Last week’s post on architecture (“Do We Live in an Architectural Golden Age or Soul-Crushing Dystopia?”) was first published in USA Today. Here is the opening from the piece’s original draft, which USA Today cut for length. It adds some additional historical context.
Modern architecture represents a break from the past. Complexity and ornate detail have largely been replaced with simple, functional forms. As Works in Progress editor Samuel Hughes pointed out, “From Chichen Itza to Bradford, from Kyiv to Lalibela, from Toronto to Tiruvannamalai, ornament was everywhere. Since the Second World War, this has changed profoundly.” This change, he argues, largely reflects a cultural shift embraced by artistic elites who favor minimalist, utilitarian aesthetics over the flourishes of yore.
To some, this streamlined modernism is fresh, even inspiring. Brutalist concrete blocks and sleek glass towers can evoke a spirit of efficiency. But to many others, the rise of this architectural austerity is deeply troubling, even an assault on beauty itself.
More specifically, the quoted piece by Samuel Hughes argues against a common explanation for why modern buildings lack rich ornamentation, making a compelling case that the decline of architectural ornament wasn’t about cutting costs but rather due to elites’ changing artistic preferences. He shows that ornament has become cheaper to produce through mechanization thanks to steam-powered milling machines, lathes for woodwork, improved casting techniques, and other technological advances.
Hughes also points out that if cost were the issue, ornament should have disappeared from budget housing first, but it’s actually survived there while vanishing from high-end projects. “Although the quantity of ornament in mass-market housing probably has declined somewhat since the early 1900s, it has declined much less than that of any other build type,” notes Hughes. He also observes that the so-called McMansion, “the one really profusely ornamented type of housing that still gets built fairly often in some countries ... [is] built for people who have achieved some level of affluence, but who stubbornly retain a non-elite love of ornamentation.”
I recommend giving the piece a read; it convinced me. What do you think of his argument? Let me know in the comments.