segunda-feira, 9 de junho de 2008

CITIES FOR LIVING

..."Citizens protested, and conservation societies fought throughout Europe for the old idea of what a city should look like, but the modernists won the battle of ideas. They took over the architecture schools and set out to ensure that the classical discipline of architecture would never again be learned, since it would never again be taught. The vandalization of the curriculum was successful: European architecture schools no longer taught students the grammar of the classical Orders; they no longer taught how to understand moldings, or how to draw existing monuments, urban streets, the human figure, or such vital aesthetic phenomena as the fall of light on a Corinthian capital or the shadow of a campanile on a sloping roof; they no longer taught appreciation for facades, cornices, doorways, or anything else that one could glean from a study of Serlio or Palladio. The purpose of the new curriculum was to produce ideologically driven engineers, whose representational skills went no further than ground plans and isometric drawings, and who could undertake the gargantuan “projects” of the socialist state: shoveling people into housing estates, laying out industrial areas and business parks, driving highways through ancient city centers, and generally reminding the middle classes that Big Brother was supervising them.But a later generation rebelled against the totalitarian mind-set of the modernists"...

link
& link

2 comentários:

AM disse...

mt obg., F.

adivinhei o roger scruton! :)
(ou era o scuton ou o david watkin...)

essa conversa é conhecida, mas para o melhor (a "figuração", dita "positiva", do espaço público, a mensagem "ecológica" da sustentabilidade, etc.) e para o pior (o "revival" do pastiche kitsch, o fundamentalismo anti-moderno), parece ter passado à história, com a passagem, à história, da arquitectura pós-modernista (variação "clássica")
de alguma maneira é pena... deitaram o bebé fora, com a água do banho...
ficámos todos "genéricos"
foi a-zaha-r...

AM disse...

a argumentação do scruton é muito fraca
por um lado diz que o "milagre" de paris tem a ver com os "vândalos" dos modernistas (mata, mata) nunca terem postos as mãos (leia-se, "as patas") na cidade-luz, pelo outro, crítica o centro pompidou (o "original", o primeiro "gug"... e um verdadeiro sucesso popular...)
da torre eifel, apenas o monumento mais visitado em todo o mundo, não escreve... se calhar não é suficientemente "moderna"...