaningless. At the moment any building is built, it can only be for the future. This is inescapable, it can’t be for the past, as it no longer exists, and it will be for future use, which has to be anticipated. But it can’t be the future, which also doesn’t exist. This is an attempt to lay claim to a particular vision for the future, called by US scientist Brian Hayes ‘chronocolonialism, enslaving future generations to maintain our legacy systems’, as well as an attempt to relegate any other idea to future irrelevance.

The confusion in these different uses of the word ‘modern’ can be illustrated by the term ‘post-modern’. To be post-modern you have to be after some time which was modern but, if we use ‘modern’ to mean Simple or Ordinary Modernity, you’re always after a period of modernity and at the same time you’re always modern. It can only mean you’re post Modernism, a very limited outlook on modernity, described above, and a theory that can be discarded.

A claim to modernity can be an assertion that one narrow part of the present is its only legitimate representative. This is misleading; modernity has much more to offer.

This article is dedicated to the late Roger Scruton, with whom I regularly discussed these issues.

Robert Adam is a founding director of ADAM Architecture

  • 7 Comments

Readers' comments (7)

  • John Kellett

    Interesting. ‘Traditional’ is not and cannot be traditional as current standards of building performance make traditional impossible.
    ‘Classicism’, ‘Gothic’ and ‘Modern’/‘Moderne’/ ‘PostModern’ etc etc.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A passivhaus very low energy standard new building in a traditional style...

    https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/projects/detail/?cId=53
    A new build traditional brick and flint stone fishermens cottage(s) for social housing in Norfolk, England

    With a bit of effort a traditional building can be much, much better than a poor energy performing UK building reg standard building and keep the social housing tenant out of fuel poverty.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The word 'modern', like 'contemporary', has overtones of meaning which are different to 'Modernism', which is about a historic architectural style. I don't agree that anything designed and built today is 'modern'. It is new, which is a different matter.
    This is a fruitful subject for discussion and Robert Adam always approaches it in a civilised manner. I imagine he would like the late Robert Maxwell's observation, in respect of the difference between tradition and innovation, that cars have both brakes and accelerators, which appear to be at odds with each other. His question was who is in control of the steering!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • does this article say anything at all?

    modern design should be sustainable design, not endlessly talking about century old outdated ideas. Why are we wasting time talking in circles about nothingness like this when there are plenty of real challenges in the world?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ref. Paul's comments: I do explicitly identify 'modernism' as a theory of history and not a style. After that it's about how we use words and what they mean. Modern has several meanings. The use of 'modern' as a description of what's happening today is common and it does include, but not explicitly, new things. Another meaning is things that are unique to now. To claim that modernist theory (the age defined by what is unique - Hegelian historicism - encompasses this is misleading and, often, intentionally so.
    As for TrimTrab, whoever that is, if ideas don't matter to you, don't bother reading about them and keep on with virtue signalling. Yawn.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I like to define modernism not as a style, but an addiction. Constantly seeking something 'new' to fascinate for a short period until something else comes along. It reflects the 'throw away' society or the iPhone generation, who seek to out do themselves and each other at every opportunity and who aren't content with the feeling of satisfaction.
    To draw comparison in other aspects of life; the Porsche 911 design still retains its style, yet has technically progressed and altered to suit its environment - there is no reason why SOME architecture can not do the same.
    It also helps to remember that the First World War was not called that until the Second had begun - trying to define an era while still being in it is not always fruitful.

    As for the architectural profession to declare ONE style as true architecture is laughable. Musicians don't argue between styles, neither do artists, they coexist and appreciation can be given equally.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I've no idea what Roger Scruton would have thought about sustainability but, as TRIMTRAB has said, wouldn't it be more fruitful to discuss the type of architecture that responds to local climate, materials and use of energy in our urgent quest to reach net zero carbon emissions? We might then be less enamoured of globalised forms of architecture (classicism, modernism) and more inclined to design buildings that are different across the globe. And please let's not confuse traditional with indigenous, from which there is much to learn.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.